pet connection

211 Comments »

1. :::STANDING OVATION::::

   Please, everyone … send this to everyone you know (well, every progressive you know!).

   And Christie: You’re going to put this on Kos, yeah?

   Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 2, 2009 @ 4:32 pm

2. I’m afraid they’ll eat me alive, but okay…

   Comment by Christie Keith — June 2, 2009 @ 4:36 pm

3. Oh, and as for the “Democrats” who voted for this … I think the problem isn’t that they’re misguided/misinformed/uninformed liberals, but rather campaign-donation-chasing whores. (Which seems to be rather a bi-partisan trait, I hasten to add.)

   Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 2, 2009 @ 4:50 pm

4. Outstanding article!

   Bravo Christie!

   Comment by LauraS — June 2, 2009 @ 4:52 pm

5. Thank you Christie! With your OK, I am going to post this at various “liberal and progress” gathering spots in town. With a copy of Alley Cat Allies info right next to it.

   And the assembly office in town will be getting a visit, or two or three….

   Comment by JenniferJ — June 2, 2009 @ 5:03 pm

6. Add a comment to this same post on Kos. Christie planted the seed … don’t let forces of pet extinction take the torch to it:

   http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....pay-neuter

   Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 2, 2009 @ 5:04 pm

7. DailyKos? that is to laugh!

   They haven’t been a progressive community since Kos himself wrote a front page accusation that HRClinton was deliberately darkening Obama’s face in ads (despite the fact that the “reality based” digital geeks on his site refuted the accusation).

   And as for pet issues? The worst of PETAmaniac morons. BlueDogState (bluedogstate.blogspot.com/) keeps posting diaries over there to universal derision and just today someone tried to put up a diary about police shooting dogs, well: you can see the responses yourself: http://www.dailykos.com/story/.....re-On-Dogs

   Christie, I hope you’ll post over there, but you’re right to expect a hostile reaction.

   I’m as much of a kneejerk off-my-back liberal as anyone, but even I have to admit that NEITHER of the 2 major political parties (and certainly not the Dems) has a consistent philosophy about anything. There is no position about which they won’t compromise. In fact, “compromise” seems to be the only dominant ideology

   Comment by EmilyS — June 2, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

8. Good for you Christie! So far the responses indicate that the “progressive” community doesn’t think poor people should own pets. Because s/n your pet is the ONLY marker for responsible ownership.

   nice…

   Comment by EmilyS — June 2, 2009 @ 5:08 pm

9. Susan Fox, want to hit some of Wes Chesboro’s offices?

   I’m game!

   Comment by JenniferJ — June 2, 2009 @ 5:15 pm

10. Great article, Christie.

    I know I keep saying this, but I honestly think a lot of what is going on is that the lines are SOOOO blurred between what is right and what is wrong with animal ownership these days, nobody knows (or cares) what to do, and too many people just go with what seems to be the “politically correct” choice at the moment instead of doing any thinking for themselves.

    I say this after having spent the afternoon reading Nathan Winograd’s current rant (I believe the topic is “fighting fire with gasoline”) as well as several different viewpoints on the Thyme and Sage Ranch “Rescue and Sanctuary” bust in Wisconsin last week.

    You just can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys anymore — and of course it all boils down to being about money, one way or the other. Very sad stuff!

    I am so sorry this insanity is still going on in California. The Prop 8 thing is mind-boggling. I swear, I barely recognize the state anymore.

    But geeze — look at the whole country.

    Look at the mentality that says it’s okay to go out and kill a doctor because you don’t like what he does (and that it’s okay for wacko talk-show hosts like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh to encourage that kind of behavior!)

    All I can think of some days is, “where are we going, and why are we all in this handbasket?”

    Comment by stellaluna — June 2, 2009 @ 5:24 pm

11. Sure. What, call them all tomorrow?

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 2, 2009 @ 5:25 pm

12. Previous comment for Jennifer.

    Stellaluna- it seems like everything is in a state of flux these days, which is a good thing in many ways since it means more opportunity for positive change. But it seems to also mean keeping a close eye on things. The rightwingers see it all “slipping through their fingers” and are desperately trying to stay in the game. The game has moved on.

    The pet/animal relationship with people is changing fast and it’s getting harder to tell who stands where or even who one agrees with on a given issue. Exciting, but disorienting.

