Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dog breeders thwart California pet neutering bill

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 08:16 PM
Original message
Dog breeders thwart California pet neutering bill
Source: Reuters

SACRAMENTO, California (Reuters) - A bill that would have made California the first U.S. state to mandate neutering and spaying of dogs and cats was withdrawn by its author on Wednesday in the final legislative stages after fierce opposition from dog breeders.

Assemblyman Lloyd Levine had the support of animal rights activists who said mandated sterilization would cut the number of dogs and cats placed and put down in California's animal shelters.

But breeders had described the bill, which passed the state Assembly last month, as "horrific" and warned it would wipe out their industry.

With little enthusiasm for his bill in a state Senate committee, Levine, a Democrat from Southern California, sidelined his legislation. Levine said he would reintroduce the bill next year.

(more)

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN113015...



This bill was ill conceived and bad public policy. Thank God it didn't get out of committee. It dies a well deserved death.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
1. Responsible breeders
allow only their show quality pups to remain "intact". My neighbors, who were breeders for years, had a contract saying pet quality pups were to be spayed/neutered before they would give the owners the papers on the pups. Owners had to show proof the operations were done.

Responsible breeders belong to breed organizations, many (if not most) of which sponsor adoption of those animals of the breed who have fallen on misfortune, such as the death of an owner, etc.

Responsible breeders are NOT the cause of pet overpopulation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Exactly
legislators need to start targeting puppy mills (and ALL pet store animals are from puppy mills) and people who breed irresponsibly, and not keep pushing overly broad, mandated spay/neuter legislation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CountAllVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
37. I agree and then some ...
Backyard breeders are just as guilty as the puppy millers are! I know of a woman that acted shocked by the reality of puppy mills. She breeds dogs in another state (not California) and played dumb with me re: the reality of puppy mills.

Quite recently I found that she has bred one of the mill dogs she has. She told me she would not breed it being it is from such a background. However, she lied.

The puppies are for sale now on puppyfind.com.

This dog should have been neutered! Instead it was bred only to create more neurotic and sick, crippled dogs.

I have mixed feelings about this needless to say.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jane Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. "Responsible breeders are NOT the cause of pet overpopulation."
I place puppies only on AKC Limited Registration and with a required Spay-Neuter clause - after nine months.

Additionally, the new owner signs an agreement that if for ANY REASON the owners or members of their immediate family are unable to keep the dog, now or in the future, he is to be returned to me or to a person designated by me.

I have had dogs returned to me because the owner died, because the owners were getting divorced and because the owner was very ill.

In each case I have rehomed the dog to a good home that meets my original standards for placement.

Likewise, every breeder I know - and I'll admit that I know only responsible breeders - is involved in rescue at some level, either by directly fostering rescue dogs or by financially supporting their breed rescue program.

By the way, the California cat breeders at least as active as dog breeders in the campaign against this legislation, raising the bulk of the money used to televise ads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
59. Exactly. I think the bill is a great idea, but there needs to be a way
to register responsible breeders of both dogs and cats and to exempt them from the bill AS LONG AS they REMAIN responsible breeders. Two of my cats came from responsible breeders who insist on spaying/ neutering pet quality animals, and the breeders put health first on their list of priorities. The cats were guaranteed not to carry any genetic illnesses. I have been to the homes of irresponsible breeders too-people who keep 50 animals in one home, many in cages. Those breeders should be shut down, no doubt about it!

I've worked in pet rescue, as well, and another consideration for all pet owners should be the spread of disease. I've fostered many, many cats and kittens, and despite every effort to bleach and disinfect everything the new rescues came into contact with we would still lose about 20-25% to panleukapenia and FLV. FIV, mange and distemper are also an epidemic in this area. Obviously if we cut down on the amount of unwanted dogs and cats being born we could curb these diseases to some degree. I won't allow my own cats outside without a leash because as they are so common in my city.

Perhaps if states would have annual inspections of registered breeders everyone would feel more at ease. The cost of the inspections would be offset by the reduction in costs to animal control and shelters. Only healthy, wanted pets-how can that be anything but a win-win?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeighAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #59
66. But what about people who want to have puppies or kittens?
This is grossly unfair, it's not any kind of breeder that's causing overpopulation, it is pet owners and people who take in strays and don't have the animals neutered or else buy pets and later abandon them unspayed. It has nothing to do with breeders whatsoever.

However, there are pet owners who would like their families to experience the fun of having puppies and kittens be a part of the family experience... citizens should not be deprived of this. The solution to this problem is widespread low-cost or free spaying neutering. Quintuple the current efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #66
68. I have to disagree. It's not "fun" for the kittens and puppies who
don't find loving homes. There will ALWAYS be unwanted kittens and puppies available for adoption because there will always be irresponsible pet owners and stray animals. If a family really thinks it's important to have a litter in the house then they should consider becoming professional breeders. There are MILLIONS of unwanted pets being killed every year simply because there aren't enough homes to be found for them, and it has to end somewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #66
92. That "fun" results in
hundreds of thousands of beautiful animals being gassed in death chambers every year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qdemn7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
2. Agreed
It WAS bad policy. Unfortunately this idiot legislator is going to reintroduce it next year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 08:37 PM
Response to Original message
4. And more animals will die in California shelters.
"Responsible breeders" my ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Levine needs to go after puppy mills
not people who raise show dogs, or search and rescue dogs, or guide dogs or hunting dogs.

Levine doesn't know his ass from his elbow when it comes to raising animals. He let the fanatics write his bill, and this is what the result was.

Why don't they rewrite the bill and target PUPPY MILLS and COMMERCIAL BREEDERS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. CA has a big problem with smalltime backyard breeders, not with puppy mills
Puppy mills tend to be located where land is cheap and enforcement is lax. The best way to keep puppy mills down is to keep puppy stores from sprouting up and they do tend to be much less of a problem here than in other places (I haven't seen one since I was a kid, except out of state.) However, we do have a big problem with backyard breeders and plain old pet overpopulation and the only way to do anything about that is to make backyard breeding unprofitable by charging people for unaltered dogs, since they're contributing to the expense of housing, rehoming and all to often euthanizing homeless dogs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
28. The bill could exempt licensed breeders

unless they get caught abusing their dogs (puppy mills). The money
that would be saved due to the reduction of strays, euthanizations...
could be spent on regular unannounced inspections of breeding facilities.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. The bill went through about thirty revisions
before it died. It wouldn't have had to do that if Levine had first tried to write the bill listening to all sides of the debate, instead of letting AR folks write the original bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #30
43. Why do you keep referring to animal lovers as "AR folks"?
Edited on Wed Jul-11-07 11:58 PM by catgirl
Because people recognize there is a serious overpopulaion problem and
millions of animals are put to death every year...makes us crazy animal
rights people? There should be a healthy pets bill. And yes, all sides will
be considered. The only losers would be people who don't care about the
OP problem and can't be bothered to spay/neuter. These people shouldn't
have pets in the first place. They probably don't get shots and check ups for
their pets either. Why should dogs suffer from heart worms? Why should dogs
be bred over and over again? There can be a win/win outcome with this bill, but
right now the situation is a bad. And btw, animal rights "folks" are great people!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #43
47. If they would stop demonizing responsible breeders
and focus their ire on pet stores, commercial breeders, puppy mills and backyard breeders, we would all go a long ways towards solving the problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 12:18 AM
Response to Reply #47
51. "They" Yeah, nice line in the sand.
*wave of the hand dismissing this poster*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #47
57. Responsible breeders aren't demonized

and the focus is on the pet stores, factory style breeders, puppy mills and backyard breeders.
We should all work together. I'm with you there! Responsible breeders follow rules, the others
don't. One of the problems is the lack of info. available regarding the abusive breeders since
towns all have different guidelines...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Damn right. Amen!
I could care less about the "breeders'" rights.

