Mandatory spay-neuter stalls in California Assembly
By Gina Spadafori
June 6, 2007
Update, 11:18 p.m. PT: The bill passed the Assembly and now goes to the Senate. Just off the phone with the office of Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, author of AB1634, the mandatory spay-neuter bill.
The bill came up for a vote today. Assemblyman Levine did not have enough votes for it to pass and it is currently “on call” while its author tries to get enough votes. His office says he will not bring it up to a vote if he doesn’t have enough votes. If he can’t get it passed tonight, AB 1634 dies.
If you want to get this pointless, punitive piece legislation stopped, now would be a good time to call and fax your state Assemblymember if you’re a California resident.
Our reasons against AB 1634 are here. Letters from promiment veterinarians against are here and here. Finally, Christie’s piece on what being a reputable breeder really means and her piece on SFGate.com.
Short take on why this isn’t good legislation:
– AB 1634 offers an unworkably simplistic solution that does NOT address the realities of a complex problem of unadoptable pets.
– AB 1634 does NOT offer targeted solutions to what is in fact a shortage of pets people do want, and a surplus of animals they don’t. (Feral cats, large breeds and mixes of dogs with unfairly bad reputations, primarilly pit bulls). This imbalance is so real that urban non-profit shelters have set up programs to “cherry-pick” adoptable pets (primarily small dogs and puppies) from rural municipal shelters, while continuing to euthanize the unwanted pets in their own communities.
– AB 1634 will NOT affect commercial breeders (a/k/a “puppy mills” and clueless, careless and greedy under-the-radar quick-buck breeders who sell for through flyers, the Internet or at swap meets or even in supermarket parking lots. These people don’t properly care for or license their pets now, and won’t if AB 1634 passes.
– AB 1634 WILL affect responsible reputable breeders of healthy, well-socialized pets and working dogs. These breeders are NOT the ones putting pets in the shelters. The bill’s negotiated changes to “exempt” such breeders are ill-defined and insufficient. Lipstick on a pig. Meanwhile, AB 1634 specifically exempts large-scale commercial breeders, a/k/a puppy mills.
– AB 1634 WILL drive millions of dollars from the California economy, as dog shows and dog sports (including one of the premier shows in the nation, the AKC-Eukanuba National Invitational, now hosted by the city of Long Beach) will leave the state.
We are all for solutions to reducing the number of unwanted pets. We are not, however, in favor of legislation that targets the people who didn’t put those animals in the shelters: reputable breeders.
Just heard from an assembly member’s office that it passed, and will now move to the senate.
Unreal.
Comment by Luisa — June 6, 2007 @ 1:21 pm
Unreal. Now in the Senate…..ugh!
Comment by Linda — June 6, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
I just called my State Senator - he opposes it and still opposes is and is going to vote no!
Comment by Linda — June 6, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Not so fast. :)
I just called Assemblyman Levine’s office (1:30 p.m. PT). The bill is still “on call.”
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 6, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
This is killin’ me.
Got the “it passed” info from someone in Assembley Member Julia Brownley’s office. [slaps forehead] See if I trust a political spokesperson again…! [/irony]
Comment by Luisa — June 6, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
Called my assembyman here in CA again, he voted “No” the first time and they said he is not changing his mind and is voting “No” on a revote…
Good for him!
Comment by Linda — June 6, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
My assemblyman is Devore. I just spoke to his office and he opposes it. Turns out there is a positive side to being in a firmly republican district, I guess.
When does the Senate vote come up?
Comment by Alison — June 6, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
I just got an email saying AB 1634 is being voted on at the end of today.
Comment by Barb — June 6, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Also just to note, the talking points that Devore’s rep mentioned as having influenced him were (1) the bill punishes good pet owners and (2) vets indicate there may be negative behavioral consequences from early neutering.
Comment by Alison — June 6, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
If it doesn’t pass the Assembly, it dies.
As of 3:34 p.m. PT, it is still “on call” — meaning the author is trying to collect more votes. It is looking as if he won’t get them.
The Assembly is near the end of its session, and will work late tonight. Last night, they stayed until midnight.
