The California ‘Healthy Pets’ Act: An overly simple — and ultimately unworkable — solution for a complex problem

Do you like this story?

The California ‘Healthy Pets’ Act: An overly simple — and ultimately unworkable — solution for a complex problem

By Gina Spadafori

May 23, 2007

The problem is simple: Too many homeless pets.

The solution is simple: Require all pets to be spayed or neutered at four months of age, with a few exceptions.

Problem. Solution. Problem solved, right?

Wrong. Not when is comes to AB 1634, with its ridiculous name of the California Healthy Pets Act.

Why isn’t the widespread neutering of all pets the answer? Because the problem isn’t so simple. And the solution proposed is so overly broad that it will not address what isn’t one big simple problem, but is in fact a handful of more complex ones.

golden retriever What is said to be a problem with homeless pets is really more a problem with a massive surplus of the pets most people don’t want – adult and semi-feral cats, and large dogs from breeds thought to have aggressive tendencies, as well as older, sick dogs or those with difficult to remedy behavior problems.

In fact, there is such a shortage of animals people do want that some organizations in urban areas cherry-pick pets from rural shelters – primarily small dogs and cute puppies.

Does that surprise you? It shouldn’t. Summer before last I helped a friend who wanted an adult dog for her family. She didn’t want a geriatric dog or a sick dog, and she didn’t want one with severe behavior problems (although she was of course willing to work on minor ones). And whether you and I agree with it or not (I don’t!) she didn’t want a pit bull, Rottweiler or mix of a breed with bad, if largely undeserved, reputation. In other words, she didn’t want what was available in abundance. So she kept looking.

In the end she lucked out to be there just as her urban non-profit shelter was pulling in with dogs cherry-picked from a rural municipal shelter. She got a nice, well-mannered and middle-aged retriever mix. It took her four months of effort, and at least a dozen trips to the shelter, during which she considered at least twice that many dogs. And in the end, it was a matter of luck that she found what she wanted.

These pet-transfer programs in and of themselves are not bad. Rural shelters don’t see many adopters, and urban shelters haven’t enough of the kind of pets people want. Relocating adoptable animals from one area to another makes sense, even though the sad reality is it still means euthanizing the animals in urban areas people don’t want — and won’t take (or keep), even if they are the only ones available.

See, this is where it all stops being so simple. It doesn’t make any sense at all to say that because we have to kill the animals most people don’t want – the unadoptables, because of breeding, age or behavior – we have to put an end to the responsible breeding of the pets people do want. It makes as much sense to say we won’t move adoptable animals from one area to another, because, damn it, we’re going to make people adopt the animals they don’t want.

The California Healthy Pets Act — AB 1634 — in reality won’t do a thing to address the problems of those people who are the reason for all those unadoptable animals. But it will come down hard on the people who aren’t the reason: Responsible, reputable breeders.

AB 1634 targets the people who should be breeding dogs, and yes, I think there should be breeding, and you should, too, unless you really want a world without, say, golden retrievers.

But breeding should be done by the truly responsible, by those who understand what their breed is for, who only breed correct examples of that breed and only the healthiest, most temperamentally sound of those animals at that. These are people who work their dogs, proving them on the test fields of competition (such as a field trial) or real life (such as a stock dog or search-and-rescue dog). These are people, further, who spend countless thousands of dollars to test their breeding stock for genetic diseases, thousands more to compete with their animals and will still, at the end of the day, be responsible for life for every animal they bring into this world. They are in it for love, not profit.

These people are serious pains in the ass to deal with when you’re looking for a puppy, because they’re don’t think it’s a one-sided transaction. You don’t get to flash a credit card or write a check and walk away with a puppy, not with these breeders. Responsible breeders want to know you are a good fit for a puppy, or they won’t sell you one. Period.

They do that because they’re responsible for those animals for life. But it just so happens that by not selling you a puppy just because you promised your kids one, or saw a celebrity hold one, they’re also helping to guarantee that animal won’t end up in the shelter.

Look at the top 10 reasons why dog are tossed (according to the National Council on Pet Overpopulation Studies):

1. Moving
2. Landlord issues
3. Cost of pet maintenance
4. No time for pet
5. Inadequate facilities
6. Too many pets in home
7. Pet illness (es)
8. Personal problems
9. Biting
10. No homes for littermates

Now … how many of them have to do with a person getting a pet on impulse, casually or without adequate resources or preparation, from a source who doesn’t care where an animal ends up as long as the check or credit card clears? How many of these reasons have to do with pets with health or temperament problems that are likely the result of clueless, careless on-purpose breeding or accidental “whoops” litters with inadequate socialization? How many are the result of a breeder/seller who isn’t there and doesn’t care when a new puppy owner is having problems or needs advice?

Almost all of them.

The only one that can’t be predicted by thorough pre-placement questioning by a reputable breeder, shelter or rescue group is No. 8, because personal problems – divorce, death, illness – are often unpredictable.

So who, exactly, are the people putting these dogs out there? People who can’t be bothered to spay their females or who are too much into their own macho pride to neuter their males. People too poor to afford the surgery. People too ill-informed know better or care. People who breed anything and everything because they think they can sell the puppies, be they Labradors, Labradoodles or pit bulls, because it’s easy tax-free income if you sell the puppies through local ads, flyers, swap meets, the Internet or from a cardboard box in a supermarket parking lot. Commercial breeders, including puppy-millers, and people who smuggle sick puppies in from Mexico — or even Russia.

Search and rescue dog People, in other words, who don’t bother to license or properly care for their pets now, and who certainly won’t bother to license or properly care for their pets if AB 1634 passes, when you have to prove you’re a responsible breeder (which they can’t) and when the fees cut into your tax-free profits (which they won’t).

In other words, the people who are causing the problem will not be much affected by any sweeping effort at a simple solution, which is exactly what AB 1634 promises. And the people who work hard to produce healthy, temperamentally sound animals who are the very essence of what people want for family pets and working dogs are the ones who are targeted, because they are the ones who are visible. Even with the fuzzy and ill-defined exemptions negotiated into this measure, responsible breeders are still the ones who’ll be targeted, and are likely to be about the only ones affected.

And what if you drive these people, these responsible, caring breeders, out of dogs and out of state — along with the millions of dollars brought into the economy by dog shows and other events? Will that end the problem?

Not hardly. Because the clueless, careless and greedy will keep breeding, and keep selling their puppies no questions asked, in all the places they do now. And because anyone who wants to go to a little extra trouble will just order a puppy-mill dog from the Internet, credit cards accepted, delivery to your nearby California airport.

We at the Pet Connection are not unsympathetic to the problems of the surplus of unadoptable pets. Fellow Pet Connection blogger Christie Keith and I, for example, have each taken animals in over the years who had few other choices. And I ran a breed rescue for three years, fostering, neutering and finding homes for more than 100 Shelties in that time.

Although I have shown and competed with purebred dogs for almost 30 years, I have never bred a litter, because I have never had a dog who was truly worthy of tossing his or her genes back into the pool. Christie has bred in very limited way, and knows what happened to every single one of the puppies she has brought into the world. Every single one.

We have gone on the record, time and time again, in support of humane population reduction of feral cat populations, using trap, neuter and release colony management techniques. We have supported programs that pay people to neuter those animals who are born in greater numbers than the demand, such as pit bulls and cats. And we spend our lives writing about how to choose a pet, when not to get a pet and what to do about problems of health and behavior when they come up.

We’d love to see an end to the number of unadoptables. It’s part of our goal here at the Pet Connection. So bring us some legislation that looks at the problem as it is – not as the simple issue the “until there are none, adopt one” advocates claim it to be.

Bring us solutions that do not punish those who truly do care about their animals, people who make sure those healthy, stable animals they bring into this world are properly placed and taken back if need be.

The problem isn’t simple and neither is the solution. And bearing down on the people who aren’t the cause isn’t going to fix the animals of a single clueless, careless or greedy producer of pets by accident or for sale – nor is it going to make any of their breeding animals any healthier because they still won’t be spayed or neutered.

If you live in California — as Christie and I do — call and write your state senator and assemblyman or assemblywoman right now and tell them to vote no on AB 1634. And then tell them not to come back with more nonsense that neither understands nor fully addresses the complex problem that is homeless pets, in this state and in others.

Because … it just ain’t that simple.

Filed under: animals: pets,puppy mills — Gina Spadafori @ 5:40 am

Comments (183)

183 Comments »

Bravo! Nancy

Comment by nancy — May 23, 2007 @ 6:00 am
Excellent piece!
And I would add that even if you don’t live in CA, don’t feel safe from these types of laws. They are plentiful all across the country and if you don’t make efforts to stay informed about your local legislation, you may find yourself suddenly on the wrong side of the law regarding pet ownership and subject to significant fines and/or loss of your pets.

Comment by slt — May 23, 2007 @ 6:11 am
Very well said, Gina! You expressed my exact feelings on the issue. We all would love to see an end to homeless pets, but don’t put an end to loving, responsible breeders in the process.

Comment by Brandi — May 23, 2007 @ 6:16 am
Addition: Luisa at the “Lassie Get Help!” blog writes in opposition to the bill from the vantage point of a stock-dog owner and pit bull advocate:

http://lassiegethelp.blogspot......-bill.html

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 23, 2007 @ 6:21 am
How about elevating household pets to the same level as human children! Then people can’t just dump them, give them away, decide they don’t want them because they now have a human baby (sorry…the cat or dog was there first!), or they just decide they don’t want the pet anymore, etc, etc, etc! Hey…then maybe we can all get tax deductions for them too because they are our kids (I’d like to include horses in this one)! ;)

Also…require EVERY SINGLE “pet” to be microchipped. Might also stop dumping because then the owner can be tracked. Added bonus is that lost animals are more easily reunited with their loving families. I think the state of Florida even required it after Hurricane Andrew.

Comment by BengalMom — May 23, 2007 @ 6:30 am
I volunteered at a shelter for awhile some years back. There is definitely an order to how animals are adopted.

Puppies and kittens go first. Purebred looking animals go second. Cute and beautiful animals go third.

Plain, and large animals have a very hard time of getting adopted, especially if they have some kind of handicap. It’s also harder to get older animals adopted out. It’s really very sad.

Comment by Mandy — May 23, 2007 @ 6:31 am
excellent piece. While I don’t live in CA it gave me a lot to think about and questions to ask locally.

Comment by lablover — May 23, 2007 @ 6:32 am
Thank you for writing such an eridute article about this issue. It’s been upsetting on so many fronts, especially for responsible breeders and dog fanciers. Unfortunately in L.A., they’ve already allowed it to pass even though it isn’t final at the state level. We Los Angelinos haven’t given up yet and are still fighting tooth and nail. I believe we only have a day or two left so if you haven’t done so already, please consider faxing off your opposition letter to your local Assembly member.

Comment by Ally — May 23, 2007 @ 6:49 am
I’ve rescued a few cats off the street. I know something of what they go through. A needy street cat can be turned into a great pet and will give back a love that goes far beyond the normal unconditional love that pets give us.

I am not saying I know anything; I haven’t studied it in depth. I have been thinking about this issue since rescuing Rascal last summer. She was already pregnant when she found us. We worked with a TNR organization to get three of the kittens fixed; we took care of Rascal and the last kitten. I’m a college student, this was a financial issue; but I felt it was the right thing to do.

Only one kitten found a home; we still have the other three kids and Rascal, herself. I want Rascal; she is a tough cat and has all my respect. We love the kittens, with all we have to give, but who needs seven cats? While we do love them all, I’m not sure any one gets all the attention they want or need.

We got them off the streets; we did that part and none of them will breed. But now what? These are perfectly good, well behaved, and smart kittens but, now, at 9 months, they are too ‘old’ to adopt out! People I have talked to want baby kittens, around three to four months old. They don’t want these ‘old’ kittens. I can not let these kids just go out onto the street; it’s just not right.

I don’t think Trap, Neuter and Return fully solves the problem. It is a good first step but the animals need more than that. It’s the return part that doesn’t seem to work very well, in my mind. It doesn’t seem like a very good solution to return the animals back to the streets. They still have to deal with cars and lack of food and water, sickness and disease; (although they do say that there is less disease in strays) and just so many other things.

I just that I think to be able to really, truly help the animals we should more options for their release. We help ourselves to think we are doing something; but I don’t think it really fully helps the animals.

My thoughts are that these animals and other unwanted animals need a reserve of some sort. Let them be wild, but give them an umbrella of care and protection. A fenced in compound where daily food and water can be provided and perhaps a yearly once over by a vet. Similar to what is done for endangered animals.

There are people that have old barns and are willing to feed, but there are not enough of them. They do this out of the goodness of their hearts; but it is not organized. If I had the money I’d buy some land and build a barn; I would do it myself and perhaps one day in the future I will. I would definitely support such an organization; but we need to have some sort of group to organize and facilitate communication between all the people willing to help.

Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 23, 2007 @ 6:51 am
I live in California and in the Central Valley. Actually, I like pits very much. They are a good choice for a home - and all the pits I have owned and I rescued one from a shelter that I still have, are quite well-mannered and a good family dog.

And the dog I rescued from the road two weeks ago, fits the problem. He will be a larger dog and he howls, being a hound, and he is full of himself. Last night we started training to tame some of the wild beast. I do believe he became too much for his owner at five months old - imagine what a year old too much will be like and 80 pounds.

I happen to like Dobermans and saw two very nice ones at the city pound, taken from a home - were neglected and abused. I called and made sure the dogs would not be put to sleep, and they said no, they were working on finding good homes for the two siblings.

Then when I got a license for my Dobie pup, I squeaked in under the non-neutered old rules and paid $30 instead of the $150, there are exceptions for a true “show dog” and the fee, I believe she mentioned was $45 a year - for a non-neutered show dog that is in at least two shows per year.

Anyway, I think the problems is that people want “easy” and don’t wish to take the time to train their dogs - and some of these dogs require real serious training - I know with my Doberman’s and Coooon Hounds.

But people can have just as bad problems with aggression with the smaller dogs. I guess they figure, a small dog they can pick up. I can’t tell you the number of times these small dogs have charged my Dobermans and acted totally insane.

I don’t know what the solution is really. People need to train their dogs and take it all seriously. Large dogs can be a real joy and older dogs need love too.

I guess that’s why we have so many divorces - easy always has a price.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 6:56 am
Gina -
I bought my Bengal cat from one of those “pain in the ass” breeders. ;) I had to go to their home and basically be interviewed and checked out before they would consider me for one of their kittens. Sooo…glad I did! I ended up with an exceptional and incredibly well socialized animal. My vet, who is exclusive to cats, has many Bengals as patients and she said my cat and one other are the only two Bengals that she considers “wonderful”. The others are very impersonal, standoffish and several downright mean (and not just because they are at the vet!). I chalk that up to GOOD BREEDERS. She said she has yet to see a well socialized Savannah.

Comment by BengalMom — May 23, 2007 @ 6:56 am
I’m surprised that there’s a shortage of desirable dogs, but I always get “DSH” cats—Domestic Shorthairs; what the Brits call “moggies.” Two were literal rescues—one was in a bad situation with 30 sick kittens in a one room apartment, one was a four week old thrown out of a moving car on the highway onto an exit ramp—two lived under a boyfriend’s relative’s shrubbery, and two were former ferals that came from Petsmart Adoption Day and needed a lot of patient socialization.

Moggies are always far too plentiful. :(

As for dogs with bad reputations, we didn’t have dogs when I was a kid because my sister and I were afraid of loud noises and my mother prefers small yappy dogs. I thought I hated dogs until I met a friend’s Doberman when I was 19. I also really liked my former boss’ Rottweiler. So it makes me very sad that Dobermans and Rottweilers are less adoptable.

Comment by Katherine — May 23, 2007 @ 7:01 am
RE: Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 23, 2007 @ 6:51 am

Peggy,

The “return” or “release” part is necessary for a true feral—a cat that is completely unsocialized and sees humans as scary monsters rather than snuggly mamacats. In the case of your adoptable babies… yeah, I feel the same way.

Comment by Katherine — May 23, 2007 @ 7:04 am
P.S. My former feral babies had a completely feral mother who was spayed and released. They love me and my boyfriend, but have hyperventilating panic attacks at the vet. :( Which is actually a step up from the growling, hissing threats they offered the vet as kittens!

Comment by Katherine — May 23, 2007 @ 7:12 am
Katherine, your right. Rascal was not feral, although she does get terrified at times and spooks incredibly easily. Butters, my other rescue was feral though. She was a tiny little starved thing about a month old. We trapped her in our house. :) She came around in time; she is now the most sweetest and lovable cat I have ever seen or heard of. That’s how she got her name of Butters; ‘cause she is butter soft and butter sweet. We paid for her to be fixed, too. She was lucky. Now she is the Queen of all the cats which is real funny since she is also the smallest.

Maybe there is an organization already out there but I just haven’t found them. Maybe they can find me? I am willing to donate my time, money and effort.

Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 23, 2007 @ 7:18 am
Dear Gina,

I understand your point of view well and I also understand that this law is trying to address the overpopulation problemas well as shifting the burden of funding to the local jurisdictions.

I volunteered at a Los Angeles County shelter for 3 years and I saw firsthand what the results are of indiscriminate breeding. I can’t tell you the number of times a Mom and litter came in as “strays”?????. Obviously pregnant Moms to be turned in because they “got out”. Feral or 1/2 wild cat mothers unable to be handled, warehoused until their euthanasia, dog mothers having their puppies taken away to be killed, then the mothers’ turn….. Perfectly lovely dogs and cats destroyed because there just aren’t enough homes. I recall the day a man came in to get a female and male cat to produce kittens which he would sell!!! Lunacy! Of course the volunteers surrounded him and drove him off but we were not there all the time, he probably came back another time. The rescues were constantly full to overflowing which led to more than one well-meaning person becoming a “hoarder”.

I don’t want responsible breeders to be driven away but does this law not give some teeth to authorities to fine irresponsible back yard breeders? Granted, I haven’t read the entire law in depth and perused all possible loopholes and I probably wouldn’t understand it all anyway but previous measures such as mandatory spaying and neutering of animals adopted from L.A. Co. shelters has helped a little, low-cost spay/neuter clinics have helped a little. Each step we take helps a little more. I wish I knew what the perfect solution was, I would shout it from the rooftops!

Breeders currently need a kennel license now so maybe they will need to provide more documentation and frankly I think the section in the Bill that specifies that proof of entry in “Breed or Show” competitions is required for intact animals under 2 years is a bit much. If we are going to license these breeders should we not trust them to breed responsibly?

The biggest problem I see here is the enforcement.I remember a time when each summer Animal Control Officers would go door to door to check for unlicensed animals but not in recent years. I gather the funds to pay for the enforcement officers is to come from the fines levied. Ah, here I see a problem. As you say, the dogs are frequently not licensed, cats are not required to be licensed here, so why should we expect fines to be paid? Again the State just seeks to reduce it’s obligation to pay for services the people pay for already.

Just my opinion, for what it’s worth. Thank you for the opportunity to vent.

Comment by Priscilla Patterson — May 23, 2007 @ 7:20 am
The people who are bringing in mom and pups “strays” are NOT reputable breeders — and NOTHING in AB 1634 will change the behavior of the careless, clueless or greedy people who are responsible for the problems of unadoptable pets.

The people who are being targeted — reputable, responsible breeders — are not the ones who put those pets in the shelters.

We need to identify the true problem, and offer targeted solutions. Otherwise, we’re looking at a “feel good” measure that attacks the wrong people — and won’t at all impact the people who ARE the problem.

As for the “exemptions” for “show dogs” — lipstick on a pig. The only true exemption in this bill is for large-scale commercial breeding operations — a/k/a puppy mills. Does that make sense?

