Playing the blame game on mandatory spay-neuter … and seeing the light
By Gina Spadafori
July 2, 2007
This morning I went to a neighborhood meeting with my state senator, Darrell Steinberg, a decent, earnest sort of guy who got his start in politics working to form a neighborhood association and crime watch where we both used to live. That was 15 years ago, give or take, and even then pet-related issues could be nasty.
I remember him, as the neighborhood association president, helping to calm down the woman who was outraged that she saw a dog use a slide on the park’s kiddie gym and the dog-lover who pointed out that she paid for that equipment, too. (OK, OK, I admit it: The second party was me. There were no kids around, and my well-mannered, obedience-titled Sheltie Andy and I left when the woman showed up with her kids. But I did pay for the equipment, just as much as she did, and I still don’t see the problem with teaching a dog to climb the ladder and slide down. So there.)
Anyway … Sen. Steinberg is still an earnest, decent sort of guy, albeit better dressed than I remember. And he’s still good at making sure everyone gets listened to and no one’s point of view isn’t aired. He remembered me from all those years ago … gee, I wonder why?
This morning, the room was almost all No on AB 1634 (California’s mandatory spay-neuter bill — mandatory, except for puppy mills, that is), except for one obviously nice, caring and well-meaning woman who nonetheless thought she held the moral high ground because she was “the only one here without a profit motive.” Which is to say, she is one of those who thinks a breeder is a breeder is a breeder, and that all we’re all doing is cranking out dogs for the dough.
A lot of us laughed out loud (couldn’t help ourselves) at the concept of making money on our dogs, who are, after all, more than our hobby (although we’re “hobby breeders” when we breed at all). Our dogs, individually, and preserving and protecting our breeds are our lives. Think of that what you will: It’s true.
At the table were people (”Breeders,” hissed the nice woman with ill-concealed contempt) who do rescue work, each paying out of pocket to foster, patch up, vaccinate, neuter and find homes for more dogs and cats than the nice woman would ever own, people who breed rarely if at all (always carefully planned, with all the testing for genetic defects) and always at a loss because they are in it for the love of the breed and the dogs.
People like … well, me. Never bred a litter, fostered and placed dozens of dogs as the head of a rescue group — and couldn’t be more opposed to AB 1534.
And Christie, who is well capable of speaking for herself.
Why can’t we get these nice people to understand that we’re not all the same, and that the people who showed up this morning to talk to our elected state Senator against AB 1634 aren’t the ones who put those nice dogs and cats in the shelters? Can we just try to get the difference, nice, caring, moral high ground woman? Here, let’s try again. There are:
a) Licensed, commercial breeders (some of which are puppy mills). (Exempt from AB 1634)
b) People who think it would nice to let the family pet have a litter on purpose or by accident, just one time. (Now encouraged to do so by changes to AB 1634)
c) Underground backyard breeders who produce oodles of puppies for profit with little or no screening for genetic defects, little regard for temperament and little concern for proper socialization. Underground now, they will remain unaffected by AB 1634.
d) Reputable, responsible breeders, who spend thousands of dollars on genetic testing, thousands more on competitions and breed so rarely that they usually have waiting lists. Who will take back a dog no matter what, no matter when. Who are active in breed rescue, pulling out of shelters the dogs of their breed who came from a), b) and c).
This last group isn’t the problem, and yet eliminating them is thought to be the solution.
BAD RAP now gets it. Maybe Sen. Steinberg does, I don’t know. He was sure trying, that’s for sure.
From Lassie Get Help, a post on how the top pit bull advocacy group in the country has now asked to be removed from support for AB 1634:
If anybody could have been excused for supporting AB 1634, it was BAD RAP.
And for sheer integrity, consider that BAD RAP cared enough about other dogs to lobby publicly for a stockdog exemption, and urge the inclusion of sensible language supporting the ethical standards of responsible breeders. The common-sense revisions suggested by BAD RAP would have eliminated the backyard breeder who is breeding for profit, barred puppy mills, and protected working stockdogs which, in some cases, are neither registered nor trialed.
Instead we got the AB 1634 revisions made public on June 27: designed to eliminate the most responsible owners and breeders in the state. Designed to protect puppy mills and pet stores. Designed to be an evasive, confusing mess.AB 1634 won’t cause a single pit bull to be adopted from a California shelter. It won’t stop unscrupulous breeders from producing more litters of unwanted pit bulls. It won’t stop owners from relinquishing their dogs due to a move, a new baby, or too much barking. It won’t make dogs healthier, and it won’t save money. It is a frightening, deeply offensive government intrusion into the lives of responsible, law-abiding citizens and their companion animals.
Good job, BAD RAP. Now, when will the CVMA come to its senses? I ran into one of my veterinarians at lunch and she is no longer a member of the state association. She’s disgusted. Other members are outraged at the position of their leadership .
If anyone ought to get this, it’s the state’s veterinarians. They don’t see much of the a), b) and c) breeders but they know the kind of money spent by the d) breeders, and why. C’mon CVMA: You don’t have to have the courage of a pit bull to step up a little here.
Want a medical reason? How about this: The latest incarnation of this horrendous piece of legislation requires people who want to breed their dogs to do so before the animals are 18 months old. Well, guess what: You can’t certify a dog clear of hip, elbow and knee defects until the animal is two years old.
Does anyone involved with the supporting the so-called “California Healthy Pets Act” know anything at all about “healthy” or “pets”?
It’s increasingly apparent they do not.
I train my dogs on the playground at dawn - climbing the stairs and sliding down - great fun.
Comment by Linda — July 2, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
There’s nothing wrong with so called “Clueless” owners who want to breed their dogs - so they have two great dogs they love a bunch and they want to have puppies and find homes for them with friends and relatives and co-workers -
This entire idea that one must be some superior minded person a cut above everyone else to breed their dogs is total nonesense.
Yes, I expect to get a bunch of static about this opinion. But really people have been breeding their dogs for centuries without ruining the breed - but overbreeding for profit must stop - and there’s lots of profit in it otherwise people wouldn’t be doing it so much.
Comment by Linda — July 2, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Linda, the problem is, so MANY people think they will “just breed a litter” because they “love their dogs a bunch”, and then they find out that it’s not always as easy as they thought it would be to find good homes for all the puppies (particularly in breeds that produce litters of a dozen or so puppies). So they begin to get desperate, and begin to get less picky about who they place with or - in far too many cases - they give up and just turn the unplaced puppies in to the local shelter. This story has been repeated time and time again - experienced Rescue people can tell you all about it.
And what about those puppies who ARE placed - usually intact. Now THAT owner decides to breed their beloved dog because they “love him/her a bunch” and the cycle happens all over again. And again. And again.
People get angry when Responsible Breeders won’t place intact animals, or impose breeding restrictions. But stories such as this are just one of the many reasons Responsible Breeders do this. They know that once an intact animal is out of there hands, there is little they can realistically do to control successive generations from that animal. And THEY feel responsible for that, hence the restrictions.
The profit you keep mentioning only happens when people cut corners on healthcare for the pregnant mothers and newborn puppies, as well as cutting corners on such things as genetic testing, pedigree research to find the best possible match, pre-breeding health screens and on and on. People who actually BREED Responsibly could add lots and lots more examples to this list of the costs involved when you do it RIGHT. And doing it right has a lot less to do with “breed snobbery” than it does with producing healthy, sound, well-adjusted dogs that ANY owner would be proud of - whether the dog is running around a show ring or running around playing in the backyard.