So … contact your Assembly member. There MAY be another vote, but only if Levine thinks he has enough. It has already been voted on once today, not enough to pass.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 6, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
“It is looking as if he won’t get them.”
From your lips to doG’s ears. Can’t thank you enough for the updates.
Comment by Luisa — June 6, 2007 @ 3:56 pm
I realize you all are opposing this bill, but that is not my stance. Not when I routinely get 50-100 desperate emails a day from all across the country regarding perfectly healthy cats/dogs who are on death row and rescuers & shelter workers frantically trying to place them before their short life is taken away unnecessarily. Pet overpopulation is a huge problem, which I’m sure you all will agree but we have to start somewhere. Has anyone opposing this bill come up with an alternative bill they think is better?
What about limits on the amount of animals a breeder can breed? Example…this email I just received moments ago. 140!!! If anyone is interested in adopting a pekingese, please contact person below.
From: Dana Dicker
Date: 6/5/2007 4:01:08 PM
HOUSTON AREA: 100 + PEKINGESE NEED RESCUE - Breeder PassedAway
*Please respond to Amy Green: greenlynnamy@yahoo.com (@yahoo.com) , or: 832- 453-6377. I am only cross posting information.
A Pekingese breeder passed away on Saturday, she has 140 Pekingese, ranging in age from new puppies to adults. They are UTD on shots, AKC registered & microchipped.
The executor of the estate says all Pekes must be adopted/
picked up by Friday 06/08/07.
*If you can help, please contact Amy Green at: greenlynnamy@yahoo.com (@yahoo.com)
or call: 832- 453-6377.
The dogs are being kept in Cat Spring, TX., a little town west of Katy, just outside Houston, TX.
We currently have only until Friday to take as many of the animals as we can.
Comment by Barb — June 6, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
Has anyone opposing this bill come up with an alternative bill they think is better?
If you click on the link to my article that Gina included up above, you’ll see my suggestion for something that would actually WORK.
Unless the reason for too many deaths in California shelters is too many births, then strategies targeting births are DOOMED TO FAIL.
Dogs and cats end up in shelters for a wide variety or reasons, and almost none of them have to do with too many puppies and kittens being born.
Implementing ineffective laws because “it’s better to do something than nothing” is doomed to fail, because passing those laws takes up resources, media attention, and lawmaker time. If someone came up with an effective program the following year, no one will have any time to give it. “Reducing shelter deaths? Didn’t we do that last year?”
Comment by Christie Keith — June 6, 2007 @ 4:39 pm
Another point I’d like to make is this:
The horribleness of a situation has no relationship to the effectiveness of a proposed solution.
Because I don’t want to see dogs and cats put to death in California shelters for want of good homes, I am OPPOSED to this legislation, which I believe will not help and could make some aspects of the situation worse.
The more horrible you convince me the problem is, the more I want an ACTUAL solution, and the more I oppose this bill.
Comment by Christie Keith — June 6, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
Besides, AB 1634 gives a free pass to puppy mills/volume breeders —- it would do nothing to prevent tragedies like those 140 Pekingese owned by a single breeder.
Comment by Luisa — June 6, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Sorry, Christie, but I disagree. Two of the three kitties running my household were abandoned at shelters because - according to the paperwork! - the “mother got pregnant.” (And no, I didn’t go looking for those in particular. It’s just why they were there.)
I agree responsible breeders aren’t the problem. So fine. Add an exception to the law for registered breeders - along with a hefty one-time fee for registration to dissuade the backyard folks, which, let’s face it, most breeders are. But why should the “love of the purebred dog” (or cat) outweigh the plight of the rest?
I’ve even heard arguments that don’t have enough strays to meet demand. WTF? Across the US, kill rates run around 70% at best to a lot worse. So why not move some around to places of higher demand, and charge a little more (a natural anyway if the market is tighter)? It worked well for Katrina pets.
Comment by Laura — June 6, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
I agree with nearly every point made by the past president of the CVMA…
Yes there is a problem with abandoned animals.