What about the suffering animals that have to be killed BY THE THOUSANDS every week!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CountAllVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #9
38. Breeders like the ones I have run across
deserve no "rights". :mad:

:dem: :kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #38
52. Your HUA graphic kicks major ASS!
Thanks for promoting them (friends of mine)!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
96. I Have to Agree.
Way too many Homeless and unwanted animals in Shelters here. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 09:23 PM
Response to Original message
8. It should wipe out their "industry" - until there isn't an available dog in a shelter death row...
THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY DOG BREEDERS!

They are the reason we have this misery...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. No, pet stores and puppy mills
are the reason we have this misery.

If there were no dog breeders, there would be no dogs. I reaize that extremist animal rights types don't want us to have dogs, but that position ain't gonna fly without about 97% of the American public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. That's bullshit.
Hell, most of the "extremist animal rights types" have rescued animals in their household.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Explain to me
how puppies will be produced if we outlaw breeding and breeders as suggested above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. 1. The law does not outlaw breeding. It charges a fee for unaltered animals
Edited on Wed Jul-11-07 09:59 PM by LeftyMom
which is then used to provide reduced cost spay-neuter to low income families.

2. The law can always be changed should we ever wind up with anything like a shortage of adoptable animals. Currently so many die for lack of homes it's difficult to imagine that as a real possibility.

You still haven't in any way backed up the idea that "extremist animal rights types" or whatever the boogyman of your post was are opposed to keeping dogs. This certainly does not match up with my observation that most of the AR supporters I know or know of have several rescued animals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Before he amended it about ten times
it had very few exceptions as to who could apply for a breeder's permit.

Which meant that mutts (including Lassie, who is not an AKC purebred collie, believe it or not, because of her/his blaze) would have been outlawed.

It also, before multiple amendments, mandated spay/neutering at four months, which is medically unsound. Pups don't even get their secondary sexual characteristics until much later. If you neuter them before their growth plates close, you're asking for trouble.

Which is one of the reasons, among many, that the CVMA (the largest Vet outfit in CA) pulled their support of the bill.

It was badly written - it was written by people who know absolutely nothing about animal husbandry.

I agree with you, FWIW, that some kind of legislation is required. But it must be written by people who know what they're talking about. It must be medically sound for the animals and it must promote responsible breeders (and yes, there are MANY responsible breeders) and penalize backyard breeders and puppy mills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Six months is too late, especially for cats.
They'll have their bellies dragging on the floor by then more often than not.

Oddly enough, nobody but breeders seems to think early spay/neuter is problematic. Most rescues and responsible private citizens do it ASAP and I've never heard of anybody running into an issue. Delaying does increase cancer rates and the likelihood of sexualized behaviors such as spraying in cats and humping in dogs continuing after alteration.

In any case, the bill allowed one to avoid spaying and neutering on veterinary advice, so if one's vet thought delaying was best one could certainly do so under the bill.

And no, when so many millions die for lack of homes every year, bring another animal into this world to take up a home an already living one needs to badly is inherently irresponsible. At best it's based in the idea that one's dogs or cats are somehow special and more deserving of homes and of life than others, and at worst it's simply a way to make a buck through the reproductive capacity of another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Actually, many vets think early spay/neuter is unsound
and dogs and cats die in shelters, because of commercial breeders and puppy mills and back yard breeders. Not because of the one litter every other year that a conformation breeder produces.

The bill was going after the wrong people. ANd if he wants something to pass next time around, guess what? He's going to have to work with responsible breeders and write a sensible bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. If it's so few, then pay the fee and make life harder on the backyard breeder competition.
But nobody wants to do that, because it's more puppies than that and it cuts into the profit margin. And don't tell me there isn't one, because every time there's a dog show in town we get the streets clogged up with brand new expensive full-size vans and motorhomes that cost more than my house emblazoned with the name of Pampered Princess Labradoodles or whatever brand they're selling inbred lap dogs under.

And next year the AR community will be ready and out in full force. I don't think we properly estimated the opposition to a very smart bill from self-interested breeders, and next year we'll make them regret it. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. I don't mind paying a fee
Edited on Wed Jul-11-07 10:54 PM by ruggerson
What I do mind is the AR people making responsible breeders the target of the legislation. And don't sugarcoat it, you know perfectly well that AR folks despise dog breeding and dog shows and would like to shut down purebred dogs.

It ain't gonna happen. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:07 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. Hon, I am the AR people. I work with others and they comprise most of my social group.
Be a peach and don't tell me what my friends and I think and what our goals are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:12 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Back atcha
I have been Prez of my local breed club. I have shown dogs for twenty plus years - many of my friends are breeders. Don't mischaracterize who we are and what our motivations are. (My breed club, btw, started our breed specific rescue. Which is totally funded by our club. ANother myth you guys propogate - that breeders aren't concerned with rescue.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. I'm sure that makes for lovely PR.
There would be much less need for rescue if so many dogs weren't being bred when there simply aren't enough homes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. It's not PR
it's the truth. My show breeder friends know where EVERY SINGLE puppy they've ever produced is. They get Christmas cards from the families every year. They make a point of touching base at least once a year. They only place puppies with people/families that have been thoroughly vetted, screened and interrogated to make sure that these are owners who will commit to a dog for its lifetime. I know plenty of breeders who have held on to puppies for months, turning down prospective homes, until suitable ones came along. Additonally, their contracts stipulate that, if for ANY reason, during the lifetime of the dog, that the family can't keep the animal, it is to be RETURNED to the breeder. The breeders I know are extraordinarily conscientious and caring about the animals they produce.

Juxtapose that with the commercial breeders, puppy mills and pet stores. Where anyone gets a puppy if they show up with a check.

The reason this bill died and the next one will too is because you guys try to spread the untruth that there isn't a difference between responsible breeders and puppy mills. You simply don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. There is no such thing as a responsible breeder.
Every one of those dogs that those breeders intentionally created that wound up in great homes meant that another already living dog that needed that family and that home died instead. The myth of the "responsible breeder" is that those dogs are more special, more deserving of homes and love and lives than the dogs that die every day in the local shelters, and on roadsides, and in god only knows where else.

Until we've got homes for the cats and dogs we as humans have already brought into this world, creating more is the height of callousness and irresponsibility, no matter how much we may pamper some of them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. You can repeat that mantra all you want
it's still as wrong as the first time it was told you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. It's simple math. There are a finite number of homes that will take a dog and a larger population.
If there's a way to make the math work, and not displace living dogs from potential homes when you breed more, do share it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:56 PM
Response to Reply #39
41. Love, it's April 15th, and you're calling the IRS on this one.
You'll NEVER get through.

Let the euth apologists simmer. Note how personally they take it.

Never had to push a needle in their lives, I betcha.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #41
45. I know dear.
I always hope that it gets through to somebody though. You can't reach some people, but the debate is good for those who are only reading along to find out about the issue.

I'll get those treats and toys out for the furbabies tomorrow. I threw a few things in for you too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #39
42. It's not a zero sum game
dogs end up in shelters, by and large, because people are irresponsible about commitments made to living things. If you would work to outlaw pet stores and puppy mills and backyard breeding and only allow reputable show, field and working breeders to produce animals, you would go a long way towards solving the problem. (to say nothing of the fact that reputable breeders only breed genetically sound dogs (hip, eye, heart, thyroid cleared) and puppy mills, pet stores and backyard breeders don't even give health a consideration).

When you tell me that you have crafted a bill outlawing pet stores and puppy mills, I will listen to you. Until then, you're just blowing smoke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #35
40. delete
Edited on Thu Jul-12-07 12:00 AM by ruggerson
see post 42.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:59 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. We don't have a big problem with pet stores or puppy mills here.
I haven't seen a store here selling puppies for almost two decades. I barely realized there still were such places until I saw one on a recent trip out of state. We do have backyard breeders all over the damned place though, and that's where most of the local problem lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. I don't know where you live
but there are five or six pet stores within a couple of miles from me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #46
49. I'm in Sacramento, the last time I saw a store selling puppies it was in Florin mall and I was a kid
That mall isn't even there anymore, it's a hole that's going to sprout a Super EvilMart, but the puppy store was gone by 1990 or so anyhow. I think there was one at Arden mall that disappeared around the same time.