If you knew the years of study and learning and money and commitment that goes into what Responsibe Breeders do, you’d realize that “profit” isn’t even on the radar. You’d also start to realize that what you and I know about producing healthy dogs doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of what Responsible Breeders know. I know I don’t have the time or the energy or the resources to expend on learning to do it right. This despite the fact that I’ve spent a lot of time learning about why Responsible Breeders do what they do.
The more I learn, the more I realize I don’t know.
How about you?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 2, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
The Other Pat. YEAH. You hit it right on. When i was breeding bengals, yes cats, and showing them, I spent so much money. there was never a profit in it. Never. and I of course, rescued. All my kittens were “fixed” before leaving, and i have a huge contract. Plus the person must meet my standards, I have turned some right away after I didn’t like they way they acted towards a kitten. These are My babies, and i am resposible for them for the rest of their lives. If there was ever anything wrong genetically with a kitten, I would “fix” the parents, no matter what the cost of the cat was. We lost so much money. And I still had to rescue the neighbors kittens, because they just wanted “one” litter.I will take a cat or kitten of My breeding back with no questions asked. And I showed the parents to keep them all up to the standard. Something backyard breeders don’t care about. there is a lot that goes into good breeding. your whole life, really.
Comment by Trudy Jackson — July 2, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
I hope you’re right about BadRap withdrawing support. As of Monday, there’s nothing on their homepage and one of their leaders posted a comment about the bill on a pit bull board as recently as Saturday without mentioning this change.
Comment by EmilyS — July 2, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
Again, get a grip, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with people breeding their dogs - it’s when some just decide to pump out puppies to supplement social security or drug habits or to buy gasoline that is wrong.
People are breeding dogs all over the world and the least problem is those breeding for the love of their own adored pets.
I would hate to think that we all had to sign contracts and swear to keep in touch with an over zealous breeder until the death of our pet - taking the moral high ground - gimmie a break - just to own a dog. We are not all heartless brainless monsters out to destroy the animal kingdom.
And don’t get me started on the breed problems caused by those trying to earn a show win. Geezzzzz this entire subject is getting so bizarre that soon it will be crazier than trying to adopt a child. Most of the problems are behavior issues with euthanzied dogs - bad behavior - and is not for the lack of available owners.
Comment by Linda — July 2, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
So Linda - You think that anyone who wants to be able to breed their dog should be able to breed their dog? Anyone at all? At any time?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 2, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
I love Dobermans - in fact I am a dog lover from way back. I grew up on a ranch with a wonderful McNab and owned a Quarter Horse - Morgan Mix Pony - we had calves and bulls and cats and a garden and all the people where we lived had dogs and their dogs had puppies and we were the proud recipient of our McNab.
If we would stop the puppy mills and the people trying to eek out vacation money with their puppies, we wouldn’t be having this so-called conversation.
The world is a better place because I love animals and because I treat my dogs lovingly and all were products of less than the high-and-mighty oh I know best “Breeder” - get real and stop sniffing that raified air!
Comment by Linda — July 2, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
That’s fine, Linda, but as long as they are MY puppies, then it’s up to ME who gets them. No one is ENTITLED to a dog from me.
Hypothetically, as I no longer breed and don’t even own any intact animals.
Comment by Christie Keith — July 2, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
Emily, I got the word from Christine Allen, BAD RAP’s legislative affairs director, and waited for her go-ahead before I put the news on my blog.
The new position paper [essentially the fax sent to legislators] will be posted as soon as Donna finds time to update the BAD RAP site. As you’ve probably noticed, BAD RAP’s “A Bill Brings Hope” is now a dead link. This was a wrenching decision for all the BAD RAP crew —- I’m sure they’ll talk about it when they’re ready.
Comment by Luisa — July 2, 2007 @ 7:04 pm
And I thought about breeding my Dobermans and to work towards the best dogs within my ability - I didn’t why? because there’s already too many people doing it.
But Ditto too Christie - if I had chosen to breed my dogs, all are neutered by the way, I would have been careful about where they are placed too - because they would be my babies.
But I don’t think it is morally wrong or corrupt for a person to breed their family dogs and find good homes for them. It just isn’t evil and there shouldn’t be laws against it or restricting it.
Comment by Linda — July 2, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
Linda, people that breed at will any dog or cat contribute as much to the overpopulation problem as the millers. Every dog/or cat you place, takes a home from an animal in a shelter. There are plenty of dogs/cats in shelters that are just like yours, we certainly don’t need any more.
I pray for the day there are waiting lists for pets, that no animal is euthanized for lack of a home. I currently have 2 special needs cats. I pray for the day where people adopt animals like mine and are excited because Heck, they were able to adopt a pet and it ONLY has diabetes or asthma or it’s only 10 years old or …you fill in the blank.
Comment by Heather — July 2, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
thanks Luisa. I’m glad that wiser heads prevailed. BR should never have supported that bill. With their influeince, if they work as hard against it as they did for it, Californians have a good chance of killing it.
Comment by EmilyS — July 2, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
One wonders how we’ve survived this far mucking about breeding our pets. I can just imagine what it will be like when Hobby Breeders get their rarified way.
Comment by Linda — July 2, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
So again, Linda - Do you think that anyone who wants to be able to breed their dog should be able to breed their dog? Anyone at all? At any time?
You said “I thought about breeding my Dobermans and to work towards the best dogs within my ability – I didn’t why? because there’s already too many people doing it.”
That seems to imply that you DON’T think that anyone wo wants to should be able to breed their dog, And yet earlier you said, “There’s nothing wrong with so called ‘Clueless’ owners who want to breed their dogs – so they have two great dogs they love a bunch and they want to have puppies and find homes for them with friends and relatives and co-workers”
The two statements are inconsistent with one another, which makes a discussion on any logical basis very difficult. So here’s the question:
Do you think that anyone who wants to be able to breed their dog should be able to breed their dog? Anyone at all? At any time?
Or not?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 2, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
Most of the problems are behavior issues with euthanzied dogs – bad behavior – and is not for the lack of available owners.
Comment by Linda — July 2, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
—————
Sorry Linda, but that is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.
Comment by straybaby — July 2, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
Question to the OTHER Pat
So who should be breeding?
Comment by VJ — July 2, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
Ah - THERE is the magic question!
Who do YOU think should be breeding? And what criteria do you think should be used?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 2, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
I don’t get it. How will responsible, reputable breeders be eliminated by AB1634?
Comment by Rachel — July 2, 2007 @ 8:39 pm
The OTHER Pat
The stage is yours. I’m neutral.
Comment by VJ — July 2, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
I can support my statement about the behavior problems being at issue but not now. I will tomorrow.
Just because I can’t in good conscience breed Dobermans does not mean that others should not. If I didn’t work full time I might reconsider but the issue with me was always - will what I do improve things. I thought no. But that doesn’t mean that I wish to take away rights or freedom from others that have a different opinion.
California is going to the extreme here and I think it stinks. I also believe I am just as good of a pet parent as those that have special needs animals.
I also raise and donate lots of money to animal charities to help the needy pets all over the U.S.
As to there are pets just like mine in Shelters I could have adopted - no there aren’t - but I know what you mean - animals needing a home and believe me if I am judged in the afterlife for my failures it won’t be for not caring and helping shelter animals.
Comment by Linda — July 2, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
Oh sorry the other Pat I am not answering your question.
Well I don’t believe that people are stupid enough to breed recklessly so then yes - anyone at anytime that is not breeding for profit. Now how you determine that I do not know - but surely there is a way to stop this breeding for profit that goes on so much.
