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.
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.
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.
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: N