I have to say, though… I really like Siamese cats. We had one when I was a kid, and he was a great cat—smart, outgoing, sweet… I don’t have one now, because I can’t justify spending that much money on a cat with all the alley cats in the pound needing homes. If I ever get one, it’ll be from Siamese rescue, possibly an adult.
—————

Meezers rock! As does Siamese Rescue (www.meezer.com), which saves thousands of pointed cats, some of whom are ‘typey’ and some of whom aren’t. (Such as my Supreme Grand Master Household Pet raggie-wannabee Humphrey, whom they saved just because he had red points and was slated to be killed.)

If you want to hang out with meezer folks, many of whom do rescue, come to ‘Planet Meezer’ (planetmeezer.com). You’d be most welcome there!

I would move out of CA too if this bill passes. I am a native CA and I love CA but I refuse to submit to insanity.

Plus, under this bill, if I have a license for an intact dog, now I have to allow the authorities to search my home without a warrant at their leisure if for some reason my neighbor decides I have a rusty faucet that they are drinking water from, etc.?

Why would I give up a constitutional right that every other citizen enjoys, including ranchers, farmers and other breeders of other animals? Even your basic drug dealer has more rights.

I won’t. If this bill passes I am moving out of CA. That is it last straw. I have saved dozens of pets, my husband founded and leads a shelter auxiliary that has raised funds to provide needed medical aid and facilities; I have trained new “pet” owners so they can keep their unruly pets rather than dump them when they get too rowdy; and I have funded counless rescue organizations. If these groups can’t recognize the contribution our purebred fanciers provide, then I quit. I have been called names and accosted by groups that have come to me in the past for money and support. So now we know how much that counts for. I will move to a state, as much as I hate to leave, where I can live in some dgree of privacy and independence without someone who knows better than I do about my business telling me what to do.

Oh yes…can I also share data that shows the detrimental effects of early spay neuter? Ok..that is a post for later.

I have a real problem with this attitude among breeders. A 7 year old dog who has come into a situation where he can no longer be with the original owner - through illness, divorce, economic hardship, etc. - may have an option that is better for the dog than the disruption of going back to a breeder’s den. Breeders always have multiple dogs, and some dogs are NOT social with other dogs. Just like some humans are loners, some dogs are too.

In my mind, the dog is as much my responsibility as any other member of my family and is now a “lastname insert here” who has the full benefit of the entire familial network. It is much less disruptive for an animal to be with a family member or close friend who has always been “around” the animal. In my mind it is rather conceited to think only the original breeder is qualified to select a proper home.

Thank God I have not been in that position, but my current pup is a rescue, and if anything happens, I know who I can rely on to take care of him - just as my parents know that I will step up if anything happens and their dog needs care. (Of course, in her case half of the people who know her would want her and fully 95% would be wonderful peke parents.)

I’ve known my dog since he was a puppy, but the circumstances in his previous owner’s life changed dramatically. Smokey was never all that happy in the same house as his brother (same litter). He is a one dog kind of dog. It would be excessively cruel to put him in a multi-dog environment. Thus, my friend, knowing that I was preparing to get married and had just moved into my husband’s and my home, were perfect candidates. Once my husband met Smokey, it was love at first site. (This is his first dog, always had cats before.)

Now, part of me understands why breeders want to say and do this, but it smacks of patronizing high-handedness if you have thoroughly vetted the person acquiring the dog. The question should be the same one you ask someone about their children - or other human dependents - when it comes to future care if that person is no longer able to care for the animal. If the person cannot produce a plan of any sort, leave the option to bring the animal back open, but requiring it is just plain wrong.

I don’t care how well you think you know the pup, only the people who live with that dog know that dog well enough to know whether a new situation is right for the dog - at least if they were well-vetted to begin with. Now, if the future dog parents have not been vetted to the degree that you are comfortable with their decision on the dog’s care, you shouldn’t be selling to them. Period.

Pax,

MLO

He didn’t make the dog wear a muzzle, of course.

That dog was just plain wrong in the head. Whenever the guy went out of town he’d leave the dog locked in his room and his roommates would throw food in and slam the door because they were afraid of him. He also killed a litter of kittens and used to sneak up behind people with his teeth bared, going for the backs of their legs.

The dog was just plain wrong in the head, but I blame his owner.

Owners think their dogs can do no wrong even when presented with evidence otherwise. Ugh!