NO, for me, this legislation is NOT the answer.
Like Christie, the more you convince me of the seriousness of the problem, the more convinced I am that this bill would be a disaster.
Comment by Natalie — June 6, 2007 @ 5:10 pm
You make a lot of valid points in your article Christie but on this one, I’m going to have to agree to disagree, although I do agree that responsible breeders are not the problem.
It is my understanding that the writers of this bill personally asked AKC to join them in drafting this bill but AKC declined. That, I don’t understand.
Comment by Barb — June 6, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
For anyone who *doesn’t* breed or show registered purebreds, how is this *not* the answer? Seriously, I’m asking the question.
Some examples from my menagerie:
My late cat, Max, was tossed out of a car onto my street in the Midwest, in the height of kitten season. Think it had something to do with the fact he didn’t cost anything? I do. I’ve never seen anyone throw an IPod or a TV out a car window. What people have to work for, they’re more likely to value.
My partner’s cat, Chance, was found wandering a parking lot with a severe long-standing eye infection. Luckily, she’s a vet, and he now has a good home. But if it wasn’t easier and cheaper to adopt another free kitten than to take him to the vet, do you think he’d have been in the parking lot to start with?
Our dog, Woody, was set to be euthanized at our (very good, mostly) shelter for the crime of having some white on his muzzle. They thought no one would adopt him because he “looked too old.” His teeth say he’s actually about three. And before you blame the shelter, remember - they have to pick and choose because - wait for it - there are so many more animals available than there are homes.
Our new kitten, P, was slated to be put down because she was too little (4 weeks) to be cared for at the overcrowded shelter. The shelter staff had to make that policy because they get 2-3 dozen kittens a day, and they don’t have the staff or the time it takes to help the small ones survive. (She was sneaked out by a staffer and also has a good home with us now. She’s small, but she rocks.)
And last but not least, my girl cat Marley was a feral kitten adopted out by the pound to a woman who brought her back 8 weeks later, saying she was too “kitten-like.” (Darn those “kitten-like” kittens!) My point is that if the kitten had cost the woman more than her PetSmart bed and litter box, maybe she’d have thought twice about her impulse adoption.
Yes, there are unadoptable pets at shelters. But the vast majority who die are NOT put down because they aren’t adoptable. They’re put down because there aren’t ENOUGH homes, pure and simple.
I’m all for responsible breeders, and I love purebred dogs and cats (we even own one - a black Lab). Would I pay a little more for my next purebred so my breeder can afford a special no-spay registration fee? In a heartbeat. But something has to be done about the rest of them. We’re out of room. :)
Comment by Laura — June 6, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
140 Pekes is a puppy mill, not a reputable breeder.
Why should reputable breeders who did not cause the problem be the ones to be targeted?
AB 1634 is a “simple solution” to a complex problem. Which means, it doesn’t address the problem at all.
Here’s what’s really going on. Now, come up with a way to reduce the numbers of unadoptable feral cats and the tens of thousands of unwanted pit bulls who have no hope no matter how wonderful they are and we have something. Because THOSE are the animals filling the shelters. Because THOSE are the animals no one wants.
You cannot tell a person who wants a fluffy little dog that he or she can only have a big dog with a bad reputation. They’re just going to go elsewhere — to the puppy-mill outlet, the underground market for puppies (including sick ones smuggled in from Mexico) or the Internet.
There is such a shortage of the dogs people want that urban shelters IMPORT dogs — cute small dogs and puppies — because they don’t have hardly any to offer. There’s nothing wrong with that, except that it’s wrong to claim that reputable breeders are the problem when your shelter is euthanizing the animals no one wants — animals no reputable breeder put there — and you’re bringing more in from elsewhere.
Screaming “stop the killing” at us isn’t changing a thing — and neither will AB 1634. A bad bill isn’t any better than no bill at all. It may even be worse.
The same people who are putting those pets no one wants in the shelters won’t pay attention to the law. They don’t now, and they won’t then.
