[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Ceph

DogAdvocat - Jay is GSD and Husky - based of that I am about 99.9 percent sure that he should be quite a bit heavier than he is - and since we are playing the what if game - what if something happened to him while he was under anesthesia that caused his epilepsy??? What if there was some trauma or some reaction to the medication? The Vet was against having him done even that early - that much I know - but I honor my contracts and I wasnt going to risk them taking him away from me...can you imagine how they would be against doing a pup between 6-12 weeks?

MDR-1 is a genetic mutation called the multi drug resistant gene - it does what it sounds like - now how much would it suck if you put that pup under and started cutting and he or she was awake still - and what if any pain killers used didnt work - how adoptable would that pup be? Not only that but some of the carriers cant pump the drugs out of their brain which may cause major neurological issues.

If the vet doesnt have the choice they will do the surgery...in the end they do what their customer wants - and it doesnt matter if it is blow joe or the state - though I think the state trumps joe blow.

You may be right that the initial testosterone rush comes at birth - but at the same time - Jay is lacking in secondary sex charecteristics - especially since he resembles the shepherd more and I can usually (not always, but usually) tell the difference between male and female shepherds.

I have also read a couple of articles and about three or four of them have said urinary incontinence is associated with early alteration. Thats yummy.

~Cate

The thing is, I've been taking part in early spay/neuter for about 15 years, and I haven't seen any of the problems that you bring up. Other rescues in my area have been doing the same, with no ill effects. We all follow up on our dogs, and there's been no complaints that could be attributable to early spay/neuter. I've actually seen more problems with dogs altered later, than earlier. I much prefer doing puppies, and the stress factor in regards to avoiding unwanted litters is immense. I don't ever want to be the cause of adding more puppies to the world. I absolutely refuse to release a dog until it's altered, and with early spay/neuter, the dog can go into it's new home sooner. I've gotten too many older dogs with mammary tumors to ever consider waiting and risking them going into heat if it can be avoided.

I'm afraid I just don't understand all this negativity about early spay/neuter when it is so successful here. With any surgery there is a level of risk, but I find it interesting that we don't seem to hear the same level of concern over unnecessary procedures like cropping, declawing, or c-sections. And yes, I do include c-sections because it wouldn't be necessary if the dog was spayed.

Originally Posted by borzoimom

So can you please explain this to me.. -If a pet is not able to be spay/neutered at the time- is the pet adopted out anyway? If they do not have the space, and it doesnt fall under " the guidelines of being adopted", ( ie cant be s/neutered at the time), is the pet killed, or cared for by the shelther until such time as the guidlines can be met...?

It depends on who is doing the adopting. If it's a rescue, and they're responsible, then they hold onto the animal until it's healthy enough to alter. If it's a municipal shelter, they can't hold onto the animal, so they make the decision of whether to put it out on a spay/neuter contract, or try to get it to a rescue, or euthanize it. Some shelters are tighter than others on this. I hate to see any of them killed, but from the shelter's point of view, they can either kill one now, or send it out unaltered and kill 10 of it's offspring later. This is what was happening before spay/neuter was mandated, and some shelters were sick and tired of being part of their own problem.

Originally Posted by skunkstripe

Exactly my point. Politicians use rhetoric to put a spin on things. Even if / when this bill produces results which are at worst disastrous and at best ineffective, it will not stop politicians (like Levine) from trying to make it look otherwise. Again, California is hardly going to be regarded as a leader in the area of animal welfare because of this bill. Did anyone else catch the fact that one of the earlier versions of the bill listed the ADBA as one of the registries (rightup there with the AKC and UKC)? Here are quotes from their website:

and here is another one:

source: http://www.adbadogs.com/p_pdetails.asp?fpid=2&pg=2

Obviously somebody was lobbying hard when Levine authored this bill. Or does he have a soft spot in his heart for Pittie owners and hard-core PAWS opponents?

PAWS opponents? You mean the same breeders that are opposed to this bill now? You do realize that the AKC and breeders across the country fought PAWS?

Originally Posted by skunkstripe

Yes you scanned it breifly. So briefly in fact, that you touted the low-cost incentives to s/n from shelters as one of the measures which California has been using. However, hard data show that this measure is not as effective as low-cost s/n, which is why it does NOT make sense to use limited funds to subsidize this measure. Those funds are better spent elsewhere, namely on targeted low-cost s/n.

No, actually I did not. I never said anything about California having low-cost incentives to s/n from shelters. Animals from shelters are altered before people take then home, so an incentive would be worthless here. What I said was that we already have low-cost programs for everyone, including low-income people. This is about already owned animals, not shelter animals.

