The Sunday link-up: Bad bills and boring stories
By Gina Spadafori
July 13, 2008
If you live in California, it’s essential to weigh in on AB 1634 today. This legislative train-wreck started out with a sweeping mandate to force every pet in the state to be spayed or neutered, then its backers decided to exempt puppy-mills for political expediency.
That left reputable, responsible and ethical breeders in the cross-hairs, people who work to preserve our heritage breeds and who don’t contribute to shelter populations, because by definition a reputable breeder always provides a lifelong safety net for any pet they put on this earth. The people who do put pets into the shelters, the Mexican puppy smugglers, the careless, clueless and irresponsible backyard breeders and the puppy-millers, wouldn’t be at all hit by forced spay-neuter, mostly because they’ll ignore such laws as they ignore existing laws now.
After running into a wall of opposition last year, the bill was completely rewritten to get out of committee this year; unfortunately, it’s still a bad bill, arguably worse either by intent or sheer sloppiness. As many sources have pointed out, the bill now deals with nuisance pets with a three-strikes-and-your-neutered approach. Which is fine, really, except for the fact that as written, the bill offers no due process, no appeals process, no exemptions and is set up for abuse or misuse by neighbors or animal-control officers. Not to mention that as a way to help deal with animal nuisance issues it’s pretty worthless, since most pets are already spayed or neutered.
As it is, a rights grab with ramifications that go far beyond pets. Fax and call your state senator today.
And by the way … Nathan Winograd’s assertion that forced spay-neuter has the unintented consequence of increasing shelter killing — people will give up pets rather than be fined, and then immediately get another pet, but not from a shelter — is confirmed by findings in L.A., which passed forced spay-neuter ordinanaces last year. You can do the math yourself with figures provided by L.A. Animal Service: The law went into effect in late 2007, and shelter impounds and killing are up by about a quarter in 2008.
More good information on the Save Our Dogs Web site.
Forced spay-neuter remains, as Winograd puts it, a distraction from building a no-kill nation. It’s a wedge issue that keeps people who love animals glaring at each other from across a chasm of distrust and hatred.
AB 1634 needs to put down, for good. And then we all need to work together to address the problems as they really are, not as special-interest groups on both sides imagine them to be.
***
The Boston Globe magazine has its first-ever pet issue. Unfortunately, they couldn’t come up with any ideas for stories that haven’t been covered, oh, a million times before. What would a special pet issue be without a cover story that discovers the many choices in veterinary medicine and asks the same predictable question: “How far should we go to save our pets?”
None of the other stories rate beyond a yawn for predictability.
As mentioned previously here, the New York Times magazine has also gone to the dogs this weekend, with a piece on the use of medication to deal with pet behavior problems. Dr. Patty Khuly’s take on the piece is better than the article itself.
***
DNA testing for dogs makes the leap across the pond, but in the UK, the stories are American:
Other owners of so-called “designer” breeds are trying to confirm that their expensive labradoodle puppy is really a cross between a labrador and a poodle as the breeder advertised.
Among those who have been surprised by the results was Meredith Vieira a television chat show host who sent off a DNA sample of her dog, Jasper, to a company offering a “canine heritage test”.
When Vieira bought Jasper at a pet shop, she was told he was an “aussie-poo”, a rare cross between an Australian sheepdog and a poodle. But the DNA test revealed that the predominant strains in Jasper were border collie, Shetland sheepdog and borzoi.
Too bad Vieira also didn’t bother to learn that pet-store puppies come from puppy mills.
Oh, I don’t know about that yawn. I don’t think I’ve run into quite so ill-informed and self-serving an article on designer dogs in a professional publication. Or, for that matter, outside of Usenet.
Comment by Eucritta — July 13, 2008 @ 7:29 am
It is interesting (and disheartening) that over the course of 6 years, they showed month over month declines in euthanasia from the year prior in 70 of the 72 months. The ban essentially took effect in September of last year (it took effect in June, but owners had 90 days to comply), and they have had month over month increases in 9 of the 10 months since then. And this is the type of law that everyone in Cali may be looking at, and the AR’s are pushing for.
Comment by Brent — July 13, 2008 @ 7:32 am
In the picture above, Clara seems like she is reproaching you for not taking the right keys—never mind, she never had to do so much to get ready for a walk with the dogs (See River run edition).
Comment by Colorado Transplant — July 13, 2008 @ 8:27 am
Great post.
I am not convinced that these much-ballyhooed DNA tests are accurate, especially for mixed breeds.
Purebreds could potentially be identified, since there is a good sample size available. Even still, since most purebred dogs aren’t much more than 100 years old, and all originally were mongrels, unless it’s a breed with a distinctive characteristic, such as a black tongue, constantly growing coat, blue eyes, urate crystals, deafness, dwarfism, etc, I honestly don’t see how you can ‘prove’ that a dog is a Sheltie as opposed to a Collie or an Aussie (a US breed as you know, originally from CA).
When you get into mutts, the waters muddy even further, since the combinations are almost inifinite from a genetic standpoint - and of course all dogs are very similar genetically.
Can you differentiate a poodle cross from a Kerry Blue or Irish Water spaniel mix strictly from DNA? Can you tell a Beagle from a Harrier or a Foxhound? A Brussels Griffon from an English Toy spaniel, Smousje or Pug mix? A Boston terrier from an AmStaff or a Bulldog? A GSD from a Malinois or Kelpie mix?
I’ll reserve judgement on these DNA kits until there is more evidence. The companies themselves (Mars and Metamorphix) don’t guarantee their results and admit there are even a lot of purebreds they can’t identify to any degree of accuracy.
Comment by Caveat — July 13, 2008 @ 10:06 am
I have no faith either in these DNA tests for determining breeds. For one thing, of the 35 or so breeds they say they are able to identify, many are uncommon breeds among pet owners, judging from the AKC registration statistics. The chances of these dogs being out intact among the general population and contributing to the mixed breed gene pool are very small. Therefore when a result says Norfolk terrier, Ibizan or Borzoi are part of Froufrou’s genetic mix, I am skeptical, especially since the less common breeds are not readily obtained through commercial breeders and pet stores, and reputable breeders, the main source, rarely let an intact dog be sold to the average dog owner.
As for the Globe and the NYT, I am deeply ashamed of both my favorite papers. I thought they both learned something from the Pet Food Debacle of last year. The NYT business section was one of the few accurate sources for the latest information about China’s usage of melamine/cyanuric acid in animal feeds. I guess one can depend on them for OP-Ed, business news and politics, but when it comes to straight forward pet ownership, pet issues and pet reporting, both are failures and rank right up there with CBS and its ghastly new ‘reality’ show, “Greatest American Dog”.
Comment by Anne T. — July 13, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
a good friend of mine got two differnt results from two companies.the one that tests for 100 breeds wants a photo….
Comment by nancy freedman-smith — July 13, 2008 @ 8:47 pm