And the puppy mills? Well, guess what? THEY are legal under this bill. Had to be, because the pet-industry lobbyists wouldn’t let it pass if they weren’t.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 6, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
Sorry, Christie, but I disagree. Two of the three kitties running my household were abandoned at shelters because – according to the paperwork! – the “mother got pregnant.”
Did you read my article? Did you see the actual reasons people surrender pets to shelters? Your two may have been there because of irresponsible owners who let their cats “get pregnant”…. which they probably would still do if this law passed, because passing a law doesn’t make the people who don’t care start caring… but most pets are in shelters because of other reasons, such as landlord problems, or moving issues, or behavior problems.
We can’t base public policy on anecdotal evidence and n=2. We need to understand the nature of the problem before we can draft solutions. And of course… the problem varies from area to area. There isn’t ONE problem in CA, there are a number of different problems, and that’s why the solution has to be local, not statewide.
I’ve even heard arguments that don’t have enough strays to meet demand. WTF? Across the US, kill rates run around 70% at best to a lot worse. So why not move some around to places of higher demand, and charge a little more (a natural anyway if the market is tighter)? It worked well for Katrina pets.
This is a plan that has some merit, and in fact, is what’s already going on in different areas. But there’s nothign at all in this legislation that would facilitate it happening. Why don’t we have THAT law being proposed instead? And why is THAT argument being used to support a bill that in now way accomplishes that goal?
Comment by Christie Keith — June 6, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
It is my understanding that the writers of this bill personally asked AKC to join them in drafting this bill but AKC declined. That, I don’t understand.
Because this bill can’t be fixed, tweaked, adjusted, or reworded, because the entire premise on which it is based is flawed.
Comment by Christie Keith — June 6, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
Comment by Christie Keith — June 6, 2007 @ 7:26 pm
[snip] “We can’t base public policy on anecdotal evidence and n=2. We need to understand the nature of the problem before we can draft solutions.”
Sorry, but I haven’t heard anyone but breeders debating the “nature of the problem.” And you don’t need to rely on anecdotal evidence to prove it, either. The statistical evidence is that there are a lot more pets than homes. And tens of thousands die every day, not because they’re inherently unadoptable, but because there aren’t enough interested parties.
Solution? Cut down on the supply by a) requiring all breeders and animal rescue groups by law to actually FOLLOW UP on spay/neuter requirements. Less supply = higher value for the remaining product. (sorry, but it’s true.) The dogs and cats that are now euthanized because they’re too old/too young/too big/too small, or would require 10 minutes a day of training, stop being liabilities and start being more marketable.
Gina’s argument that folks will turn to underground breeders or Mexican importers? Well, sure, I agree you won’t stop them. But at least you have something to charge them with when you catch them - which ain’t hard! (Try the parking lot at the State Fairgrounds or the Rose Bowl any weekend morning!)
I get what you’re saying about puppy mills, industry lobbyists and etc. But maybe the trick is to pass this law and then refine it next year. That might be easier than starting over from scratch.
If you lose the AKC match, what does that cost the state? And then what does caring for and killing unwanted pets cost CA? I’m betting the AKC take isn’t even a perceptible fraction of the cost.
Yes, I get what you’re saying - the bill’s a long way from perfect. But the “entire premise on which it’s based” doesn’t look that flawed from here, anyway. It looks like a small, flawed, fraught step in the right direction.
Comment by Laura — June 6, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
Re Christie’s post:
“Did you read my article? Did you see the actual reasons people surrender pets to shelters? Your two may have been there because of irresponsible owners who let their cats “get pregnant”…. which they probably would still do if this law passed, because passing a law doesn’t make the people who don’t care start caring… but most pets are in shelters because of other reasons, such as landlord problems, or moving issues, or behavior problems.”
Yeah, I did see your article. Unfortunately, it bears little relevance to any shelter I know outside of a big city.
Our local shelter has 4 dozen kittens under 14 weeks, many in sibling groups.
Do you really want to say they’re all there for behavior problems, or landlords, or moving? Because they’re not. They’re there because their mothers never got spayed. Period.
Maybe shelter overcrowding in SF is due to behavior problems. But if you go west of Vallejo or south of Stanford, you may find that ain’t the case at all.
Comment by Laura — June 6, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
Laura, In general, the problem isn’t *getting* animals into homes - it’s *keeping* them there.
http://www.petpopulation.org/
People adopt cute little kittens and puppies, and then when they become expensive or inconvenient or develop behavior issues or whatever, they surrender them to a shelter and go get another cute little kitten or puppy.
There are shelters and humane societies around the country that have built on these learnings by offering (often required) classes with adoptions, behavior helplines, and so on. Because every time a dog gets relinquished and rehomed, the dog becomes a greater and greater behavior risk until s/he oftentimes becomes unadoptable and must be euthanized (they are referred to as “revolving door dogs”).
So see - there are some pretty dedicated and learned NON-breeders studying this issue, too.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 6, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
Sorry - forgot to add -
[snip] “passing a law doesn’t make the people who don’t care start caring”
You could logically extend that argument to any law, like, say against robbery or rape. That doesn’t make it ethically sound.
Law may be preventive in intention, but it’s retroactive in fact. You won’t see signs folks care about pets till fall. But fining bad breeder hundreds of dollars might make them stop breeding MORE pets.
Comment by Laura — June 6, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 6, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
Hey, TOP! You’re right. Many folks are looking at the issue.
But can you tell me how a law requiring spay/neuter would hurt those “revolving door dogs”? That’s really the question I’m asking.
And…if the “market” was more expensive for dogs, do you think we’d see so many brought back? I think we’d see more referrals to pet psychologists if people believed their pets were of value, rather than disposable.
Comment by Laura — June 6, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
Laura, I live west of Vallejo, where the Sacramento SPCA has been importing dogs for years because all they get large numbers of the dogs people don’t want.
The unwanted dogs are pit bulls, for the most part. I’m not making a value judgment on them — I like pit bulls. But people don’t want them, and least not in the numbers they are being bred. They want small dogs, puppies and dogs who are not of a breed or mix with a bad reputation.
And most of the rest of the unwanted pets are adult cats, a lot of those feral or semi-feral.
You can mandate the neutering of every fluffy little dog in the state, and it ain’t going to keep one gangbanger or meth freak from breeding pit bulls for $25-$50 a pup, cash. And it’s not going to stop THOSE dogs from ending up in the shelters.
Solve the problem by attacking the problem, not by picking the easy fruit — reputable breeders who are not the problem. Define the problem, target the solution.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 6, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
Maybe shelter overcrowding in SF is due to behavior problems. But if you go west of Vallejo or south of Stanford, you may find that ain’t the case at all.
Even if I were to concede that, then it just raises the same question I’ve been asking all along: Why impose a one size fits all solution on a problem that’s not the same in different parts of the state?
Comment by Christie Keith — June 6, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
I’m saying why write a law that will hurt Responsible Breeders, leave Commercial Breeders essentially unscathed, and totally fail to address the core issue of KEEPING dogs in homes? It’s a “feel good” law, and we already have far too many of those being pushed or passed.
And the Commercial Breeders thrive when the “market” starts to get more expensive, because folks who either can’t afford a well-bred dog from a Responsible Breeder (or are unwilling to submit to the screening process to get one) have the Commercial Breeders to turn to who will happily turn over a puppy for $$$ or plastic.
About the spay/neuter - I believe this bill requires pediatric spay/neuter - and there is LOTS of disagreement on whether that is a good idea or not. Just as with vaccination protocols (where the scientific community is divided) I want to retain the right to make decisions on what *I* think is best for my dog’s overall health - not have such a decision legislated for me.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 6, 2007 @ 10:08 pm
But can you tell me how a law requiring spay/neuter would hurt those “revolving door dogs”? That’s really the question I’m asking.
It DOES hurt them, though. Because there is a limited amount of money, time, and attention any issue can get from lawmakers, fundraisers, donators, and media.
By sucking it all up on a bad solution, you are literally reducing the chances for a GOOD solution later on.