    Having grown up in the 1960s, I’m just glad I’ve lived long enough to see the wheel turn again. I was starting to wonder.

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 2, 2009 @ 5:33 pm

13. For Susan

    Oh, they’ll be getting calls, letters, faxes etc…

    But I think it might be a very good plan for some us to actually go to the district offices in a small group, hand out some solid paper work on why these laws are counter-productive and chat with the staff. You can really make an impact that way. And sometimes make an ally on the Reps staff who will make darn sure your info actually gets to the assembly person.

    We could do Humbolt one week, Ukiah the next. :)

    Comment by JenniferJ — June 2, 2009 @ 5:45 pm

14. I’m willing, but I have some schedule constraints coming up. Click on my name and contact me directly and let’s see what we can do. I’ll poke around and see who I know who knows someone, who knows someone…..

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 2, 2009 @ 5:50 pm

15. How did this become a partisan issue? And yes, any bill that only has the members of one party voting for it has become a partisan issue.

    Comment by Debbie — June 2, 2009 @ 6:40 pm

16. Hugely fascinating discussion on Christie’s post of this on Kos, mostly centered on the idea that the poor are not entitled to own a pet. A pet is a luxury, and forcing them to not have them or have them killed by the state is for their own good.
    
    Wowser.

    Seems many people think being a “Democrat” or “Republican” is like being a Catholic: You accept the party line or you leave.

    Catholicism lost me years ago. Just saying.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 2, 2009 @ 7:05 pm

17. Kos is a pit. Whenever I spend too long in places like that — or, for that matter, the comments section in any online newspaper — I begin to look askance and fear my neighbors. And yet it’s also deceptive, because like attracts like; my neighbors remain the same friendly, helpful people they’ve always been, it’s the pits online that are rotten.

    Comment by Eucritta — June 2, 2009 @ 7:23 pm

18. It’s the myth, you see — poor people aren’t spaying and neutering because they’re poor, but because they’re irresponsible. So we’ll make it mandatory and punish them if they don’t comply. And why should anyone have a choice? “Spay or neuter” has been preached as gospel for so long now, that suggesting that we have the right to do otherwise is sacrilege. That being said, there are a lot of good reasons to spay or neuter; my dogs are neutered. And I don’t have a lot to say for the guys who leave their male pets intact because “they’ll be less of a guy,” or people who let their intact pets run loose. But there are less onerous, less regressive alternatives. Don’t use an elephant gun where a pea shooter will do.

    Comment by Susan — June 2, 2009 @ 8:15 pm

19. Gina: in DKosworld, the poor are not entitled to have pets. Indeed, apparently the notion that a person might WANT to have an intact pet and have good reasons for it… AND be able to own one responsibly (even if poor), never even occurs to these self-defined reality-based progressives.

    As a friend remarked, “I don’t know what’s going to happen when these people grow up and rule the country”

    Comment by EmilyS — June 2, 2009 @ 9:35 pm

20. oh p.s. my UID on DKos is about 27,000; I go back with them a long way so I know what I’m talking about. (I think they’re up to 300,000 users now)

    Comment by EmilyS — June 2, 2009 @ 9:37 pm

21. Ya know, I just realized that the argument used to revive the Denver suit against BSL works GREAT for MSN.

    What could be more irrational than forcing upon an entire state a law that is a PROVEN FAILURE everywhere it has been previously tried?

    I say we now label SB 250 as irrational.

    Why pass a law that has never worked in any test?
    Why pass a law guaranteed to to cost a bankrupt state money?

    If nothing else the leg needs to hear about he Denver suit, and the way the dog community rallied to help Ontario take it’s BSL case to the Supreme Court with worldwide financial support. Because they are not going to force me to subject my dogs to surgery at their whim, nor ruin a tens of thousands of dollars invested breeding program of 22 years if my dogs leash is too long or a neighbor thinks they barked too loudly.