There are mom and pop pet stores here that sell kittens, but they are only everyday kittens from people who wind up with an unanticipated litter and can't place them all, they don't pay for them and only charge a little bit, so I can't really slag them for it.

Really, I had no clue any such thing still exists. flvegan and I drove past one a few months ago down in his neck of the woods and I'm sure he can verify that I was shocked they still have such things down there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #35
82. Agree completely
As long as there is a single dog looking for a home, there don't need to be any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #25
81. Oh, for fucking christ in a basket... There are rescue groups for ALL "purebred" breeds...
I belong to one of them!

Don't spew crap about something you obviously know NOTHING about!

There are as many rescue groups in EACH LOCALITY for as many breeds as are out there...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qwlauren35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #18
98. Ironically...
the same could be said for human beings.

Why do we bring children into the world when so many need adopting? So that we can have the experience? So that we can have children who look like us?

Why not spay/neuter all without permits which will cost out the butt... and then only "responsible breeders" can reproduce...

By the way, I'm only half joking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatFelyne Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #16
48. Not sure where some of your statements are from
The CVMA went from being a co-sponsor to taking a neutral position, IMO that's a little bit different than saying they are not supporting the bill. Sounds like by the CVMA's official statement, that one of their major complaints was there was no provisions for medical exemptions.

http://www.cvma.net/doc.asp?ID=3189


I'm just wondering where you got that early spay/neutering is medically unsound. And where the research studies are that show a statistically significant difference in growth plates between early altered animals and those altered later. Many of the studies I've discovered don't support your statements at all. I've provided some references below.

As an animal scientist and licensed veterinary technician, I'm interested in some hard data from scientific journals. Otherwise, the argument you're making doesn't seem to hold much water


Long-term risks and benefits of early-age gonadectomy in cats. J Am Med Assoc 224:372, 2004.

Long-term risks and benefits of early-age gonadectomy in dogs. J Am Med Assoc 224:380, 2004.

Long-term outcome of gonadectomy performed at an early age or traditional age in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001 Jan 15;218(2):217-21.

Long-term outcome of gonadectomy performed at an early age or traditional age in cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2000 Dec 1;217(11):1661-5.

Gonadectomy in immature dogs: effects on skeletal, physical, and behavioral development. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1991 Apr 1;198(7):1193-203.

BTW - as far as animal husbandry goes some dogs can have their first heat cycle as early 4 - 5 months of age, some female cats also reach puberty as early as 4-5 months, male cats can be as early as 5 months. Waiting to spay/neuter until 6 months in some cases can be too late. (For the record, I'm working on a Master's in Reproductive Physiology, so I can say I know a little bit about this sort of thing)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 12:29 AM
Response to Reply #48
53. Here you go:
The CVMA nearly had a revolt on its hands. It had to pull its support, basically, because the membership DEMANDED it of their leadership.

"Legislation that could make every California pet Public Enemy No. 1 moves to the state Senate this week.

It will do so, however, without support by the California Veterinary Medical Association. Last week, CVMA withdrew its co-sponsorship of the bill following what appeared to be a virtual uprising by its members."


http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_6336649

Additionally, here's a letter from one CVMA vet that basically represents the feelings of many. You might find it interesting, especially the objections to early spay/neuter.

To The Esteemed California Assembly members
I am a veterinarian licensed to practice in California and I vehemently
oppose AB1634 as amended May 31, 2007. California veterinarians
overwhelmingly oppose AB1634. Unfortunately, the California Veterinary
Medical Association (CVMA) did not poll its membership or non-CVMA
member veterinarians before deciding to sponsor AB1634.
For 28 years I have worked in reproductive medicine. I have worked
extensively with responsible dog breeders and I have also worked in a
very large California animal shelter. I have performed thousands of
spays and neuters during my professional career, including early
spays/neuters. I am convinced that AB1634 is a disastrous bill that will
not solve a single problem, but will definitely create many more. This
letter explains some reasons how and why AB1634 WILL SIGNIFICANTLY
INCREASE THE NUMBERS OF ANIMALS IMPOUNDED, ABANDONED, AND EUTHANIZED
EVERY YEAR.

Veterinary medical decisions, including when/if to spay/neuter an
animal, should be made by veterinarians and the pets' owners, not by
politicians. I am a proponent of spay/neuter, but on a medical case by
case basis, when the time is right for each individual animal patient.

For complex physiological reasons, young puppies and kittens cannot
clear some drugs and medications from their bodies, or tolerate
anesthesia and surgery, as well as adolescent or adult animals can.
Puppies and kittens can develop hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and have
difficulty maintaining a normal body temperature during and after
anesthesia. The three main causes of death in puppies and kittens are
hypothermia, hypoglycemia, and dehydration-all of which can occur as a
result of anesthesia and surgery and can progress to shock and death.
In short, puppies and kittens are high risk patients.

Words create images in our minds and direct our thoughts-and our
decisions. "Neuter" and "spay" sound harmless and suggest these are
simple procedures without consequences. These words don't raise mental
images of incisions, organs, blood-or risks. "Spay", derived from the
French word espeier, means "to cut with a sword". Castration, from
Latin, castratio, means "to cut". Now, with these original words in our
heads, our mental images change from something benign to something
startling. For balance, we should call these procedures by their correct
names that describe what they really are: gonadectomy,
ovariohysterectomy, castration. By doing so, we remain cognizant of the
difficulties and risks associated with an invasive intra-abdominal
surgical procedure (including those required for abdominally retained
testicles), the removal of body parts, and their long-term effects.
Gentle words like "spay" and "neuter" have lulled many non-veterinarians
into a casual, worry-free attitude toward these surgical procedures.

Politicians and animal activists supporting AB1634 also take these
surgical procedures and their profound medical consequences casually- so
casually as to mandate the procedures for young pet companions with a
broad brush stroke in a "one size fits all" approach. This is an
excellent example of why politicians and animal activists must not be
allowed to dictate how veterinarians practice their profession. It's
dangerous and it's wrong.

AB1634 is seriously flawed on many counts, beginning with its
deliberately deceptive misnomer. This bill is not a "healthy" pet act.
It will not help animals or improve their health. It will not reduce the
shelter animal population. It will not reduce the number of animal
euthanasias. To the contrary, the number of animals in shelters and the
number of euthanasias will increase as people who cannot afford to
spay/neuter their pets, or cannot afford the fines associated with
non-compliance, will abandon their animals, relinquish them to shelters,
or have them euthanized. This is what has already happened in other
municipalities that have attempted similar legislation.

AB1634 will open the floodgates for puppy smuggling from Mexican puppy
mills and other areas. Several thousands of puppies are smuggled through
San Diego annually. These puppies are invariably taken from their
mothers too soon, are very sick, heavily parasitized, and near death
when confiscated after traveling in the cruelest of conditions tucked
away in the wheel wells or crevices of vehicles. These smuggled puppies
contribute to the number of euthanasias that supporters of AB1634 decry.
I know, because I've seen several hundreds of these animals. In
addition, out of state puppy mills (commercial dog breeding farms that
produce puppies for profit, without regard to health, quality,
socialization, or temperament) will ship young puppies of inferior
quality into California, while responsible dog breeders will be
seriously restricted in their ability to raise their top quality dogs
and protect their breeds' valuable gene pool. The ever growing demand
for puppies will be filled with animals from puppy mills. These puppies
are often sick and many have genetic defects (such as abdominally
retained testicles, hydrocephalus, epilepsy, luxated patellas). When pet
owners cannot afford to treat the problems, many puppy mill puppies end
up in the shelter and add to the euthanasia statistics. I have witnessed
this countless times. These animals also pose a zoonotic (diseases
contagious between humans and animals) threat to public health.