So don’t breed to pay the bills or to buy dope, but then anyone could breed their family pet(s) but wantonly? Well that’s a bit extreme.
I guess I believe that most of us have some good common sense and don’t need the gov. or authorities ordering us about.
Comment by Linda — July 2, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
Linda and VJ - You can’t have it both ways. There are always criteria. Always. The only (breeding) situation in which there are NOT criteria is one where all the animals are free roaming and breeding is entirely random. So if you’re going to talk about non-random (i.e. “selective”) breeding, then you are automatically talking about some sort of criteria used in determining which animals breed and which do not.
Which - in turn - requires an examination of how and why the specific criteria have been arrived at.
So the basic question remains: WHO gets to breed, and WHY?
I’m not harping on these to be difficult in any way. But rather, because they are at the heart of the issue. And failing to think them through results in dealing with the issues on a superficial level only. And this whole question is far too important to be decided based on a superficial acquaintance with the problems. Animals’ lives are at stake.
All I’m asking for here is for you to think about - and begin discussing possible answers to - the question:
WHO gets to breed, and WHY?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 2, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
Okay Linda - you’ve stated some criteria on who gets to breed:
1) People who don’t make a profit from it can breed
and
2) People who don’t breed “wantonly” can breed
So already you’ve departed from your earlier position of saying that pretty much anyone who has a dog they love should be able to breed it (although that too - “a dog they love” - is a form of criteria).
Do you see how establishing “criteria” comes with the territory for any breeding that is truly random in nature? I’m not asking you to define what are “good” criteria or “bad” criteria. I’m just asking you to consider that SOME form of criteria are always established - even when we don’t think that is the case.
Does this sort of make sense to you?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 2, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
Well done as usual Gina.
It seems as if Assemblyman Lloyd Levine is barking up the wrong tree (sorry, I couldn’t resist) and needs some assistance.
Perhaps his heart is in the right place but he needs some level headed animal people to bend his ear.
He was involved with some other legislation related to elephants and I think we are going to hear more from him. You can check out the older LA Times article here: http://democrats.assembly.ca.g.....35AR02.htm
Comment by Diana Guerrero — July 2, 2007 @ 10:46 pm
Who gets to breed? Anyone who wants to. Why? Because we have a constitution and it says it won’t interefere with decisions about personal property. AR folks will say pets are different because “they suffer.” Well until someone amends the constitution, “they suffer” isn’t a valid reason to take away my property rights. However, back to your original question of who gets to breed. Thirty years or so ago, LOTS of people bred their dogs, for all the wrong reasons, to show the kids the birth process, to make money, because they weren’t paying attention when Fifi was in season. Since then, the public has been educated and the number of PUPPIES in shelters is very low. The numbers in general are down 80-90%, but puppies even more so and puppies are what you get from overbreeding. Hence, no puppies, no overbreeding. The overwhelming reason for any number of ADOPTABLE dogs in the shelters (and you have to deduct the terminally ill and injured, the owner requested euthanasias, the feral cats, the rabbits, hamsters and gerbils, etc.) is irresponsible owners, not excessive breeding. IOW, the number of dogs euthanized (as low as it is) is not connected to the numbers bred. Preventing one will not prevent the other. It’s apples and oranges.
So what’s the criteria for who gets to breed? There isn’t any. It’s a free country and personally, I’d like to see it stay that way. My dogs aren’t responsible for animals in the shelters and I won’t punish them by forcing them to undergo unnecessary surgery. Nor will I breed them, btw. Never have, never will. If i wanted to, I would, but I don’t happen to have an interest in, or enough knowledge about, breeding. It isn’t something to be done lightly. Bringing life into the world is a huge responsibility, but remember, it’s mine (and yours) to take if I/you want to.
Oh, and by the way, those bleeding hearts Animal Rights folks who think this bill is just peachy. Aren’t they the same folks who are horrified by ear cropping and tail docking? But it’s OK to force major surgery to rip out healthy organs? My five year old died a horrible death after (and due to) being neutered. A hell of a lot worse than anything a euthanized shelter dog goes through. But the surgery was my choice and it’s my guilt to carry forever. The state doesn’t get to have a say in it, not now and not ever!!
Comment by Kelty — July 3, 2007 @ 1:21 am
Comment by the OTHER Pat July 2, 2007 8:53pm
Ok the OTHER Pat. Still waiting for an answer from you to my original question. Who should breed. The question was directed to you not the other bloggers. You directed it back at Linda. It’s a simple question. Black/white, positive/negative, yes/no, rich/poor, backyard, miller, home breeder, one-time breeder, licensed/non-licensed breeder. Just looking for your definitive answer. I don’t know what the workable answer may be. Maybe there is no completely workable answer. Ergo, the OTHER Pat, I’m looking for your complete opinion/answer to the question. It’s a simple question…perhaps not a simple answer…unless perhaps you are able to give us something that would simply work for every situation. There’s all day to give a workable reply. I’m going to the beach.
Comment by VJ — July 3, 2007 @ 3:04 am
VJ, you ask for a simple answer to what is NOT a simple question. Such a thing does not exist.
However, there are lots and lots of factors to consider in arriving at the reasons why various people have arrived at the various answers they provide to the question. It’s far too easy to throw out superficial responses such as “No one should breed while there are still homeless animals!” or “Those darn conceited show dog breeders think they’re the ONLY ones who should breed and I disagree!” “I should be able to breed because I KNOW that MY reasons are good, but I’m not so sure about that guy over there . . . . . ” and so on. There are lots of “reasons” out thre, and the proponent of each of these “reasons” think that THEIRS is the *RIGHT* one.
So how do you get at the *RIGHT* reason to breed?
Well, first you have to acknowledge that there is always a *reason* for each and every breeding decision. Lots of people have never stopped to think about that particular detail, but it’s an important one. Everyone who elects to breed a dog has a reason/criteria for doing so - even people who don’t think they’re applying any kind of formal selective criteria to their breeding decisions (“I just love my dog so much!”)
Once you recognize that some form of criteria ALWAYS exist when a breeding decision is made, then you can begin to talk about the relative merits of those criteria.
Let’s take the two criteria Linda laid out yesterday for breeding:
1) People who don’t make a profit from it can breed
and
2) People who don’t breed “wantonly” can breed
So what about Reason #1 - it’s okay to breed as long as you don’t make a profit? That’s *Linda’s* criteria.
But what if I’m a businessperson with the right to choose my livelihood, and I decide I want to go into the business of breeding dogs? You better bet one of my major criteria is “profit”! Of course I have a right to make a profit!
“Oh no you don’t!” says Linda.
And why not? That’s a good question - why not?
How about Linda’s reason #2 - it’s okay to breed as long as you don’t breed “wantonly”. I’m going to assume that she’s defining that as breeding just to produce lots and lots of puppies.
Well what if I’m a citizen of the United States who has a right to my “pursuit of happiness”, and having lots of puppies around makes me happy? I have a right to breed “wantonly” for my own happiness. Of course I do!
“Oh no you don’t!” says Linda.
And why not? That’s a good question - why not?
I’m gonna guess that the “why not” has to do with putting the best interests of the *dogs* ahead of the self-serving interests of the *people* in each of these cases. And in general, that’s what I’ve arrived at in my own examinations of these questions - What criteria meet the best interests of the *dogs*?
It’s a way to help simplify the question, but again, it’s easy to fall into a quick, superficial answer that fails to acknowledge the pros and cons of various ways this question could be answered. And a good way to avoid that particular trap is to look back in time at the various ways and reasons that breeding criteria have been arrived at by various groups of people in various places. That helps a person understand how we got to where we are today, and also to begin an examination of what kinds of criteria remain valid v.s. what kinds of criteria merit some re-examination in light of current events.
