Comments on: The California breeding ban: Crunch time coming

By: H. Houlahan

H. Houlahan — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:33:12 +0000

Chris (Mulekist), may I respectfully suggest that you attend to your ability, financial and otherwise, to provide proper husbandry to the animals who are in your custody and for the care of whom you are legally and morally responsible.

Now, having that all under control *does not* give anyone carte blanche to dictate how others care for their animals. But not having that under control provides clay feet for any argument one presents about what the government should force other people to do to and with their privately owned pets.

By: JenniferJ

JenniferJ — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 23:10:34 +0000

Two excellent summations on the downsides of MSN and limit laws

http://www.nokilladvocacycente.....rylaws.pdf

http://www.nokilladvocacycente.....itLaws.pdf

By: francis

francis — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:57:38 +0000

Jennifers - MSN would be a hindrance for foster homes - excellent point - pet limit ordinances are a hindrance big time in my area for foster homes - I recently saw on the news in China they are enforcing a one dog limit without grandfathering in the law - so pet owners are forced to give up their pets to meet the quota - Sophie’s Choice for dogs, very sad…

By: JenniferJ

JenniferJ — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:33:53 +0000

francis, that’s mine and please do use it as much as you like!

that’s the point :D

oh and whoops, my post had the half finished thought about ASPCA. The point is they do NOT endorse MSN per their own published statements, as it has never been shown to actually help while VOLUNTARY programs do. :)

By: JenniferJ

JenniferJ — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:29:58 +0000

Hmmm, to be fair, MuleKist appears to be dedicated to animal welfare judging from her site and a google search.

But sometimes when your deep in the forest, you cannot see it for the trees.

it’s easy to become frustrated and disillusioned with people, and feel that there just has to be a simple answer out there.

The problem is that with many animal welfare and other social issues, it ain’t as simple as “if there was only a law!”

MuleKist, the No-Kill Advocacy Center has a real problem with MSN. Alley Cat Allies has a real problem with MSN. The “little” 501c3 rescue that processes 125-150 dogs yearly which I’ve been part of for 22 years now has a real problem with MSN. And if this law passes, I fear we will lose many of our foster homes as they are, get ready for it, Responsible Breeders. Under SB250, keeping an extra dog for even a few days or getting one annoyed neighbor calling on a barky new foster ONE time and they will lose their right to keep not just their licensed intact dogs and any in the future.

But even if you HATE breeders and feel intact domestic pets are somehow offensive and evil, how can anyone concerned with the welfare of animals support laws which are PROVEN killers of pets and strays?

MSN COSTS, FAILS, KILLS.

You’re a member of ASPCA. They don’t endorse MSN

By: K. B.

K. B. — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:24:32 +0000

Oh, I forgot to add this:

When did we forget about the people who put pets in shelters in the first place - the OWNERS. Not the breeders, not people who buy from responsible breeders, but the owners who, for whatever reason, decided to abandon their pets?

Do they not share any of the blame for the “over-population”?

(which actually isn’t an over-population problem, it’s more of a distribution problem, but let’s not ruin a good argument with any stinkin’ facts).

By: francis

francis — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:23:57 +0000

mulekist - you should read the last few comments from the article - There’s Nothing “Progressive” about Mandatory Spay/neuter - or better the whole article and all the comments - one of the past comments asked for a slogan type of thing to quickly educate the negatives of mandatory spay/neuter - I apologize to who came up with it but its MSN - COSTS, FAILS, KILLS - even if someone doesn’t know exactly why MSN is not a good idea their interest would be triggered by the slogan - sooo what if breeders, RESPONSIBLE loving breeders came up with a slogan - something that emphasizes loving caring, preservation of lines, parentage - and you know all the good things - just the word breeder has a bad connotation and I really hope I’m not stepping on toes saying so….but it’s what I’ve seen and been around and sounds like mulekist has been fed the same stuff - so to correct misconceptions emphasize the compassionate green side of breeding…

By: K. B.

K. B. — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:21:16 +0000

The only people against mandatory S&N are the breeders themselves, naturally.

Comment by MuleKist — June 26, 2009 @ 2:03 pm

I’m not a breeder.

I’m against MSN.

Thus, your argument is proven invalid.

By: JenniferJ

JenniferJ — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:14:04 +0000

Go Gina!

By: Gina Spadafori

Gina Spadafori — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 21:39:19 +0000

Ray Charles could see that! Why cant you?

Comment by MuleKist — June 26, 2009

I’m guessing we can’t “see that” because we’re not haters who want to punish pets and the people who love them with laws that kill more animals than they save.

Just guessing, though.

And by the way, you don’t know crap-all what the laws you want really are about, you don’t know what good breeders do, and you certainly aren’t the only “real” animal lover in the world. But you certainly ARE being led to push the extinction of pets by people who are manipulating your emotion for their agendas.

Mandatory spay-neuter has worked exactly NOWHERE, and it has KILLED MORE ANIMALS than it saves exactly EVERYWHERE, all at higher cost to taxpayers. And many of those breeders you trash have done more rescue work than you have, I’ll guarantee you.

Bring some facts, not just your talking points, and lose the hate or shove off. I’m tired of talking-point parrots who can’t be bothered to think beyond the hate and sound bites handed to them by extremists. Just because something “sounds good” and makes you feel “special” doesn’t mean it works or that you can a clue.