Furthermore, you have to realize that statistically, the vast majority of owned dogs and cats in California are in fact already altered. The animals out there who are being bred in California are being bred by either millers, who are going to be exempt from this legislation, idiots who don’t care now and won’t care then, and unowned pets, mostly cats.
NONE of those populations will be impacted by mandatory spay/neuter. The tiny number of people who will be motivated to obey this law but haven’t already speutered their pets is not likely to be large enough to impact this problem, even if you believe — which I don’t — that reducing births will reduce deaths.
The reason I don’t believe reducing births will reduce deaths is that people will still want pets, they’ll just get them somewhere else. And they’ll just keep dumping them for the same reasons they dump them now, and nothing will change, or it might actually get worse, if they switch from small, responsible local breeders to internet sales, where they can pop a puppy in the shopping cart like it was a new TV.
Comment by Christie Keith — June 6, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
Here are some of the specific points I disagree with in the bill and why:
1) The bil requires pediatric spay/neuter. The scientific community remains divided on the question of whether this is harmful to dogs. I don’t want a possibly dangerous choice foisted on me and my dog via legislation.
2) The bill permits each community to set the amount of an intact permit fee. This means an “anti-breeder” community could decide to set fees so high as to be beyond the means of a Responsible Hobby Breeder. And lest you think this is far-fetched, there is a community near me that offers “Kennel License Applications” if you want to keep more than three dogs, but they have never actually *ISSUED* one. They just use it as a means to find people with more than three dogs, and then they tell them they either have to move or get rid of the “extra” dogs. Happened to a friend of mine, and she moved.
3) The bill requires the posession of a business licence to get an intact permit. Most Responsible Hobby Breeders do not operate businesses. *ALL* Commercial Breeders *DO*.
4) To get an intact permit, the dog or cat must be “a valid breed that is recognized by an approved registry or association”. Who deems which registries and associations will be “approved”? By what criteria? (AKC? UKC? WKC? APRI? ARBA? Do you know what all of those are? Would you include all of them? Some of them? None of them? Others not named here? Why or why not?)
5) Same problem with the requirement to show with a recognized registry or association. Who deems which registries and associations will be “approved”? By what criteria?
These things alone make it an unworkable bill. So why waste money, time and legislative resources on it instead of putting the money to use finding ways to KEEP dogs in homes once they get there?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 6, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
http://www.news10.net/display_.....ryid=28787
Dayum.
I’m ashamed to be a Democrat.
Comment by Luisa — June 6, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
Arghh. I don’t live in California, THANK DOG. And fortunately my state is more likely NOT to do something, because those leftys out in San Francisco did it. We are very red, usually to my dismay, but in this case….
Anyway, I have to agree with Christy, the shelters are full, but getting rid of responsible breeders is not the way to get people to adopt dogs that would otherwise be put down in the shelters. I have a friend who has been looking for a small, non-shedder, who likes kids and cats for several years now. There is maybe one at our local shelter who would work for her, but I’ll bet you she’ll be gone by the time my friend can get to the shelter…
I went to our local shelters pet connection page. There are 100 animals on it. 51 cats, 49 dogs. Of the dogs only 5 are smallish — Chihuahua mix, Jack Russell Terrier, Bichon Frise, Beagle Mix, Shih Tzu Mix. All of the other are biggish/active type dogs Shepherd/Golden Retriever, Australian Cattle Dog/Blue Heeler, Australian Shepherd/Border Collie, Cattle Dog, Border Collie, Border Collie, Border Collie, Border Collie, Catahoula Leopard Dog, Saint Bernard, St. Bernard/Border Collie, Labrador Retriever, Labrador Retriever, Terrier, Shepherd, English Springer Spaniel, Bernese Mountain Dog, Briard, Doberman Pinscher, Rottweiler, Labrador Retriever/Standard Poodle, Labrador Retriever/Dalmatian etc…
I know that they don’t put up pictures of all the Labs, Labxs, Border Collies, Cattle dogs. Etc. If they get one that’s cute and will photograph well, up goes his picture. Then if you go in to look at Buddy the Lab you get to see all of the labs and labxs. I also know that many of the cute little dogs aren’t in the shelter long enough to even get their pictures taken and posted. Most go way quick. I would be willing to guess that the 5 little dogs mostly or maybe all have issues of health or temperament that make them less adoptable. That’s why they are still there. Not to say you can’t get a nice dog, even a nice little dog at the shelter, you can, but you have to circle the place like a vulture and be willing to keep ignoring all the nice labs, border collies, and cattle dogs. My Sable (mini schnauzer) came out of the shelter, but with major health issues that made most people unwilling to take a chance on her. I have been the corgi rescue contact for 5 years or so, and have been involved in taking one corgi that the shelter wasn’t able to quickly place. (an older guy with health issues)
Of the cats easily 80-90% will be put down. 50-60% of the dogs will be put down — mostly the labs, labx’s, border collies, and cattle dogs. Tell me how spaying every corgi and mini schnauzer in the state is going to help???
