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???

Dayum.

I’m ashamed to be a Democrat.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.