AB1634 does nothing to address the biggest, pet population and
euthanasia problem: feral cats. These are wild, untamed cats without
owners. These cats are largely the offspring of other feral cats, not of
client owned cats. More than 85 percent of cat owners neuter their cats.
Feral cats spread zoonotic diseases, kill songbirds, and struggle to
survive. Eventually they are hit by cars; eaten by predators; or die of
starvation, disease, or fight wounds. The rest end up in animal
shelters. The large majority of feral cats in animal shelters are
seriously ill, injured, pregnant, fractious and non-adoptable. It has
been estimated that feral cats account for 70 percent of shelter
euthanasias. AB1634 does not address and will not solve the feral cat
problem.

AB1634 unfairly penalizes responsible pet owners and breeders. Dog
breeders are an asset to their community. They educate pet owners,
provide quality companions and service dogs, hold events that bring
revenue to California estimated at more than one hundred million dollars
annually, and, through their numerous breed clubs, they rescue several
thousand animals every year, preventing these animals from ending up in
shelters.

Supporters of AB1634 quote total shelter euthanasia numbers when they
argue in favor of their bill. This might lead the uninformed to assume
that all those animals euthanized in shelters were adoptable. The truth
is, a large number of animals housed and euthanized in shelters are
non-adoptable feral cats (approximately 70 percent). Another large part
of the animal euthanasia total includes smuggled animals that are near
death; animals that are not adoptable for behavioral reasons (such as
vicious fighting dogs, numerous and common in California); animals with
serious health conditions (such as advanced cancer) that cannot be
treated; and animals that are very old and suffering from severe or
terminal illnesses. California's responsible dog breeders and
responsible pet owners are not responsible for these euthanasias. Yet,
they are the people who would be unfairly penalized by AB1634. Note:
There is a shortage of puppies available for adoption in many areas of
California. Some shelters import puppies from other areas to adopt out
to meet their communities' demand for puppies.

Rabies is a serious, fatal, zoonotic disease that is present in
California. Puppies and kittens should be vaccinated against rabies at
16 weeks of age. A very serious potential public health endangerment
that would result from AB1634 is that people who cannot afford to
spay/neuter their pets, or who refuse to comply with AB1634, will not
bring their pets to their veterinarians for rabies vaccination because
of fear of being cited and fined for non-compliance. As a result, we can
anticipate an increase in rabies cases. We can also expect more animal
health problems and subsequent relinquishments at shelters as owners
whose pets need health care may not take them to their veterinarians
because they are worried they will be fined for not having their pets
neutered. AB1634 states that veterinarians are not part of the
"enforcement team", but it is inevitable that we will be expected to be,
and this will seriously damage our relationships with our clients.

Educating the public (starting with children at an early age) about
responsible pet ownership and encouraging spay/neuter when appropriate
(things veterinarians and responsible breeders do very well every day),
working with outreach and rescue groups, addressing the major sources of
the problems (such as feral cats, fighting pit bulls, smuggled animals)
and securing our borders, would be some logical areas to focus efforts
to reduce the number of animals in shelters and reduce the number of
euthanasias. AB1634 does none of these things. Responsibility cannot be
legislated. Responsibility must be taught and learned.

Veterinarians have spent thousands of collective hours opposing AB1634
and trying to educate members of the legislature and the CVMA, who have
been either misinformed or misled by the bill's advocates. Pet owners
and breeders have spent considerable time and effort opposing AB1634,
trying to defend their pets and protect their property rights in our
free country. And supporters of AB1634 strain credulity as they spend
thousands of dollars fighting to mandate the removal of every pet's
gonads. Those wasted dollars could have been spent on a good cause for
animals, rather than on efforts to interfere with the medical care of
privately owned pets and violating the veterinarian/patient/client
relationship.

AB1634 is outrageous bill. It will not solve any problems and it will
create many more.

Thank you for opposing AB1634.

Sharon Vanderlip, D.V.M.
California License #7846



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LiberalFighter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. I read or almost read his response
He gave reasons for not supporting the bill. What I would like to know is what does this person believe should be done? If anything.

She makes valid arguments but I'm sure there is something that can be done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatFelyne Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #53
67. Thanks for sharing one vet's opinion, I was looking for some more statistics and data though :-)
Appreciate hearing from one veterinarian, her experiences, and her reasons for opposing the bill. I was looking for some research that was supporting your views however. I'm more than open to reevaluate my views if I have some scientific data supporting that viewpoint.

One thing I did observe about Dr. Vanderlip, yes she is a member of the Society for Theriogenology, but after 28 years working in Reproductive Medicine, I am very surprised she did not bother to become a Diplomate in the American College of Theriogenologists, which is recognized by the AVMA. My laboratory collaborates with two to three diplomates on multiple projects, and they are a constant presence at our weekly meetings. Sorry, but Dr. Vanderlip is no expert, a very experienced veterinarian yes, but not an expert....I do appreciate your sharing that opinion though. Thanks :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #67
103. Vanderlip, aw well as many of the other vets who opposed this
have years and years of experience under their belts. I would venture to say, without meaning to offend, that she is far more of an "expert" than you, a vet tech. I can supply you with hundreds of letters like hers, from experienced veterinarians, who come to the same conclusions she does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatFelyne Donating Member (68 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #103
107. I was not asking for "letters" just research studies to back up your claims
I was not asking for more "letters" just research studies to back up your claims. Still waiting...Peer-reviewed journals please :-)

BTW, I am much more than just a licensed veterinary technician with a number of years experience in both private practice and research, I do have quite a bit of education in the animal field. Associates in Veterinary Technology, and in addition to passing the National Examination, I have a Bachelor's in Animal Sciences, and finishing up a Master's in Reproductive Physiology in Dept. of Animal Sciences. Eh, something like 8 years post-secondary education in veterinary and animal sciences. Guess that's not enough in order to question your claims and a veterinarian who states she's been working in reproduction for many years but couldn't be bothered to become board certified for whatever reason.

Anyway, one thing I can say about this discussion is that I'm glad to see breeders getting involved in legislation. One thing I would like to see more of is legitimate breeders working together not just to improve their animals, but to take a strong stand together on animal mills and illegitimate back yard breeding.

A request - do a bit more reading on what the veterinary technician profession is about, and what it is becoming. Today there are over 100 veterinary technology programs in the United States that educate veterinary technicians. In order to maintain a standard of excellence these programs are accredited by the American Veterinary Medical Association. The course of study in these programs entails at least two academic years, leading to an Associate of Science or equivalent degree with four-year Bachelor of Science degrees available at some institutions. In approximately 40 states and provinces, veterinary technicians are certified, registered, or licensed. Candidates are tested for competency through examination which may include oral, written, and practical portions. This process is regulated by a State Board of Veterinary Examiners, or the appropriate state agency.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 12:27 AM
Response to Reply #107
108. I will do the reading you suggested
and I am providing you with some reading as well, links which will contain references and citations of studies which back up the claims that there are many negatives associated with early spay/neuter. I will be interested in hearing your response.

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfS...

That's for starters. And then here is another article by Chris Zink which references a number of studies.

http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

Among the studies she references:

Salmeri KR, Bloomberg MS, Scruggs SL, Shille V.. Gonadectomy in immature dogs: effects on skeletal, physical, and behavioral development. JAVMA 1991;198:1193-1203
http://www.grca.org/healthsurvey.pdf
Grumbach MM. Estrogen, bone, growth and sex: a sea change in conventional wisdom. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2000;13 Suppl 6:1439-55.
Gilsanz V, Roe TF, Gibbens DT, Schulz EE, Carlson ME, Gonzalez O, Boechat MI. Effect of sex steroids on peak bone density of growing rabbits. Am J Physiol. 1988 Oct;255(4 Pt 1):E416-21.
Slauterbeck JR, Pankratz K, Xu KT, Bozeman SC, Hardy DM. Canine ovariohysterectomy and orchiectomy increases the prevalence of ACL injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec ;(429):301-5.
Spain CV, Scarlett JM, Houpt KA. Long-term risks and benefits of early-age gonadectomy in dogs. JAVMA 2004;224:380-387.
Ware WA, Hopper DL. Cardiac tumors in dogs: 1982-1995. J Vet Intern Med 1999 Mar-Apr;13(2) :95-103
Cooley DM, Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters D, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Nov;11(11):1434-40
Ru G, Terracini B, Glickman LT. Host related risk factors for canine osteosarcoma. Vet J. 1998 Jul;156(1):31-9.
Obradovich J, Walshaw R, Goullaud E. The influence of castration on the development of prostatic carcinoma in the dog. 43 cases (1978-1985). J Vet Intern Med 1987 Oct-Dec;1(4):183-7
http://www.akcchf.org/pdfs/whitepapers/Biennial_Nationa...
Meuten DJ. Tumors in Domestic Animals. 4th Edn. Iowa State Press, Blackwell Publishing Company, Ames, Iowa, p. 575
Stocklin-Gautschi NM, Hassig M, Reichler IM, Hubler M, Arnold S. The relationship of urinary incontinence to early spaying in bitches. J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl. 57:233-6, 2001
Pessina MA, Hoyt RF Jr, Goldstein I, Traish AM. Differential effects of estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone on vaginal structural integrity. Endocrinology. 2006 Jan;147(1):61-9.
Kim NN, Min K, Pessina MA, Munarriz R, Goldstein I, Traish AM. Effects of ovariectomy and steroid hormones on vaginal smooth muscle contractility. Int J Impot Res. 2004 Feb;16(1):43-50.
Aaron A, Eggleton K, Power C, Holt PE. Urethral sphincter mechanism incompetence in male dogs: a retrospective analysis of 54 cases. Vet Rec. 139:542-6, 1996
Panciera DL. Hypothyroidism in dogs: 66 cases (1987-1992). J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 204 :761-7 1994
Howe LM, Slater MR, Boothe HW, Hobson HP, Holcom JL, Spann AC. Long-term outcome of gonadectomy performed at an early age or traditional age in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001 Jan 15;218(2):217-21
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:43 AM
Response to Reply #53
87. Thank You For Posting This
I'll add my thoughts to the bottom, later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:08 AM
Response to Reply #16
80. Again, BULLSHIT. We had one of our adopted pups neutered at 8 months with NO problems...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #80
102. Not bullshit at all
one anecdote about one puppy does not a valid argument make.

Read what the CVMA has to say about this. One of the main reasons they pulled support of the bill.

The legislation was too overreaching and too regulatory. We all want to reduce dogs and cats in shelters. But mandating what individuals do with their own cats and dogs is too intrusive. Better to fund free spay/neuter programs and make them available to all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. You are wrong.
Pet stores and puppy mills are part of the problem. Lack of spay/neuter initiatives and a throw-away society are another. Profiteers, making money off the backs of their bitches is another.

The real reason is that there are NOT enough homes for the number of animals available. Supply and demand.

Extremist animal rights. Yeah. So, how many litters per year does your squad produce?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Actually none
and if you know anything about the sport of showing dogs, you would know that any litters produced by a champion bitch are usually at a loss, when you factor in handling fees, travel expenses, entry fees, upkeep, etc etc. And most only breed to keep a puppy and to keep their line going. And, other than what they keep themselves, they place the rest on spay/neuter contracts in pet homes. Responsible dog breeders do it because they love purebred dogs, not to make money.

Backyard breeders, commercial breeders and puppy mills do it to make a profit.

This bill was thoroughly misguided.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Yeah, right.
I run a rescue, and I know a shitpile about what you speak.

Your tripe about litters "produced...at a loss" is absolute bullshit. How many litters by a champ v total litters.

There's math there. Don't hurt yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. I guess you're bitter because your bill went down in flames
sorry you have so much hate for responsible breeders. You're actually one of the main reasons the bill died. People respond to reason, not to irrational screaming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Not at all.
I'm upset because there's nothing in place to help stop the killing. Killing that you obviously support. Responsible breeders don't.

Bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. Oh yes.
I support killing animals. Which is why I've, cared, fed, lived with and loved them every day of my entire life.

I repeat. You're the reason your bill died.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flvegan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #24
50. And?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #17
97. You Said It, It's All About MONEY to You Breeders.
Whoring out your Animals for a Profit!!! :grr:

Maybe the poor Animals don't want to be forced to Breed!

>>"Responsible dog breeders do it because they love purebred dogs..."<<

Wrong. The Breeders only do it for selfish reasons because they love themselves.

You don't care about the welfare of Animals whatsoever!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #97
104. Wow you guys get so hysterical
again, big difference between reputable hobby breeders and those who do it to make a living or a profit.

If you can't make those distinctions, not much I can do to help you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
catgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:16 PM
Response to Reply #10
31. No breeders=no dogs? Give me a break!

So dogs didn't appear on earth until people bred them.
Go to your local pound and other shelters, then try to
make that statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #10
79. Complete and utter crap...
First of all - what I propose is to STOP all "breeding" until such time as THERE ARE NO MORE UNWANTED DOGS IN SHELTERS. PERIOD.

It's really not a hard concept.

I belong to a rescuse society here in nevada - and have personally rescued and place 40 dogs in loving households - an I am just one member of the group of about 40 people for just ONE breed.

There are rescue groups for almost every breed you can imagine here in Las Vegas alone, and each group doesn't just limit itself to the breed they're concentrating on.

And YOU are the ONLY one spewing the bullshit suggesting that we don't want YOU to have ANY dogs!

Get fucking real!

It's attitudes like YOURS that PERSONALLY cause the needless suffering and DEATHS of inncoent creatures. YOU.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ruggerson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #79
105. Who are you to stop all breeding?
You're very much like the religious rightwing in your conviction that you and government have the right to dictate to others how they live their lives and what medical procedures are forced on them.

Understand a basic concept: passing a law to force people to cut the balls off their animals will not result in less pets in the shelter. There are pets in the shelter because of irresponsible PEOPLE, not their animals.

Reputable hobby breeders have a clause in their contracts that MANDATES that dogs be returned to them, for whatever reason, for the entire life of the animal, if the owner cannot keep them. Reputable hobby breeders also interrogate, interview and scope out every potential buyer, to ensure that those puppies and kittens will stay in their homes for their entire lives.

Your bill was misguided, it went after the wrong people and your absurd notion that the state somehow has the right to ban all animal reproduction is alarmingly like the crap that Pat Robertson and his ilk shout about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
64. That's silly.
Labeling all dog breeders with such a broad brush isn't even logical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mctrotter5 Donating Member (255 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 10:06 PM
Response to Original message
15. I actually read the bill after hearing scare stories from my
breeder/agility trainer. This bill had all sorts of special allowances for ranch dogs, search and rescue, etc. "Breeders" could qualify by one show or one agily or obedience (the list goes on) every two years. Private owners could get a permit for one litter and apply for another. There were so many special permits it almost watered down the bill. Dogs and cats did not have to be spayed until 6 months. Breeders had to keep the pups until 8 weeks. Read it was a good bill. I plan to find out how many dogs and cats my county kills each month and write articles which include how much money our strapped county must spend to "clean" up after the "breeders" that fill the Sacramento Bee every week.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #15
73. That certainly sounds well concieved to me
I still think that the breeding of both dogs and cats needs to be regulated in order to shut down puppy mills, end the breeding of sick animals or those with genetic problems, and any other situation which results in animal cruelty or neglect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #15
111. Take a look at your Humane Society and see how few puppies there
actually are there. Most of the dogs in my area are older, and have usually been left there after problems developed in the first home -- either with the dog or the owner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
32. There should have been an exemption for reputable breeders. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-11-07 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. There was. They did have to pay a fee, to be used to pay for low income spay/neuter programs.
Nobody had to alter any animal under this bill, it only increased registration costs if one did not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 07:16 AM
Response to Original message
54. I volunteer for a lab rescue, and the abuses of puppy mills are horrendous
The breeding dogs are kept in crates with no socialization. There is no regard for any breeding standards at all. And the pups aren't much better off. We get in some of the breeders after they are too old to breed, or are taken away by authorities. These dogs are scared to death of everything, people, being in a house, etc. They puppies are kept in crates until they are disposed of, one way or another.