Read the bill. The latest version is linked in the post.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 23, 2007 @ 7:57 am
Good reputable breeders are NOT large scale operations but people who breed with the love and care of the breed at heart. They health test all their bitches, required paperwork that the stud has also been tested. But these are average everyday people like you and I who work regular jobs to make ends meet. But their ‘hobby’ is the love of dogs, showing them and furthering the breed. The dogs live in their house and sleep in their bed. These are the folks you should get a puppy from, not a mass producer who does not care for their dogs except as moneymakers. But the more regulations are added, the more the only place pups will come from are mills where they are in it to make money and not for the love of the breed or dogs.

Comment by Bonni — May 23, 2007 @ 8:00 am
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 23, 2007 @ 7:57 am

“We need to identify the true problem, and offer targeted solutions. Otherwise, we’re looking at a “feel good” measure that attacked the wrong people — and won’t hit the people who ARE the problem.”

Gina —

May I use that quote in my latest letters I’ll be faxing when I get back today? I like how you encapsulated much of this bill’s problem.

Comment by Ally — May 23, 2007 @ 8:00 am
As you wish, Ally. I don’t care whose words you use, as long as you write, e-mail, call and fax your elected representatives in the great city of Sacramento! (Where I live just five miles from the golden dome of the Capitol.)

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 23, 2007 @ 8:05 am
Speaking of Sacramento, I know this is off topic but… what up with the mama and baby Humpbacks? Can you see them from your window Gina? ; )

Comment by slt — May 23, 2007 @ 8:07 am
No, they’re a ways down the Sacramento River Delta. The closest I’ve come to seeing them is having the L.A. Times photographer at my house to take a picture of me after he’d been covering the whales all day.

I guess you could say in comparison, I looked rather petite. :)

Sad to say, the most recent news on the whales is not promising.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 23, 2007 @ 8:14 am
“Maybe there is an organization already out there but I just haven’t found them. Maybe they can find me? I am willing to donate my time, money and effort.”

Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 23, 2007 @ 7:18 am

Peggy,
Have you tried looking on http://www.petfinder.com? I don’t know where you live, but there is sure to be a no-kill rescue organization within driving distance that could help you adopt out your kittens. Some won’t take directly from the public, preferring to pull from kill shelters, but most offer some kind of home-to-home program or are willing to let you bring your animals to their adoption events. I am in rescue and we adopt out animals of all ages. You just have to make them accessible to the public enough until the right person or family comes along. I used to trap ferals. I did release several as they were adults as I felt I had no other options. I had them tested for major diseases, spayed/neutered and innoculated before release. I was able to save a handful of kittens and tame them down and adopt them out. I am currently pulling kittens from the local Animal Control to foster. Just had one get adopted yesterday…sniff… :) I had to bring home 2 more to replace her. LOL

Regarding the bill. I am in rescue and fight daily in any way possible to end the overpopulation problem. I do not have a problem with responsible breeders. I have gone to many cat shows and know that most have a limit on litters per year and also litters per lifetime for their queens. (Some people forget that factor. I have seen many overbred female cats and dogs in terrible condition.) They also have a pre-approved waiting list before any kits are born. These are not the people who are the problem. The backyard breeders and puppy mills are the problem. More importantly, those who chose to create a throw-away society and don’t see pets as members of their family or even living beings. The top 10 are no suprise. I know of one woman who dumped her dog back at the shelter because she had redecorated her living room and he did not match the decor. Could she please have a different one that went with her new loveseat? Funny? Maybe….those people exist. Some steps to take in my opinion are obviously education and low-cost spay/neuter options. In my county you are only allowed 3 animals per household. They spend more time worrying about whether you have an extra kitten, than they do about the plethora of puppy mills that abound in this area. The focus is never in the right place. We also have BSL for Pit Bulls which is just BS IMO and no programs for ferals, except for a mobile Neuter Scooter that comes once a month and will do ferals. Those two segments of pets don’t have much of a chance. Yes, I set up transports and get small dogs, purebred dogs, any dogs I can out of this county. I am sorry if that seems to limit some folks options. I do it to save their lives. I would save them all if I could. When I pull for my own rescue, I take the next one on the list as long as they temperament test well. We pull kittens because they will not survive in the shelter environment, not to take the best available. That is not the case for every rescue and you couldn’t expect it to be.

Comment by Amara — May 23, 2007 @ 8:22 am
Thank-you Amara! Our TNR place did work with petfinders; that’s how the one got adopted. Mind you, it’s not that I want to get rid of them; they are all deeply loved. It’s just that there’s a few to many, and we’d like to move on. There are so many strays in just my neighborhood; they all need help.
I will contact petfinders and see if I can work with them directly. I thought they only worked with organizations. :) If I can find these guys homes then I can help other rescues.

Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 23, 2007 @ 8:36 am
I love dogs and all animals, but dogs have my heart and soul. I have never bred. My young male doberman has the looks and makings of an exceptional dog so I am not going to neuter him right away. He has a perfect temperment, not agreesive, listens to me, and barks when needed.

I am 100% for good show dog and purebred breeding and 100% against back yard breeders and puppy mills operators should be put in jail.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 8:43 am
Thank you Gina so much for the information on this bill. I could not get the link to work above to read the text but I did find it.

I also called my Assembly member here in Calif. and found out that he is against this bill and told them so was I.

I also called my Senator and told him I was against this bill and so is my Senator. They said, the problem is PROBLEM people not problem dogs. It’s a solution of one fits all - and it is not right and just too broad.

The bill is still in the Assembly and I hope it dies there.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 8:58 am
Peggy,
I know to list animals on Petfinder you need to send a copy of an adoption contract and a vet letter stating that they have and will care for any pets in your “group”. You do not have to be 501(c)3 to get listed. I was, however, thinking more along the lines that you might be able to search for a rescue in your area that could help you promote your kitties. Hope this helps..

Comment by Amara — May 23, 2007 @ 9:08 am
[stands, applauds] Great, incisive commentary, Gina. Thanks for addressing this terrible bill. [And thanks for the link.]

Comment by Luisa — May 23, 2007 @ 9:09 am
Hank Paulson being interviewed right now on Bloomberg

Comment by BEE — May 23, 2007 @ 9:12 am
In my case, I have adopted several dogs from people older than me (yeah right) who could no longer care for them. They have all been the sweetest dogs. Not to say the ones I bought from private owners or the shelter were any less lovable. You can certainly tell they appreciate having a home. A yorkie and amer eskimo were going to be euthanized by their owner because she was going to have an operation and move to a senior living center. I saved them 3 days before and the eskie especially I could sense loved that she had another chance at life. She lived with me for 7 years before passing. The yorkie 3 before falling very ill and my having to make the big decision. He was my first male ever and I just could not make the decision even though I knew it was best until he finally insisted and I knew I had to. (crying - can’t even see to type)

Comment by VJ — May 23, 2007 @ 9:17 am
My 2 eskies now have been adopted from people who no longer could care for them or didn’t want them. Love them. They are sweethearts. The female eskie, I bonded deeply with her within 24 hrs after adopting her.
On another note, got a call from a dear friend on Saturday. She was heading out the door but had to tell me that a dog who had purposely been let out of its owner’s yard a full year ago, had been returned to the woman. Wow. What wonderful news. The neighborhood where the dog lives is not one of the finest. I had been called by my friend at the time because I do some psychic work with animals. Funny thing about this. I had just thought about the dog, Pearl, the night before and was wondering if I had done everything I could to connect with her and get her back home. Don’t know anymore details. I will see my friend Memorial Day. Hope she has more information.

Comment by VJ — May 23, 2007 @ 9:25 am
VJ - nice to hear about the dog returning home after one year. Good news indeed. Such a heartbreak when anyone looses their beloved pet.

I worry about gates too and have mine locked at all times and the front gate too secured but even the best of plans go awry.

But such a joy her pet was returned.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 9:29 am
Paulson just talking financial up to this point, plus that American people are concerned with Chinese trade. He purposely established timing of 2-day meeting w/ Chinese so leadership of Congress could have meeting with them sometime today, as Congress may be ready to establish some trade legislation. Believe the President will meet with the Chinese sometime today or tonight..Might need to touch base w/your legislators right now.

Comment by BEE — May 23, 2007 @ 9:30 am
Yes, Linda. I am a fanatic about gates. The eskie I mentioned above who came with the yorkie got out because I was preoccupied and didn’t notice that a workman had left the gate open. She was blind and hard of hearing. I live out in the country but on a busy road. After about 15? minutes I spotted her 3 properties away from me. Dang if I didn’t leave the car door open in my drive and start running down the road screaming her name. A van was coming toward me and I just waved my arms to get the “h” out of my way. Nothing was going to stop me from getting to her as fast as I could. Took me 2 hours to stop sweating. My whole body was in shock from that trauma.

Comment by VJ — May 23, 2007 @ 9:37 am
The DogtorJ (DVM too) website talks about spaying too early - it’s immediate menopause.
He does understand, of course, the reasoning why it’s encouraged.

Our personal vet really pushes for spaying at 6 mos for my two seeester mini- Schnauzer Pups that replaced our dear Mitzi, but I may wait 2 yrs for their hormones to possibly assist other organs in the interim. The vet says he is concerned of cancer, and maybe we should proceed since we don’t plan at this time to breed them.

Anyone else have ideas against automatic spay or neuter, especially where we pretty much watch them even behind a 6 ft fence.

The DogtorJ website is very helpful for both animals and human health issues.

Comment by BEE — May 23, 2007 @ 9:47 am
VJ -

Welcome to the club. I was tired one night and watered the front plants at 11:30 pm and forgot to lock the front gate. Let my two grown Dobies out front at 4:00 am, still dark, and they froze and stared at the open gate then thought, oh boy, walk time. Both bolted with me right behind. I was scared to death and the male returned rather quickly with me screaming NO! and I left the female running down a usually busy street but not so that early - needed to secure one at least and save the other. Well, I turned around and there was the female standing behind me - as if saying: I want back in too! My heart stayed in my throat all day and I still don’t know how I averted real tragedy. But I learned my lesson. Now even when tired, I double check everything before going to bed.

Also, one time my male was in the back of the SUV and leaped out breaking his lead that I use to keep him in the car and took off at a park full speed. Couldn’t catch him, so I just got back in the car and started the engine - guess who wanted to go for a ride.

My heart breaks for the owners who can’t find their dogs. I am a nut about not letting mine off lead and even when I’m training off lead, the 50’ lead is always attached too.

I admire people who can train their dogs through distractions. The Dobermans are very attentive, but the Cooonhounds - now they are something else again.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 10:01 am
I have seen studies pro and con for spaying/neutering at certain life stages or not at all to attain the most beneficial health for an animal. Being in rescue I always have to promote spay/neuter for obvious reasons. I do understand the choice of those who choose not to do so for showing or other purposes. I cannot stress “watching like a hawk” enough as it only takes a few seconds for something to happen and there are those extremely interested males who can scale a 6 ft. fence if the “need” arises. I know the warnings also about uterine and testicular cancers especially in older animals. How much more prevelant it is than any other cancer or whether the cancer would just avail itself in an alternate location anyway due to environment, chemicals in foods, etc…I do not know.

Comment by Amara — May 23, 2007 @ 10:02 am
Linda

Yes, we both are lucky to have averted tragedy.
My heart breaks each time I read about a lost pet.
I always worry about my male that he could run out the front door or the gate or his leash or halter would snap. Although there have been a few recent incidents that I have had to step out of his sight with someone else holding the leash. He is beside himself when he sees me. I take that as a good sign. I have read everyone of your posts Linda so I know exactly where your heart is dear one.

Comment by VJ — May 23, 2007 @ 10:17 am
Yes, VJ - I do think we understand each other and for more reasons than one.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 10:30 am
Thanks Amara…I submitted a longer response about 10 mins ago, but I don’t see it yet.It might be my virus software kicking in.

Comment by BEE — May 23, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Peggy- I don’t know if Friends of Ferals is in your area? When I thought of them I always though of the truly feral cats, but I saw two on Monday that they are trying to adopt that were as tame as my cats at home.

Comment by Jenny — May 23, 2007 @ 10:54 am
By the way, here is a link the the Friends of Ferals in my area. I did a search and see them in other locations as well.

http://www.daneferals.org/info/display?PageID=1420

Comment by Jenny — May 23, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Has anyone read the June issue of The Whole Dog Journal. There are some interesting articles. Nancy Kerns the editor was at the Pet Food Forum and has interesting comments. I’m just glancing over the articles, haven’t read them in entirity just thought I’d mention it here.

Comment by VJ — May 23, 2007 @ 11:17 am
VJ

I checked out The Whole Dog Journal and thanks for the reference. Think I will order it - some of the articles looked very good.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Thanks so much for writing this; I agree completely. I also really dislike the name of the bill, because it implies that every dog and cat will be healthier if spayed/neutered. This is not always the case, especially in dogs. And the bill requires altering by four months of age, which I think is the worst part of this. I am not a fan of pediatric spay/neuters unless absolutely necessary.

There are long-term health risks to spay/neuter, especially when it’s done at an early age. So calling this the “Healthy Pets Act” doesn’t make any sense to me.

For more details, this is an excellent, balanced paper about the long-term health effects of spay/neuter in dogs:

http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs.....InDogs.pdf

Comment by Janine — May 23, 2007 @ 11:41 am
Oh, the naming of bills is a truly evil art. Many of us remember the so called “Puppy Protection Act” which would have actually effectively put all breeding of dogs into the hands of the commercial breeders. But try to explain that to someone who doesn’t understand the issues when you tell them that you’re a dog lover but that you’re opposing the Puppy Protection Act.

“What???? You don’t want to protect PUPPIES???!!!”

Yup. The naming of bills is a truly evil art form . . . . . . .

Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 23, 2007 @ 11:54 am
RE Comment by Priscilla Patterson — May 23, 2007 @ 7:20 am

Bravo, Priscilla! Your hit it right on the head: “…the State just seeks to reduce it’s obligation to pay for services the people pay for already.”

Like you, I spent a good amount of time [gratis] back in the 70’s in the LA County Animal Shelters, designing a volunteer program to ensure the welfare of homeless animals. It was an overwhelming education for me. In addition to the lack of spaying and neutering, the problem in southern CA is the backyard breeders [and now the Mexicans selling sick purebred dogs].

I am all for the RESPONSIBLE, REPUTABLE breeder that isn’t a puppy mill and who breeds VERY selectively.

There are far too many backyard breeders. I’d much prefer to see a bill that really addresses them and provides [this is key] immediate enforcement by a separate state agency that is 100% dedicated to this task.

Comment by Lynn — May 23, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
Gina—appreciate your thoughts and the education. I’m somewhat swayed but not 100% sure I agree with all your points. I used to live in LA and there are LOTS of abandoned animals. A lot will have to do with how this law is enforced—it could put teeth into attempts to stop backyard breeders and the irresponsible. Or, as you say—it could punish the responsible and fail to stop the irresponsible.

The adoption situation might be different for cats and dogs. Cats are so fertile and people less likely to spay them, so lots and lots of little mutt kitties are abandoned or turned into the pound every day; plus people are more likely to pay money for a dog of a certain breed.

I’ll also say that part of the problem does rest with SOME breeders of pedigree cats and dogs—and with the show clubs that reward them with prizes for how the animal “looks”. I refer to the tendency to breed and breed an animal strictly for show rather than for physical and mental health and adaptability to being a pet or working animal. Note how many more physical and behavioral problems have shown up in Siamese cats; Persian cats; German shepherds; pugs; cocker spaniels; and other breeds.

A certain look catches on in the show world, and breeders try to meet the demand by inbreeding. Cats and dogs that don’t meet the artificial standard are “culled” (abandoned at the shelter or killed). But the inbreeding means unhealthy traits can get reinforced, so you wind up with inherited problems throughout a breed: hip dysplasia, breathing problems, overly aggressive or sensitive temperaments, etc.

Sadly, the tendency of people to acquire pets on a “fad” basis can’t be stopped, and there will always be breeders (backyard or otherwise) willing to cut corners to meet that demand.

But IMHO the “show” clubs and associations could help curb breed problems by taking a much more aggressive stance on inbreeding, and by not valuing appearance over behavior and temperament. More forethought should go into how severely the appearance of a breed should be tweaked, relative to factors such as its temperament and ability to perform breed tasks (hunting, herding, etc.) That might go a long way towards reducing the number of abandoned pets (breed and non-breed).

If a “look” is practically a deformity (like a severely pushed-in nose, or a certain peculiar way of walking) then how many “imperfect specimens” will be bred and discarded in an attempt to achieve that look? But as it is, such breeders can be rewarded with prizes for “best of breed” and “best of show”.

I hope I have not offended anyone with this post. I love my Heinz-57 kitty and my bad-tempered “less than perfect” breed cat! But I think a pet is more than its “points”.

Comment by Lola — May 23, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
It is heartbreaking bringing puppies in from across the border from Mexico and being sold for thousands of dollars - latest designer mutts:

http://tinyurl.com/2x9ljf

My solution is to make selling puppies illegal without a permit - and then most of the profits going to animal protection and shelters of mixed breeds.

But allowing pure bred breeders to breed at least two litters a year and no more with a permit and able to keep enough money to cover costs of vet etc.

And not allowing back yard breeders at all. And if there is an accident, then develop some rules to cover the pups being sold and money used to stop animal abuse and the bitches spayed.

I would also think that importing dogs and puppies across the State Lines is allowed, individual ones - not groups, but the right will cost - $250 a pup or more.

No puppies should be sold at flea markets. All ads placed in the paper must first obtain a permit.

But I don’t believe every dog should be neutered as the solution. I haven’t worked out all the details yet, but I certainly don’t like people who buy from out-of-state puppy mills either - maybe that should just be prohibited and also pet shop sale of cats and dogs. Sorry pet shop owners - but I don’t like trafficing in pets.

But I bought my Snoopy (the Red Dobie) from woman who cared about her pups and dog and gave me lots of information on raising him, and I was very impressed. She also showed her dogs.

Well that’s my view on it. I’ve never neutered my males before one year old. I just don’t like the idea of it. But my femals were neutered before their first heat. None of my dogs has ever been aggressive towards a person or caused me any problem - it’s all been hard work - and that’s a joy.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
PS. Also the State can set the price of puppies, so that dogs will only bring so much money and then also set the fees for selling puppies, even purebreds, so that the profit motive all but disappears. But with purebreds, the breeders cost of breeding, vet bills etc. and difficult births will also need to be considered.

Also, fine heavily any person selling sick puppies or diseased puppies with Parvo etc. Maybe it should be a crime - even a felony.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
I have been wondering IF and When Rep Lloyd Levine and AB #1634 would be addressed here.
My Breed Club is working hard alongside so many others and the AKC to defeat AB $1634. I am afraid, very afraid, that if it passes, it means that The Fancy will become a thing of the past, as will dog ownership in America. So often, what happens in CA is taken up and enacted in other states. I see it as a death knell to dog ownership, which is what I am sure the AR groups who have fed Mr. Levine their propaganda want to happen.
As has been ably and effectively pointed out by Gina, AB #1634 does not address the real issues as to why dogs are relinquished to shelters or allowed to roam the streets. It’s the human part of the equation that needs addressing. Being someone who clicker trains and subscribes to operant conditioning, I would rather see a bill that rewards the conscientious dog owner/ responsible breeder. Taking something like the AKC’s CGC program with renewals required every few years, along with voluntary speuter seems to me more rewarding for most of us who scoop the poop in the dog park. For the responsible breeder, AKC,UKC,FCI,USDAA, NADAC etcetera titles in Performance and/or Companion Events should carry weight and be used to reduce the fee.I would suggest applying all certificates against whatever fee the municipality charges, thus reducing it 75% or more. Why? because that would reward responsible ownership, and would help people discover the fun, emotional thrill and intellectual challenge of doing something with their dog other than lie there and watch tv together.
As I understand it, the clause for Performance and Companion title waivers for breeders runs out in 2009. This would also mean the death of all pet related industries. Long Beach would no longer be on rotation to hold the AKC?Eukanuba Nationals. Businesses like Solid Gold would pack up and move or close their doors. grooming shops, training centers like Sirius Dog would go out of business. The ramifications of AB #1634 are enormous and so very frigthening.

Comment by Deb — May 23, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
Interesting theory on “responsible” breeders. Is there ANY breed of dog or cat that was not either originally feral or of mixed pedigree?

You would be hard pressed to find a so called responsible breeder who has not contributed to preserving horrible genetic defects in any given breed. The worst part is that these defects preserved through inbreeding tend to be released into the general animal populations. Take Persians and PKD for example. Years of “responsible” breading has insured a truly deadly genetic disease was preserved and spread throughout the cat world.

In the mean time, if the shelters are being accused of cherry picking, what would you call what the “responsible breeders” are doing as far as perspective owners are concerned. Aren’t we talking about taking the best pet parents out of circulation that might otherwise be able to give a shelter animal a happy, forever home? I have yet to see a “responsible breeder” who does not sell “pet quality” animals. If by their own admission they are selling animals that are only good for pets, then they are doing exactly what they are slamming every other pet owner for doing.

I’m sure I’m going to lose some friends on this one, but the pure snobbery of “responsible breeders” absolutely floors me. California is a strange place, but every once in awhile they get it right. If a rule applies to some, it should apply to all.

It would be interesting to see some numbers on how many pet quality babies are pumped out every year by “responsible breeders”. Of course, everyone else who does it is a puppy mill, which is somehow different from when they pump out a litter for which they have to find homes because they themselves DO NOT WANT THE ANIMALS THEY PRODUCED.

Comment by Don — May 23, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
Just move to the right coast..

Comment by BEE — May 23, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
Well I don’t see anything wrong with lying with a dog and watching TV with them and all dogs do not have to compete. My Moses never competed but he is a trained S&R dog and I have used him to search for people. But he has not been shown even though he is a purebred. Also, my Dobies are a complete joy and I don’t compete with them. Family dog’s are fine. Show dogs and competition dogs are fine. Purse dogs are fine. Just love and take care of them, see to their needs, get good vet care - all is fine to my way of thinking. Not every dog is suited for competition.

Senseless overbreeding is morally wrong. But I do not want the State telling me or forcing me to neuter my dog(s).

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
“I refer to the tendency to breed and breed an animal strictly for show rather than for physical and mental health and adaptability to being a pet or working animal.”
Comment by Lola — May 23, 2007 @ 12:45 pm

If any pet is bred for _________ (you say “show”, I say “insert any descriptor”) without careful regard for physical and mental health and the ability to function as a valuable member of society - THAT is bad breeding. That is exactly the type of breeding which will continue under AB1634 - breeders who breed only for PROFIT without careful regard for anything else. Of all the people I’ve met over the years who breed and show their dogs, I’ve never met one who falls into that terrible category. Sadly, if this bill passes, “bad breeders” will be the only remaining source of puppies in CA.

Comment by slt — May 23, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
“…the pure snobbery of “responsible breeders” absolutely floors me.”
Comment by Don — May 23, 2007 @ 1:59 pm

IMO it’s a legitimate term and no different than say, “responsible pet owners”, “responsible parents” or “responsible members of the community” - no snobbery about it. It’s a way to distinguish between those who accept responsibility for their actions and those who don’t. Breeding is like anything else - it can (and should) be done responsibly, with careful thought, necessary personal sacrifices, blood, sweat & tears. Dismissing people out of hand without making an effort to truly understand the situation may be seen as snobbery by some. Please post your questions for the responsible breeders on this board so that we can have an opportunity to address your concerns before you dismiss us outright.

Comment by slt — May 23, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
My sister got her little Irish Sealingham (?) dog at the pound, set to be killed, because he was not show quality - finally she took him and agreed not to bred him - the breeder just did not want to be bothered.

She also bought her Schnauzer from a breeder a state away, and I begged her not to fly her boy in but to pick him up, but she had him put on a plane with a certificate of health from a vet, and I told her to take the pup to the vet immediately and she didn’t. Her dog almost died from a ruptured ear drum and ear infection and should have never been put on the plane. I bet the vet never looked at this dog. This was from a woman who raised and showed her dogs. There are all kinds in this world and show dog breeders are no better and no worse.

But I do like having distinct breeds and I believe it is a plus to have them - and yes I have my favorites too. But just breeding and breeding for the perfect dog makes no sense to me either.

When I bought my Solomon, the woman brought him down to me from Oregon. He had chiardia and also something else I don’t know the name of that caused his stomach to swell and very loose stools. I thought my sweet little Dobie was going to die. I spent much on my pup and worried and fretted.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
All I can say to you Don, or anyone else who thinks this is such a great idea, is good luck finding a dog anywhere for a pet/companion/trial body/couch buddy in say 10 years. If AB #1634 wins in CA, then expect other states to follow.
I personally enjoy Companion events with my dogs. I have two majorly titled in AG, one titled in Performance and lure coursing. I have 3 already titled with AKC’s Canine Good Citizen, and hope to do two more this summer. The last is absolved due to the issues she suffered before I adopted her. I don’t breed, and I don’t want a shelter, mixed ancestry dog. I adore my breed and it’s intelligence and versatility. I have 3 breed rescues ( 2 from bybs and one from a collector), support my breed rescue with donations and transport ( I don’t have the room to foster),have CHICed ( bet you don’t know what that is) my two intact males which are co-owned by responsible breeders who produce litters maybe as frequently as every two years. They work hard to place their puppies in forever homes, even to the point of including clauses requiring the dog’s return in the breeding contract if circumstance requires it.
I am not going to debate whether a shelter dog is more sound than a purebred, since the same inherited disease(s) can occur in any dog regardless of ancestry or pedigree. I believe that they exist in the dog genome, which has probably undergone many a genetic bottleneck in it’s long history living with humans.
I also believe responsible dog ownership should be rewarded, not punished. AB #1634 is punative. It punishes a person like me. I consider myself a responsible, caring dog owner. I am fairly knowledgable about dogs in general, about my breed, and about basic training issues. Under AB #1934, I would be penalized. If you can’t see it, I am sorry. I really have no idea how to open your eyes so you can see that it affects us all adversly.
Instead, you dismiss me and my ilk as being snobs of some sort, when we all share a common ground, dogs. I find that sad.

Comment by Deb — May 23, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Comment by Don — May 23, 2007 @ 1:59 pm

“Interesting theory on “responsible” breeders. Is there ANY breed of dog or cat that was not either originally feral or of mixed pedigree?”

It’s called “selective breeding”. The only other alternative is “random breeding”. People who think they oppose selective breeding have to ask themselves honestly and realistically whether they would really and truly prefer to replace it with random breeding (and all its attendant ramifications.

“I have yet to see a ‘responsible breeder’ who does not sell “pet quality” animals. If by their own admission they are selling animals that are only good for pets, then they are doing exactly what they are slamming every other pet owner for doing.”

Sometimes I think I should make a bumper sticker that reads “Genetic Variability Happens”.

Of course, no one would get it.

But dogs produce litters. And each member of that litter inherits his or her own little packet of genetic characteristics from the two parents. No two members of litter inherit identically (unless they happen to be identical twins). Therefore, a breeder will virtually ALWAYS produce puppies that do not come close enough to the Breed Standard to warrant being shown and bred.

The breeder’s objective is to produce AT LEAST ONE individual out of a litter that represents an improvement over the preceding generations. That individual is shown and - if quality warrants it - bred to produce the next generation. The rest are placed with care into the best homes the breeder can find because a Responsible Breeder CARES about every life he or she has produced - show quality or not.

If a breeder gets more than one animal in a litter that is of the quality to warrant being shown and bred, that is a bonus. And anyone who expects a breeder to be producing ALL show-quality puppies out of a litter simply does not understand statistical or genetic variability (they’re both essentially the same thing).

Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 23, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Well, take the profit motive out of breeding dogs and I believe some problems will be resolved. We’d still have our purebreds, people wouldn’t be forced to neuter at four months, unless they wanted to, and we’d have less unwanted pets.

Leave good breeders of pure breds to bred their dogs, and the chance breedings of mutts would more than supply the need and desire for non-breed specific lovers.

The senseless overbreeding of pits in our area is tragic for all of us and needs to stop as with the senseless overbreeding of all dogs that end up dying in pounds or abandoned on the streets. My heart breaks for those dogs. The real issue is the poor pets that go unwanted it is not the rights of breeders (but I do care about those too and want purebreds.)

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 3:05 pm
comment by Linda May 23, 2007 11:35am
There’s reference to Christie an article within the main article Now We’re Cooking and in ref to Christie Home-Prepared Diet Builds Strong Puppies.
There’s extensive information on how to measure
nutritional requirements, meats, etc. There’s also another article called Recall Redux, what’s a dog parent to do. I quite buying the Journal for a few years but with this recall, subscribed again.

Comment by VJ — May 23, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Thanks VJ. I’m going to order it tomorrow. It looked like it had some good info in it. Also, even though I own several books on Holistic Health care, and I do take my pets to the vets, I can always use other good sources.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
True Story - for the love of pups:

I took Snoopy, my large Red Dobie, to the vets for blood work, his urine was too dark, and while sitting in the waiting room, this boy, of about 8 or 9 years old, sat near us and was crying. He looked at me and said his dogs needed to be put to sleep. He said they had found the female and her pups and they were all sick, one puppy might make it. He said, they were crossing the road, and we stopped to rescue them. I stopped traffic and wouldn’t let the cars hit them. We took all home. The mother dog slept with me, he said. And I told her to wake me up for school, and she did, right at 7:00 o’clock.

But now the vet said they were too sick and needed to be put to sleep. And they’ve only been with us for three days and now they will die.

I introduced him to Snoopy and told him that Snoopy wanted a hug. The little boy hugged Snoopy and cried. Then I told him the story of how Snoopy got his name. The child laughed through red eyes and hugged my dog.

What impressed me so was the depth of the child’s connection and love for those stray dogs. He realized the weight of the tragedy and his tears were true tears of a child that has a tender heart, of a child that appreciates and loves animals. A child whose heart was not jaded who had not yet accepted the necessity that some animals will die through no fault of their own.

I wished we all had his heart and would fight to create laws that would help stop the mistreatment and abandonment of our pets. There must be a way to do this, maybe there will still be strays, but a civilized society should be able to create something fair not only to breeders but also for the sake of our pets.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
I had worked with rescue in Central California. I will tell you right now, its NOT the responsible breeders who are the problem, if anything, they are trying to help purebred rescue all over the country, when there is the need. The so call “puppy and kitten mills”, these are types of people who DO NOT follow the laws in any way, shape or form, yet almost 50% or more of the animals coming into rescue are from these people. Time and again these people have stayed below the radar screen, dumped massive quantities of animals at the local shelters(I have seen almost 100 cats/kittens in one situation a group I worked with did work with the local animal control) and the responsible breeders have come forward to help out when there is dire need. Responsible breeders do not have these kind of numbers, and never will. Their main goal is the health and welfare of the animals under their care.

Admittedly, there is no easy solution, as people who are known not to obey the law, will find ways around the law. This is true in any kind of disipline. But there has to be a better solution than this bill, one that will work with responsible parties, and help to get the stray population numbers down, and at the same time deal with these law breakers properly.

Comment by ew — May 23, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
Comment by Don — May 23, 2007 @ 1:59 pm

About the breeding and genetic perpetuation. Here’s the thing, Don: many responsible breeders have spent considerable amounts of money having DNA samples analyzed so that they could weed out the inherited defects and subsequently spay or neuter the purebred, eliminating inheritance from the line. And this was 8-9 years ago when they were only beginning to gather breed DNA information, so you know the testing was costly. Now THAT is responsible.

“…the pure snobbery of “responsible breeders” absolutely floors me.”

A word on snobbish breeders: One of the most caring and giving women I’ve ever met happens to be a life-long breeder. One litter MAYBE every two years. She’s licensed, she shows her dogs and wins, and she has an interest list a mile long, which requires a deposit of a very considerable size. She holds the money, interest free, for several years. During that time she checks out the home environment and the people themselves. She’s a regular Army sargent when it comes to inspecting potential adoptive owners. She’s also highly intuitive and can sniff someone out in a hurry if they strike her as not providing a good, loving home. Once she’s gone through this process many times and has ascertained that she has several A-1 adoptive homes, she might breed her dog. She also rescues her breed from surrounding shelters and finds homes for them. The truth is she doesn’t need the money at all. Snobbish - not by a long shot. And she’s not one of a kind, either.

Solid, responsible breeders are very protective of theirs. And if that’s what you call snobbery, well God bless them for being that way.

Comment by Lynn — May 23, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
If stopping AB 1634 from passing helps reduce the numbers of bad genetics in pure breds, then I’m all for it. My first lab, now almost 14, was diagnosed with moderate to severe hip dysplasia at only one year old, even after the backyard, irresponsible breeders assured me his parent’s hips were fine. I know better now. Oh how I have learned. Watching the pain and suffering my Scout has had to endure ensured I better educated myself about my breed and supporting responsible breeders. My youngest, now 14 mths old today, has nice tight gorgeous hips. He can run, jump & almost fly as if he were part kangaroo. He (Luca) perfectly exemplifies what knowledgeable breeding can and does provide. His life will be completely different than my older dog. Luca will be able to better enjoy & experience the zest for life that labs innately have without nearly as much physical pain. I now know how to find responsible, respected breeders. I now know to ask to see their hip and eye clearance paperwork - all of which responsible breeders have at the ready and even encourage you to ask and know. I now know the joy of seeing a dog experience life to the fullest without fear of pain or unnecessary injury from trying to do more than his body can handle.

If AB 1634 passes, much of what has been bred out as bad traits and genetics will resurface and directly impact the quality of life of remaining breeds. I won’t even go into what permanent damage spaying and neutering a 4 month old dog can and will cause.

For those of you who do not fully understand what many of us are fighting for, please take time to educate yourself. I agree something needs to be done to help lessen the numbers in our animal shelters. I don’t pretend to have all the answers at this time, but I do know AB 1634 is NOT the answer.

Comment by Ally — May 23, 2007 @ 5:56 pm
Does anyone have an opinion on “Designer Dogs”?

Comment by elliott — May 23, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Hello again All,

I do believe this matter is not black and white! There are all sorts of gray areas here.

I have read the Bill again and don’t see that it is forbidden for anyone to breed specific breeds, provided they obtain the correct permits and documentation and are subject to the Law. What is wrong with that? If you have nothing to hide why this kneejerk response, ie; it’s ALL or NOTHING! The AKC is pulling out? The dog and cat shows will not come to Long Beach? They don’t have to worry if they follow the law. The AKC certainly has enough rules and regulations, do they have a monopoly on the law? And yes, some of the breeders writing here do seem a tad superior, IMHO.

This kind of rhetoric causes deep divides when it doesn’t need to. Surely no one thinks this Bill will have 100% compliance within a year or even 10 years? There aren’t enough Officials in the country to implement total compliance.

What I would hope this does is give “teeth” to the Animal Control Officials to immediately stop indiscriminate breeding. There will always be rescues, both for pure breeds and mixed breeds. This problem didn’t happen in a year and it will take more than a year to fix it.

But fix it we must, as a compassionate, empathetic species, we have a responsibility to care for these animals that we have domesticated and not cause unneeded pain and trauma simply because some human decided it hurts the animals to spay them before they have a litter, or they want the children to see “the miracle of birth”, or they seem to react as if the male dog owner be neutered also!!!!!! I have my own opinion on the “manliness” of these macho men!

I can’t believe that many still think there are no health benefits to early spaying and neutering. Giving birth itself is risky! What about Pyometria, a massive infection of the uterus, ususally deadly if not caught right away. Of all the pets I know that have been spayed and neutered young, none got reproductive system cancers!

Let me tell you of a recent personal experience in another northerly state. A friend has a GSD, purebred, intact. He also has 2 female cats, one male,(10 mos and becoming a big boy!) all intact. They have been once to a Vet for shots. I wanted to get them all fixed, shots etc while I was there. I couldn’t find a low cost spay/neuter clinic or even subsidised shots! It was going to cost $600.00 for the GSD for spay and all shots. For each of the female cats spay and shots and tests for FELV and FIP it would have been $450.00 each! For the male, slightly less, $375.00. That’s $1,875.00, a lot of money for many of us. These pets were all rescues, abandoned, mistreated. My point is that hand-in-hand with these new regs will come low cost spay/neuter and vaccination clinics. The market will respond,l it always has, it’s basic business. Most shelters, in So. California anyway, have low cost options or organizations they work with to reduce costs. I worked with several orgs with my Feral Cat Colony which have all now been spayed/neutered and initial shots. At one time I had 17 kittens in “kitty Condos” in my garage and found them all homes, even Emma, the one eyed kitty whose adoptive human Mom also had a glass eye! I waited 3 long years to trap Momma Cat, she was just too smart to get in those cages!!!! I even had my nephew in a tree with a net, risking life and limb to catch her before she had another litter. All my adults that could not be tamed lived to relatively good ages considering the host of problems they faced. I provided food and water and treats and my cat and dog were my best ambassadors and protectors of “their” kitties, sharing their food and water and couches and bathrooms with a steady stream of wee kittens, baths at 3am were common, hair dryers humming, flea combs combing, we had an assembly line going some nights. Being awakened at 5am by the sounds of little ping pong balls bouncing off the bathroom walls.I still bear the scars but they are badges of honour for me because I tried to make a difference and I did! And I am by no means the only one who does this, I personally know dozens who do hands on rescue. Many more populate this country and still it is not enough! Spaying and neutering works, it’s the only tool we have to help stop the carnage, the waste, the trail of tears. TNR is not the best solution, but it’s more humane than the alternative. This Bill may not be the best solution but it’s more humane than the alternative!

And to quote Mrs. Slocombe of “Are You Being Served”,

“I am unanimous in this”

Thank you for allowing me this forum to discuss this very important overpopulation problem.

Comment by Priscilla Patterson — May 23, 2007 @ 6:16 pm
Comment by Priscilla Patterson — May 23, 2007 @ 6:16 pm

“I have read the Bill again and don’t see that it is forbidden for anyone to breed specific breeds, provided they obtain the correct permits……”

In my opinion NO ONE but a responsible, educated, experienced, professional, and highly selective breeder should be allowed to breed an animal. Period.

The overwhelming majority of people who breed purebreds or otherwise are clueless and contribute significantly to the overpopulation of animals.

Comment by Lynn — May 23, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
Anyone who is “seriously” considering becoming a breeder should join a group of volunteers at their local animal. I would love for them to see the number of animals, including purebreds, that are destroyed. If you care anything about animals, it will be a shattering experience for you, I promise.

If I’ve offended anyone, well, so be it. This business of overpopulation is deadly serious and frivolous bills such as this one are a waste of resources.

Comment by Lynn — May 23, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
I may want to show my Dobie and right now it is just too early to tell and he is not neutered and I don’t wish to do it - he is five months old and licensed. It will take some time for me to tell - and I see no reason for the government to impose a rule on me that is unfair and believe me I want a solution to over breeding.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 6:41 pm
Okay, now that everyone has had a chance to blow off steam, humor me for a minute by opening up the pets section of your local classified ads. Take a pencil and paper so you can keep track of your results, and make two columns. In column one, make a mark for every unwanted animal advertised as being part of a breeding program. In column two, make a mark for every animal that would appear to be the result of accidental breeding.

Add up your results.

Now, tell me who produces the most unwanted pets.

Now try another experiment. Go to this site: http://www.petfinder.com and enter any breed you can think of running the search on a nation wide basis. At this point I have one question for you: Are any of these animals in such short supply that it is necessary for anyone to produce another litter to meet supply demands for those who want animals of that particular breed?

And, as a last experiment, go to some site that lists the characteristics of what would make an example of that particular breed good or bad. Answer the question: Why would anyone who is not hopelessly anal retentive give a rip if their pet did not meet such inane standards?

My personal favorite along those lines are the so called Maine Coon Cats. Do you know what a Maine Coon Cat is? It is a long haired alley cat that most likely resulted from crossing a Norweigean Forest cat with a sack of sawdust. So, the next time some snob asks you if your long haired alley cat is a Maine Coon, turn up your nose and tell them your cat is foundation stock for the Maine Coon breed, then walk away before your straight face starts to fall apart.

Comment by Don — May 23, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
Oh Don, you are a gem. Thank you for your down to earth approach. I appreciate it.

Comment by Priscilla Patterson — May 23, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
I reread the bill, and I still think it is unfair. The approved breed language is a problem, what about the McNab and the Cathoula? And trying to get a permit if one is not a large breeding outfit will be nearly impossible.

This is not the solution. I do believe that a pure-bred breeder should not breed more than two litters a year and maybe even every two years unless, you are talking about show blue ribbon lines. And the solution is to stop making it so profitable, but no sense repeating myself.

I don’t know about snobs…snobbery is not the issue and it seems silly to debate it. Gads!

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
Actually, Don, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Those people in the classifieds are NOT reputable breeders. Those are backyard breeders and small-scale puppy mills. They don’t breed for anything except sales. They rarely test for genetic problems, and they usually aren’t competing with their dogs.

They are EXACTLY the kind of breeders who will slip under the radar with AB 1634. Because they’re doing so, now, in some cases making thousands in tax-free profit on puppy sales.

All reputable breed clubs have codes of ethics, most of which in fact do not allow members to sell dogs to just anyone through the classifieds. I have to sign such a code every year to send in with my membership check to my national breed club. And I don’t even breed.

All breeders are not the same. Educate yourself as to the differences.

Here’s a pretty good rundown on the differences.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 23, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
Don, I dare you to spend 8 hours at an animal shelter in southern CA.

Comment by Lynn — May 23, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
I have called those ads in the classifieds and spoke to a woman that was wantonly breeding Great Danes. She said that she wanted to fill the ads with her dogs and fill the shelters and the streets with just her Great Danes. I thought she must be insane.

And I called on a Dobie of a woman in Stockton area that had show dogs and three litters she was selling and I know what she was doing, trying to fudge the dogs from the inferior dames off as prize and valuable dogs. Terrible injustice to the animals and people too. DNA testing on purebreds to insure their parents is quite big I understand.

But what if my Dobie is a champ and I want to use him to improve the lines and I have him tested and he comes out fine and healthy - why not? How can I possibly know anything at 5 months old.

And my Walker Coooonhound that is a trained S&R dog, I kept him unaltered for three years. I have had no problem and have no unwanted litters. But there are many people just pumping out pits or even goldens and labs for a quick buck and the poor females are worn out from over breeding and still these people keep doing it - shameful. That is what I’d like to see stopped.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 7:06 pm
CLASSIFIEDS? THAT is where you think you find good breeders? No wonder you’re confused.

Comment by Christie Keith — May 23, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
I wrote this a year or two ago.

Why I Breed Dogs

Comment by Christie Keith — May 23, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
Not all dogs in the Classifieds are bad dogs or from bad breeders and not all dogs from “web sites” with fancy artwork and champion titles in their names are “good” dogs.

Show dogs can give birth of ill-tempered dogs and some mutts can be great dogs and friends.

My Snoopy was from Champion lines but even so being from a Champion line does not make a dog a good family dog.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
Hi Linda,

Under this Bill your Serach & Rescue Coonhound would be exempt. Please see the following provision in the Bill.

(4) The owner provides proof to the local jurisdiction or its
authorized local animal control agency that the dog is being trained,
or is documented as having been appropriately trained, and actively
used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement or rescue
activities

Comment by Priscilla Patterson — May 23, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
You know, now that I think of it, I’ve never met a breeder who made a profit except a backyard breeder.

Comment by Lynn — May 23, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
It’s not about the DOGS being bad or good BREEDERS, it’s about the BREEDERS being bad or good BREEDERS.

There are good dogs in puppy mills. That’s not the point.

Comment by Christie Keith — May 23, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
I have been a pure-bred dog breeder for 30 years. I recently spent$888 to get three dogs health clearences, hips, elbows and patellas. They have also been DNA’d, $85 each, and eye exams, $25 each yearly. I have yet to produce one puppy from them. I show in conformation and obedience. My young son will show in junior showmanship. I breed my dogs in the hope of producing a better dog, in looks, health and temperament. I am not snobby but I am careful about who can buy a puppy from me. Purposeful breeding of any animal whether a dog, cat, horse, cow or human(think sperm banks)is always guess work. Inbreeding, linebreeding and outcrossing all have their purpose and have been used for centuries. Inbreeding itself does not cause genetic defects, bad genes do. A dysplastic lab bred to a dysplastic shepard will produce dysplastic puppies and this breeding would be considered an outcross. What is important is the knowledge and experience of the breeder and how well they know their breed. And you are forgeting that I live with the same dogs that I sell to families. If I produce a health issue, I have the littermate with the same issue!!! I, too, pay for genetic defects so I breed to avoid them. Part of producing “show dogs” is also producing healthy, sound and correct dogs. The dog show judges also check temperament and character during examination. A dog with an unsound temperament certainly wont let a stranger touch his teeth and testicles! Anyone who thinks a dog show is just about looks is sadly mistaken. Everytime I enter a show, I get a knowledgable judges opinion and a peer review from other breeders. They all keep me in check. This bill will hurt me and hurt my son who only wants to show his dog in juniors, the ultimate team sport.

Comment by Arleen — May 23, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
I believe Don was making a point that there are so many purebred dogs available pretty much anywhere. They may not all be puppies but there are many “teenage” dogs and cats surrendered to shelters and rescues that are still eminently trainable or in the case of kitties, amenable to genteel suggestions!

Comment by Priscilla Patterson — May 23, 2007 @ 7:17 pm
Good dogs in puppy mills??? I can’t believe you said that Christie. They are called by such a derogatory name for a reason. And yes. some may be healthy but that is not the point. I would hardly call a “puppy MIll” breeder a responsible breeder.

Comment by Priscilla Patterson — May 23, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
Comment by Priscilla Patterson — May 23, 2007 @ 7:19 pm

Correct me if I am wrong, Christie, but I think your comment re good and bad could be interpretted as such:

~ There are good and bad CATS/DOGS, regardless of what kind of human breeder bred them.

~ There are good and bad [responsible, irresponsible] human breeders.

~ It’s possible that a bad [irresponsible] breeder can turn out a good dog. But invariably an irresponsible breeder [bad breeder] will almost never follow up on the aftermath, which invariably ends up in a denigration of the breed.

Comment by Lynn — May 23, 2007 @ 7:34 pm
To Obtain a Permit:

(It doesn’t seem that restrictive to me that it should cause such a negative reaction in responsible breeders)

1) The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or her
business license and federal and state tax number, or by other
proof, as requested required by the local jurisdiction or its
authorized local animal control agency, that he or she is doing
business and is licensed as a breeder at a location for which the
local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency has
issued a breeder license.
(2) The owner sufficiently demonstrates, as determined in the
discretion of the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal
control agency, all that his or her cat or dog is a valid breed that
is recognized by an approved registry or association, and complies
with at least one of the following:
(A) His or her cat or dog is used to show or compete and has
competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition,
hosted by, or under the approval of, a recognized purebred registry
or association in existence since at least October 1, 2007, within
the last two years, or by whatever proof is requested by the
authorized local animal control agency that the cat or dog is being
trained to show or compete and is too young to have yet competed.
(B) His or her cat or dog is a valid breed that is recognized by
an approved purebred registry or association in existence since at
least October 1, 2007.(This part has been amended, obviously this is still a working copy)
(C)
(B) The cat or dog has earned, or if under two years old, is in
the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting,
herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other title from an
approved purebred registry or association.
(3) The owner provides proof to the local jurisdiction or its
authorized local animal control agency that the dog is being trained
or is documented as having been appropriately trained and meets
the definition of guide dog, service dog, or signal dog, as set forth
in subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of Section 365.5 of the Penal Code.
(4) The owner provides proof to the local jurisdiction or its
authorized local animal control agency that the dog is being trained,
or is documented as having been appropriately trained, and actively
used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement or rescue
activities.
(5) The owner of a cat or dog provides a letter to the local
jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency from a
California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health,
95
AB 1634

Comment by Priscilla Patterson — May 23, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
Priscilla … these “purebred dogs” that are everywhere come from backyard breeders and puppy mills. NOT from reputable breeders.

You might want to go back and READ the posts. Christie — not that she needs ME to speak for her — DID NOT say a puppy mill was a responsible breeder.

She said is was possible for a dog to “rise above his circumstances” and be a well-loved family pet. But none of us are recommending that you buy a dog from a puppy mill. (However, if a puppy mill dumps all the dogs on rescue or shelter … they need help.)

Priscilla, before you post again, I recommend you read and understand the differences in breeding practices and how they contribute to the number of unadoptable pets in this state.

By the very nature of the fact that reputable breeders DO NOT sell to anyone, and will take back a dog at anytime, they are not contributing to the shelter situation.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 23, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
“…as determined in the discretion of the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal
control agency …”

Excuse me? You want to target people who are not the problem based on the undefined “discretion” of the government in each municipality?

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 23, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
Good dogs in puppy mills??? I can’t believe you said that Christie.

But it’s true. There are many dogs in puppy mills who are sweet, loyal, tail wagging dogs who could be someone’s beloved companion.

That has nothing to do with my point. It’s not about the DOGS. It’s about the system of abuse, torture, and filth you are supporting with your money when you buy a pet store puppy or order “off the internet” from a “dog farm.”

If you don’t get your dog from a rescue or from a truly good, responsible caring breeder, you are supporting a system that harms dogs. The individual dog you obtain from a backyard breeder, a “commercial” breeder, a guy selling puppies out of a box at the flea market may be a very wonderful dog.

But you’ll still be supporting a system that hurts dogs.

People love their dogs, no matter where they get them. Telling them their dog is not lovable is number one, not true, and number two, makes them think we’re just snobs.

It has nothing to do with snobbery. It has everything to do with ethics, and with refusing to give your money to people who systematically profit from and harm dogs.

Comment by Christie Keith — May 23, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
There are good dogs from puppy mills - good temperment etc., but the breeders may not care - it is all just the bucks.

What I said was not that the dogs are good breeders, but that the dogs may be good dogs and from Breeders (people) that are not show dog crowd or as informed as one would like and still their puppies may be just fine.

I have hunted web sites and pure-bred clubs for my dogs and in many places. I learned much by talking to people and even so, mistakes can be made. Like hyper active pups that are virtually impossible to train or too docile pups that use “stand still” approach as if to disapper are not good either. And even so, some of it just comes down to “luck” of picking the right pup and it’s not so easy to tell no matter what the books say.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
Gina,
I find your tone and words offensive. Just because I disagree with you should not merit a scolding. And I do understand the difference between a responsible and backyard breeder. My interpretation of the Bill may not agree with yours but it doesn’t seem like a declaration of war on breeders.

My point with Christies’ comment was that puppy mills are horrible places and, in my opinion, should not exist in their present form.

If you would prefer that I not post my opinion, then tell me that and I will comply. After all, it is your site.

Thank you.

Comment by Priscilla Patterson — May 23, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
I don’t see anything wrong with a family who has great dogs breeding them once or twice and selling them in the classifieds. I see something wrong with supporting people who sell puppies after puppies and still again - now that is wrong.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
Priscilla, you wrote: “I believe Don was making a point that there are so many purebred dogs available pretty much anywhere. They may not all be puppies but there are many “teenage” dogs and cats surrendered to shelters and rescues that are still eminently trainable or in the case of kitties, amenable to genteel suggestions!”

If you think those purebred dogs that are “available pretty much everywhere” came from reputable breeders, then you truly do not understand what a reputable breeder is, no matter your “interpretation” of this bill.

Further … what I have been saying here is that this is a broad-spectrum solution to a complex and multifaceted problem.

Kinda like using Roundup on your whole yard when you really need to pull a few bad (and rapidly spreading) weeds. You’re going to take out everything — but the weeds will come back.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 23, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
I bought my S&R dog, that I trained from a pup, from a hunter. The dog didn’t like gun shots and still doesn’t. The hunter didn’t want him and couldn’t sell him as a hunting dog - but he is just the best dog and has a nose on him that won’t stop. I did nothing wrong by buying my dog from this hunter. Maybe I could have gotten one from an approved person with signed forms etc., but really, that does seem a bit much. Sorry, it just does.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
I don’t see anything wrong with a family who has great dogs breeding them once or twice and selling them in the classifieds.

Who said there was?

The problem is that what one person may consider a “great dog” may in fact be harboring a number of problems that a knowledgeable breeder could identify before the breeding, based on our knowledge of the pedigrees of the dogs, and of our breed and its history and development.

When a good breeder looks at a pedigree, we know the dogs many generations back (or, if we are new to our breed, our mentor does). We have a good idea what we’ll produce as far as health, temperatment, type, and ability will be, because we know the lines, the dogs, the breed.

A person without that knowledge is just taking a crap shoot that the two dogs won’t, when their genes are brought together, have a higher than normal risk of hip dysplasia or heart disease in their offspring — or worse.

So of course there’s nothing wrong with a family, or individual, who has great dogs breeding them.

The problem is in the definition of a “great dog” when you’re talking about breeding, and whether the person who thinks the dogs are “great dog” knows what they’re talking about.

Comment by Christie Keith — May 23, 2007 @ 7:57 pm
I admit I am able to see more of the “rescuers” views on this issue than I am “breeders” due to my life experience and frames of reference. I have never had a particular breed that I felt like I “had” to have. I have been quite taken by the Chihuahua as my last permanent rescue is a mix of that breed. I am, however, more the type of person whom my animals find me. They pick me out. The ones with the greatest needs are the ones that I am instantly attracted to. That being said, everyone is not like me and that is understandable. Please don’t discredit those who are not in your shoes as being uneducated or ignorant. If you had walked in mine….held as many as I (and many others) have while they suffered and died…..witnessed what shelter life can do to even the healthiest of animals….you would most likely NEVER buy a PB animal from a breeder. I don’t think this bill will be passed, let alone enforced. All animals adopted out through shelters in my area are supposed to be altered within 90 days of adoption if not already done. This is not enforced. The law does not do anyone any good. I have no problem with limiting breeders to a certain number of litters per year, and especially a certain number of litters per bred female. I enjoy watching dog and cat shows and appreciate the want and need of PB animals. In order for this particular bill to have an impact at all, it would have to be enforced for everyone (reputable and backyard breeders alike) and it would have to use all of the licensing fees towards low-cost spay/neuter programs. I can’t see that happening. Breeders can complain about how much proper licensing costs to keep an intact animal, but as someone else mentioned earlier, try getting that same number of animals altered and it adds up as well.

Comment by Amara — May 23, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
My point with Christies’ comment was that puppy mills are horrible places and, in my opinion, should not exist in their present form.

And my point with YOUR comment is that there’s nothing in what I said that suggested otherwise. You’re confounding the mills and the dogs in them. Having known many rescued puppy mill dogs, I am unable to say there are no good dogs there.

They deserve love, care, and a good home as much as the most carefully bred dog ever born.

Comment by Christie Keith — May 23, 2007 @ 7:59 pm
Silly stupid me bought this great Walking Cooonhound and trained it without getting the entire story - so far so good. Guess I’lll just keep crossing my fingers and go watch TV as this debate has no solutions.

But I will add, when I bought my Dobie I knew the breed had lots of problems and did much research to insure I was not buying into defects that would be nothing but a heartbreak. Good night all. I’m so glad there are informed breeders out there looking out for us ill informed ones with tiny brains.

Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
A little off subject, but may be good right now: My family moved from Los Altos, CA to Dublin, CA about a year ago into our “dream home”. While I’m looking at Dublin city’s website to hook up utilities, I read the animal ordinance that say there’s a limit of 2 pets per house! You can imagine my horror when I have four cats…I never thought of looking at the local ordinance for pet limitations! Some dream home, I have to hid my freaking cats! So check your local city ordinances and DON’T MOVE TO DUBLIN, CA!

Comment by Nabiya — May 23, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
“If you think those purebred dogs that are “available pretty much everywhere” came from reputable breeders, then you truly do not understand what a reputable breeder is, no matter your “interpretation” of this bill.”

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 23, 2007 @ 7:54 pm

How do you know? How do you know how many purebred animals (which make up at least 25% of all animals in shelters across the U.S.) come from sources of ill repute? You can’t possibly know. I don’t and I live in the system. I also work with rescue where there are home visits, vet checks, mulitiple interviews……….and the animal ends up getting dumped anyway. However soundly bred the animal, does not ensure where it will end up. They come into shelters with papers from recognizable heritage, just as they come in ragamuffin and slighlty imperfect. People move, people have children, people treat animals like property (usually the more financially well off they are, the more this is true)……people throw away their animals and it doesn’t matter where they came from or how much they paid for them. That is the real issue here. Ack! Time for bed in this time zone.

Comment by Amara — May 23, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
“(usually the more financially well off they are, the more this is true)……people throw away their animals and it doesn’t matter where they came from or how much they paid for them. That is the real issue here. Ack! Time for bed in this time zone.”

Comment by Amara — May 23, 2007 @ 8:13 pm

Amara, I hope you’re in bed so you don’t read this. I am financially well off and treat my cats like gold, and so do all of my wealthy, wealthy friends. In fact, I never even had any children I loved my pets so much. I was a former CEO and CTO, but I’m just a lunatic now so just ignore this.

Comment by Nabiya — May 23, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
I have been there, too. I did breed rescue for three years, pulling, fostering, neutering and placing more than 100 dogs myself in three years.

We are in COMPLETE agreement that the problem is people, not pets.

My point, again, is that the PEOPLE who are causing the problem will no more be affected by this bill then they are by current licensing now.

In any case … that’s enough for me tonight. Anyone who wants try to understand that all breeders are not evil can read the original post and the links and comments that follow. Otherwise, what ever else I say won’t change your opinion.

Related: Over on Terrierman’s Daily Dose, there’s a discussion of how, specifically, to reduce the number pit bulls — which are the top breed in California’s urban shelters, by far. (Again, think targeted solutions to complex problems.)

His take: No on breed bans, but YES to deglamorizing the reality of keeping a large, strong dog, and double YES to pet owner responsibility.

He’s always a good and provacative read, whether you agree with him or not.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 23, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
RE Comment by Linda — May 23, 2007 @ 7:48 pm

“I don’t see anything wrong with a family who has great dogs breeding them once or twice and selling them in the classifieds.”

Do the math, Linda. Any idea how many offspring just ONE breeding session in a lifetime will produce? I’ll help you out. I’ll even use minimal numbers and conditions.

Let’s assume Ms. Fido is only bred once in her lifetime. She has 4 puppies. Of the four, just one of them will breed just ONCE in its lifetime, one will be spayed/neutered [hopefully], and two will end up being killed in the shelter in due time. Assume the same pattern for each subsequent generation. And let’s do this for just a 20 year period. Here’s how it goes:

YEAR Gen- Pups Pups Pup Pups
era- Born S/N Is Killed
tion Bred Shelter

2007 Ms Fido 4 1 1 2
2009 Gen 2 4 1 1 2
2011 Gen 3 4 1 1 2
2013 Gen 4 4 1 1 2
2015 Gen 5 4 1 1 2
2017 Gen 6 4 1 1 2
2019 Gen 7 4 1 1 2
2021 Gen 8 4 1 1 2
2023 Gen 9 4 1 1 2
2025 Gen 10 4 1 1 2
2027 Gen 11 4 1 1 2

Total 44 11 11 22

So in that 20 year period, FROM MS. FIDO, there will be 44 dogs born, 22 killed at the shelter, 11 into good homes [hopefully] and 11 used as breeders once in their lifetimes.

Now let’s put a little reality in the mix. Assume that all conditions are the same EXCEPT that the dog is bred twice in its lifetime. The numbers don’t double, they are permutated, which means the result is staggering. In fact, go to this website and just let it calculate for you:
http://www.sharetheworld.com/mhc-spay.html

Linda, as I suggested to Don: Spend 8 hours in a southern CA animal shelter.

Comment by Lynn — May 23, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
Whoops - column headers should read from left to right:

Year
Generation
Pups Born
Pups S/N
Pup bred
Pups killed at shelter

Comment by Lynn — May 23, 2007 @ 8:48 pm
Stats for the Los Angeles County Animal Control [year 2005]:

35,800 cats came in, 79% or 28,100 were killed.

Of 38,900 dogs that came in, 18,500 were killed, or 46%.

That’s just in one year.

Comment by Lynn — May 23, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
Gina:

Off topic:

I ran across a website related to LA Animal Control in which the blogger kept demanding that Boks [the bean counter] report the stats for the last couple months of this year. It goes on to state that he may fudge the numbers. What’s going on?

Perhaps there was an obvious surge in owner relinks - dead dogs due to melamine poisoning - and he doesn’t want it known for some reason???

http://www.laanimalwatch.blogspot.com/

Comment by Lynn — May 23, 2007 @ 9:07 pm
Stats for the Los Angeles County Animal Control [year 2005]:

35,800 cats came in, 79% or 28,100 were killed.

Of 38,900 dogs that came in, 18,500 were killed, or 46%.

That’s just in one year.

So, identify what percentage of those were euthanized for the same reasons a loving owner would euthanize a pet — serious illness, intractable serious behavior problems, that sort of thing.

Deduct that number.

That leaves you with the number of animals who are being surrndered for reasons you can work with, since that other number is probably relatively fixed.

Determine where all those animals came from.

Determine why those animals were surrendered.

Propose programs and legislation that address those factors.

A knee-jerk reaction of OMG STOP THE KILLING! doesn’t fix the problem.

A list of numbers doesn’t DEFINE the problem, either.

There is not, in fact, ONE problem.

The reasons animals are euthanized in shelters vary from one area of California to another. In some places, there are no euthanasias for shelter space/lack of homes. These places do not have a problem and are thus not in need of a solution. San Francisco, where I live, is such a place.

In others, there is an over-abundance of animals that are considered “unwanted”… big black dogs, old dogs, old cats, dogs of breeds against which there is a prejudice, whatever… but actually, more homes than there are available pets for the “desirable” dogs and cats.

Spay/neuter laws don’t do anything to fix that problem.

In other areas, the primary source of animals being euthanized is feral cats.

Spay/neuter laws don’t do anything to fix that problem.

In other areas, the primary source of animals being euthanized is the deliberate or accidental breeding of dogs by people who don’t care about the law, don’t license their dogs, breed them for fighting or to sell to make a buck, who don’t go to the vet and don’t give a damn.

Spay/neuter won’t do anything to solve that problem, either.

In other areas, all or part of the problem may be the dogs obtained from pet stores or internet sites, in or out of state.

This law won’t help with that, because large commercial breeders and pet stores are exempt, and the law doesn’t apply out of state or out of the country.

So, the proposed law defines a problem that doesn’t exist, mandates a solution that doesn’t fix that problem OR any of the real problems, and then when you point that out, people go all drama queen and point and shout and say OMG STOP THE KILLING!

If you want to stop the killing, and I certainly do, then you should IDENTIFY WHERE THE DOGS ARE COMING FROM and WHY PEOPLE ARE SURRENDERING THEM, and DO THINGS THAT WILL FIX THOSE PROBLEMS, instead of proposing a law that WON’T SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

If you care about these dogs and cats, why are you devoting your efforts to supporting a law that won’t help them?

Comment by Christie Keith — May 23, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
Christie,

Why would I want to deduct any number? A loving owner would never take a pet to the shelter for euthanasia, if that’s what you’re alluding to.

I resent being told that I’m standing up and shouting “OMG STOP THE KILLING.” I was responding to LInda’s comment, ““I don’t see anything wrong with a family who has great dogs breeding them once or twice and selling them in the classifieds.”

Comment by Lynn — May 23, 2007 @ 9:27 pm
Wow, this has set off a bonfire!!

I’m still on the fence on this one. But it’s better to brainstorm solutions than to take pot-shots at each other. There’s common ground—most of us agree that there is a dreadful problem with pet overpopulation—many more pets than available homes. So how do we fix it? How can we stop pet overpopulation? Is there a solution that more breeders can support that will still cut down on pet overpopulation and abandonment?

I’m asking for an alternate solution. Many posters here (including Gina and Christie) argue the bill doesn’t address a major source of the pet problem—“backyard breeders.”

(But every breeder thinks THEY are responsible and it’s all the OTHER breeders that are the problem. Not many will say, “yeah, I’m a backyard breeder.” But just reading some of the postings on this board—it’s quite clear that some people are way, way more responsible than others.)

I looked at the chart listing the attributes of “backyard” vs. “responsible” breeders—a good guide for an individual to use. But how do you LEGALLY define backyard breeders, or more to the point—what kind of law could make them behave more responsibly with regard to pets and breeding? You can’t legislate ATTITUDE, but you can legislate ACTIONS and BEHAVIOR.

Is there a law that might be better than this law that is also enforceable?

Comment by Lola — May 23, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
Well maybe a little drastic publicity for the dogs/cats in shelters might be a good idea. After all, if such a self promoted “wonderful” agency as Best Friends can IMPORT over 3000 dogs from Lebanon to much press fanfare to adopt out here in the USA…why can’t we get such press fanfare for the good ole born/bred in the USA shelter animals? After all, due to Best Friends and all the publicity they got for those poor animals, 3000 dogs in our shelters were put down because everyone wanted the “sob story” animals instead.
My point is, even if there were not many animals in shelters, some of the rescue groups would find a way to “import” animals to keep the shelters full. Where have the critters in your local shelter come from?

Comment by Bev Boyer — May 23, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
Comment by Amara — May 23, 2007 @ 8:13 pm
“How do you know how many purebred animals (which make up at least 25% of all animals in shelters across the U.S.) come from sources of ill repute?”
This is an example of someone missing the point. I don’t know that they’re coming from “sources of ill repute”. But what I DO know is that they’re NOT coming from Responsible Breeders.
How do I know that? By DEFINITION. A RESPONSIBLE Breeder accepts the RESPONSIBILITY for an animal out of their breeding program FOR THAT ANIMAL’S ENTIRE LIFE. They will take the dog back if the home can no longer keep him or her. If they find out that one of their dogs has ended up in a shelter (which is a violation of the purchase agreement when the dog was purchased) they GO AND GET THE DOG OUT.
And THIS is why I know that the purebred dogs that are languishing in shelters are NOT the products of RESPONSIBLE Breeders. It actually makes sense if you just stop and think about it for a minute or two.
“I also work with rescue where there are home visits, vet checks, mulitiple interviews……….and the animal ends up getting dumped anyway. “
And when that happens, does your Rescue take the animal back? A Responsible Rescue will. Just like a Responsible Breeder.
“They come into shelters with papers from recognizable heritage”
So what? That’s not what we’re saying. “Recognizable heritage” is not the issue here. “RESPONSIBLE BREEDING is.”
“People move, people have children, people treat animals like property (usually the more financially well off they are, the more this is true)……people throw away their animals and it doesn’t matter where they came from or how much they paid for them.”
And THIS is why a Responsible Breeder puts prospective buyers through that grill that so many people find offensive. To the extent it is possible to do so, the Responsible Breeder wants to get to know enough about a potential buyer well enough to satisfy themself that this will NOT be a person who will “treat animals like property” or “throw away their animals”. You don’t find that out about a person if your only conversation cosists of “Will you read your credit card number slowly enough for me to write it down?”.
If you’re sensing frustration in this discussion, it’s because so many people bring up problems that are completely unrelated to the practices of Responsible Breeders and then try to sweep them in under that umbrella just because they’re breeders, too. And that’s why you need to learn about how it works when it’s being done RIGHT before condemning them all wholesale.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 23, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
Why would I want to deduct any number? A loving owner would never take a pet to the shelter for euthanasia, if that’s what you’re alluding to.

Those are not people taking their dogs or cats to shelters FOR euthanasia (that never even occurred to me) but rather dogs and cats the SHELTER euthanizes for the same reasons a loving owner would. Sorry I was unclear, and that leads me to the bigger, more comprehensive sorry.

Someday I’m going to learn not to do what I did tonight, which is reply to a post, QUOTE the post, use the word “you,” and then be all surprised when the person thinks my comments were aimed at them. They actually weren’t, but short of climbing inside my brain, there’s no way you could have known that. I was just using it to illustrate my point, not to refute your entirely unrelated point. I’m really sorry.

Comment by Christie Keith — May 23, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
Is there a law that might be better than this law that is also enforceable?

ABSOLUTELY!

If you look at the areas that actually HAVE reduced and even eliminated shelter euthanasias, they have done it with programs that reward the desired behavior rather than punish or prohibit the (acutal or supposed) undesirable behavior.

Tax credits and reduced license fees for altering pets.

Subsidized and free spay/neuter, including mobile spay/neuter and free transport. The number one reason pets aren’t altered is money and a lack of an ability to get the pet to the facility. Sure, you and I might walk through fire to get these things done, but less motivated people don’t think that way. I have participated in these programs and they work.

Funded education programs. Free dog training classes. Subsidized behavior hotlines at shelters. Will these things reach ALL people experiencing problems with their pets’ behavior? No, because a lot of people aren’t motivated to change. BUT… we don’t have to reach everyone. We’ll never reach everyone. We can’t ever fix every person who is willing to abandon their pet. BUT…

What we can do is reduce it below critical mass, so the number of pets coming into the shelter is never greater than the community or organization’s ability to rehab and rehome those animals.

Those are the programs with the proven track record. Those are flexible, positive, proactive approaches. Those are things people will buy into, feel good about, use, and benefit from. They aren’t based on prohibition and punishment or even enforcement — except for the one last piece, which is ENFORCE THE LAWS YOU ALREADY HAVE… enforce existing leashing and licensing laws, instead of passing yet more laws that you can’t enforce.

The answer is not some bitterly divisive, hard to enforce, punitive legislation that doesn’t solve the problem in the first place and tramples on people’s dreams, goals, and relationship with their animals. The day I let a politician or animal control officer force me to perform a medical procedure on my dog or cat against my will be a cold day in hell. All my current pets are altered so it’s all hypothetical, but I would never, ever comply with this legislation. I find it profoundly offensive, and if you can find someone who loves animals more than I do, I have no idea who it is.

So if I feel this way, so do lots of other loving, responsible pet owners. Not necessarily all of you, because we all have our different sore spots and lines in the sand, but a whole big hunk of us. Why should I give up control over something so fundamental a part of what I see as my care of my dogs and cats in order to fix a problem I believe has been improperly identified, as part of a solution that I know won’t work?

Isn’t it better to do something that DOES work, that WILL work and that people won’t hate and resist?

Comment by Christie Keith — May 23, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
I think things are getting a little out of whack in this country, which stands for freedom of personal choice, when we are starting to legislate all sorts of behavior, whether it be anti-smoking, anti-trans fat in your foods, anti-pets, anti-breeders etc
What is the point of living in America if all of a sudden the gov’t is telling us what we can and can’t do anymore?
I don’t ask big brother to become a welfare state to tell me how to live my waking hours! Places like China and the former Soviet Union dictate all sorts of rules and regulations to their people, and I guess we are not that far behind.

Comment by Bev Boyer — May 23, 2007 @ 10:37 pm
THank you, Gina, for one of the better, well thought out arguments against this bill. I have passed it on to our all breed club and asked everyone to call their representatives, and if out of state, to write the Governor. THis is a very bad bill. The worst is that many well meaning people believe it will solve the problem…not realizing that all evidence implies it will make it worse. They are hoping for a solution and want to believe in this. It is an end run by many Animal Rights groups toward they day when there will be no companion animals, I believe. If there are no dogs breeding…where do family pets come from? No where. And when CA passes this bill..which state is next? There will be more.
Call and WRITE today.

Comment by Sandy — May 23, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
RE: Comment by Christie Keith — May 23, 2007 @ 10:22 pm

Christie, no problem. Just know we’re on the same side. I hate to go off-topic, but I had a bit of a brain implosion when I read Linda’s comment and felt compelled to respond.

To everyone: There are indeed a number of different issues that enter into the subject of the bill, each very important. I happen to feel that this bill just wastes resources and I don’t believe have a snowball’s chance in h**l of being enforced. I won’t go into detail on that - others have already done so.

Back to Christie: Now, about your phrase, “…not to refute your entirely unrelated point.” LOL - it’s been a long day.

Comment by Lynn — May 23, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
RE: All breeders are not the same. Educate yourself as to the differences.

All breeders have the same thing in common. They breed to produce a hopelessly narrow and restrictive set of traits, then dump their culls into a market already flooded with pets.

That means that in order to make room for your culls, some other animal will have to be euthanized. A responsible breeder would euthanize their own culls rather than placing the burden on everyone else. If you want to breed for a narrow set of traits. Fine. If you want to declair some of those results as unacceptable representatives of the breed. Fine. If you are going to say you should be able to dump your unwanted culls on the market, while saying others who do the same thing are irresponsible. That is not fine and you are a hypocrit. There are no responsible breeders. Just irresponsible people who band together to rationalize conduct they openly recognize as being unacceptable when engaged in by others, ie dumping your unwanted animals into a flooded market. It doesn’t become okay just because you like the looks of one animal over another. I have a hard time imagining a good pet parent who does not believe their pet is the most handsome, beautiful and wonderful in the world. I can assure you I feel that
way about the formerly feral kittens I rescued seven years ago. One in particular I find to be unusually, uniquely, and beautifully marked. He has long hair with a brown tabby face and typical tabby leg markings. He has a uniform dark stripe about 4 inches wide running down his back and continuing down his tail. The rest of him is a dark cream color with a mane like a lion and shadow rosette markings on his sides. His personality is kind of a cross between Garfield and Groucho Marx. I could easily make the rationalization used by the so called responsible breeders that he is special to the point it would justify trying to make copies of him, and I can do the breeders one better in that he really is unique and there are not already many hundreds of thousands of copies of him floating around. I could have shopped around until I found a fertile female not unlike him in appearance, then sorted through their litters for the traits I liked, and dumped the rest. The thought of doing something along those lines even
crossed my mind. At the end of the day, my decision to have him fixed was based on my belief that to do otherwise would be irresponsible. I much doubt anyone who has worked with ferals even casually could make any other call. Getting up close and personal with the very worst conditions unwanted pets ultimately face does tend to leave an impression on anyone who has even a little bit of heart.

My view is anyone who is breeding pets under circumstances where they deem any of the offspring to be unworthy of a forever home under their own roof, is an irresponsible breeder the second they go into a flooded market to place those animals. Putting on pretentious airs about how wonderful you think your pet is does not entitle you to special privledges. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. You can’t be a little bit pregnant. And if you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Comment by Don — May 23, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
For the long-term health effects of spay / neuter in dogs, go here:

http://tinyurl.com/yvdz5u

The legislators of the State of California are not qualified to practice veterinary medicine. Pediatric spay / neuter is very bad veterinary medicine.

I will spay or neuter my animals when they are physically and mentally mature.

I am not a breeder. I’ve been working in rescue for my chosen breed for 25 plus years as president of a 501(c)(3) corporation, and I can tell you the hobby breeder is not the problem. Indeed, hobby breeders support the group financially. Without that backing, rescue of pure-bred animals from puppy mills, back yard breeders and importers would not happen.

Please work to defeat AB1634.

Shari

Comment by Shari Mann — May 23, 2007 @ 11:25 pm
All breeders have the same thing in common. They breed to produce a hopelessly narrow and restrictive set of traits, then dump their culls into a market already flooded with pets.

What is a “cull”? I’ve never bred a “cull” in my life, nor “dumped” a pet into any “market.”

That means that in order to make room for your culls, some other animal will have to be euthanized.

This is a fallacy. For the last 25 years, dogs have been, as well as my beloved companions, my avocation. I have shown them, field trialed them, and participated in a number of dog-related activities with them. I have had during those years as many as 11 dogs and 6 cats at one time, including dogs not of my breed who were rescues from shelters or in one case, off the streets, and ALL my cats, who were from shelters or off the streets.

If I was not involved in the dog fancy as a breeder and exhibitor, I would never have had 11 dogs. I’d have had two or three - probably the exact same rescue dogs I already had. I would not have replaced my other dogs with more dogs, but with whatever had replaced the avocation. For instance, if I couldn’t have participated in the dog events I was participating in, I’d have probably done something else… maybe horses. But something else.

On the other hand, it’s been my involvement in the dog fancy that led to my involvement with rescue, to my work with the various groups serving animals for whom I have been on boards of directors, volunteer teams (including driving people to the spay/neuter clinics, helping with feral populations, and assisting in developing model barn cat legislation, as well as helping administer a county fund to subsidize spay/neuter). ALL of my involvement in those activities grew out of my involvement and contacts in the show dog world.

You are drawing a distinction that falls apart when you examine it.

My view is anyone who is breeding pets under circumstances where they deem any of the offspring to be unworthy of a forever home under their own roof, is an irresponsible breeder the second they go into a flooded market to place those animals.

Every dog I’ve ever bred is worthy of a forever home under my roof. That doesn’t mean they can’t have a forever home with someone else who loves them, with the contractual agreement as a condition of sale that the dog comes back to me and only me if they can’t keep him or her for any reason in the future, and since I stay in close touch with anyone who has ever had a puppy from me, there is no question of the puppy being unworthy of anything. My puppies are worthy of all the love in the world, and they get it.

If a breeder breeds so much they can’t ensure the happiness of all their dogs, and take them back at any time, they are not being responsible (with the obvious exception of death, natural disaster, etc).

I have a hard time imagining a good pet parent who does not believe their pet is the most handsome, beautiful and wonderful in the world.

That’s because to you its about “beauty” and to a dedicated breeder, it’s about preserving what makes our breeds what they are. It’s about why my dog is not a Labrador retriever, but a Scottish Deerhound. And it’s why you’re missing the point that just because a dog isn’t breeding quality, somehow they aren’t loved. Neither of my current dogs is a breeding quality dog. My dog Raven, who died of osteosarcoma almost two years ago and on whom I spent $14,000 trying to save her, was spayed, unshown, not breeding quality. I loved her like the sun and moon and stars. I still do.

My dog Lillie was shown to her championship but never bred, was spayed, not breeding quality. She slept on my bed every night until she died at 12 and a half, very very old for a giant breed dog. Not a night goes by I don’t remember her and wish she were still there, lying on my feet.

Bran, not neutered but never bred, not breeding quality, not show quality. He died when he was four years old of acute kidney failure. I took him to UC Davis for dialysis and I still cry for him. I guess he was one of those culls.

My little Rosie, a champion, bred (she was, in fact, Bran’s mother) who lived to the oldest age of any deerhound I’ve ever had, 13 and a half, and died just last fall. I miss her every minute, just like I miss all my dogs, champions and mixed breeds off the street, my beautiful shelter dog Colleen who was and always will be my heart dog, and my best in field champion dog Doughal. I loved them all, would have taken a bullet for any of them.

You’re just so completely misguided and wrong, Don. I love my breed so much I can’t bear to see it vanish from the face of the earth. I consider its beauty to be such that it’s worthy of preservation, and I know without a single doubt that my involvement in the dog world, which grew directly out of my being a breeder and lover of the Scottish Deerhound, has saved the lives of more dogs and cats than I have ever imagined breeding.

My dogs have not cost one life. My love for them has inspired me to save many. You really don’t get it, don’t understand what we mean when we say “responsible breeders.” Why we say we’re different. You have no idea.

And if you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Responsible breeders are part of the solution. I know, because I’m both.

Comment by Christie Keith — May 24, 2007 @ 12:01 am
RE Comment by Don — May 23, 2007 @ 11:05 pm

Some comments on your remarks, Don:

“That means that in order to make room for your culls, some other animal will have to be euthanized.”
Again, a responsible breeder operates in a way that other “breeders” don’t.

“A responsible breeder would euthanized their own culls rather than placing the burden on everyone else.“
Where did you get that from? [Would or should?] In either case, certainly not. A RESPONSIBLE breeder would spay/neuter the animal and place it in a loving home, selecting that home with the same care and attention had the animal been the prize of a lifetime. They would also explain to the new family of any problems. Case in point, my shih tzu. Came from phenomenal lines, all well documented, champions all the way…….but he was a cryptorchid - testicles failed to descend. We were told this upfront AND that he had been neutered in order to not pass on this recessive inherited condition.

“If you are going to say you should be able to dump your unwanted culls on the market….”
What? Are you saying the breeder should euthanize them?

“I have a hard time imagining a good pet parent who does not believe their pet is the most handsome, beautiful and wonderful in the world.”
I believe that. Purebred or otherwise.

“There are no responsible breeders.”
I believe your exposure has been limited.

“My view is anyone who is breeding pets under circumstances where they deem any of the offspring to be unworthy of a forever home under their own roof, is an irresponsible breeder the second they go into a flooded market to place those animals.”
Oh, but many responsible breeders do in fact keep these pets forever.

“Putting on pretentious airs about how wonderful you think your pet is does not entitle you to special privledges.”
Pretentious? Don’t misconstrue the boastings of the pet parents here…..whether their pet is purebred or not.

Not one of us has said a thing about a purebred being more beautiful than a mix. This is a community of animal lovers and people who care for all pets’ well-being. If I thought otherwise I would rake the bloggers, Christie, and Gina, over the coals.

The number of animals from a RESPONSIBLE breeder is so, so, so insignificant compared to those coming from backyard breeders, as I call them. Isn’t it more important to focus on the cause of the problem?

Where’s your anger coming from, Don? What is it, in one specific sentence, that has your fur flying?

Don, why not redirect your anger to the root of the problem? That is, backyard breeders and puppy mills.

BTW: I just came another website where the subject is unscrupulous breeders: http://www.yorkietalk.com/foru......php/t-566 Read the stories - a recurring theme…

Comment by Lynn — May 24, 2007 @ 12:09 am
Now, let’s get back to this bill.

Comment by Lynn — May 24, 2007 @ 12:20 am
Animal tossing is such and issue with me and my husband. We are military and you would be very surprised how desposible pets are with military families. I’m not accussing all, but there is a huge huge problem with this in the military community. People will get a pet and keep it until they move, they’ll either dump it or take it to the shelter, some take the time to find a good home. Then they get to their new duty station, set up home, and get ANOTHER pet only to get rid of that one when they have to move again. It is so heart wrenching to witness this. I wish the military would implement a strict pet adoption policy. They need to educate soldiers and families that pets a.re not just a temporary play thing. They should be considered a member of your family and if you can’t do that then you have no business getting one. We live overseas and it is even worse here than in the States, because people do not want the hassle or expense of taking it back to the States. I just cannot understand this. My husband and I were willing to pay ANYTHING to bring our furbaby with us. Something seriously needs to be done about this problem and I have no idea what or if anything I can do to help.

Comment by Tammy — May 24, 2007 @ 1:02 am
To Nabiya: C’mon….you know I did not mean “all” people of one financial status or another. Well, maybe you don’t know…but I did not. Let me clarify, a large portion of people I have personally witnessed “dump” at shelters did not do so for lack of being able to care for the animal. Yes, that does happen. Obviously, people of all backgrounds love and cherish their pets like family, just like people of all backgrounds will throw them out as easily as yesterday’s news. Unfortunately, the latter group easily outweighs the former.

To The Other Pat: This is not someone “missing the point”. This is one reason why people are afraid to speak. BTW, I don’t think I put anyone or any one group down personally and if I did I apologize. It’s certainly not neccessary when we all really want (for the most part) the same thing. To answer the questions: Yes, if a good rescue knows that their animal is in a shelter they will come pick it up. They generally have the same rules for returning the animal to them if things don’t work out as breeders do. People also promise to understand that the animal may live 20 years and may get sick and probably needs more training, etc…. People will sign and agree to anything when they really want something. It doesn’t mean they live up to their end of the bargain. “Reputable Rescues” do not take down cc numbers and move on. They do everything in their power to make a match that will last a lifetime. That is the whole point of doing rescue. Not once did I call anyone evil. Not once did I say there were no reputable breeders. You can change microchip numbers into your own name and address. If that person does not want to claim the animal, then a “reputable” breeder may never even know it has been dumped. The point is that any dog can end up in the shelter system. You can’t say it “never” happens. It happens more often then you would like to think. Owner turn ins get put down first. They don’t have to hold them waiting for an someone to show up. If there’s no room….they really don’t care if they have perfect teeth and a beautiful
gait.

“So, identify what percentage of those were euthanized for the same reasons a loving owner would euthanize a pet — serious illness, intractable serious behavior problems, that sort of thing.” (Christie)

I see your point. Unfortunately, I would hazard to guess that this number is not extremely high. It is very easy to write “sick” or “unadoptable” on a cage card. I have actually brought home many with those labels. Serious illness would also have to include Parvo, Distemper, (Ringworm, URT, UTI, etc..) or any number of things the animal came into contact with after coming into the shelter system. If they can’t afford to treat it, it is considered serious. Again, you can skew the numbers any way you want. I would also assume that the number of animals with true neurological disorders would be lower than those with “behavior problems” that could be modified if given the opportunity. The problem is short-staff, no space, no funds, and no legislation that will solve any of this. The shelter system in this country (and others) needs a major overhaul and I don’t think people are aware of the huge numbers that are killed and the frequently senseless reasons why. That’s why people throw the big numbers out there. That’s why people just “want to stop the killing”. If there are those of us who are willing to see both sides of this issue, why can’t those on the other side, see ours? I don’t consider myself uneducated or missing the point. I am perfectly capable of realizing that the oft quoted numbers of 67,000 (offspring that can be born to one unaltered dog in 6 years) and 420,000 (offspring that can be born to one unaltered cat in 7 years) is not logistically accurate. Obviously, a certain number of kits or pups would have to be born each time and they would all have to survive. I am aware of that fact. That doesn’t mean the numbers are “fixed”. That means that it is possible and any way you cut it is a whole freakin’ lot of unwanted animals. I know of one shelter who takes in at least 10,000 animals a year in a rural area. At least 50% of those don’t make it out alive. If speaking only in cats, you can bump the number up to 70% for the whole year and 90% during “kitten season”. Throw out the Pit Bulls and ferals who don’t have a chance in heck. Throw out those who have been euthanized for humane reasons. (Did I mention that this shelter has been known to use hearstick without sedation-off topic, but calls the word “humane” into question). You still have numbers that are unacceptable and unworkable. This is one shelter of 3. There are not enough people to adopt all of those animals if they wanted to. So, yes, the kneejerk reaction is to stop the killing…

Do I believe Reputable Breeders provide a valuable service - Agree

Do I believe Backyard Breeders need to be stopped - Agree

Would I love to see low-cost spay/neuter offered to all those who want or need it - Totally Agree

There are a lot of intelligent people on this board. Bashing each other won’t solve anything. Why don’t we work together to come up with a national bill that would provide at least a step towards creating a solution in the pet overpopulation problem?

Comment by Amara — May 24, 2007 @ 3:21 am
As a footnote….I believe Christie and others on this board are “responsible breeders”. I just have to question on a large scale…how many are like that compared to the other end of the spectrum? You have to realize that to many of us who do see that other end and all those in between, you seem unequivocally unique.

Comment by Amara — May 24, 2007 @ 3:32 am
As is usually the case when politics get involved, debate is useless in the sense that neither side is going to budge. If we remove the politics, we could likely find some common ground.
*We all love our pets - purebred, mixed breed, hunting dog, mouser, couch potato - whatever, we love them.
*We don’t want to see homeless pets on the streets or being euthanized in shelters. It breaks our hearts.
*Education makes a world of difference and a difference in the world.

For me, I can’t influence the masses but I can be open and honest regarding my experiences and the love I have for my pets *without* condemning others. I respect different opinions and hope that others will do the same. I am opposed to making pet breeding a political and legal matter. To my mind, it’s a matter of the heart. Ethics can not be legislated.

Comment by slt — May 24, 2007 @ 5:48 am
Don - a question for you. When it comes to breeding there are really only three choices:

1) Selective breeding
2) Random breeding
3) No breeding at all

Which one are you in favor of?

Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 24, 2007 @ 5:58 am
The best pets I’ve ever had have all been shelter pets. It’s like they know you are saving their lives and they are so thankful. I will take a mutt over purebred any day.

Comment by Tammy — May 24, 2007 @ 6:10 am
I still don’t see anything wrong with someone who has great dogs breeding them once or twice - expert breeder or not, but I don’t like people that just churn out pups as a way to make the mortgage or buy dope or whatever.

Gads! And if I ever did breed, none of my dogs would end up in a shelter, I’d make the new pup owner sign his/her life away. So that I agree with totally.

Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 6:10 am
A good site to look at to get some idea of what’s going on is:

http://www.petpopulation.org/research.html

They’ve added a lot of stuff since the last time I’d been there, so I haven’t yet read everything that’s currently there. But I do remember that one of the conclusions drawn from one of their earlier studies was that the problem had more to do with “the breaking of the human-animal bond” than it did with overbreeding.

What do I mean by that?

Well, they found that a large segment of dogs being euthanized were owner surrenders of dogs around 9 to 18 months old - that period when a dog is less and less a “cute puppy” and begins to become an “adolescent terror”. And people who don’t know what to do with a dog at this stage often just turn it in and get themselves another “cute puppy” from somewhere.

The takeaway message, therefore, becomes less about “How do we GET dogs into homes?” and more about “How do we KEEP dogs in homes once they are there?”.

And in her post, Christie alluded to how many shelters are - very successfully - putting this learning into action.

EDUCATION turns out to be a key component. Education BEFORE the pet comes home, of course. But then continuing education - and support - as the dog grows up and continues to present behavioral challenges to an often inexperienced owner.

So shelters are beginning to offer basic Obedience classes at low or no cost - and sometimes requiring attendance at these classes as a condition of adoption. They’re staffing behavioral helplines that new owners can call when problems crop up rather than surrendering the animal because they don’t know where to turn. They’re doing a lot of outreach in the community to educate people about what Responsible Dog Ownership REALLY entails - some great programs get brought into the schools to catch the kids while they’re young and still forming their ideas about what constitutes an appropriate interaction with animals.

And yes - some shelters are instituting pediatric spay/neuter programs so that NO intact animal ever gets adopted out. That part of the solution may or may not be ideal, but it sure is a foolproof way to obtain compliance with the no-breeding requirement.

The answer to the problem involves a many-pronged approach. Studies like those being undertaken by PetPopulation.org and other institutions studying the human/animal bond will help us understand where the problems are actually coming from so that solutions can be designed to target root causes rather than just being Band-Aid fixes slapped on to try and stop the bleeding.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — May 24, 2007 @ 6:14 am
As to the - what makes a great dog great vs. just okay or good etc. and dog breeds.

Well much of the spunk has been taken out of Dobermans by overbreeding for show lines, notwithstanding the good German Lines that may not be suitable for a family dog but for police work and protection animals. My little Mercy is an exception and she came from Wells Nevada and I drove to get her. There’s a lot of spunk in that little gal.

What makes my Treeing Walker Coooonhound so good at what he does, does not make him a good show dog or “Champion Dog.” Independent, quick thinker, in charge personality, determination, once on a scent will not let up, not that sociable. So some well meaning dog breeders could very well just breed out of his line, what he was meant to be - and that happens with finding the best “show” or “ring” dog that will handle in events or live inside as a family dog.

So I like the idea of “Breeding” to keep the breed lines for what the dog is meant to be - and I dislike breeding out traits that are not compatiable with the “family” dog or the “ring” dog.

Can you imagine if the hounds, didn’t howl, wouldn’t be the same thing at all. The world would loose out totally.

Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 9:36 am
Comment by Don:
All breeders have the same thing in common. They breed to produce a hopelessly narrow and restrictive set of traits, then dump their culls into a market already flooded with pets.

My Addy is not a “cull.” She is a a beautiful, healthy, sweet dog who is not quite close enough to the breed standard to be bred—at least not by a responsible breeder who cares about the Chinese Crested breed.

And, no, actually, the “market” is not “flooded” with adoptable pets who meet my needs at this time: a small dog to fit my small house with no yard, good walker, coat sufficient to make walking in a New England winter not automatically an act of cruelty while being within my ability to maintain, sweet-tempered, no existing major health issues.

A big, black dog that weighs more than I do and eats more than I do, needs several hours of vigorous exercise every day, with a strong prey drive and dog aggression issues—sorry, but I would leave that dog in the shelter for someone else to adopt—or not—regardless of whether or not Addy or another dog like her was available, because I am not a potential owner for that dog. I do not have a possible home for that dog.

That means that in order to make room for your culls, some other animal will have to be euthanized. A responsible breeder would euthanize their own culls rather than placing the burden on everyone else.

So, you think that Addy, for the sin of being purebred and yet not breeding-quality, deserved to be murdered rather than given a loving home by me. And that I should be forced to accept either a pit or rottie or some other big, powerful dog that I can’t house and couldn’t handle, or have no dog at all. Well, love and kisses to you, too, Don.

Comment by Lis — May 24, 2007 @ 9:41 am
RE: You?re just so completely misguided and wrong, Don. I love my breed so much I can?t bear to see it vanish
from the face of the earth. I consider its beauty to be such that it?s worthy of preservation, and I know
without a single doubt that my involvement in the dog world, which grew directly out of my being a breeder
and lover of the Scottish Deerhound, has saved the lives of more dogs and cats than I have ever imagined
breeding.

Like any hot button issue, the emotional gets mixed up with the practical. If the goal is to preserve a breed according to a set of narrow standards, the definition of responsible has to be based on scientific knowledge of genetics. You ruthlessly eliminate the culls and preserve only the most perfect specimens. In very short order you will have a gene pool that consists of only perfect examples of the breed, free of genetic defects. In that case, you would expect all owners of that particular breed to be breeders, they would all operate according to tightly regulated standards, and they would never place an animal with someone who was not willing to conform to the breed guildlines.

On the emotional side, how does one euthanize a puppy or kitten just because it isn’t perfect according to its breed standards?

There was a small colony of feral cats where I used to live. I’d put food out for them next to the back door, then I’d pluck baby cats out of the food dish and drive them 40 miles to the nearest no kill shelter. I still don’t know if there was anything responsible about doing it that way, but it was the best I could come up with. It certainly didn’t make much of a dent in the over all problem. I’m not immune to the emotional issues involved, but I will never the less argue that to a very large extent, it’s the emotional issues which are making the problem worse. Do you suppose everyone who turned a pet loose to become feral did it out of being mean spirited? Or do you suppose they couldn’t bear the thought of it being euthanized at a shelter and figured it would be better off catching mice until it found someone to take it in?

You claim to have worked with breed rescues, so you are obviously aware there are plenty of dogs available to find homes for. That being the case, why on earth would you want to produce puppies to place with people who do not want a dog? Outside of experienced dog handlers intent on specific training for the pup, this would be the absolute worst possible kind of person to give a puppy to.

Playing Devil’s advocate for a moment, I’ll argue that there is a difference between dogs and cats when it comes to preserving the species, although there is currently NO danger of either becoming extinct. As you are probably aware, the feral cat population is roughly equal to the domestic cat population. In the US that comes to around 80 million cats. Eliminating the reproductive capacity of every domestic cat in the country could not possibly threaten the species as long as a viable feral population exists. Also, if that were the situation, one might reasonably assume that any continuing demand for domestic cats would have to be filled by harvesting feral kittens. As there is no significant feral dog population, a total ban, assuming such could be enforced, is not a long term option.

With that said, I do not believe my position is wrong or misguided. In the currently flooded pet market, anyone breeding animals to be placed as pets, accidently or otherwise, is not a responsible person.

If you love the breed, then you should be prepared to do what is best for the breed, which means the unemotional elimination of any less than perfect specimen. If you love them all, then save the ones you can and don’t make any more of them.

Comment by Don — May 24, 2007 @ 11:11 am
Don, it’s clear now you’re nothing more than an animal-rights troll, parroting the lie that reponsible, reputable breeders are (or should be, if “logical”) pro-eugenics and equating the reputable ones to Nazis. And I love how even though you are clearly intelligent, you refuse to acknowledge the difference between “species” and “breed.” No, there’s no chance “dogs” will become extinct, but there’s a pretty good one that “Scottish Deerhounds” will.

Read it all before, chapter and verse. You guys really do need a new playbook.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 24, 2007 @ 11:16 am
Maybe you have a point Don - at least in part. I have never bred any of my dogs, for many reasons, but I sure do appreciate my dogs and their distinct natures and why I chose that breed.

I think if we did away with puppy mills and people who breed indiscriminately, we’d go a long way in reducig pet overpopulation. Designer dogs too are part of the problem.

And also a big campaign in the media on what reponsible pet ownership entails - namely “training” and choosing the appropriate breed traits that are compatible with a person’s lifestyle.

But I don’t think we are making it a better world by not breeding our purebreds at all. Perish the thought! Or by allowing puppy brokers to sell and breed in puppy mills.

There must be a solution that statifies both needs - reduce pet population and still preserve the purebreds.

We have the labs and goldens to help the blind, and we have hunting dogs with specific traits, the loyalty and love of the Catahoulas, the independence of the “Artic” dogs. Our world is a better place with speficic dog breeds.

What we need is for the people who breed without thought to the offspring and overpopulation to be fined and or jailed.

Yes, it is a horrible shame that so many animals are killed in shelters and go unloved and unwanted - but the solution is not, let’s never ever breed. You are throwing out the baby with the bathwater for heavens sake.

Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 11:26 am
Gina,

Off hand I’d say if the discussion has reached the point where you are calling people trolls, it would be best if we agree to disagree and drop the subject.

Comment by Don — May 24, 2007 @ 11:50 am
I agree with you there. :)

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 24, 2007 @ 11:56 am
Don: This sentence makes no sense:

“If you love the breed, then you should be prepared to do what is best for the breed - which means the unemotional elimination of any less than perfect specimen.”

You are making the connection that people who love a certain breed, will adhere to putting the ideal breed standard, as put forth by Breed Clubs I suppose, over any love for the flawed pet produced - and perhaps imply the flawed one will not be cared for or even loved by this “straw” breeder person you have created.

This is not a blanket true statement and certainly does not apply to people who love their pets and to good moral breeders. I don’t know who you are talking about here, they do exist I know somewhere, but it is not about “animal” lovers. And all the people here are true animal lovers.

You also are saying that people who do not love specific breeds are “Morally Superior” probably like yourself. Oh, I do believe you suffer emotionally and really care for the plight of these pets. And maybe you have had no need or use for a “pure bred” and somehow can’t entertain how they add to life instead - and the pain of the little innocent animals simply override the need for specific breeds.

Well, not in my book. The world is not a better place by eliminating purebreds and by not allowing good responsible breeders. The world is a better place by eliminating puppy mills and pet store animal sales and people who breed for profit, and flea market puppy sales, and I know that good breeders don’t make money off their dogs - it just costs too much to raise and feed and test and produce a quality offspring.

So take your “straw” man phony bad breeder person, of which none are at this site, and do a serious re-think of this image you are creating.

Maybe you need to learn to love the purebreds a little more………..but keep saving the feral kitties, that is a good thing.

Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
“If you love the breed, then you should be prepared to do what is best for the breed - which means the unemotional elimination of any less than perfect specimen.”

The perfect dog has never been born, in any breed. So you want all dogs euthanized. Nice plan. Do you mind if I don’t sign on?

Of course, you’re just making a specious argument anyway, given that a dog has no impact on a breed unless he’s bred, and the whole discussion is about responsible breeding, and around and around we go.

Comment by Christie Keith — May 24, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
Comment by Don — May 24, 2007 @ 11:11 am

…the emotional gets mixed up with the practical.

Or citing your arguments, ignorance replaces knowledge?

If the goal is to preserve a breed according to a set of narrow standards,

Who said “narrow” standards, Don? Read many breed standards have you? Most are lengthy & detailed enough I’d hardly refer to them as “narrow”.

In very short order you will have a gene pool that consists of only perfect examples of the breed, free of genetic defects.

Where did any of us in opposition to AB 1634 ever say this? Nothing is perfect, Don. Otherwise we’d end up with mannequins of pets and ourselves. But I see nothing wrong with trying to weed out bad physical traits and genetics to produce healthier dogs and cats. There IS a difference.

On the emotional side, how does one euthanize a puppy or kitten just because it isn’t perfect according to its breed standards?

Who said this was the goal? Responsible breeders take the time to find homes for all their litters - be it to a fancier’s home or to one where a pet companion is desired. Or in some cases, the breeder’s themselves keep the dog even if it isn’t going to show. They aren’t all heartless or in it for the money. Many are in it for the love of the breed. Is that such a difficult concept for you to grasp?

As far as preserving a “species”, re-read what Gina said above. That is not the point, that has never been the point.

I do not believe my position is wrong or misguided

With all due respect Don, something you might consider extending those of us who’ve done our research, you are considerably misguided in your thinking. Your arguments and thoughts bear that out all on their own. Stop twisting our thoughts and words into that which suits your limited understanding of this proposal’s ramifications. Use the intelligence you’ve shown on other topics by educating yourself to the truth of what AB 1634 will most assuredly cause. If you cannot allow yourself this step, then get ready to support a lot more feral kitties. Because if AB 1634 is unleashed, the amount of uncontrolled irresponsible breeding will increase to such proportions it will make your head spin.

Comment by Ally — May 24, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
Well what will make an impact though, with this bill that needs to be defeated, is the impact of the “Puppy Mills” and their indiscriminate over breeding and getting away with it. Oh, probably to make sure there are enough “little puppies” in the windows to make the pet company corporate big wigs happy and radical pet activists who see only one side of the issue.

Yes it is a national and state tragedy that we breed so many dogs without even a glance at the numbers already here. There would be no way if I owned a great or even exceptional lab that I would breed them, given the number of labs begging for a home.

If California insisted that my Dobie pup be fixed at 4 months old, I’d leave the State. I may or may not breed him, but I’d leave the State anyway.

Stop the people from selling their pups litter after litter and making basically everyone neuter their animal at four months is pardon the term “overkill”.

What the final solution is I do not know, but blanket neutering at four months is not the answer.

Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
P.S.

Truly great animals need to be preserved and protected for the future, whether dogs or cats or horses or rare white tigers, not to make money and not for fame either, but for the beauty and value of the animal. (And I am not talking about the show ring circuit either.)

And we need to care for the misplaced and the lost and abandoned and sick animals. I do my very best at this and have for years.

And even though I have never bred any of my dogs, and even though I think the world has enough, I still appreciate and understand the need to preserve and create worthy and noble and beautiful dog breeds for future generations, and those that dedicate their lives and money and time to doing just that, are to be respected and encouraged, not punished or banned.

And those that breed wantonly and carelessly and thoughtlessly are to be stopped, fined, and jailed in necessary. Now give me a law that will do that and I will vote for it.

Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Comment by Don:
Like any hot button issue, the emotional gets mixed up with the practical. If the goal is to preserve a breed according to a set of narrow standards, the definition of responsible has to be based on scientific knowledge of genetics. You ruthlessly eliminate the culls and preserve only the most perfect specimens. In very short order you will have a gene pool that consists of only perfect examples of the breed, free of genetic defects. In that case, you would expect all owners of that particular breed to be breeders, they would all operate according to tightly regulated standards, and they would never place an animal with someone who was not willing to conform to the breed guildlines.

There is no “perfect” example of any breed; genetics doesn’t work like that. There are only dogs closer to or further from the breed standard. And, because it suits your rhetorical purposes, you’re ignoring the fact that killing the animal is not the only way to eliminate it from the breeding pool.

On the emotional side, how does one euthanize a puppy or kitten just because it isn’t perfect according to its breed standards?

YOU are the only one arguing for the euthanizing of healthy, good-tempered animals because they don’t fit the breed standard closely enough to be bred, Don, and condemning responsible breeders because they place these fine-but-not-breeding-quality animals as pets. YOU are the one who thinks that my precious Addy should have been murdered rather than placed with me, when she didn’t measure up to the standard for propagating the breed.

You argue in the abstract to avoid acknowledging the consequences for real people and real dogs and cats of your animal rights extremist propaganda. I’m not playing; when you say that breeders need to kill puppies and kittens in order to be judged “responsible” by you, you are arguing for the murder of my much-loved pet.

Comment by Lis — May 24, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
I think that Don understands the tragedy of killing so many pets and for the homeless and the abandoned animals. It is a so terrible and sad. My heart aches for those pets. I spend thousands of dollars on keeping my dogs healthy and safe and I love them dearly. Find some way to stop people from selling these pets in the papers and stop them from their reckless wanton behavior please.

Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Linda, you apparently haven’t noticed that Don is arguing for killing pets—when it fits his own agenda. He’s arguing for a “solution”—ALL dogs and cats must be neutered—that means no pets.

He’s also arguing for a definition of “responsible breeder” which means that my dog and one of my cats should have been killed rather than being allowed to live and be my pets.

This is not someone who loves animals, or has any sympathy for anyone’s desire to have a pet in their home. Or a search & rescue dog or a guide dog, for that matter.

Comment by Lis — May 24, 2007 @ 2:21 pm
Lis,

Is that it? Does he really want this? I don’t think so. He was just pointing out how stupid he thinks breeders are that according to their ridiculous logic they should be killing (doing harm) in order to promote good (improving their breed).

I don’t believe Don really wants all these animals to die. But neuturing all pets will lessen the animal misery, isn’t that his real point. Not that no animals should exist. I think Don loves animals. I’m sorry. I really do believe that. And in his love and in his zeal, he is willing to sacrifice the beauty of each breed. You know - that’s not so horrible of a position. I don’t agree with it - as I love and admire each breed.

But I do appreciate crying and hurting over so many animals dying - every time I see a pet dead on the road, I call to have it picked up. I say a prayer, and my heart aches for the poor creature.

Don says, if you love the breed, save the ones you can and don’t make anymore.

I don’t believe he means - until everyone of them is wiped off the face of this earth.

I love many breeds. I would have saved those two young Red Dobies from the City Pound if they were not going to place them in a rescue. I would have found homes for them. And I think that is what he means by saving the ones we can.

He is just being a little short sighted by not understanding the need to preserve and create the beautiful for the future.

Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 1:06 pm

“There would be no way if I owned a great or even exceptional lab that I would breed them, given the number of labs begging for a home.”

Not me, Linda. I wouldn’t wish this on anyone who has a love for certain breeds, not even you with your Dobies.

If I had the means & were a breeder, I would love to be able to donate some healthy quality labs to the GDA. After seeing what my dog’s sire’s breeder has done to donate to the Guide Dogs organization, I wish I could follow suit. I practice for my dog’s CGC certification with a friend training a lab for the GDA. I hope her bitch passes the GDA’s test when her time comes. She’s an incredible dog who’s worked hard to get as far as she has so far. I don’t think I could foster a dog for 18 months, build a bond through love and training and then give it up. But I do admire those, like my friend, who can and do.

GDA pups begin their training young, so pulling from shelters wouldn’t work unless the right pup and timing fall into place. Those times are most likely too far and few between. For organizations like the GDA, the investment in their lab’s training isn’t cheap. To take on a lab whose background genetics and long-term health were in question, would most likely not be financially feasible.

I hope there is a light at the end of this tunnel. Not only to help alleviate overpopulated shelters and rescues, but to also allow for purebreds to continue being bred safely, legally and affordably. It’s sad when people cannot see why those of us opposing this bill feel as we do. I hate the fact there exist people trying to make us feel like second class citizens without rights. I pay to keep my dog’s licenses current and play by my city’s rules. I’m a tax paying citizen who can’t help but feel that somehow, a personal freedom is about to be taken from me.

Comment by Ally — May 24, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Ally, good points. I wasn’t talking about Service Dogs, just family dogs. Good Service dogs are something different. I just wouldn’t add my great lab to the mix of great labs already. There are people already breeding great Service Labs and Dogs, mine wouldn’t be needed. But if for some reason there was a shortage, then I would do it - you bet I would.

Yes I do understand about training puppies to be service dogs from the beginning, but even guide dogs for the blind, and I worked for them once many years ago, use dogs that are put into regular homes as house pets until they are trained for the blind - at least when I worked for them that is what was done.

I love Dobies so much and my sister said, oh you love them so, I would breed them and just raise the best Dobies around. I thought about it and decided it wasn’t for me. Morally, I couldn’t do it. But I admire those that step up to the plate, those that aren’t bothered as I am, and I am thankful they are doing it. I truly am - talking about the reputable breeders here only.

I don’t want anyone telling me I have to neuter my Dobie at four months old - no one. What if I change my mind and he is declared the beauty of all beauties or I wish to show him, too bad he was neutered at four months. So, it’s my choice, not the State’s or any well-meaning but misguided activist.

I fully appreciate service dogs. I was training my big Red Dobie to be a therapy dog but from about 9 months on Snoopy decided he didn’t want other dogs close to him. Now he’s been in many training classes, and I can put him off lead in a park and call him straight to me from 100 feet away, and he runs like a bullet right me, but get him in close quarters with another dog rubbing his sides in a class, and he takes great exception to it - like excuse me fellow that’s my two feet you’re standing on.

Long story short, I am not anti-breeding service dogs. I was just talking about me, not anyone else.

Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Linda, I appreciate your clarifying. Thank you for taking the time to do so. I realize my breed is everywhere. Knowing firsthand of my love and experience in living with them, I also understand why.

I pretty much love all dogs. Entering the show world has been an incredible experience, especially the opportunity to meet so many different breeds. I was skeptical at first, going in with an eye keen to see what really went on behind the scenes. What I saw were dogs having the time of their lives enjoying socialization and scads of attention plus exercise. Many had huge smiles upon their faces. I’ll also never forget when my lab entered his first and thus far only show ring, taking first place in the 9-12month puppy class. I had no idea I would get so emotional. I’ve saved his blue ribbon, entry fee & paper work and swear I’m going to frame it with a picture or two. He’s too small to show in his current class so has been pulled while continuing to grow. If he doesn’t make the breed standard, I won’t love him any less. I didn’t initially intend to get a show dog. It just happened & I’ve been fortunate to have a third generation handler and breeder friend take us both under her wing.

It’s my dog’s CGC certification I’m looking forward to having. I’ve always wanted to do therapy work with dogs. My older lab has done it unofficially at my Dad’s assisted living home. We never went through the training but being an almost 14 yr old senoir ambassador of the breed, he does quite well. ;) It’s an amazing feeling seeing the residents at my Dad’s home when we arrive. I can barely get the dog out of the car before their hands reach out with their faces lit up in smiles. If I can also do this in children’s hospital wards with my younger lab while helping brighten their shut in days, I have no doubt it will prove beyond rewarding for both me and my dog.

This breed does something to my heart I can’t quite explain. Be it their intelligence, floppy ears, joie de vivre, huge hearts, baleful eyes or all combined - there doesn’t exist the right words to express how they continually touch my life. Knowing they can also do this for others, I want to see the freedom to continue breeding them supported.

Each breed has something to offer. Each breed has a strength of heart with a character and grace all their own. I want to see this be able to continue, not only for future dog’s lives but for those of us who’s hearts they touch and never leave the same.

Comment by Ally — May 24, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
neuturing all pets will lessen the animal misery, isn’t that his real point. Not that no animals should exist.

Okay, explain to me where the animals will come from if we’ve neutered them all?

Comment by Christie Keith — May 24, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
Ally,

well I wanted my Dobie to be a therapy dog from an early age - he was about six months old a good size - just happy face and smiles and loved people. Well we were in old Sacramento on a busy weekend and this handicapped man approached me, he looked as if he had been in an accident and he had many scars on his rather young head and he was a bit disheveled - but I said sure you can pet him. So the man stood over my Snoppy and took his face in his hands and said over and over again, I love you so much. I love you. I love you. Snoopy stood perfectly still and ate it all up for about fifteen minutes.

I thought at the time - this man probably never really got to express love to people - and it just all flowed out. Snoopy was a gem. I wish he would accept being in close quarters with other dogs, but he just doesn’t. And when Snoopy decides to bark all listen - nothing much muscle and moxie.

Christie - as to where animals will come from if all are neutered - well I imagine that since nothing is perfect, it will be from those that don’t obey the rules or those that loose their dogs etc. - smugglers, traders, people who hide dogs in rear wheel wells and travel across the borders - Canada or Mexico or people with private plans who bring in or truck up dogs from other countries. Or from States that refuse to pass such a stupid law. And since all dogs have equal dog value and dog soul, these will be enough to supply the need of dog lovers if we get over the attachment to any specific breed. I think Don just doesn’t like pure bred dog breeders at all.

And if all Dobies were neutered today and even all over the world, then in about fifteen years the breed would be dead - but we know that won’t happen.

The way I figure it is, if we could imagine the millions of dogs world wide - millions maybe billions - and their various circumstances - loved wild and neglected or hurt etc., morally speaking - accepting and encouraging the breeding from reputable breeders hardly will what contribute to significant dog misery.

But that’s too broad of a way to look at it - in our own little world of California etc., or our own community, then one needs to ask does the good outweigh the evil. I still can answer yes to that, but Don would not.

I don’t want dog breeds to be just something we read about in old books or see in old paintings or that is left to the ill legal traders - perish the thought.

Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 6:00 pm
Comment by Lis — May 24, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
Hey Gina: I had mentioned before the link in Don’s name goes to a “9/11 CIA Conspiracy Theory” website which is way too political for this blog. Unless you want to start that heated discussion right here and now since the current one seems to be letting up a bit….

Comment by Nabiya — May 24, 2007 @ 6:59 pm
We haven’t edited out the URLS people post. If it’s a porn link or other spam, we nuke the whole comment instead of editing it.

As for the content of his link … we’d consider that discussion off-topic and would suggest that it be taken elsewhere.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 24, 2007 @ 7:21 pm
Lis,

Maybe I’m wrong and was trying to put as much “good” into Don’s comments as I could. It’s hard to believe that a man who would save kittens and take them to a no-kill animal center really wants all pets to disappear - otherwise wouldn’t he take them to a kill center?

Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 7:41 pm
P.S. Where would the pets come from? China, or other states - trade in pets to California would blossom even more than it is now - and we’d get sick dogs and cats of questionable quality. And the people who have puppies that shouldn’t, well they would go underground and be afraid to take them for shots etc. and it would be terrible for our poor animals.

Comment by Linda — May 24, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
Linda, Don is arguing for a “solution” that, as you recognize and acknowledge, would be very, very bad for the animals Don claims to “love.” Do you think he’s too stupid to work this out? I believe he knows exactly what he’s arguging for: No Pets.

So he rescued some feral kittens—or so he tells us. Notice that he tells us this as part of a little morality tale, wherein one of the kittens is “uniquely beautiful” and, if he were like one of those wicked people, the “responsible breeders”, he could have looked for a mate for that cat (of unknown genetic health, mind, and no way to find out anything about its genetic health), bred them, and “dumped” the kittens that didn’t measure up.

Which, you know, is not what responsible breeders actually do. And in another comment, he in fact condemns responsible breeders for not being “logical” and killing the ones that don’t measure up for breeding purposes rather tha placing them in pet homes. He’s contradicting himself on the specifics; the only unifying theme is that anyone trying to breed responsibly is to be condemned, and all pets must be neutered—a policy that if applied at all widely, will result in no pets that anyone would want. Which is his goal.

Comment by Lis — May 25, 2007 @ 7:10 am
Lis,

Maybe you are right and if you are, what a sad morally corrupt position to argue for. I agree he does not like breeders and wishes to create an evil caricature of them - and yes he is the morally superior person. I thought he stated that there are enough feral cats in this world, but not so dogs to satisfy and maybe he does believe that no dogs in the world makes the world better, no dogs for people to abuse or neglect etc. And this mindset could be applied to all of life – no babies to be hungry – no evil people to pollute – people that are unenlightened – and very unlike him – who nears perfection.

Of course, then there would be no dogs to bring joy and comfort, to heal our wounds after the world beats us up, or to cuddle in bed and wish us a good day as we venture out to fight our many wonderful and difficult battles.

And maybe he came on the blog to point out to everyone how really bad we all are, and that would include me because I have no problem with people breeding responsibly and even the individual with two loving and wonderful pets who breeds once or twice in their lifetime.

I firmly believe that God gave man animals to be caretakers of in the Garden of Eden, that is man’s first priority to care for the garden to name the animals and to commune with them. Good Breeders are caring for animals in the same vein as Adam did in the Garden - now maybe our garden has since been tainted with sin and corruption and abuse, but still to care for the animals, to protect each species, and then to honor and preserve breeds that have taken thousands of years to “perfect” is a holy task.

Don’s position is to destroy the right given man by God.

Comment by Linda — May 25, 2007 @ 9:01 am
Is that it? Does he really want this? I don’t think so. He was just pointing out how stupid he thinks breeders are that according to their ridiculous logic they should be killing (doing harm) in order to promote good (improving their breed).

Not according to their logic, Linda; according to his logic, that says that, if they don’t eliminate non-breeding-quality animals from the gene pool by the most extreme and inhumane method, killing any that they don’t want to breed, rather than placing them as pets, they must be motivated by greed rather than the improvement of the breed. This despite the fact that responsible breeders do not make any money; if they’re careful and lucky, they break even.

Addy’s an excellent dog, she’s even an excellent Chinese Crested, but she’s not quite breeding quality—because the standards for “breeding quality” are so high. No one who loves dogs would breed under rules that required them to kill good dogs who just aren’t quite breeding quality—and that’s what Don wants. No breeding, no breeds, eventually no dogs because all the mixed breeds would be spayed/neutered, to.

I don’t believe Don really wants all these animals to die. But neuturing all pets will lessen the animal misery, isn’t that his real point.

It’s the line he’s trying to sell us, yes, but no, it’s not true. I strongly believe that everyone should neuter all their pets, except the responsible breeders, but there are exceptions, for the medical condition of the individual animal for the most obvious, but not the only one. Mandatory spay/neuter at four months means spaying/neutering before an intelligent decision can be made on the breeding suitability of too many animals.

Not that no animals should exist. I think Don loves animals. I’m sorry. I really do believe that. And in his love and in his zeal, he is willing to sacrifice the beauty of each breed. You know - that’s not so horrible of a position. I don’t agree with it - as I love and admire each breed.

Linda, you are kidding yourself. Don doesn’t regard it as a sacrifice; he regards it as the goal. He’s a PETA member, or in close sympathy with them; he believes that being “exploited” by humans as companions or working animals is a worse fate for animals than being killed.

But I do appreciate crying and hurting over so many animals dying - every time I see a pet dead on the road, I call to have it picked up. I say a prayer, and my heart aches for the poor creature.

I promise you, when Don sees so many animals dying, he’s not crying and hurting for them; he’s enjoying his self-righteous condemnation of responsible pet owners who have happy, healthy pets, and responsible breeders, whom he has decided are responsible for the products of the puppy mills and backyard breeders, and the castoffs of people who are not responsible pet owners.

Don says, if you love the breed, save the ones you can and don’t make anymore.

Save “the ones”—what “ones”? The breeds, and don’t make any new breeds? Most responsible breeders would agree with that; there’s not much receptivity in the purebred dog world for intentionally creating new breeds. Or, “save the individuals” and don’t make any more? The latter doesn’t leave any room at all for preserving the breeds; if no one can breed the next generation, there is no next generation.

I don’t believe he means - until everyone of them is wiped off the face of this earth.

Nah. Just all domestic animals. All pets, certainly.

Comment by Lis — May 25, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
What happened lis, I thought I read this before? Did it go away? Anyway I think I answered it at 9:01 am

Ummmm…..

I’m glad you had and loved your Chinese Crested dog. I adore that breed too. I own several dogs all of less-than show quality and they are wonderful also. God bless their little wagging tails.

Comment by Linda — May 25, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
For some reason, allll the comments one this thread suddenly turned up in the spam folder. So … I released them. Don’t know if they’re duplicates or reposts.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 25, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
Linda, fortunately, at present it’s “have and love”—not past tense yet, hopefully not for years!

Now I’ll stop before I post a link to pictures.

Comment by Lis — May 25, 2007 @ 3:21 pm
Good to hear Lis. Thanks. Keep on loving your baby!

Comment by Linda — May 25, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
Hmmm…..funny thing, though, in towns and cities where mandatory spay/neuter programs are in force, euthanasia rates have dropped significantly and no one is complaining about not being able to find a pet. Until the people who are opposed to spay/neuter regulation are the individuals who insert the needle into the dogs slated to die, stop beating your ‘I Want To Breed’ drum - it’s becoming monotonous and getting you absolutely nowhere. With hundreds of thousands of puppies being pumped out of the PA and the midwest puppy mills, never fear - there will always be dogs and, unfortunately, those who continue to exploit them for money.

Comment by L. Jennings — May 26, 2007 @ 4:08 am
Interesting how you only post the comments YOU want to appear

Comment by What A. Crock — May 26, 2007 @ 4:22 am
Interesting how you only post the comments YOU want to appear

Comment by What A. Crock — May 26, 200

That’s not even remotely true. First-time posters are moderated, in case they’re porn spammers. Once you’ve posted once, your posts go through, unless the spam filters grab them.

Since we aren’t online — or awake — 24/7, it sometimes takes a little time for us to clear caught comments.

—

Until the people who are opposed to spay/neuter regulation are the individuals who insert the needle into the dogs slated to die, stop beating your ‘I Want To Breed’ drum – it’s becoming monotonous and getting you absolutely nowhere. With hundreds of thousands of puppies being pumped out of the PA and the midwest puppy mills, never fear – there will always be dogs and, unfortunately, those who continue to exploit them for money.

Comment by L. Jennings — May 26, 2007

OK, so … you have a problem with responsible, reputable breeders, but you’re cool with puppy mills? Or is it just that you know you can’t stop the greed-breeders, so yo want to target the people you can get?

Clearly, you neither know nor care the difference between a reputable breeder and the others. Some remedial reading, here and here.

Complex problems need targeted solutions. If you have a problem with puppy mills — and believe me, we do, with hundreds of posts on the subject you can find here — that seems to me to be the place you should be looking.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 26, 2007 @ 7:54 am
So what is going to happen if puppies, and that’s what they are, are neutered at four months of age - all of them, excepting the puppy mills and illegals? And not every legit breeder will be able to get a license to breed - it will be up to individual jurisdictions to decide.

Puppy mills in the states that allow them will flourish - puppies not cared for and sick and kept in cramped deplorable conditions will abound. What about those puppies who begin life with two or three strikes against them already?

What about the puppies that are trucked up from Mexico to fill the demand and die on route in wheel wells? If they aren’t sold, then they are just dumped in a field.

Responsible breeders are not the problem - puppy mills and people that churn out puppies every 10 weeks or so to make a few sorry bucks - they are the problem. Begin by targeting pet store sales of puppies and kittens and birds. and outlaw animals selling at flea markets. There lots of good solutions available other than the one now under consideration in the CA State Legislature.

Why not campaign for more pet training and avoid those that just let their dog loose, like the poor unruly young one I found in the middle of a busy rural road?

Oh, we can solve animal over population - just neuter them all. Very short sighted thinking here my friend.

Comment by Linda — May 26, 2007 @ 8:10 am
You want to stop a problem so you punish and restrict those that are doing “good” in the world, that are helping animals and improving health, that find good homes for the pets and will take back any pet that doesn’t work our. So you pass burdensome laws on law abiding citizens, and those that don’t give a rats fanny about laws - oh they continue and even expand and laugh in your face and dog misery continues and even grows - please stop the knee jerk thinking and consider all the ramifications of your position.

Comment by Linda — May 26, 2007 @ 8:26 am
Bravo, a great article on the ludicrous bill AB1634! This bill will never be properly enforced, eliminating responsible breeder and leaving the criminals to run amuck with the pet population.
Again, Bravo and thanks

Comment by patientpup — June 4, 2007 @ 5:11 pm
I agree - a great article!

Reading this discussion thread, a couple of things come to mind. (Full disclosure: I own a pet quality Siamese from a very, very reputable breeder as well as two rescued moggies; I show a rescue ragdoll, probably from a backyard breeder, in Household Pet and love cat shows; I’ve been asked by one of the best breeders I know whether I’d like to co-own an Aby and breed her, and I’m considering it. I’m also deeply involved in Siamese Rescue, as are most of the meezer breeders I’ve come to know.)

At every cat show I’ve gone to, there has been free space given to cat rescue organisations (not purebred rescue). At the last show I attended, more than twenty cats were adopted out. A judge I often clerk for was one of the adopters.

People in the fancy are often some of the most committed people re: rescue.

We oppose the bill because it is unreasonable. Not just the fees - but the requirements. I know of many queens who could not meet the requirement to be shown at least once every two years. Some don’t like showing; a pregnant queen doesn’t show well (and showing is itself costly); if the queen has nursing kittens, she can’t be taken to a show hall as they need her.

As for suggestions of things that could be done that would more closely address the problem of bybs and kitten/puppy mills, here’s some ideas:

First, don’t allow newspapers to advertise pets for sale (or giveaway, for that matter). Craigslist bans it: why not make papers do so also?

Second, don’t allow petstores to sell cats and dogs. (Here in Seattle, Petco and Petsmart have only rescue cats and no dogs.)

Just my thoughts after reading all these comments!

Comment by siameezer — June 9, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
I agree this law probably won’t solve the problems, I don’t know what ever will. Glad I don’t live in California, I don’t like purebreds, I truly do prefer mixed breed Heinz 57 Terriers. Most of them do come from irresponsible breeders/accidents/strays, etc. On the other hand, I have a five year old extra large Doberman with special needs, mostly Doberman personality stuff aggravated by severe abuse by his second owner, who, as his foster mum, I will probably have for a very long time, if indeed he ever is adopted. I don’t feel he should be euthanized because he was abused, but he is very difficult to work with, not sure I could trust anyone beside myself to be able to deal with him…what’s the solution???? I wish I knew. My other dog, mine not a foster, was so unsocialized when I took her out of the pound that it has taken her five years of watching me train other dogs to learn to sit, she has just shown a glimmer of learning down, and is still very very shy around visitors. Should they all be euthanized ? I don’t think so, on the other hand what ever will we do with them all? I know most people don’t want these dogs, that’s why I have them, I know I have the experience to deal. As for intentionally choosing a pet, well I’ve never had that luxury. My rule has always been that I don’t want a pet, “unless one comes along that needs me.” The humane group I work with tries to do a lot of education at the grade school level, to me , after hearing the horror stories the kids innocently come out with, this is like spitting in the wind. What the kids learn at home is going to stick with them a lot longer than anything we tell or show them. Maybe we should require animal parenting courses of all would-be pet parents, with some sort of a badge required to be affixed visibly to the front door or some such, so that uneducated pet parents could be reported and held accountable. Sort of like the old fire-badges such that if you didn’t have one and your house caught fire, no one was going to put it out.
I’m not even sure something like that would help, I think our pets will always suffer the worst of the evils that society dishes out, and I don’t see out society getting much better. Sorry to sound so grim, I just think all we can do is just keep doing the best we can. If we can eliminate all of society’s evils, the animals will no longer need us.

Comment by Kathy — June 12, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
I don’t know if the CA law will help, however as I understand it AB 1634 would exempt the following:
-Dogs who work as guide, rescue, service or signal dogs.
-Dogs used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement or rescue activities.
-Dogs and cats whose licensed veterinarian determines that, due to age, poor health or illness, it is unsafe to spay/neuter them.
-Purebred dogs and cats whose owners obtain a breeding permit.
-Purebred dogs and cats who participate in legitimate shows or sporting competitions.

The one exemption I would be concerned about is “purebred dogs and cats whose owners obtain a breeding permit”. To me, that would mean puppymills are exempt - and animal treatment or care, or breeder responsibility doesn’t matter.
All of my dogs (4 now, but I’ve had as many as 7 at a time during my adult lifetime) are strays or adoptions (most I found roaming the streets and in extremely bad condition - one was even burned and severely sliced with a knife). Another I got from the pound - he was removed from his former home because they were beating him. The abuse must have been extremely severe for animal control to remove him (they only give them 7 days win the heart of someone before killing them).

Anyway, I’m rambling off the subject. If you have alternative solutions can you work with your representatives to pass something that can stop the breeding of aggressive animals, stop puppy mills, or stop pet stores from purchasing from puppy mills?

Comment by Sandy — June 14, 2007 @ 9:47 am
Read the bill. In fact, commercial breeders/puppy mills (“licensed breeders”) are specifically exempt.

As as for those other exemptions, they are ill-defined and up to local jurisdictions to call.

But the point remains: The bill does nothing to address the complex problems that go into getting fewer pets into shelters and keeping them into homes.

Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 14, 2007 @ 10:03 am
After reviewing the proposed law, it appears, based upon a general overview, to be unconstitutional on two basic principles, First, it is a taking of a property right without just compensation by a governmental agency. In as much as cattle or horses, dog owner have the constitutional right to continue the perfection of its chattel/investment for what ever personal purposes; i.e. companionship, protection, assistance, development of new breeds etc. Consequently, restricting breeding to several categories is still a governmental taking when the citizen does not satisfy the exceptions. For this reason, you can not limit the number of calves a rancher can have or the individual experimentation to develop new breeds. Secondly, to create a law that so restricts the right of Interstate Commerce such that a California owner can not pursue the perfection of his/her investment with other non-California dog owners is overreaching and interferes with fundamental contractual rights relating to owned property.
Although the governmental purpose is to reduce the number of strays, it is overly intrusive for the said reasons and will be challengeable in federal court.

Comment by Attorney Rey Ramirez — June 16, 2007 @ 5:59 am
I am a Greyhound rescuer, not a breeder, a libertarian, and know quite a few responsible breeders, I live in California, and I am intimately familiar with and actively fighting this bill. Let me tell you why, in ten good reasons:

The bill itself is, as Mr. Ramirez aptly puts, unconstitutional. That’s the first reason.

The exemptions in the bill are impossible to achieve, according to the experts in the specific fields for those exemptions. That’s the second reason.

There is no mention for herding and farm/ranch dogs. That’s the third reason.

The bill places far too much discretion into local ACO hands, and gives them the ability to categorically deny intact permits even if the owner meets the exemption requirements by some miracle. That’s the fourth reason.

The bill creates not a uniform set of laws throughout the state, but a patchwork of local rules and discretionary judgements that can vary and cuase an owner to be in compliance in one county but not in the next. That’s the fifth reason.

The bill has the fines funding the enforcement of the law, which means a ethical conflict of interest for ACOs and a potential witch-hunt for dogs to add to the fines coffers. That’s the sixth reason.

The medical problems that come from premature spay/neuter are well documented, and have been mentioned in this thread, so I won’t bother to repeat them. That’s the seventh reason.

The permits expire on 1-1-2009 and the bill does not allow for any permits beyond that date, meaning no exemptions and all pets are altered. That’s the eighth reason.

The current (as of this posting) lack of any grace period on the violations creates instant fines that can put breed rescue organizations (such as those who rescued my retired racers) out of business, and create instant fines for those who applay for a permit and are turned down. That’s the ninth reason.

Current leash and license enforcement is about 14% in my county. If the current laws were already enforced properly, AB 1634 would be unnecessary. That’s the tenth reason.

And that doesn’t even begin to cover the lack of due process for violations…

I have had to euthanize four greyhounds in the past year. All of them were wanted and loved but their health failed them: Saturn from kidney and thyroid failure, Slim from hemaginosacoma, Bluebird from osteosarcoma (my heart hound), and Mustang, a Katrina survivor, from multiple strokes from chemical toxicity and brain damage from Katrina. All of them were age 11 or older, all of them had full lives, in the cases of Slim and Mustang, multiple chances, and I had to make the difficult call. I know what it’s like to love a dog and lose them. I know the emotion, I know the pain, I know the tears. I also know the rewards of owning them, too. And I know that AB 1634 will add to that, not cut it down. Reducing unwanted pet deaths by reducing all pet births is not the answer. The extremists at PETA and HSUS, I feel sorry for them, because they just don’t understand and never will, not the way we do. Someone higher up in the comments got it right on when they said the problem was people and not pets. AB 1634 punishes the pets, not the people.

Comment by mike — June 18, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
“breeding should be done by the truly responsible, by those who understand what their breed is for, who only breed correct examples of that breed and only the healthiest, most temperamentally sound of those animals at that” as quoted above

Bravo, well said!
A woman I know breeds from her Border Collie bitch not because she makes any money out of the puppies, (or so she says) but because her bitch likes having puppies. The reasons people give for irresponsible breeding are ludicrous including, “I let my dog have puppies to stop her getting cancer” Instead of crazy laws implimenting the castration/spaying of dogs which is against the Animal Welfarm Act that has been adopted by many countries worldwide, regulate dog breeding, prevent the sale of puppies unless from a government approved breeder and just stop everybody allowing their dogs to breed. Surgical castration is NOT the answer, educating the dog owner is!!!
Regards, puppy paws

Comment by Puppy paws — June 20, 2007 @ 12:59 am
Comment by Attorney Rey Ramirez — June 16, 2007 @ 5:59 am

“After reviewing the proposed law, it appears, based upon a general overview, to be unconstitutional on two basic principles, First, it is a taking of a property right without just compensation by a governmental agency.”

Of course, the AR (animal rights) people are trying to get around THAT by seeking to have “pet owners” redefined as “pet guardians”.

Yet another reason to oppose any movement by a legislative body to remove our right to OWN our pets.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 20, 2007 @ 4:11 am
Comment by Puppy paws — June 20, 2007 @ 12:59 am

“prevent the sale of puppies unless from a government approved breeder”

Well, considering that our various governmental bodies are infamous for not even being capable of enforcing leash laws but pretty good at sending soldiers overseas to die on bogus military information, I’m not sure I’d be willing to trust the government to be the ones to decide what constitutes a “pre-breeding approval”.

Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 20, 2007 @ 4:15 am
I agree absolutely! The pet officials will not be going into the bad neighborhoods, but in good ones where people are hard working and are responsible for their pets. Besides, my pet is my property, my posession! May be soon goverment will decide to put their nose in - who supposed to have a pet or not, or tell us in what color to paint our cars because sertain colors may be to agressive for someone and couse depression or some other crazy stuff.

Comment by Victoria — July 11, 2007 @ 9:40 am
…if people want to turn the way of homeless pets,we,and nobody else,must do it.

Comment by Irma — December 16, 2007 @ 8:40 am
Send a message Boycott Petco and please don’t support PETA. Petco was a big supporter of that AB1634. And PETA well they do have ties with terrorists and believe that there should not be any companion animals. You might also consider not supporting several of the animal organizations that supported AB1634 there are some lists on the AB1634 website saying who supported this bill. Of course we can not see the entire list, they claim people are afraid for their personal safety (yeah sure, most probably afraid of losing funding).

Comment by Madeleine — March 10, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
Madeleine, I think you are mixing up a number of issues.

I have not seen any claim that PETCO supports AB1634 at all, and I’ve been following this issue closely since AB1634 was introduced a year ago.

PETCO has appeared every year for many years as a supporter of the annual Spay Day event in Los Angeles. This year, the city government hijacked this non-political and non-controversial event to have a signing ceremony for their MSN ordinance.

Because PETCO was at the Spay Day event where the LA MSN ordinance was signed, they have been mis-represented in the news media and by some Los Angeles city officials as a supporter of the Los Angeles MSN ordinance. PETCO has answered numerous customer complaints with a reply that they do not support the ordinance and did not participate in the signing ceremony. PETCO says they don’t take sides on legislation, but rather leave that sort of thing to the pet industry trade group they are a member of, PIJAC.

PIJAC formally opposes AB1634. However, they’ve been reluctant to get actively involved in the fight. PIJAC’s Alerts on AB1634 are quite revealing about the pressures they face:
http://www.pijac.org/files/pub....._Alert.pdf
http://www.pijac.org/files/pub....._Final.pdf

That PETCO has been declared a supporter of the LA MSN ordinance is one of many lies from the Animal Rights extremists who sponsor AB1634 and the LA MSN ordinance. Let’s not fall for their dirty tricks.

It gets worse. During the public hearing before the Los Angeles City Council, prominent supporters of the MSN ordinance said that the CVMA and AVMA supported the ordinance. The Big Lie is standard operating procedure for the people peddling fascist AR legislation.

I am disappointed that PETCO has not AFAIK publicly disputed the widespread claims that they support the LA MSN ordinance. A press release and a prominent announcement on their website would go a long way toward countering these claims.

Comment by LauraS — March 10, 2008 @ 1:11 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Facebook	Twitter	Google Buzz	Digg
Technorati	StumbleUpon	Delicious	Email

pet connection

Do you like this story?