Comment by schnauzer — June 7, 2007 @ 8:00 am
The problem is people who don’t keep their animals for life. Look at the stupid reasons owners dump their dog at the local kill shelter: I’m moving, I don’t have time for my dog, and my personal favorite, I’m having a baby. (I always wonder how those people will deal with baby #2. Will they get rid of baby #1?) A rescuer I know of heard from an animal control officer that her shelter got over 100 dogs on the Friday before Memorial Day. What a nice lesson to teach your kids — we’re going in vacation so let’s take Fido to the shelter. That’s why there are so many dogs and cats in shelters. Maybe if it were more difficult to get a dog, more people would be willing to stick with it once they got it. And not all small dogs in shelters are adopted right away. I moderate Yahoo groups for Shih Tzus and Lhasas in need of rescue and rehoming, and there are lots out there. But I do agree that the little dogs tend to get adopted more quickly.
Comment by Patty — June 8, 2007 @ 11:36 am
You may all jump around and declare me a loon after reading my post but please let me assure you that I am far from alone in my refusal to accept this ridiculous bill as law, should it pass. Just so you all know, my puppy buyers are the GREATEST! Maybe its because they passed thru the application process, four pages, bought and read the $50.00 book as I require, made it thru three very long interviews with me as well as a home check. Then they get to sign the 4 page contract which explains limited registration, non breeding clause and consequences,(a substantial fine is mandated and dog will be confiscated if buyer fails to alter dog). In 18 years I have had only 2 dogs needing a new home. One because the lady took back an abusive husband and the dog was reluctant to accept him, (WRONG DOG LEFT THAT HOME!!) and one because other people showing made rude comments about the dog and the owner was too insecure to ignore them. If you think I am creating the pet overpopulation problem you are very much mistaken. Why is it okay for someone to have 1 or two dogs, poorly cared for, ill fed and mangy, while it is wrong for me to spend ALL my time, money and energy on OVER THE LEGAL LIMIT dogs with treats, regular gooming, walks, tons of training, attention, love, top quality food, regular outings, etc.? I DO have a plan to make certain that no “breeder” escapes responsibility for their own puppies. BUT if the state of cal thinks they can come take my dogs over this poorly written bill…HA. Somebody better be handing out the flak jackets. I will NOT go quietly nor will most of the other dedicated fanatical hobby breeders I know. I have given my life to these dogs and if you try to take them out of my life…be prepared to lose yours. I will let the state pay for the trial and incarceration. But I will never, not ever, let some animal reg. guy come and take my dogs without fighting, and I do mean to the death. You think this is appropriate? Huh, there are more ill bred PEOPLE in California than there are dogs, how about a spay/neuter bill for them? I will NOT lay down quietly as you open the borders to pour ever greater numbers of aliens in so you can come and dictate to me that the dogs who make life worth living must go? HAHA I laugh with glee. Check ammo, close portals, extinguish light, get ready. Aim. FIRE. This, ladies and gents, happens to be NOT the U.S.S.R. Merica but the US of A. There are some things worth dying for and by GOD…I am not going to retreat one step.
Comment by Cindy dogrbetter — June 17, 2007 @ 10:12 am