My current foster came from an Amish puppy mill. He was kept in a crate for the first 6 months of his life, not even bathroom breaks. He was scared to death of people at first, and had to be taught not to soil his crate. He has been out for 2 months now, and is just a great dog. He is not afraid of people anymore, and is housetrained (which was a challenge). He loves being out in the sunshine, he had never even seen the sun before, and he loves being able to run around to get his energy out. He actually likes his crate now, and goes in when it is time without being told. He absolutely loves my dog, and I am actually considering keeping him. How could anybody do that to this cutie?

This image link contains an illegal code
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 07:19 AM
Response to Original message
55. I volunteer for a lab rescue, and puppy mills treat their dogs like crap
The breeding dogs are kept in crates with no socialization. There is no regard for any breeding standards at all. And the pups aren't much better off. We get in some of the breeders after they are too old to breed, or are taken away by authorities. These dogs are scared to death of everything, people, being in a house, etc. They puppies are kept in crates until they are disposed of, one way or another.

My current foster came from an Amish puppy mill. He was kept in a crate for the first 6 months of his life, not even bathroom breaks. He was scared to death of people at first, and had to be taught not to soil his crate. He has been out for 2 months now, and is just a great dog. He is not afraid of people anymore, and is house trained (which was a challenge). He loves being out in the sunshine, he had never even seen the sun before, and he loves being able to run around to get his energy out. He actually likes his crate now, and goes in when it is time without being told. He absolutely loves my dog, and I am actually considering keeping him. How could anybody do that to this cutie?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coventina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
58. I have read through this thread and have a proposal:
Ban the sale of dogs and cats.

If the keeping and showing of so-called "show" animals is truly a hobbyist sort of thing, well, make it officially a hobby.

I guess I have one foot in both sides of the preceding argument: I consider myself an AR person and yet, I don't want to totally outlaw dog breeding. (Cat breeding is another matter, which I won't address here). Many breeds are very rare, and are only still in existence today because someone became interested in the breed and didn't want to see it die out. However, they didn't do it to make money. They did it because they loved the animal and thought it would be a loss to the world if it disappeared. (The Kooikerhondje and the Irish Wolfhound are two that I can name off the top of my head).

So, take the profit motive out of the equation, and you will be left with those who really do it out of love, and can afford to take care of every puppy they bring into the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 12:41 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. Unit 3 snarls at you and visualizes crushing your skull in his powerful jaws
Edited on Thu Jul-12-07 12:41 PM by slackmaster
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coventina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. Not sure what that is supposed to mean.
:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #60
83. Unit 3 is beautiful!
Thanks for the pic!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #83
99. Thanks! I picked him out of a litter of 8, before his eyes were open
Edited on Fri Jul-13-07 04:54 PM by slackmaster
A coworker asked if I wanted a kitten, about a month after one of my cats had died. The timing couldn't have been better.

That was almost nine years ago. The spay/neuter bill would have made it very inconvenient for her to allow her cat, Latte, to have a litter legally (she would have had to get a license). That's why I personally oppose it. Two of my three cats, and maybe the third, are mixed-breeds born to cats of friends or acquaintences.

Over the years I've gotten about half of my cats that way, and half from the municipal animal shelter. Only once have I bought one from a breeder, a pure-bred ocicat. At $200 he was pricey but very smart and a hell of a ratter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #58
72. There are quite a few endangered cat breeds too
I have one cat that's a Turkish Angora (middle in my sig line). It's one of the most ancient breeds known, yet in 1969 only 16 purebreds remained. They are still extremely rare outside Turkey because of fairly recent ban on exporting due to the significance of the animal in the Muslim religion. They aren't much to look at, but their unusual personalities and historical significance make them worth saving, imho.

I think that responsible breeders of dogs and cats do provide a service if they truly care about what they are doing; providing pets with excellent temperaments and ideal health. Having had so many of my rescues die from genetic illnesses in the past I'm all for any program that will reduce the possibility of that heartbreak. Most breeders, however, are NOT responsible. Some kind of regulation has to happen. Banning the sale of animals won't do much to reduce the suffering of overpopulation, imho. It's the people who allow their rescued pets to wander outside without being spayed or neutered which cause the majority of unwanted puppies and kittens. You can find purebreds in rescues, but more often what you find are cross breeds that came from unaltered pets and strays. Those animals aren't the result of greed; they result from negligence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coventina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #72
77. I restricted most of what I said to dogs because I know so much more about them
than cats.

It doesn't surprise me to hear that there are endangered cat breeds as well. I'm really interested to hear about the Turkish Angora. I was unaware of the breed or of any cat being signifcant to Islam!

Anyway, I think we are pretty much on the same page on this issue. The vast majority of dog & cat overpopulation is the result of negligent pet owners and I believe that ultimately, the change has to come from that end. Tackling irresponsible breeders is a good thing, so far as it goes, but going after Joe Schmoe who refuses to have his dog "cut" is a much more difficult issue.

I do think that in a perfect world, animals shouldn't be a commodity. Realistically, I know that will never happen. I just wonder how many so-called "reputable" breeders who do it "for the love of the animals" would continue to do it if it weren't profitable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. Well, most reputable ones that I know of have less than five litters per year
and many of those litters only produce three to five animals. I think that if a breeder can manage to keep all of their animals inside the house, healthy, clean and uncaged, then they are on the right track. Most of those breeders are more hobbyists than for profit operations-but you DO have to charge something for the offspring. Even in pet rescue we charge at least $100 per animal. Aside from our vet costs, there's the issue of unwanted pets being "adopted" by those who eventually sell them to testing facilities to be used as lab animals. Brokers can get up to $150 per cat and $250 per dog, and most of their animals come from "free to good home" ads (they are experts at passing themselves off as perfect pet parents). So pets should come at a cost to ensure that they end up in homes and not tiny wire cages.

I know that the singapura and Somali are also fairly endangered cat breeds. The Turkish Angora is prized by Muslims because the prophet Muhammad was said to have kept five white Turkish Angoras as pets. White TAs are usually born with a gray mark on the top of their head which is called by Muslims "the mark of Allah". The mark disappears as they mature, but Muslims claim that the mark shows where Allah touched the cats to bless them with a special intelligence. TAs are extremely intelligent, which can test the patience of some owners because they are always into something, devising games for themselves, demanding attention, and playing "tricks" on people and other animals (they are the only cats I've ever known who display a real sense of humor). There's one famous news story from several years ago where a Turkish Angora who was left alone for a week (with daily visits from a sitter) became lonely at night and would dial 911 and meow into the phone until "company" arrived. It took about four visits from the police before they determined that the very friendly cat was actually their crank caller!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
61. The bill would have eventually ended dog ownership for the non-rich.
If it had passed, the only puppies available would have come from professional breeders. I don't know how many of you have ever bought from a professional breeder, but they're NOT cheap. I paid $700 for my current Lab a few years back, and she was considered an unbreedable runt (funny, since she's the best dog I've ever had). Most Californian's aren't going to spend that kind of money on a dog...a quick look through the classifieds shows that most pets sell for less than $150, and shelter dogs can be had for about $50. Push the cost of a dog over $500, and what you're really doing is eliminating dog ownership among most of the population.

And before the cat lovers start gloating, this law would have applied to our feline friends as well. Within a decade of its passage, this law would make the possession of a non-purebred cat a rare thing. Cats, like dogs, would only be availabe from licensed dealers, at a cost of several hundred dollars.

Don't forget, of course, that I'm basing this on TODAYS prices. We live in a capitalist society, and supply & demand will come into play. A reputable breeder can only crank out so many dogs and cats a year, and as the "mutt" varieties vanish the available pool of pets will shrink substantially. That generally means prices will go UP. If spending a few hundred on a pet doesn't seem excessive to you, how about a couple thousand? There are over 30 million people in this state, and a relatively small number of breeders. With the vast majority of homes having some pet of some kind, you can BET that prices will climb substantially when availability drops.