    Comment by JenniferJ — June 2, 2009 @ 9:42 pm

22. article in the Sac Bee, the comments sound like the folks from DKos have moved on over…

    http://www.sacbee.com/static/w.....22754.html

    Comment by JenniferJ — June 2, 2009 @ 10:36 pm

23. I am just so disappointed it’s hard to even express. I guess we have to take a deep breath and start pounding away at the assembly…

    How can it be that people can’t see what’s going to happen if they pass this bill? I have been researching mini dachsunds for a friend who absolutely wants to get one and told me he couldn’t find one other than the internet. So I’ve found two breeders, in California, where he can check there homes out. They take waiting lists, they won’t provide the dog’s papers until you provide proof of the spay/neuter, they microchip, lifetime return policy for the dog, and the puppies are raised in the house. So for all this, my friend will pay a whopping $1,000. But you know what, if this bill passes, these breeders go away and people who are bound and determined to get a specific breed will be left with internet puppy sales at three times the price most likely, because any competition they did have will be gone.

    And that is disgustingly sad.

    Comment by Becky — June 3, 2009 @ 5:55 am

24. Becky,
    You write,
    “They take waiting lists, they won’t provide the dog’s papers until you provide proof of the spay/neuter, they microchip, lifetime return policy for the dog, and the puppies are raised in the house. So for all this, my friend will pay a whopping $1,000. But you know what, if this bill passes, these breeders go away …”

    Why would these breeders go away?

    Comment by Mary Mary — June 3, 2009 @ 6:35 am

25. Mary Mary, it may seem a bit complicated or far fetched, unless you have been in the thick of it here for a long time then it is frigteningly real.

    The short answer to why proposals like SB250 threaten good breeders is that there is a faction of the animal rights movement who views the existence of breeders as insufferable and the act of breeding dogs as essentially sinful. the intensity of this hate rivals religious zealousness.

    When you have a law which states that ANY one (or maybe now two, we’ll see the amendments eventually) violations of ANY animal related ordinance is grounds for forcing spay/neuter and denial of any future license to own an intact dog, and which makes “harbouring of an unlicensed intact dog(or cat) a CRIME, can you see what a powerful tool that could be for those who view breeders, all breeders, as evil?

    If my neighbor calls in a noise complaint, if my dog gets loose because a county worker leaves open a gate, if I am training at dog class and left my dogs tags at home, if my pig gets loose (or chickens, goats, horses if thats what someone has) and result in an impoundment or fine (because SB250 does not require that the violation have anything to actually do with the dog/s in question) I will have a violation. If when Ac comes to ticket me, my dog knocks over his water dish inn excitement, hey, another violation!

    And so 22 years of blood sweat and tears into my breeding program is GONE, unless I can afford to go to court and fight like a devil.

    No, a reasonable animal control officer is not going to do these things to a basically responsible owner, but they are NOT all reasonable and some will use whatever means they have to get rid of breeders.

    Why will responsible breeders go? Because they license their dogs, because they are high profile and can be found. Because they compete or participate in areas of canine or feline activity that make them visible.

    Comment by JenniferJ — June 3, 2009 @ 7:05 am

26. I did not know that the law read that way.

    I thought that, as it applied to breeders, the law meant “to own an intact animal, you will need to pay a higher licensing fee.”

    I am not near CA and have not followed this very closely. Getting in late on this. Thanks for the clarification.

    Comment by Mary Mary — June 3, 2009 @ 7:33 am

27. Excellent article!!! I live in a rural county in N. CA, very high unemployment, low median income, and yes, large migrant population. There are few resources, not too different than some inner city areas. Lots of feral cats, lots of dogs are allowed to run at large. Small shelter with few resources. The money that has been spent on AB1634 and SB250 could have gone a long way to developing programs to educate on animal health care, improving animal control, building new and better facilities. SB250 is doing absolutely nothing to help the animals and their owners.

    Comment by TEH — June 3, 2009 @ 7:40 am

28. Comment by Mary Mary — June 3, 2009 @ 7:33 am

    I did not know that the law read that way.

    I suspect the same could be said for many Californians (including some legislators) who are backing this law based on spoon-fed soundbites rather than an actual, thorough reading (and comprehension) of the text.

    And that seems to be the way of virtually all legislative battles these days.

    Discouraging, ain’t it?

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 3, 2009 @ 7:50 am

29. The big problem we now have is that it’s being framed as an issue of economics. False, but it’s a great meme that will work with those who don’t know the issue.

    From the LA Times:
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....-dogs.html

    Any further approaches to legislators had better start with countering the “I called it SB250 because it will save California $250 million.” BS that Florez is throwing out there.

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 3, 2009 @ 7:51 am

30. JenniferJ said: “Why will responsible breeders go? Because they license their dogs, because they are high profile and can be found.”

    That’s exactly it…they can be found. Granted it takes some digging to get past the prolific puppy miller’s spam, but they can be found. One of my efforts to persuade my friend against internet easy sales was refuting these dogs that were photographed as “family raised”…on a generic white background, the dogs looked anythingbut happy, but what I was able to point out was their toenails…were so damn long they were curling around. And this was a puppy miller in Oregon.

    This isn’t the only reason to be sad SB250 passed the senate, but it’s definitely a valid one.

    I have more…I answer a generic mailbox for a pit bull rescue to help direct the email traffic. One of my number one questions FROM LOS ANGELES comes from owners who want to spay or neuter their dog but CAN’T AFFORD IT. When the rescue hosts a FREE spay/neuter event for pit bulls, the line is unbelievable. This bill will do nothing to help the problem, and will increase our shelter’s euthanasia problem. When people are grateful when I get them hooked up with a low cost spay that is almost two hours drive for them, it tells me Los Angeles has it dead wrong and we can’t afford to spread their experiment statewide.

    Comment by Becky — June 3, 2009 @ 8:27 am

31. The debate about animal welfare legislation is an important one, but adding labels such as “liberal” and “progressive” adds nothing to the debate and only threatens to polarize it. Nor does it help to point out that most Democrats vote one way and most Republicans vote in another way. Instead, let’s look at the issue itself.

    Ms. Keith says that mandatory spay and neuter laws unfairly discriminate against poor people. Firstly, let’s think about the “fair” question. Most everything discriminates against poor people, from the ability to get an effective lawyer, to buying food, etc. About the only things that don’t discriminate against poor people are welfare, food stamps, and the progressive tax system. That’s why it’s good to work hard and plan well so that you’re not poor. Certainly mandatory spay and neutering laws do not discriminate against poor people any more than most laws discriminate against them.

    Ms. Keith claims that family pets that belong to rich people are generally altered, while those that belong to poor people are generally not altered. Assuming this is true, this clearly implies that poor people do not get their pets from shelters, because almost every single pet secured from a shelter will be altered. So how do poor people get their pets? If they don’t get them from shelters, and if most rich people have pets that are altered and don’t reproduce, then it seems logical that poor people get their pets from other poor people. The result – millions of poor people are breeding tens of millions of pets every year, some of whom are absorbed by other poor people, and most of whom are collected and then killed, paid for at the expense of middle class and rich people’s tax dollars. Surely this isn’t a good system and one which Ms. Keith endorses. The cost of this is in the tragic short lived existence of millions of pets and the cost of BILLIONS of dollars.
    Why don’t poor people alter their pets? Ms. Keith assumes it is because they can’t afford it and can’t get their pets to the place to have them altered. Both these assumptions appear, at best, only partially true, and at worst, completely false. Poor people, like everyone else have discretionary income. At the county mission where I volunteer, poor people’s children wear sneakers that are far more expensive than my own. At the food bank where I deliver pet food, the poor people show up in far more expensive than my own. Apart from the extremely poor, who are a small proportion of people classified as “poor”, poor people have sufficient discretionary income to afford a once-in-a-lifetime expense of less than $100, if they were so inclined. And here’s the rub – “if they were so inclined” is the pivotal matter. I suggest that, in fact, they are not so inclined. Just as the birth rate among poor people is significantly higher than the birth rate among middle class and rich people, even given the abortion statistics, so too the reproduction rate of their pets mirrors their own reproduction rate. Thus, it may not be the price but the psychology of poor people that makes them less inclined to alter their pets. This is not the time and place to pursue this line of thought, but it certainly offers a viable alternative to the “poor people can’t afford it idea.”

    Ms. Keith’s third point is that low cost spay and neuter voucher programs and TNR programs are more important than responsible legislation. I couldn’t agree more, and right now I am involved with supporting both of these types of programs. But the need for one type of action does not negate the need for another type. Should California legislators (who are busy cutting children’s food programs) also create TNR and voucher programs? Sure. But should they also create legislation that makes people responsible for their actions. Sure again!

    This raises a fourth issue – responsibility. It’s a fashion to blame everyone else and to avoid taking responsibility. The fool who spills a hot cup of coffee on her lap wants to sue McDonalds for making the coffee hot. The lung cancer patient wants to sue the tobacco companies because he has lung cancer and didn’t read the warnings on the cigarette packs which said “Causes Cancer.” Etc. By Ms. Keith’s extension, the people who harbor feral cats (God bless them, and I mean it sincerely) should take no responsibility for the actions of these cats. One of the largest single admission categories to shelters is feral cats, and this group constitutes the highest percentage of kills. Yet the people who create the conditions in which these cats can breed should take no responsibility for this, according to Ms. Keith. Personally I do not accept this position.

    Finally, Ms. Keith offers many comments about research findings with few references. This tactic always worries me. I understand that a reference can break the literary thread and I certainly don’t look for references in my fiction. But when you are writing about public issues, it seems to me that you have an obligation to cite your sources, rather than simply tell us what you think the research literature has found. For example, Ms. Keith says that – “Why am I constantly seeing Democrats voting in favor of these bills, all in the name of reducing shelter intake and killings despite mountains of evidence that forced spay/neuter has never, not once, resulted in that outcome anywhere it’s been tried?” I did a cursory google search for spay and neuter programs and on my third link found a Best Friends description of a program in New Hampshire that claims to have reduced euthanasia by 30% as a result of a spay and neuter program. So much for Ms. Keith’s claim for “never, not once…”

    Comment by Dr. Jim Gardner — June 3, 2009 @ 9:04 am

32. Why is it wrong to speak the truth — that state-forced pet surgery has inexplicably become a cause celebre for so-called progressives, when in fact it should be no such thing?

    Does Christie — and every other self-identified liberal who cries foul, including myself — have some sort of leftie obligation to ixnay on the iberalay thing so nobody finds out?

    It IS a partisan issue, and IT SHOULD NOT BE. Dog-owning Democrats have every right to speak to the entrenched party operatives who have not given these issues ten minutes of research or consideration, but are happy to go along with a kneejerk “sounds good feels good” response to an incredibly intrusive and harmful spate of legislation.

    Dr. Gardner, why not check the many-times-previously-referenced data on the SaveOurDogs website? If you think the authors are liars, check the raw numbers. It’s all there. Your Googling skills may need some brush up.

    So do your reading comprehension skills. I easily found the Best Friends report on NINE spay-neuter programs that work, here:

    http://www.bestfriends.org/nom.....ograms.pdf

    NOT ONE OF THEM WAS A MANDATORY PROGRAM. Including the one in New Hampshire that you inexplicably single out.

    (Thing about people in New Hampshire — don’t tell them what to do. Oh god no. Their license plates read “Live Free or Die.” Their attitude is more “Eat shit and bark at the moon.”)

    All were free, or low-cost, programs for people who qualified by income, or for anyone who asked.

    Exactly what Christie is supporting.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — June 3, 2009 @ 9:45 am

33. Dr. Gardner, if you are successful in your quest to be elected to Lake Forest, CA council, do you intend to introduce legislation mandating sterilization of owned pets in that jurisdiction?

    What is your position on state-mandated surgical sterilization of privately owned animals?

    I think voters have the right to know.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — June 3, 2009 @ 9:55 am

34. Dr. Gardner,

    I normally refrain from comparing pets to people. Anthropomorphizing is a really poor way to make a rational, legitimate argument.

    But did you REALLY mean to say that ‘those poor folks should quit having so many kids and get off welfare!’ ?

    Comment by Cait — June 3, 2009 @ 10:05 am

35. Dr. Gardner, if you are going to defend the track record of mandatory spay/neuter program then it might be advisable for you to actually look at the track record. You obviously have not done so, since you pointed us to a voluntary s/n program.

    Christie’s excellent article included references to studies about the track record of mandatory spay/neuter programs. Some of it is based on my research and analysis, some of it is based on a study done by attorney Laura Allen of Best Friend’s Animal Law Coalition, some of it is based on analyses by Nathan Winograd of the No Kill Advocacy Center, and some of it is based on a study by the ASPCA.

    I’m happy to discuss my work on this matter, on its merits. But your frankly unprofessional potshots add nothing to this discussion.