Originally Posted by skunkstripe

But, you say that with at least a decade of a positive track record in both one of the most densely populated states (NJ) and one of the least densely populated states (NH) do not work in CA. Do you have any idea why California is different?

Not a clue because I haven't been to those areas. I do know that we have good weather most of the year, and we have a somewhat laid back society. But I also don't know that I buy that other areas are so different, given the prevailing statistical information on shelter deaths across the country. And if those two states are so successful, then why isn't the whole country adopting their methods? It's apparently not just California that hasn't emulated them. And unless those "successful" states are now no-kill, and they've achieved that without cooking the results by overly strict temperament testing, then they haven't achieved the success we're aiming towards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DogAdvocat
I seem to remember from past discussions that you seem to hold a lot of animosity for California. I've run into that prejudice before. California is different from other areas. Every state is. We each have our unique problems and interests. But I don't think it makes sense to criticize a politician for talking positively about his bill. If you disagree with his bill, then it's appropriate to discuss the merits of the bill, but to criticize him because he thinks that the bill will be successful and be a model for the nation is just petty.

Originally Posted by skunkstripe

I do not see where it is appropriate to call me "petty" because I point out inconsistencies in a politician's hot air. Name-calling does not add credence to your arguments nor does it damage mine. I think the bill has good intentions but is so seriously flawed that it will end up being a waste of resources with few positive effects. The fact remains that effective programs are in place elsewhere in the country and that California is bringing up the rear.

Speaking of which, please provide evidence to support your accusation that I have a "prejudice" or "animosity" against California. If this is an attempt to discredit me personally by insinuating that I find the bill flawed because it was written in California, be aware that most people will see through it.

Sorry, but I'm not going to go searching through archives (even if I knew how) to find the last argument we had. I know it was when I first came to the forum, and you had an attitude of "what can you expect from California" - again, not atypical. But as far as people seeing through it, would that be like them seeing through your accusations that I'm "name calling"? I didn't call you a name, what I said was that criticizing the assemblyman for his enthusiasm for the bill is petty. It's not addressing the issues raised in the bill, it's just nit picking, and it's petty.

[rpe]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

So?

So the person you claim has no ties to extremists, does. In spades.

Please show any "alert" coming from Peta that uses the words "pet extinction bill" in regards to AB1634.

LOL!! It has AB 1634 not the more apt term pet extinction bill.

Is 10 and 20 year old, out-of-context quotes, the best you can do?

[/quote]

You're desperate. Why I wonder. These are not taken out of context. Its how they feel. There is no spin you can put on the many times they and other animal rightists in leadership positions have said the same.

I've even seen some try and put spin on Newkirk's statements that pit bulls should be banned.

I have also read a couple of articles and about three or four of them have said urinary incontinence is associated with early alteration. Thats yummy.

~Cate

I've seen MANY instances of incontinence. Also quite a few of increased aggression. There are studies that support those and other health risks. Some are listed on www.ab1634.com with references.

There are many owners out there that don't sterilize their dogs and NEVER have any accidental litters.

You do realize that the AKC and breeders across the country fought PAWS?

Oh no they didn't. The AKC worked with the H$U$ on PAWS though some of the board members were against it because they know what the H$U$ is trying to do - eliminate breeding.

Pet owners also fought PAWS because they know the agenda of the animal rights movement. You again have no facts.

[skunkstripe]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

Sorry, but I'm not going to go searching through archives (even if I knew how) to find the last argument we had. I know it was when I first came to the forum, and you had an attitude of "what can you expect from California" - again, not atypical. But as far as people seeing through it, would that be like them seeing through your accusations that I'm "name calling"? I didn't call you a name, what I said was that criticizing the assemblyman for his enthusiasm for the bill is petty. It's not addressing the issues raised in the bill, it's just nit picking, and it's petty.

Click on "search" then "advanced search". Type in "California" as a "key word" and "skunkstripe" as a "User name". Make sure to click the radio button that says "show posts" as opposed to "show threads" to make it easier. It should take you about 1-1/2 minutes.

If you are going to make this kind of comment (now you claim I have an "attitude" about California ?) I think you can find the 90 seconds to either back up your claim or admit that it is unfounded. It would be nice to be able to discuss issues without these personally directed comments.

[xoxluvablexox]

Originally Posted by rpe

And from the head pet hater herself Newkirk (just a few) -

Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.
- Harper's (August 1, 1988)

One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.
- The Chicago Daily Herald (March 1, 1990)

The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.
- Animals (May 1, 1993)

In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.
- Newsday (February 21, 1988)

Since you seem to love turning these kind of threads into something about animal rightist can you please tell me why animal ownership is so important to you? I see nothing wrong with the opinions those quotes represent. If you look at everything some of the dogs and cats of this world go through and actually experienced some of that pain yourself maybe you would understand these kinds of veiws better. The only reason I see a need for pet ownership is because we've seperated ourselves so much from the world around us and have no conection to nature that we need something wild and different in are lives to remind us that the world doesn't revolve around humans. They give us a sense of what we used to know when we lived out in caves with wolves watching over us in the night. That's the only reason I see for it and honestly it would just be easier to go out and talk to the birds and hang out in a garden and save the pets we have from suffering so much.
Pet ownership isn't a right it's something that we are VERY lucky to experience and people need to learn not to take that for granted. Not everyone deserves a dog and not everyone should have one. All this bill is going to do is hopefully help people realize that pet onwership isn't something to take for granted and most likely will put a large dent in the puppymill and BYB bussiness.

[RedyreRottweilers]

You must be kidding right?

Are you going to be the one to tell all the people who have had their lives changed and opened by service dogs, or guide dogs, that they should hire a person to take care of them?

I'll just stop here before I write something that is very not nice.

doG help us all.....

[xoxluvablexox]

No I wouldn't be that person. I'll admit that dogs have done a lot for people and mean a lot to us all. I love animals, all of them so I wouldn't be the one to make any of them disapear from the face of this earth for ever. I'ed be the one fighting for them to have a better quality of life and to not suffer so much. As some dogs and cats and even other smaller pets do under the owndership of certain humans. Where did you come up with that from what I wrote? I'm sorry if you don't agree with my opinion that dog ownership is not a right or something else that I said but I meant all of it and I'm not willing to back down from that opinion.

[skunkstripe]

Originally Posted by xoxluvablexox

All this bill is going to do is hopefully help people realize that pet onwership isn't something to take for granted and most likely will put a large dent in the puppymill and BYB bussiness.

Here is a quote from the May 9 version of the bill:

122336.2. (a) A local jurisdiction shall issue an intact permit,
as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 122336, if the owner provides sufficient proof, as determined by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that any of the following conditions are met:
(1) The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or her business license and federal and state tax number, or by other proof, as required by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that he or she is doing business and is licensed as a breeder at a location for which the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency has issued a breeder license.

source: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/ab_...ed_asm_v94.pdf
If a breeder has a business license and a tax ID # this is NOT a hobby breeder, this is a puppymill. And they are first on the list of exemptions.

[rpe]

Originally Posted by xoxluvablexox

Since you seem to love turning these kind of threads into something about animal rightist can you please tell me why animal ownership is so important to you?

Are you joking? Has your life never been enriched by dogs or cats? I'll stick to dogs and cats and forgo their agenda on trying to force us all to be vegans.

If you look at everything some of the dogs and cats of this world go through and actually experienced some of that pain yourself maybe you would understand these kinds of veiws better.

Oh please. I have no interest in understanding the likes of a group that cries crocodile tears for animals, continually shows such a hatred for humans and thinking pets are too good for them. That has nothing to do with wanting to stop abuse of animals.

The only reason I see a need for pet ownership is because we've seperated ourselves so much from the world around us and have no conection to nature that we need something wild and different in are lives to remind us that the world doesn't revolve around humans.

The vast majority of animal rightists are born in concrete jungles and have no concept of a connection with nature.

They give us a sense of what we used to know when we lived out in caves with wolves watching over us in the night.

Dogs and cats have been man's companion for thousands of years.

Pet ownership isn't a right it's something that we are VERY lucky to experience and people need to learn not to take that for granted. Not everyone deserves a dog and not everyone should have one.

Not everyone should have children either.

All this bill is going to do is hopefully help people realize that pet onwership isn't something to take for granted and most likely will put a large dent in the puppymill and BYB bussiness.

It won't and never has in the past. When one knows the goal of animal rightists is to end ALL breeding one knows the true intent of the bill - extinction. The anti-breeding laws in Southern Calif. were a boon to puppymills in Mexico. If the Pet Extinction bill passes it will be a boon to out of state or underground puppymills.

Proponents keep talking about breeding. Breeding isn't the issue. The top reasons people turn in animals have nothing to do with breeding.

Proponents also ignore that other campaings (like the one in San Francisco) have worked much better than mandatory s/n. But the animal rights movement isn't about caring for animals. Its all about eliminating them.