So the rich get to have dogs and cats, while the rest of us simply get to admire them from afar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hamsterjill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #61
71. Come to San Antonio, Texas
If you are worried about running out of the supply of cats and dogs, I invite you to come to San Antonio, Texas to adopt a pet.

This City exterminated over 50,000 animals in calendar years 2005 and 2006, and we'd love to find good, loving, RESPONSIBLE homes for these pets instead of just killing them because they have no place to go.

Believe me, we've got plenty to go around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #61
75. No, believe me, there will ALWAYS be unwanted pets up for adoption
no bill will ever stop pet overpopulation completely, but it's a start. I live in Florida and have worked in pet rescue. The number of stray animals in this state is simply staggering. Animal control can't even make a dent in their numbers.A bill like this could pass in every one of the 50 states and you could still find plenty to chose from on petfinder, at the SPCA, on Freecycle, on Craig's list...you name it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hyphenate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 01:34 PM
Response to Original message
62. It's difficult enough to get owners
(of dogs, anyway) to license them, never mind try to enforce any kind of sterilization program.

I think the bill could have--should have--had specific goals:

Regulate all NON-PUREBREED reproduction to the extent that the shelters and pounds could get better control over the population of both cats and dogs;

Allow exceptions for breeders by having them apply for licenses for kennels and breeding, and allow inspectors to come and examine the facilities on a random basis to make sure they aren't a puppy mill. The breeders could be on a 6 month trial basis, with as many inspections the state feels appropriate in order to stop puppy mills from getting licenses during that period. After that, they could receive their license, but inspections would continue at random;

Make the cost of adopting from shelters and pounds appealing to all potential owners--sometimes it's so high that it's prohibitive. At the same time, make a waiting period and a checking of references of potential families, because too often the animals are adopted by labs looking for test animals;

Allow more adoptions through groups like Petfinders, ASPCA, and all the others who bring animals out to cat and dog shows strictly for adoption, or who go to the local pet store (NOT the ones who sell supposed purebreds--those animals are mostly from mills);

Help out those groups or individuals who help feed and take care of feral populations. Most of those are largely using their own money and time--it would certainly help if they had the ability to do more catch and release programs with sterilization. There are way too many animals which can never be adapted to living indoors or in a domesticated situation;

While I know, and many other animal lovers know, there are some breeds which have been given a horrific reputation because their asshole owners train them to be mean and nasty, the breeds should be further regulated or perhaps in some cases, completely stopped. When cruel owners find they can't get their hands on those breeds, they might be more apt to make mistakes and show their hand: this could result in greater punishments for cruelty, and or for other charges against these bastards;

A provision should be enacted for the handling of animals such as greyhounds, who are cruelly killed if they can't be moneymakers for their owners. Perhaps a limit as to how many can be owned by a single owner, and investigation of facilities and on the fate of past dogs. Even one mysterious "disappearance" of a former dog could work against the owner, and prevent more of race-dog owners from even having the dogs in the first place.


These are just off the top of my head, but I know there are so many animals out there who really need good homes, and not just to be adopted by "anyone" because there are more cruel ways to die than euthanasia, although that's horrendous enough. Responsible pet ownership is meant for a lifetime, not a couple of years until everyone gets tired of the animal. My own kids have lived good long lives, and I have grieved extensively even when I make the decision to let them go. We should always think of them as beloved members of the family, not as property to be treated with indifference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #62
65. Eliminating certain dog breeds will not (unfortunately)
stop morons from training dogs to be mean and nasty. They'll just find another breed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #62
70. No, if you REALLY want to get rid of overpopulation, the solution is simple.
Animal licensing is already mandatory, so offer a discount to those who have their pets fixed. THEN...and here's the important part...make spaying and neutering free. We could spay and neuter every pet in California for a FRACTION of the cost that we currently pay to house and euthanize them.

Seems simple enough to me. Make it free, and then offer the owner an incentive to get it done. Oh, and one more thing...pass a simple law requiring every vet in the state to ADVISE the owners of unfixed pets that they can be spayed or neutered at no charge, and to do so at every visit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Socal31 Donating Member (707 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
69. It is nobodys business if my dog
is fixed or not. Holy shit are we just going to legislate EVERYTHING?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #69
74. It is my business when its puppies end up at
the shelter then the public has to put it to death when it is not adopted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Socal31 Donating Member (707 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-12-07 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #74
76. You are assuming....
Edited on Thu Jul-12-07 04:55 PM by Socal31
1. My unfixed dog will become pregnant

2. If that did happen, they will be carried to term

3. I will sell/give them away

4. I will sell/give them away to irresponsible owners.

5. The irresponsible owners will let them run away to be captured by animal control






Im sorry, but those are too many variables for me to be comfortable with the government legislating into my personal life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #76
94. We don't "assume" what we see
happening every day. Perhaps you are responsible enough not to do that -- that makes you a rare person in this world. Perhaps you can also drive home drunk safely, but I'll not advocate basing our laws on that either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Codeine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #69
93. Yes it absolutely fucking is my business.
Pet overpopulation and the resulting need to kill hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats every year mean it's everybody's business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Socal31 Donating Member (707 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #93
95. I have nothing to do with that, sorry.
Some people drive like idiots and kill people. We better outlaw cars!


Dont punish the masses for the actions of the few.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #69
101. The California legislature's apparent intent is to regulate everything
Sadly, that is one of many negative aspects of single-party rule.

I feel pretty much the same way about it - If I am not threatening public health or safety, or costing taxpayers money, my pets are my business.

All of my mammals are spayed or neutered (at my expense) BTW. Always have been, always will be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yewberry Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
84. Please explain specifically what your changes would be.
This bill mandated spay/neuter at 6 months, with allowances made for vet opinions up to 12 months or as long as needed if an animal isn't healthy enough for the procedure.

It made exceptions for service animals, law enforcement animals, agricultural animals--working breeds in general.

Exemptions for single litters were written in. Exemptions for breeders with permits were written in, as long as breeders met an incredibly lax set of standards (including, however, federal tax identification number, California seller's permit, as required by Section 6066 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.)

CA isn't a puppy mill state. It should certainly make legislation relative to animals brought into the state, and this legislation doesn't address this part of the problem.

What changes do you think are reasonable? Please be specific.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
obxhead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 02:36 AM
Response to Original message
85. I support the idea behind this bill...
Just not the method.

For the money spent in enforcement etc, it seems the state could just give free clinics. Anyone and everyone gets free spay/neuter, no questions asked. In the end I'm sure it would be more cost effective and provide a better end result. Less stray and unwanted pets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacebuzzard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
86. I hope he does reintroduce the bill next year.
It is a much needed step in order to prevent the deaths of so many unwanted dogs from the so-called "responsible" breeders. While "perfect world" ideologies such as:
* restricting who buys the pups and do they spay/neuter
* do they buy after spay/neuter
* do they pick up the phone and call when the buyer no longer wants the pet or if
* the buyer dies, divorces, goes crazy, drunk, psycho, unconscious, disabled, has a car wreck, etc.

There are just way too many debates and ego centered justifications to rant a dialog on this issue.
And, furthermore, the abandoned and lost shelter dogs could and would make terrific sport, show, search & rescue and emotional support companions, just given the chance.
Meanwhile, as we sit here and type away and reflect on this inflamed issue, thousands of pure bred dogs from responsible breeders are exterminated daily for lack of space in this country's bursting at the seams and understaffed and underfunded shelters.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
88. Control Control Control Control - BAD IDEA
Edited on Fri Jul-13-07 09:01 AM by Crisco
I have to wonder how many in this thread have done any actual reading about the bill and considered the likely consequences.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,680194675,00.html

Licensed breeders of purebreds would be exempt. But the law does not spell out which dog and cat breeds would be covered, and breeders wanting an exemption would have to apply for one from their local animal control authorities. The bill leaves it up to counties and cities to set the price.
Professional breeders complain that the measure would do little to curb "back-yard breeders," that it would drive up their costs and entangle them in bureaucracy, and that it would amount to social engineering for animals.


I agree with this in every respect.