Sure this sounds complicated. But failing to do this kind of an analysis of the problem leads to oversimplified and faulty “solutions” (such as “The Healthy Pets Act”).
Unfortunately, we live in a society that wants to reduce all problems to “sound byte issues” that have “sound byte answers”.
And that’s just not the way it is.
So as we continue to break this issue down into small parts that can be examined and discussed, my next question remains on the table:
Do you (anyone reading this who wishes to join the discussion) understand and accept that SOME form of criteria are always at play when someone makes a decision to breed a dog?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 3, 2007 @ 5:08 am
Not making a profit and breeding for profit are two different things.
And breeding your family pets because you love them and want a little bit of their “Goodness” to exist in the future is not wrong or evil or anything else deemed immoral.
And trusting and believing in the basic goodness of the people that buy your pups or adopt your pups is not being shortsighted.
The over abundance of pitts in my area points to this exact problem - where people are just breeding and breeding to get $1,000 bucks at $200 each or whatever the cost until the poor bittches tits drag on the ground - it may be a socio-economic issue - but whatever it “really” is - the lawmakers are attempting to stop it. And I suppose all of us, whether we like it or not, will suffer in one way or the other from these imperfect attempts by what I believe are our misguided gov. reps.
Comment by Linda — July 3, 2007 @ 5:37 am
Hey Linda - I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m getting at here. I’m not trying to assign “good” or “evil” to breeding motivations in this discussion. I’m just trying to engage folks in a thoughtful, reasonable discussion about what the various breeding motivations might be, and then explore some honest evaluations of those various perspectives from the point of view of the best interests of the dog.
When I first starting “hanging around” on the Internet, it was pretty much with folks that were interested in purebred dogs. Even then there were some pretty vigorous discussions about who should be able to breed and why, and this was among people who were in pretty much universal agreement that we felt purebred dogs were a “good thing”.
Later I expanded my “Internet hangouts” and started joining more discussions with people who were involved in ALL dogs - not just purebreds. It was one of the first times I was exposed to the question “How about purpose-bred dogs?” (If you aren’t familiar with that idea - it is what it sounds like - making breeding decisions based on what the dogs DO rather than on their physical appearance and genetic heritage - i.e. “breed”).
The concept sort of startled me, but rather than dismissing it, I gave it some serious thought. And soon after that I was exposed to the question “Why should ANYONE be allowed to breed dogs while there are dogs dying in shelters every day?”
Why indeed? And my subsequent exploration of those issues required me to re-examine the validity of then whole notion of purebred dog breeding and everything that goes with it. You better believe this is something I’ve given a lot of thought to!
My overarching answer is pretty much “Breeding decisions can only be justified when the wellbeing of the ‘dog’ (individual/population)is first and foremost”.
“Wellbeing of the dog”. Sounds good, right? So what is the “wellbeing of the dog”? I guess it’s a situation where the dog is healthy, and happy, and - of course - not dead.
So breeding decisions that lead to unhealthy/unsound/dead dogs are not breeding decisions that should be supported, IMHO (In My Humble Opinion). And - I hope - in YOUR “Humble Opinon” as well. “Evil” is not a required part of this discussion.
The health and wellbeing of the dog IS.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 3, 2007 @ 6:16 am
“Since then, the public has been educated and the number of PUPPIES in shelters is very low. The numbers in general are down 80-90%, but puppies even more so and puppies are what you get from overbreeding. Hence, no puppies, no overbreeding.”
Comment by Kelty — July 3, 2007 @ 1:21 am
maybe in your little neck of the woods, but nation wide?! I’d like to see some back up if you think so . . .
Comment by straybaby — July 3, 2007 @ 7:01 am
straybaby … that actually IS part of our point here and has been all along. Different areas have different sorts of problems with unwanted pets. In many urban areas, the shelters have almost NO dogs people want to adopt (this, by the way, is different from “adoptable”: You can’t talk a person who wants a fluffy little dog into adopting a lovely, well-mannered pit bull, no matter how hard you try).
So … these urban shelters send vans into the hinterlands … the rural counties’ muni AC facilities … and cherry-pick the dogs people want to adopt. I don’t think this is a bad thing, by the way: The rural shelters have few people to adopt, and the urban shelters have fewer dogs people want to adopt.
But the point is that California (much less the nation) is an extremely diverse state, and a simple, sound-good solution that exempts puppy-millers, encourages “one-time for fun and the kids” breeders and targets people who put thousands of dollars and all of their time into protecting and preserving their dogs and their breeds isn’t the answer.
When I lived on the Florida Panhandle, the local shelters (Tallahassee and Appalachicola) had puppies and a good mix of dogs. They have a different challenge than we do where I live in Sacramento, where I spent three months trying to help a friend adopt a shelter dog who wasn’t a) a pit bull (her son is afraid of them); b) elderly; or c) harboring severe behavior problems.
We finally got lucky and arrived at the Sacramento shelter just as they were bringing in dogs from a rural muni AC … and found a lovely retriever-shepherd mix.
THERE ARE NO SIMPLE ANSWERS … so a “simple solution” isn’t the answer. That’s what I’m saying.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 3, 2007 @ 7:21 am
And Other Pat … I’d like to start a discussion on purporse-bred dogs. It’s a great topic, but not for me today. (Still computer-less and wi-fi-ing on a borrowed laptop.)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 3, 2007 @ 7:22 am
the other Pat: to implement your notion: “Breeding decisions can only be justified when the wellbeing of the ‘dog’ (individual/population)is first and foremost” would require the most repellent kind of fascist nanny state I can imagine. WHO exactly would decide on the “wellbeing” of any individual dog? And on what criteria? Do you approve of the PETA/Tammy Grimes actions of stealing dogs whose conditions they don’t personally care for? Would you want someone to steal YOUR dog because they don’t like how you are caring for it?
With as many flaws as our system has, and with as much room for improvement, the trend towards assigning to the government the power to make health decisions for our pets (among others) is very scary.
First they came for our pets… then they came for US.
Comment by EmilyS — July 3, 2007 @ 7:22 am
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 3, 2007 @ 7:21 am
I totally agree with you :) I asked/said in one of the earlier entries about using Santa Cruz as a model for this. Seemed odd to me with the diversity of CA. I was born in the LA area (lived in West Hollywood after college), lived in the lower Central Valley, in/around the Bay Area and SF and my parents have a cabin in the mountains there. Even did a work stint in Sacto. Santa Cruz?! Seems like SF is doing a decent job of reducing numbers and a more likely model to follow if one wants to use a blanket model in CA. 20yrs ago they were working towards reducing numbers at the SFSPCA when I adopted a feline mommy and litter. I remember the handmade signs behind the counter showing adoptions every month. There is no quick solution (or simple one!), but that doesn’t seem to get recongnized. It’s a multifaceted solution that’s needed.
I do have some problems with bringing Southern dogs up into the NY area, but it’s more related to how the org does things and how it effects the NYC area (and I’m sure other high kill areas in the Tri-State). That said though, I see that it does work in other situations.
I have a hard time when I hear numbers are way down as a blanket statement or that most of the dogs have behavior problems as that is not what I see in my area or on the Dal/All breed rescue lists I’m on.
The CA bill is pretty much usless as far as solving any problems. I must say, I’m not shocked that the Millers and Pet Stores got a pass (they did here also), but the one time breeding thing I just can’t wrap my head around! WTF?! Seriously messed up . . . .