[xoxluvablexox]

[quote=rpe;87651]Are you joking? Has your life never been enriched by dogs or cats? I'll stick to dogs and cats and forgo their agenda on trying to force us all to be vegans.[/QOUTE]

Ofcourse it has but I don't see a need to own animals. I'm happier going out into my back yard and sitting in the sun listening to the birds talking. I actually have a "pet" fox. He lives in the woods behind my house and I feed him during the winter so he doesn't die and I go out and talk to him. Although he's free to be wild and I don't force him to reproduce so I can sell them for big bucks to someone that has a thing for exotic animals. What does forcing us to be vegans have to do with dog ownership?


[QUOTE-rpe;87651]
Oh please. I have no interest in understanding the likes of a group that cries crocodile tears for animals, continually shows such a hatred for humans and thinking pets are too good for them. That has nothing to do with wanting to stop abuse of animals.[/QOUTE]
Obviously, since these people live out their days trying to stop the abuse of all different kinds of animals and not only pets, they have shown they are very much about stopping the abuse of animals. I'm not just talking about PETA or HSUS, I don't have anything that I like much about them anyways, I'm talking about other AR groups out there that actually try to accomplish things in a respectfull manner and there are some AR groups and people out there that are like that. Obviously you don't heer or read much about them because your to bussy focusing on the groups that are always in the public eye for doing something stupid and threatening to the public.

rpe-
The vast majority of animal rightists are born in concrete jungles and have no concept of a connection with nature.

No, I was more or less talking about people in general. Look at the poeple that are now falling in love with the idea of owning an exotic animal. We're so surounded by material things like computers and tv. We're so fucused on work and socail lives that when we see something like a dog or cat it reminds us that there are other things on this earth. They're not only great companions but a reminder that the world is amazing and that even another species other then ourselves can make life seem so much better. Animals connect us back to the way life used to be before humans got so caught up in the material world that we now know. That's why so many people love them, even if they don't realize it. They bring us back to reality.


rpe-
Dogs and cats have been man's companion for thousands of years.

Your right. Also dogs and cats were considered gods and worshiped in some areas such as Egypt and were never treated so horribly. Things change.

rpe-
Not everyone should have children either.

Your right but there are a lot more laws and harsher punishments that protect children and it is not even close to being the same for dogs. You burn a cat and you pay a fine. Try that with a child and you get life in prison. I don't see the difference between a child and a cat. They're both inoccent souls that love and have an instinct to live. They have a family. A mother that raised them and taught them the way of life for their certain species. Yes the child is my own kind but the cat has it's own kind and I don't care for one more then the other because I love both and respect both for the species they are and what they could have contributed to the life of another living thing.


rpe-
It won't and never has in the past. When one knows the goal of animal rightists is to end ALL breeding one knows the true intent of the bill - extinction. The anti-breeding laws in Southern Calif. were a boon to puppymills in Mexico. If the Pet Extinction bill passes it will be a boon to out of state or underground puppymills.

Do you have proof that it was a boon to puppymills in Mexico? How would you know that for sure. I doubt people in southern california would rather find a dog from a Mexican dealer rather then looking into a responsable breeder in their own area. Gods know there has to be atleast a couple.

rpe-
Proponents keep talking about breeding. Breeding isn't the issue. The top reasons people turn in animals have nothing to do with breeding.

Then what exactly is the issue?

rpe-
Proponents also ignore that other campaings (like the one in San Francisco) have worked much better than mandatory s/n. But the animal rights movement isn't about caring for animals. Its all about eliminating them.

No it's about saving them from people that don't give a damn about other living things and think they have a right to hit their animal upside the head whenever it does something wrong. People that think they have a right to breed their dog to no end so they can get enough money to buy that fur coat they always wanted. Gods know people like that are the reason the world is the way it is.

[RedyreRottweilers]

[quote=xoxluvablexox;87670]No it's about saving them from people that don't give a damn about other living things and think they have a right to hit their animal upside the head whenever it does something wrong.

People that think they have a right to breed their dog to no end so they can get enough money to buy that fur coat they always wanted. Gods know people like that are the reason the world is the way it is.[/QUOTE]


Oh now I completely understand.

Breeding is about making money so people can buy fur coats, and those people are the reason for all the evils of this world.

Ok then.

[Curbside Prophet]

These threads will now end as quickly as we deem them exaggerations. How is that defined by the staff? All I can say is don't try and find the limit, question our decisions, or these AB1634 threads will no longer be allowed on the forum. Testing the limits will earn you one warning and any subsequent testing will find you banned.