1. There's a current trend among some breeders to experiment and create "designer" pups. The "Labradoodle" comes to mind. Friends have one, it's a great dog. Would those breeds be covered? And while that is a sort of social engineering, without that sort of experimentation, bloodlines and breed evolution would go nowhere but circles.

2. This bill would have done nothing to stop puppy mills, or, for that matter, any sort of commercial breeding. Let's see, I pay my $500 fine, and sell litter pups for $500 each. So I've just made $2k instead of $2500. Xithras has the right of it upthread: non-wealthy, non-breeders/sellers will be the only people who get hit hard by this. Everyone else, who is in it for the money, WILL continue to profit.


Animal shelter workers testified in heartbreaking detail about killing litters of kittens and lovable dogs because there are just too many to place in homes. And minutes before the Assembly voted, several wavering lawmakers got a telephone call from Barker, a longtime advocate of fixing pets.
"I had to do what I could to help make it possible for every dog and cat to have a good home," Barker said. "We desperately need it passed. The overpopulation is really tragic, and it's not just in California it's all over the country."


Those are purely emotional arguments; yes, it is tragic, but it's being managed.

I'm aware that sounds callous, but I'm looking at the other side of the coin: the alternative to this tragedy is to accept government control over two natural species of mostly benevolent life forms. And people wonder why we're not marching in the streets and to the election polls to overturn the Bush administration? It's not happening because we've already accepted too much social control from well-meaning authorities. No more, thanks.

Contributing to your local free neutering program is a far better idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The2ndWheel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #88
89. And they don't even get to vote
"the alternative to this tragedy is to accept government control over two natural species of mostly benevolent life forms"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #89
90. Now That I Think About It
Three species, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #88
91. "Control" will happen through euthanasia if steps like this aren't taken
As stated earlier, I've worked in pet rescue here in Florida. Every year populations of domestic dogs and cats (these are not native wild animals) explode beyond the numbers of previous years. There is a steady increase in the spread of various diseases which now extend to wild animal populations as well. Huge numbers of feral cats in the state are further reducing the numbers of endangered bird species. Animal shelters just can't keep up with supply; in June over 1,000 kittens were dumped at our local SPCA.

As someone who is sick and tired of dealing with so many diseased and malnourished homeless animals, I say give the bill MORE teeth. Shut down the puppy mills (which are only a tiny part of the overpopulation problem), fund free spay and neuter for low income families, and REGULATE the remaining breeders to ensure that a.) animals aren't being mistreated, and b). pet owners don't end up with sick animals, or animals that carry genetic defects. We don't like it when pet food companies sell us food that kills our pets, why would we be OK with a breeder selling us a dog or cat which they know will die within a few years of cardiomyopathy or some other genetic illness that the parents carried? Control and regulation is needed when we want to reduce suffering and fraud against consumers. You can't simply count on people to have a conscience or act responsibly. If you could, BushCo wouldn't even be in office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slackmaster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #88
100. Rhodesian Ridgebacks with two whirls are nearly extinct
It became trendy several years ago to have Rhodies with only one whirl. Two-whirled pups (which used to be the norm) are systematically killed by breeders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-15-07 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #88
110.  Limiting breeding to "purebreds" is creating a nation of unhealthy dogs.
The voluntary spay/neuter program here has greatly reduced the number of unwanted litters. It's almost impossible where I live to get a young puppy at the Humane Society -- except for unwanted litters of pit bulls, which always seem available.

Mutts are so rare that people will gladly pay for them. I even saw an ad in the paper that offered: Two mixed breed puppies. $500.

On the other hand, all the breeds of dogs are developing more and more genetic illnesses. And since those are virtually the only dogs being bred now, we have sicker and sicker dogs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ayesha Donating Member (587 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-13-07 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
106. This bill went after the wrong people
Edited on Fri Jul-13-07 09:21 PM by Ayesha
I have 5 dogs, all rescues. 4 are mixed breeds and 4 of the 5 were in a pound at some point. I am a passionate advocate of rescue and spay/neuter, yet I strongly opposed this legislation. First of all, 4 months is too young to alter dogs, especially large breeds. I know many professionals in the service dog community and they feel strongly that early spay/neuter can be harmful to joint health and temperament. The hormones we take away when we alter animals are important to their growth and development. Dogs that are altered very young tend to have extremely long legs due to abnormal bone growth in the absence of hormones. Increased hip and elbow dysplasia, torn ACLs, pulled muscles and related injuries are an enormous concern.

My Aussie mix, who was spayed at 4 months, has immune-mediated arthritis, a rare condition that strikes young dogs. I believe that her being spayed too young contributed to her illness. Her body is grossly out of proportion - her legs are much too long. She also has chronic skin problems and a hair-trigger temper - early spay has been linked with aggression in females. All of my other dogs were altered at 8 months or older and are extremely healthy, including the backyard-bred, originally-from-a-pet-store female Lab.

So yes, I have huge problems with this law. As guardian to four former shelter dogs I am well aware of the horrors of that situation, but there is no one-size-fits-all solution to pet overpopulation. For one thing, mandatory s/n hurts responsible breeders and owners more. People who wish to alter later or who can prevent their animals from breeding indiscriminately can and should have that option without having to go through a ton of red tape. The real problem people will just ignore the law. Without funding to pay for free or low cost s/n services many people who want to comply won't be able to do so.

There are many other solutions to the pet overpopulation problem that I believe would be more effective. A few of my ideas are:

-Offer free and very low-cost spay and neuter services
-Offer free and low-cost veterinary care for low-income pet owners
-Require owners of unaltered animals over 1 year old to take a written "licensing test" similar to in concept to a DMV road rules test. They would have to answer questions about preventing their pet from escaping or breeding accidentally, responsible breeding practices, genetic tests, and how to find good homes for the offspring. Persons who fail the test would be required to take a workshop, then retake the test. They then get a breeding license which has to be renewed every 5 years.
-Set reasonable limits on the number of litters a licensee can breed per year (3, perhaps?), with exceptions for police and service dog breeding programs.
-Ban the importation into California of puppies from large-scale facilities in puppy mill states. Require that all puppies entering California carry proof that they come from a breeder who adheres to California yearly litter limits.
-$1000+ fines for allowing unfixed pets to roam, especially cats.
-$5000+ fines and serious prison terms for dog fighting and related crimes.
-Mandatory microchipping of all dogs and cats, with the name of the breeder, if any, included in the data
-Mandate that all persons selling puppies for over $50 each guarantee to take back any unwanted animals they have bred, at any age, and find them good homes. Fine them $1000 each for any animal they fail to claim from the pound after being notified that the owners no longer want it. Send them to prison if they kill any adoptable animal they have reclaimed. That will take the fun and profit out of backyard breeding very quickly.
-Require all persons turning their owned animals into the pound to watch a video of a healthy, adoptable pet being euthanized due to lack of space, before leaving their animal. Also, offer resources to help them keep their pet or find a home, and require that they read them or watch a video with the info. I predict shelter intakes will drop drastically. Many people don't realize what goes on in shelters, or they think it won't happen to their pet. We can show them otherwise,
and save lives and money.
-Offer landlords a tax credit for allowing pets. Increase the credit if they allow large dogs and pit bulls.
-Ban pet stores from selling dogs and cats, or tax them VERY heavily, or require that they microchip all their "merchandise" and pay a fine for every animal that ends up at the pound. Offer them a tax credit to have shelter pets for adoption instead.

Some of my ideas are not exactly nice or pretty, but the target of them is at least the source of the problem, rather than the people who are part of the solution!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
janx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-14-07 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
109. FREE spay/neuter plus an aggressive education program.
Most people will spay/neuter their pets (especially if they don't have to pay for it) if they're made aware of the overpopulation problem.

It's never very effective to try and legislate morality, and this is a moral matter. But people generally want to do the right things for their pets, and if given the choice would probably be proud to care enough about them to spay/neuter if given the chance.

I do agree that there should be heavy fines for people who allow fertile pets to roam.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 27th 2017, 08:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC