Puppy Forum and Dog Forums banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This prohibition would apply to any person who sells OR gives away pets to the public, excluding only humane societies, animal control, rescue and care organizations.

WHERE and HOW are responsible breeders supposed to get animals from to continue breeding when all dogs sold or given away must be sterilized?

Are brains screwed on backwards? One generation and out. :(

http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4570

"[Thursday, February 02, 2012]

A bill has been introduced in Hawaii that would prohibit selling or giving away an unsterilized cat or dog. The Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection Committee and Economic Development and Technology Committee (CPN/EDT) have scheduled a public hearing on Senate Bill 2504 on Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 9:00 a.m.

Importation of dogs to the Hawaiian Islands is limited and strictly regulated. If all cats and dogs sold or given away must be sterilized, it calls into question where citizens of Hawaii will obtain future generations of pets. Every Hawaii resident who wishes to have the choice to own a dog or cat in the future should contact the committee members and respectfully state opposition to SB2504.

Problematic provisions of this bill include, but are not limited to:
•The definition of “pet seller” includes any person who sells pets to the public.
•It would be unlawful for a “pet seller” to sell or give away an unsterilized cat or dog. This would include any person who sells, gives away, or exchanges an unsterilized dog under any circumstances.
•Responsible breeders could be limited to breeding dogs currently in their possession, leaving them with few options to introduce new bloodlines and create healthy expansion of their gene pools.
•The definition of “pet seller” excludes humane societies, animal control, rescue and care organizations, thereby exempting such organizations from the provisions of the bill.

The American Kennel Club (AKC) strongly supports and actively promotes a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible purebred breeding practices and the responsibilities of dog ownership. The AKC opposes the concept of breeding permits, breeding bans or mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who meet their responsibilities.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

All concerned residents of Hawaii should immediately contact members of the CPN/EDT Committees and respectfully ask them to vote no on SB2504. Contact information is listed below."​

Please go to the linked sight for more info, especially if you live in Hawaii and intend on being allowed to own a pet 10 years from now.

SOB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,765 Posts
I'm somewhat more sympathetic to attempts to preserve fragile island ecosystems like Hawaii. I know they have a big problem with stray/feral cats and dogs on the island(s), made worse by the casual, laid-back island attitudes, and I think that something needs to be done to help with that. Although of course I'd like to see some provision made for responsible breeding.

OK, after reading that, it does seem pretty ill-advised. Where DO they intend for Hawaiians to get their pets? There doesn't seem to be any provision at all for breeding. Do they want animal shelters to offer unaltered animals for adoption? The wording is odd. Why would shelters be exempt? And who, exactly, is going to be selling altered pets to the public? Weird.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,307 Posts
I'm somewhat more sympathetic to attempts to preserve fragile island ecosystems like Hawaii. I know they have a big problem with stray/feral cats and dogs on the island(s), made worse by the casual, laid-back island attitudes, and I think that something needs to be done to help with that. Although of course I'd like to see some provision made for responsible breeding.
We have made 12 trips to Hawaii through the years and love the islands and I double the reply above. The eco system is fragile many species are on the brink.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,765 Posts
Reading it again. . .they probably ARE trying to make it so that anybody in Hawaii who (really!) wants a pet needs to jump through hoops and pay a gajillion dollars to import a microchipped, altered pet from the mainland. For Hawaii (and other island nations with delicate wildlife and no native predators) I don't think this is a bad thing. They've tried in the past to eliminate the free-roaming animals, and have even had short-term success. . .but as long as people have unaltered pets at home, in 6 months there's a whole new batch of breeding-age pets running all over.

I do think that if they manage to reduce the free-roaming cat and dog population, they're going to have to step up the rodent-control efforts, because rodents also do a lot of damage to native island wildlife, and cats and dogs kill a lot of mice and rats. Sometimes the only way to control an invasive species is with another invasive species. But I guess they can cross that bridge when they come to it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,145 Posts
I'm somewhat more sympathetic to attempts to preserve fragile island ecosystems like Hawaii. I know they have a big problem with stray/feral cats and dogs on the island(s), made worse by the casual, laid-back island attitudes, and I think that something needs to be done to help with that. Although of course I'd like to see some provision made for responsible breeding.
This was my first thought, too. It needs some tweaking to make it less draconian, but I can understand where they're coming from. Island ecosystems are a whole different ballgame than the mainland.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
We have made 12 trips to Hawaii through the years and love the islands and I double the reply above. The eco system is fragile many species are on the brink.
Sooooo? How is this kind of law supposed to affect that in a significant way?

IF ecosystems are on the brink it is because of the human population and what comes with that. THAT is a fact of life. Ecosystems are in a constant state of change world over. The world works like that as different dominant species become more prolific. The world cannot be made a museum . . nor should it be one.

If that is the concern, and the goal is to go back in time so the islands can be as they were then why not make a law that prevents humans from breeding too? . . or living there?

In fact we are a problem world over with our population. Maybe we should make that law world wide. Human population extinction. Yes. Another end goal.

Where Are The Corpses? - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/04/where-are-the-corpses/
IPCC’s species extinction hype “fundamentally flawed” - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/19/species-extinction-hype-fundamentally-flawed/

I can't believe, quite frankly, that any single person thinks it is acceptable to impose this kind of draconian legislation on fellow human beings simply because they live on these islands.

I can't believe the thought is that effectively making pets only affordable for the wealthy ANYWHERE is acceptable from any angle. That astounds me. The encroachment of that kind of thinking, to me, is scary. I've seen it coming through in the school systems as our children are taught that they and their impact are a blight on this world, but I honestly believed it would be blown off as, to me, that type of thinking is outrageously extreme.

It especially astounds me as when I logically follow it out I cannot see how this law will make any appreciable difference in affecting the ecosystems.

SOB



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/01/common-sense-added-to-endangered-species-list/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,534 Posts
I can only see a law like this making things WORSE for the indigenous wildlife and RESPONSIBLE pet owners. It will only be the responsible pet owners who get their animals s/n, those who are actually causing the problems will release their animals or just not s/n. Who will enforce it? How much will enforcement cost? How will enforcement be carried out?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,765 Posts
It's a small island with controlled entry; I think it's do-able. And it's not mandating that all pets be s/n, only mandating that transferring ownership requires proof of s/n. Responsible pet ownership on Hawaii already is in the realm of "for rich people only" because of the cost of importing pet food and providing vet care. I guess I don't see how it could make things any worse, at least.

The philosophical debate is something else entirely. Should we keep rabies-free areas rabies-free? That's a huge expense and a burden on pet owners. Should we protect fragile ecosystems or let them adapt or fail? Big questions, difficult to answer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,534 Posts
Hmm, it's a small island with controlled entry, yet drug trafficking is out of control (import and EXPORT). They can't get a handle on the dog/cat population now, how will they do it when people are trying to hide intact animals or releasing them into the forsts on the island to reproduce as they wish. They already have a 77.1 million shortfall in their budget, so they can't hire animal enforcement to enforce the laws as they're already CUTTING law enforcement there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,307 Posts
I'm somewhat more sympathetic to attempts to preserve fragile island ecosystems like Hawaii. I know they have a big problem with stray/feral cats and dogs on the island(s), made worse by the casual, laid-back island attitudes, and I think that something needs to be done to help with that. Although of course I'd like to see some provision made for responsible breeding.
Responsible breeding would be cool anywhere. Nothing that's gonna happen while there is money to be made with the greedy garbage in garbage out breeders/sellers etc. Anymore they outnumber the good guys.

Sooooo? How is this kind of law supposed to affect that in a significant way?
Do not know if any law can help anything/body/anymore my reply was just wishful thinking, no more, no less.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,765 Posts
Hmm, it's a small island with controlled entry, yet drug trafficking is out of control (import and EXPORT). They can't get a handle on the dog/cat population now, how will they do it when people are trying to hide intact animals or releasing them into the forsts on the island to reproduce as they wish. They already have a 77.1 million shortfall in their budget, so they can't hire animal enforcement to enforce the laws as they're already CUTTING law enforcement there.
If they can't afford it or enforce it, then they shouldn't be making any new laws. I have no idea of their budgetary concerns, I'm just saying that if they could afford it and enforce it, it would likely be for the betterment of the ecosystem. And live mammals are harder to smuggle than drugs are.

A lot of people there are already pretty casual about letting their pets roam freely and reproduce as they wish. Don't see how that could get any worse. And there would be no reason to hide an intact animal. . .you just couldn't sell it or give it away. At least with the microchipping requirement, if they found someone's dog on the beach eating sea turtle eggs, they'd know where to send the (sizable) ticket.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,534 Posts
Then the remedy would be education and non profits with S/N vans doing reduced price S/N, NOT laws punishing responsible owners/breeders, same as anywhere else this is a problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
I was born, raised and spent most of my life in Hawaii (Oahu, specifically). I can understand where the legislation is coming from, although it does need to be tweaked so that responsible breeders can import and/or purchase unaltered pets. I could see a system where breeders are licensed, monitored, etc.

Hawaii has become very strict about animal importation for the past several years because irresponsible importation prior to that has ruined the delicate ecosystem. Just because some parts of the ecosystem will not recover doesn't mean they can't try to save the rest of it. Already, it is very difficult to import dogs (or move to Hawaii with dogs) because Hawaii does not have certain diseases (namely, rabies). Importation for sale only comes from rabies-free locations. Other dogs can come in and be quarantined for a period (shortened quarantine periods may be available if medical documentation is provided before the dog comes in).

Because of this, buying from a breeder in Hawaii is insanely expensive already.

Yet there are still a LOT of stray dogs and cats in Hawaii. Like a lot of other parts of the country, there are a host of irresponsible people who let their dogs breed either accidentally or for profit. Yet the island is very small and these dogs literally have nowhere else to go. Mainland problems on a very small island that is desperately trying control its unique ecosystem.

I guarantee you that state lawmakers aren't trying to kill pet ownership; they're trying to control a situation that cannot be sustained for much longer. They just haven't got it quite right.

I highly doubt this bill will be passed, at least not in the way it's written now.

Re: the law enforcement/drug problem/etc.... Hawaii has a lot of problems other states simply do not have. They are a major waystation and port for a lot of goods, and that makes it attractive to drug cartels. I'm not sure, however, how this has anything to do with the proposed legislation. Will people try to smuggle in unaltered dogs? I suppose so. Will it be on a grand scale? I highly, highly doubt it. There's a difference between smuggling drugs and smuggling live animals. Neither are easy; but drugs don't bark.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,108 Posts
I don't see an age exception on this? Does that mean a litter of 8 week old puppies has to be sterilized?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,108 Posts
If that is the concern, and the goal is to go back in time so the islands can be as they were then why not make a law that prevents humans from breeding too? . . or living there?

In fact we are a problem world over with our population. Maybe we should make that law world wide. Human population extinction. Yes. Another end goal.
This is a thing: http://www.vhemt.org/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
472 Posts
The thing about the Hawaii state legislature... not a lot ever gets done. Change doesn't happen a whole lot on the islands. This legislation will likely die (or be modified many, many times).

I agree that, as written, the legislation fails in many respects, so folks that do live in Hawaii should write to their representative and ask for either modifications or relay their disapproval. No sense in getting too upset about what isn't even close to being law yet, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 · (Edited)
Thanks Raegan. I will get right to creating business cards for the cause and passing them out. LOL

"Our voluntary extinction for the eternal good of all other life on Earth will be the ultimate demonstration of the best qualities of humanity: compassion and reason."



SOB
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top