“I have not done a lot of extra research into the supporters or opponents of this bill.”

That’s understandable. But given the fact that you haven’t studied the issues when others have, how about just asking questions? Go ahead and say such things as “I’m really concerned about the litters of kittens and puppies that get dumped at the shelter where I work. Will you explain to me why AB1634 would not take care of that problem?”

Then people have a chance to respond to your concerns and we can start a real dialogue about the issues, which promises to be a win/win for everyone. You’ll learn from people who HAVE studied the issue, and we’ll learn a little more about the kinds of concerns people have - some of which may be new to some of us. (For example, it’s only been in the past three years or so that I’ve learned about TNR - Trap/Neuter/Release - of feral cats, and why that’s a legitimate strategy in the overall scheme of things.)

So join the discussion! But if you don’t understand something, just ask! People will generally be more than willing to help fill you in.

I am not from California, nor do I believe in MSN. Nor do I believe that all breeders are criminals. I have not done a lot of extra research into the supporters or opponents of this bill. I simply responded to the information given here. Obviously that was a mistake on my part.

I love all animals. I hate cruelty, neglect and abuse. I would like to see the end to the mistreatment of all animals, in whatever form it happens.

With that said, I am out of this conversation.

“You can’t have it both ways.”
No one wants it both ways! Animal cruelty should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It should be a felony in all 50 states. We are not talking about that here and you know it. AB1634 had no mention of cruelty. You are just trying to muddy the waters with it. Your argument is heavy on emotion and light on fact.

Acknowledgement of the humane laws already on the books (such as those that outlaw dogfighting)is inherent to these dicussions. So let’s not get silly and behave as if anyone here suggests throwing all those out.

Now *enforcement* of those laws is another question. And one that plays into the overall picture.

But please - when someone says that additional laws targetting owned animals is not an effective solution, don’t overgeneralize that to them saying “Owners of animals can do whatever they want with them”.

Of course they can’t. And there are ALREADY humane laws on the books that address that issue.

So, what is it that you’re saying, there?

I agree that legislation that protects BYB and puppy/kitten mills is bad legislation. No arguments there!

That’s what AB 1634 does.

I agree that legislation that protects BYB and puppy/kitten mills is bad legislation. No arguments there!

The people opposed to AB 1634 ALSO want to see an end to adoptable animals dying in shelters - there will always be a need for animal shelters, which I clearly undertand, even if you don’t.

AB 1634 would not help that goal - it would actually hurt attempts to achieve it.

The people opposing AB 1634 are not about “ME” - they are about “this is a bad idea that will not work and will cause more problems and slower reductions in euthanasia.”

Perhaps if you actually focused on how to fix the problem, rather than personal attacks and emotionalism, you might be in a better position to be part of the solution.

As it is, the approach you exemplify is really the one that is all about “me” - demonizing anyone you disagree with and thorwing facts to the wind.

Spay/neuter has to be a part of the solution, but mandatory spay/neuter at age four months, for everyone except USDA-licensed puppy millers and “just one litter” backyard breeders is not “part of the solution.” It can only make things even worse than they are now, by increasing the supply of badly bred animals from suppliers who will sell to anyone with a credit card or cash, and be of no help to the buyers in understanding and training their new pets, while eliminating the supply of healthy pets from responsible breeders who will—or rather, would have—screened potential buyers, matched the puppy to the new family, been available with advice, information, and help in training, and provide a home to return to for the dog if the buyers for any reason couldn’t keep it.

You’ll never make a positive difference by simply reacting to manipulative emotional cues (“Healthy Pets” as the name for a bill intended to protect puppy millers and pet stores while shutting down responsible breeders) instead of looking at the facts and thinking about where the problems really are and crafting a solution that addresses them.

And, clever that, saying that if Christie and Gina believe that respecting pet owners’ rights to make decisions for the welfare of their own pets is important, they’re implicitly supporting Michael Vick’s right to engage in the grossest and most outrageous forms of animal abuse. I’m sure that will sway a lot of people to your position. For sure.

We cannot adopt our way out of this number of homeless animals. There are too many of them and too few adopters. Spay/neuter has to be a big part of the solution.
And to say that “it is not our job to take care of other people’s animals” is a bit hard,isn’t it? Sorry, but I don’t have the heart to stand by and watch when those “owners” do NOT take care of their animals (and worse). So the Michael Vick’s of the world, as “owners” have the right to fight, kill, mutilate and otherwise inflict damage on the animals they “own”? Or the petting zoos, who keep animals in deplorable conditions? You can’t have it both ways.

No apologies for my beliefs. SOMEONE HAS TO STAND UP TO PROTECT THESE ANIMALS. Granted, some of the big rescue organizations aren’t doing such a great job, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t try and do better.

Nope, I don’t eat meat, but don’t try to convince others to. And, yes, I support only those organizations that do no animal testing or use no animal ingredients whenever possible.
And, you don’t know that I’m not involved with ferals, strays, wildlife, etc.

It’s clear that we have different perspectives and will probably not ever agree.