Comment by straybaby — July 3, 2007 @ 7:54 am
Emily - I’m not sure where you extended what I wrote to the implementation of some sort of “fascist state”. That is the FURTHEST thing from what *I* would consider an acceptable solution.
The point I’m making is simply that *EVERYONE* thinks that *their* criteria are the “only right ones”. That’s human nature.
My point here is more about asking questions than it is about assigning answers. Because assigning answers often leads people down some pretty unproductive paths.
But asking questions - in an open, sincere, and honest way - and continuing to do so as a lifelong quest - is usually the best way to get at solutions that really ARE geared towards the wellbeing of the dog.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 3, 2007 @ 7:55 am
slightly OT on the thread regarding breeding criteria but in response to the comments over the past few weeks about maye Levine’s intentions are good etc… etc please check this out.
very disturbing letter
OK to cross post
See the link for a letter Levine sent to Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez
July 6, 2006, requesting the creation of an Assembly
Select Committee on Animal Welfare…. The language he used may be
useful in outting his personal political affiliations:
http://democrats.assembly.ca.g.....006025.htm
It’s clear from this letter that Levine believes in and tows the line on radical AR, ie: no human activity involving anything other than looking at a wild animal from afar.
Comment by Jennifer J — July 3, 2007 @ 8:09 am
well, other Pat.. you don’t address my question of how/who will determine what the wellbeing of a pet consists of. We already have laws to cover basic humane treatment (sometimes hard enough to draw the line). What MORE laws do you want?
Comment by EmilyS — July 3, 2007 @ 9:08 am
Evil or immoral isn’t a part of a healthy discussion about breeding dogs - right or wrong???? Ummmm……we live in a moral universe where good and evil battle everyday - seems morality has everything to do with it.
Comment by Linda — July 3, 2007 @ 10:05 am
Is anyone aware of good legislation that deals with the puppy mill problems? That’s where the real problem is.
I do think that folks can breed their animals within limits - as long as they have the means to take care of all the litters which does not mean dumping them at shelters.
I also think a ‘professional’ breeder can mandate that an animal being adopted be spayed or neutered if it does have a problem. And many do.
That being said, even small times breeders don’t always behave responsibily. I’m not a dog person, but I have a friend that loves collies. She recently adopted a former breeding female that had collie eye anomaly. A dog with this condition is not supposed to be bred. You can bet she reported the breeder to the AKC group that oversees collie standards. You have to ask yourself why someone would breed a dog with a well recognized serious genetic defect that collie lovers are working so hard to eliminate. Guess you can’t legislate common sense or good character into people.
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 3, 2007 @ 10:06 am
The bond and relationship between man and dog has a long and interesting history.
I like the Native American Tale: Where Man and Animals lived united in one earth and could communicate and lived in peace. Then God split the world and put man on one side and the animals on the other.
Dog looked across the great divide at man all alone - this is not right - so he jumped the great divide and there he resides today.
Dog needs man as much as man needs dog. You cannot talk about what is good for dog without also talking about what is good for dog and man!
Comment by Linda — July 3, 2007 @ 10:13 am
Emily, I’ve NEVER said I’m proposing MORE laws to determine who can breed, and why. In fact, I’m entirely opposed to that approach.
The fact is that this is an ethical question. Laws attempt to reduce things to “black and white” and deal with them that way. And you just can’t do that with ethical questions - not effectively, anyway. And certainly not without trampling things/people that shouldn’t be trampled.
Again, I’m not interesting in dictating the *answers*. I think it’s far more useful to engage in an exploration of the *questions*.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 3, 2007 @ 10:21 am
Dogs will please their master even to the point of their self-destruction. This issue is one of dog and man united in a mutual way as to be beneficial to both.
Comment by Linda — July 3, 2007 @ 10:23 am
Comment by Linda — July 3, 2007 @ 10:05 am
“Evil or immoral isn’t a part of a healthy discussion about breeding dogs – right or wrong???? Ummmm……we live in a moral universe where good and evil battle everyday – seems morality has everything to do with it.”
But WHOSE morality? PETa has a morality that they will tell you is the *right* one. Agricultural producers of commodity animals will also tell you they have a morality that is the *right* one. Heck - even zoophiles will tell you they have a morality that is the *right* one! That’s the problem with getting into “I’m right and you’re wrong” kinds of discussions - pretty much everyone thinks that THEY are right and the OTHER guy is wrong.
That’s why it’s useful to look for something that doesn’t rest exclusively on moral judgements and try instead to think about factors that most of us can agree on.
I’m pretty sure we all agree animals should be healthy. I’m pretty sure we all agree animals should be sound (both physically and mentally - insofar as we are equipped to ascertain the mental status of an animal.) And I’m pretty sure that we all agree we’d prefer that our companion animals NOT be dead. I think that’s a fairly basic and generic description of “the wellbeing of the animal”. There may be more specifics, but generically, do you think that about covers it?
If so, can we get back to talking about the various kinds of criteria people have employed historically in making breeding decisions for their dogs?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 3, 2007 @ 10:29 am
I was looking for the article on the behavior problems of euthanized dogs in our shelters but darn the luck can’t find the exact one I was reading.
Here’s something that works but not exactly what I had found on Monday.
http://www.naiaonline.org/arti.....erpop1.htm
Comment by Linda — July 3, 2007 @ 10:34 am
There’s common ground here - one of “decency” - that we as a society agree on - maybe not extreme views - such as PETA - but as civilized people we do operate in a moral universe that also considers the right and proper treatment of dogs.
Child abusers think they have a right to abuse little children - but for the most part the general population draws the line as such behavior being morally bankrupt and in fact illegal.
I’m not quite sure what moral world you live in “The Other Pat” but in my universe, I operate with moral limits towards my pets and have views on what is morally correct behavior.
So considering the millions and perhaps billions of dogs on the planet earth, and the dogs that are loved, cared, for and treated humanely, and then those beaten, starved, abused, neglected, or otherwise destroyed for food or fur or fun, I do believe one can and should make moral judgments about what is proper given our social structure.
It’s all about morality - every last argument - we do not live in a moral vacuum - and the legislation is an attempt to create a new norm of animal welfare in our State.
Comment by Linda — July 3, 2007 @ 10:46 am
“The myth is “overpopulation” as the reason for shelter euthanasia of healthy, adoptable dogs and cats, “overpopulation” that radicals trace to the folks who are doing things right - the majority of purebred breeders. But “overpopulation” is a brilliant propaganda campaign aimed at defaming purebred breeders, a campaign that has even the American Kennel Club participating in a “pet population committee” and using the term “overpopulation” in magazine articles.”
Linda, this is somewhat mis-leading. the “overpopulation myth” refered to here, is not the same overpopulation problem that exists. Responsible Dal (or any breed) breeders are part of that myth and it is indeed a myth. The huge number of Dals needing rescue from euth lists across America simply due to lack of shelter space is not a myth. And believe me, they are not all problem dogs and unfortunately there’s not enough room in rescues. Same with Labs and many other breeds. And these Dals (other breeds) are not the result of responsible breeders any more than the overpopulation myth.
You may want to check the amount of dogs at Kern County shelter and their Euth rates. Or Fresno and tell me what percentage are being put down due to behavior. Kennel Cough is a death sentence along with lack of space. What that has to do with behavior, I don’t know. And KC *should* fall under the “healthy” part in adoptable dog since it is *very* treatable, imo.
Comment by straybaby — July 3, 2007 @ 11:22 am
the article does back this up (and I happen to agree with their solution):
“There’s no doubt that animal shelters euthanize hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats that could be wonderful pets, and there’s no doubt that breeders and fanciers can help alleviate that tragedy. But first the problem must be defined in each area . . . .”
unfortunately, it doesn’t really deal with the big picture as it keeps in the PB/Responsible bred vein and we still have the other larger problem of poor breeding practices and mixed breeds.
Comment by straybaby — July 3, 2007 @ 11:31 am
straybaby, by your own discussion, the “problem” is with the OWNERS not the breeders. No breeder forces someone to buy a pet. It’s not the Dalmatian breeders that are responsible for people who shouldn’t getting a Dal. Blame bad breeders for badly bred dogs. Blame BUYERS/OWNERS for buying and then abandoning these dogs.
If society educates owners on when to obtain a pet, and how to keep the, the “overpopulation” issue will go away.
If shelters screen more carefully, aggressively offer s/n programs and provide programs that discourage casual ownership/abandonment, the the REAL problem (which is that too many adoptable pets are killed) will diminish.
This is not, and never can be, about “breeders”.. it is impossible to define “responsible” breeder or to set rules in our democracy about who should be allowed to breed.
Focus on the OWNER.
Comment by EmilyS — July 3, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
I’ve always thought owners need to be educated more.
Comment by Sarejane — July 3, 2007 @ 4:03 pm
I agree with Linda at 10:46 am - this is an issue of morality and right and wrong - we can’t talk about dogs in the abstract - it is always in relationship to their master. And the argument against breeding is one of shaming those that want to breed.
so you can see I favor the common person breeding for the sheer pleasure of their beloved dogs.
Comment by Jamie — July 3, 2007 @ 5:09 pm
Comment by EmilyS — July 3, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
nope. it’s on the owners AND irresponsible breeders/profit breeders/pet stores/puppy mills.
it’s not about forcing someone to buy a pet, it’s about money and responsibility. personal responsibility on BOTH the owner and the source of the pet.
many shelters screen just fine, s/n, educate etc. don’t back it off on them, they have enough to deal with, aka cleaning up the mess in whatever manner available. and it is NOT impossible to define responsible breeder.
Comment by straybaby — July 3, 2007 @ 6:14 pm
Excellent article! I also highly encourage everyone reading this article to watch this new YouTube video about the future state of pets in California if this bill passes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lm6Se6G-1wQ
If after watching the video you feel like doing something about this, please fax or phone the committee next hearing this bill. AKC has all the pertinent information at this website: http://www.akc.org/canine_legi.....center.cfm
Comment by DogLover — July 3, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
Is something up with the CVMA…? Their home page used to feature a “We support AB 1634” announcement with a couple links —- that all seems to be gone now.
http://www.cvma.net/Default.asp
Have they finally realized what a terrible bill they’re supporting? Be a shame if they’re just trying to duck controversy.
The list of vets in opposition looks like it’s growing by the hour:
http://naiaonline.org/issues/o.....onList.cfm
As I’ve said [a few dozen times], my wonderful holistic vet hates this bill so much she plans to drop her CVMA membership. Her name is not on that list, by the way —- I suspect the vets listed represent just a fraction of those in opposition.
According to a column in the Gilroy Dispatch, the Monterey Bay VMA voted 24 - 2 to rescind CVMA co-sponsorship of AB 1634, with several vets stating they would resign from the CVMA if the bill passes. C’mon, CVMA. Do the right thing and oppose this crummy bill.
Comment by Luisa — July 3, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
God bless you, sweetie!
Comment by Chris — July 3, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
I’m in favor of AB1634 and of anything else that will help lower the shelter kill rates. I’m so very glad they amended the bill to allow for one time breeding of family pets - shows some common sense.
I find it sad and discouraging that some here are attacked for their views and for discussions about ethics and I suspect now not allowed to voice their opinions.
Comment by Sarejane — July 4, 2007 @ 8:07 am
Sarejane - Please explain how allowing one time breeding of any and every family pet will LOWER shelter kill rates?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 4, 2007 @ 8:32 am
I agree with Sarejane. We are the proud parents of six darling lab puppies born of our dogs. We are keeping two and the rest are going to good homes.
Comment by Jamie — July 4, 2007 @ 10:00 am
And when they grow up, then what?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 4, 2007 @ 10:19 am
Thanks Jamie. We are breeding out Great Danes this year for the first time and are very excited.
Comment by Sarejane — July 4, 2007 @ 10:35 am
How many puppies do you anticipate producing?
How many puppies will THEIR puppies produce when they grow up?
Will you take back any puppy (dog) at any time during its life if the owners cannot keep him/her?
How do you plan to ensure that no dog of your breeding ever ends up in a shelter?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 4, 2007 @ 10:42 am
I am not in favor of everyone just having a litter because of XXX. As a vet I have seen too many people just have a litter without having a clue about the health or structural soundness of their dogs. I do not have a problem with mixed breed dogs but rarely if ever are these dogs vetted for hip dysplasia, eye problems etc. Rarely do the individuals producing these puppies think about providing information to the new owners about potty training, bite inhibition, dogs and kids, etc. They are in thementality that dogs are a good thing.
As a vet I have seen so many poorly thought out products of happenstance breeding. It becomes my responsibility to teach all that stuff which the breeder should have done.
What I would like to see is some way for the dogs to be tracked back to the individuals that bred them. I think all these unwanted animals should go back to those who produced them. If we found a way to do that it would solve lots of the problem.
Many of those dogs from love my dog litters are placed with individuals that have no clue about them. a high energy dog with a couple that works all the time, a dominant dog with a person that will never have control over it.
As a breeder and a vet I am saddend by those who take producing a litter without thinking about the long term. The show people who breed for their next best in show dog without thinking about the temperament of the dogs. a show career is but a short part of an animals life.. They should be a pet for the rest of it.
I am against 1634. The only way is through education. I have not come up with a way to tie any animal in the shelter back to whomever produced them and place the burden on their lap.
I am not sure this is possible. microchipping with breeders ID on chip? cannot sell a dog without this info (held by third party) so it would only be accessed if the dog becomes an issue to society? Then fine breeder if they do not get said animal out f shelter within X period. This still has its problems..
Comment by Erin — July 4, 2007 @ 11:07 am
Gee didn’t realize this was an anti-puppy blog. Sorry.
Comment by Sarejane — July 4, 2007 @ 11:18 am
Comment by Sarejane — July 4, 2007 @ 11:18 am
Have you ever done any rescue work? if not, I’m sure Great Dane Rescue could use some help. And I know most Lab Rescues could, with the sheer number of Labs in shelters and all . . .
Comment by straybaby — July 4, 2007 @ 11:51 am
Sarejane - I’m not “anti-puppy”. I’m “anti-needlessly-dead-dog”.
ANYONE deliberately bringing a puppy into this world has a moral responsibility to promise that they will never let that puppy/dog end up in a shelter - possibly to end up dead.
Do you disagree with that?
If so, why?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 4, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
You sound angry and argumentative and assuming so much - I’ll find someplace else to blog.
Comment by Sarejane — July 4, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
What am I assuming?
I just want to know what kind of responsibility you’re willing to take on as you bring more puppy lives into this world.
That’s a fair enough concern.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 4, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
It’s none of your business.
Comment by Sarejane — July 4, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
It is when they start passing laws that will impact Responsible Breeders while leaving “puppy producers” untouched.
Which category are you in?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 4, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
The latest revisions are up, and the bill is worse than ever. Read it here:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs.....t2text.htm
Nice to know I can keep a working border collie intact —- all I have to do is buy a ranch.
More on my blog…
Comment by Luisa — July 4, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
Comment by Sarejane — July 4, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
5 words that speak volumes.
Luisa, they are really hitting new lows (highs?!) for jaw dropping . . . I seriously can’t wrap my brain around their logic, or lack there of . . . thanks for the comment link, I’ll be sending it to my CA folks/friends and friends here that have CA folks/friends to let them participate for/with us.
Comment by straybaby — July 4, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
Other Pat - I’m with you on this one.
Sarajane, unfortunately lot’s of folk let their animals breed without a thought of what will happen to these animals and where they will end up. When these people shirk their responsibility then others have to take on the responsibility for their welfare. And unfortunately, this sometimes means putting the animal to death. Most shelters in the country are not no-kill, so if you can’t place your animals, or the folks you let adopt them give them up, then you are making someone else take responsibility for your choice.
Everytime I hear someone say “I want to show my children the miracle of life” I can’t help thinking “great, then take them down to your local shelter and we’ll show them the miracle of death.”
Because once those cute puppies grow into big dogs, or are given up in middle age for one of the myriad of excuses shelter folks hear (I’m tired of the dog, he barks too much, we have a baby, we have no time for the dog) there are a lot less people willing to adopt them.
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 4, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
Luisa - I wonder if the BadRap folks know their logo is still shown on the sidebar among organizations supporting the bill?
http://www.cahealthypets.com/home.htm
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 4, 2007 @ 5:54 pm
“I wonder if the BadRap folks know their logo is still shown on the sidebar among organizations supporting the bill?”
Speaks volumes about the “Healthy Pets” crowd, no? All the updates to that site, and they don’t have the honesty to pull BAD RAP’s logo.
Makes you wonder how many other groups listed have pulled their support.
Comment by Luisa — July 4, 2007 @ 6:20 pm
Comment by straybaby — July 4, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
“Comment by Sarejane — July 4, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
5 words that speak volumes.”
The 5 words, by the way, were “It’s none of your business”
What a classic example of the people who ARE the problem being completely oblivious to that fact.
And that’s why it’s important to understand the justifications any given breeder uses for what they do - and then take that justification and see how it stacks up against preventing the needless deaths of cats and dogs.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 4, 2007 @ 6:52 pm
Luisa, you might want to reconsider whether Bad Raps opposition to the bill is as noble as you think. It looks like they pulled their support because the bill was no longer restrictive enough for them. They WANT mandatory s/n laws (as they did when they supported SB861). Hiding behind the issue of working dog exemptions is bogus: that was ALWAYS a problem. Why haven’t they updated their front page, or advocated against the bill in the same eager way they advocated for it on the boards where their leaders/supporters post)?
Check out the comments: http://members4.boardhost.com/workingpit/
Bad Rap is no friend to those responsible owners of dogs who don’t want the fascist nanny state to dictate how they care for their dogs, all under the guise of protecting pit bulls.
I’m glad they no longer support THIS bill.. but you can bet when the time comes they’ll be out front supporting mandatory s/n with sad pictures of abused pit bulls, and laments about how many are euthed as their primary justification.
Even though there is not a single fact that supports the notion that mandatory s/n reduces overall kill rates.
Of course, they already have the mandatory s/n for pit bulls law they supported.. how’s that working out for the pit bulls in their area?
Comment by EmilyS — July 5, 2007 @ 8:03 am
This bill will help reduce the dogs and cats killed in our shelters and will stop so much the repetitive problem breeding.
http://www.ab1634.org/pdf/07-03-bogus.pdf
Comment by Jamie — July 5, 2007 @ 10:54 am
Jamie … thanks for dropping by. But the problem isn’t “repetitive breeders.” It’s who’s breeding what and why, and who takes those animals and what they do with them. There is NOT a “surplus of homeless pets.” There’s a surplus of animals people do not want to adopt for whatever reason, mostly feral cats and pit bulls. There is such a shortage of the pets people do want that shelters in urban areas import them.
The problem breeders — casual breeders and puppy millers — are exempted from AB 1634. As amended now, pets will get less “healthy” under the so-called “Healthy Pets Act” because family pets must be bred before they’re 18 months of age. Certification for hips, elbows and knees — which is always fdone by reputable breeders, rarely if ever by casual or “licensed” commercial breeders — is not done until the age of 24 months.
Before you jump into the middle of a discussion that facts of which clearly elude you, try doing a little research first.
We have a lot of previous writing here on the legislation. Click for it all.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 5, 2007 @ 11:07 am
I really do need to do some research. I thought families could only breed once and those that breed animals like the pitts over and over would not be able to do that anymore and so many people don’t breed at all for any reason so I assumed this would reduce the numbers of unwanted animals and overbreeding of those pets that cannot be placed or are given up for whatever reason. I’ll take another look at it. I must have missed the part that allows repetitive breeding.
Comment by Jamie — July 5, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Jamie - if unhealthy animals are bred, they are going to produce OTHER unhealthy animals - whether that breeding was done once or many times.
There are some commonly-used health screening procedures utilized by Responsible Breeders such as OFA cerfifications for healthy hips and hearts and CERF evaluations for a number of eye problems. In general, these screenings cannot be done on animals less than 2 years of age and give any kind of meaningful results. So if you REQUIRE that any breeding done - whether done once or repeatedly - be done on animals before they are 18 months old - you have just made it impossible for breeders to utilize one of the most powerful weapons in their arsenal AGAINST “unhealthy” pets.
That is, you can’t screen until the dog is 24 months old. If breeding has to happen before the dog is 18 months old, then you effectively can’t screen.
Does that make any kind of sense to you?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 5, 2007 @ 11:36 am
The over-breeding problem is caused by people that breed more than just once but those that breed often and some many times in one year.
Comment by Jamie — July 5, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
It is also contributed to by the just once breeders and we mustn’t forget all the oops! litters. This bill almost sounds like you should have a litter in CA, especially if you have no clue as to what you are doing.
Pit Bulls are suffering from popularity. Goldens are also, as are Labs. This bill will do nothing to stop the over population of these breeds. The responsible people in these breeds that are producing good dogs will be the ones to pay. not every Tom, Dick and Harry that wants to breed their less than steller untested Pit/Lab/Golden. And since they’re such popular breeds, there’s plenty of them to multiply over and over again (their offspring). And it follows along with this Bill as being just fine. Great. Talk about a huge step backwards. . . .
feel free to cruise this link and tell me how many of these dogs you think came from responsible breeders:
http://www.co.kern.ca.us/acd/lost1.asp
if you click on breed, you can view them grouped for a clearer picture. and to the person with the Lab puppies, feel free to cruise pages 17-21. They gots puppies too!! I’ll be letting Dal rescue know about the beautiful liver Dal (pg10) and the 2 Lab mix puppies that look like they might be Lab/Dal. Hopefully all 3 will get out alive if SoCal Dal rescue has room after trying to keep up with LA City AC.
Comment by straybaby — July 5, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
Jamie, there’s more to breeding than just how MANY you breed.
There is also the idea that you try to breed HEALTHY animals to the best of your ability. Not just throw together the two dogs you happen to have in your house and make puppies.
The “numbers” aspect of this is important - sure. But so is the health aspect (after all, they even included that in the title of the bill).
The fact that dogs produced by Responsible Breeders don’t end up euthanized in shelters is just ONE part of the overall picture. There is also the fact that Responsible Breeders go to great lengths to produce animals that are free of genetic defects to the extent that they can do so. And in pursuit of this, they offer guarantees with their puppies.
The guarantee doesn’t say “I guarantee this puppy will never develop a preventable illness or hereditary defect”. NO ONE can guarantee that.
What the guarantee says is “I stand behind my puppies, and if this dog DOES develop a preventable illness or hereditary defect, I will help with the medical costs and/or refund your purchase price (without requiring the return of the puppy) or some such measure to help offset the financial pain of dealing with this problem”.
A Responsible Breeder knows that nothing can ever offset the emotional pain of dealing with a preventable illness or hereditary defect. In fact, a Responsible Breeder shares the pain when such a thing happens because THEY love your puppy, too. Which is one of many, many reasons a Responsible Breeder actually makes REALISTIC efforts to produce *healthy* puppies rather than just pumping puppies out.
The “numbers” part of this is only one aspect of the entire topic. But because it’s the easiest aspect for the politicians to take aim at with their “feel-good legislation”, then that’s what they go after.
And they just don’t get it . . . . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 5, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
You care about “Breeding” the best purebred dog. You care about who receives your puppies. You want the best situation for your love, for your hearts desire - for your dogs. Do you rescue the mutt abandoned or open your car door to the old dog or dying dog or homeless reject with a torn tongue or a missing tail? Do you nurse them back to life and train and find homes for them. Does your heart break when you see a dead dog by the side of the road? I do not know you and I do not know your answers to these questions, but I do believe that a larger view of the plight of these trash animals needs to be given priority over the needs of any individual. There will always be the purebred and if you show your dogs, once a year is all, or put your dog in a competition, then you have no worry. But I worry for those lost dogs that suffer in the heat or whose bodies are ravaged by the crash of metal and they die alone or suffer by the side of the road until their heart no longer beats. I would think the purebred breeders could in some way see they will not be hurt by this bill, maybe inconvenienced, but if we lessen the suffering of the unwanted and rejected animals then our society has advanced - we are helping to end the suffering of those that cannot help themselves. This requires sacrifice – not of the one, but of the many.
Comment by Jamie — July 5, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
Every Responsible Breeder I know (I am not a breeder) participates in rescue.
Every breed association I know of runs a rescue organization as well.
Apparently there is still a lot you don’t know about what purebred dog fanciers are involved in.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 5, 2007 @ 4:01 pm
Jamie - the breeder of my dog is one of the most influential breeders in the breed. A dog of her breeding won Best in Show at Westminster a number of years ago.
Let me tell you about the first time I went to her house to meet her and her dogs. There were lots of lovely dogs running around, and a few puppies.
Then she introduced me to her newest “addition” - a senior girl rescued from a puppy mill (no money was spent for this girl) because she could no longer breed.
Oh - and the fact that she had been bred to exhaustion (depleting her calcium reserves) and had never received any kind of dental care in her life meant that she had virtually no teeth left and her jaw had broken in several places from sheer weakness.
My breeder had already spent hundreds to start wiring up this little girl’s jaw, and wasn’t done spending money on her yet. And as far as she was concerned, this little girl was “home”. She wasn’t going to be putting her through any more trauma.
That’s just one example, Jamie, of how Responsible Breeders pitch in to help the unfortunate dogs who have fallen through the cracks because the breeder who brought them into this world isn’t responsible enough to see that they are cared for their whole lives.
Now, tell me again about how Responsible Breeders *only* care for “their” dogs.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 5, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
Comment by Jamie — July 5, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
how much rescue do you do?
Comment by straybaby — July 5, 2007 @ 5:04 pm
OT- But did you all know that Hills SD does testing on live animals? You’d think i would know that [duh] but a vet has just said so, it is true. i wish We had a list of all PFI that test on animals.
Comment by Trudy Jackson — July 5, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Gina - I must disagree with your blanket statement that there are not a surplus of homeless pets that people want to adopt, at least where cats are concerned.
There are 4 no kill cat only shelters in Chicago proper with numerous young sociable cats waiting for homes. These aren’t old or sick animals, or feral or pathologically shy, just animals that either got dumped by previous owners, were born to a roaming unspayed female - whatever.
My two adopted cats were both Chicago street rescues - the female was a very young when she was found but didn’t get adopted until she was almost a year old. A little shy, but nothing that hasn’t been overcome. My male was about a year and a half, friendly, loves people, a little rowdy like most young males. The no kill shelter I went to probably had close to 100 cats - eliminating the really difficult cases would have left me with about 70 cats to choose from. Fortunately, the male chose me, and the shelter director recommended the female as a good counterpoint. If the reason folks don’t want to adopt these cats is that they are not kittens, then I think that’s an education issue.
I can’t speak to the dog situation - I’m not involved with dog rescue. I suspect that your statement holds truer for dogs. The range of size alone is much more an issue than with a cat. And unless a cat is completely feral, most cats don’t represent a potential danger to others. And it seems that there are an over abundance of breeds - especially pit bulls that are difficult to place.
As you’ve said before, the problem varies from location to location.
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 5, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
And again, Andrea 2CatMom - the examples you cite would NOT be addressed by AB1634.
“animals that either got dumped by previous owners”
Usually adults who - for whatever reason - are no longer “desirable”.
“roaming unspayed female”
A problem that AB1634 will do NOTHING to correct.
“If the reason folks don’t want to adopt these cats is that they are not kittens, then I think that’s an education issue.”
And there you hit the nail on the head. Someone elsewhere mentioned “serial owner” - people who get the cute little puppy or kitten, and then - when it outgrows its “baby cuteness” - they dump it for another “cute baby”. Sure - AB1634 would make it a bit harder for these people because “cute babies” would become less available. But that would impact EVERYONE - not just serial owners.
The shelter statistics (for dogs, at least) show that the overwhelming majority of animals in shelters are adolescent rambunctious dogs that the owners turned in because they didn’t know how (or weren’t interested in) dealing with. If we can KEEP these dogs in their homes (education, education, education) then those dogs don’t fall under threat of death by euthanasia.
Solutions need to fit problems. And your post is a nice illustration of another reason why AB1634 does NOT fit.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 6, 2007 @ 5:53 am
Other Pat - I do see your point, and I do see the flaws in this bill. I’m not supporting the bill, just pointing out that sometimes the assumptions we make about adoption don’t hold true everywhere.
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 6, 2007 @ 7:17 am
And that’s actually a point Gina & Co. have been making all along - that there is no “one size fits all” solution to this very large and complex problem.
By the way, have you noticed that the “exemptions” in the bill are pretty much only for dogs. I don’t know if that’s good or bad - but it’s interesting.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 6, 2007 @ 10:59 am
I know this is off topic but I just had to share this story. I was in PetSmart last night and they the usual assortment of cats for adoption. They rarely have kittens - mostly cats in the 1-2 year old range, occasionally a middle age or older cat.
A couple in their 30s were looking at the cats and lamenting that there weren’t any kittens. I couldn’t help myself, I turned to them and said “Yeah, kittens are great..I love they way they shred the curtains as they climb up slide down them and talk about mayhem..nothing beats a kitten.”
They looked at each other and then began to ask questions: Will a 1-2 year old cat be playful (oh yeah), will they bond with us (hey I have two cats (now 4 & 5 squabbling to get on my lap even as I type), how long do they live (up to 20 years, so you’ll have plenty of years of fun even if the cat is 2 or 3 or 6).
I left them discussing which of several two year olds they would like to adopt, LOL
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 7, 2007 @ 7:34 am