    Comment by LauraS — June 3, 2009 @ 10:10 am

36. The New Hampshire program is strictly for cats and shelter animals, it is not a statewide mandatory spay neuter for all pets.
    Here is a list of NH statutes dealing with pet population issues. No statewide dog/cat MSN

    The main reason for NH success:

    “New Hampshire launched a statewide publicly funded spay and neuter program in 1994.
    Between 1994 and 2000, the state’s eight largest shelters admitted 30,985 fewer dogs and
    cats than in the six years preceding the program and saved an estimated $2.2 million
    statewide. In this same time period New Hampshire’s euthanasia rate dropped 75%. ” Laura Allen, Best Friends

    Go Here sir , if you are not just trolling, http://saveourdogs.net/categor.....ck-record/

    the information on various MSN efforts is compiled from the numbers reported to government agencies, not hearsay. So even if you want to quibble over a very different law and situation in New Hampshire, MSN has not been the vaunted success in California that every one of these laws promised it would be.

    But if you want to risk it then any increased shelter deaths, impoundments that result in death from this law and increases in state or local costs are all yours.

    Comment by JenniferJ — June 3, 2009 @ 10:14 am

37. This raises a fourth issue – responsibility. It’s a fashion to blame everyone else and to avoid taking responsibility

    I have a responsibility to keep my pets from having unplanned breedings. I do not have an obligation to accomplish that through your preferred choice — surgery. For you to try to impose your choice on me through force of the law is the antithesis of a liberal philosophy. It is also punishing me, and millions of other responsible dog owners, for the actions of an irresponsible minority. I am not trying to “avoid taking responsibility”, but you are trying to punish me for the actions of others.

    Comment by LauraS — June 3, 2009 @ 10:21 am

38. Whoops here is the list for NH
    http://www.gencourt.state.nh.u.....esults.asp

    You know what happens if you search NH gov pages for mandatory s/n?

    You get 0

    Required s/n? Shelter animal statutes

    S/N? Well lots of info on a state wide VOLUNTARY program to ENCOURAGE s/n.

    I found it all all by my little self and I’m not a “Dr” although I am married to one.

    Comment by JenniferJ — June 3, 2009 @ 10:21 am

39. “The result – millions of poor people are breeding tens of millions of pets every year, some of whom are absorbed by other poor people, and most of whom are collected and then killed, paid for at the expense of middle class and rich people’s tax dollars.”

    Cite your sources for that tasty tidbit, please.
    Actual numbers, demographic breakdown, intake numbers from that demographic.

    “That’s why it’s good to work hard and plan well so that you’re not poor.”

    You have got to be kidding me. That’s the old, old conservative chestnut that the only reason people are poor is because they choose to be. *rolls eyes*

    If you really believe that, working in a county mission, as you say, then, frankly, it calls into question all of your other assumptions about the issue at hand, which you have clearly not bothered to inform yourself about.

    And you’ve forgotten, if you actually knew, one of the major reasons why MSN isn’t acceptable- it inserts the government into a decision that should be between a pet owner and their vet. You can’t have it both ways. Whining about how people need to take responsibility and then advocating that the government get involved in a private medical decision.

    Low cost S/N and education are the way to go. I realize that neither of these meet your gleeful need for punishing those lazy poor people who have nicer shoes than you, but it’s not about you, it about the animals.

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 3, 2009 @ 10:45 am

40. The fool who spills a hot cup of coffee on her lap wants to sue McDonalds for making the coffee hot.

    Every single detail in the highly-promoted retelling of the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit is false. Every single detail.

    The car was parked, not moving. It was even parked in the designated spot for drive-thru customers to park. The woman burned wasn’t the driver, she was a passenger. The coffee was forty degrees hotter than any other major chain served their coffee. The coffee cup lid was defective—and McDonald’s was on notice, due to previous lawsuits which they had lost with much smaller verdicts, that the lids were defective. Also due to those previous lawsuits which they had lost with much smaller verdicts, they knew the coffee was too hot and was causing serious burns.

    The “fool” in this famous case was burned badly enough that she was hospitalized and need surgery. And the jury, looking at the history, decided it needed to do something to get McDonald’s attention—hence the very large punitive damages verdict. (Which was then reduced on appeal.)

    So when someone cites the McDonald’s case as evidence of individuals not taking responsibility and blaming the Deep Pockets for the results of their own foolishness, I know that either the person has not learned to think critically, or they are being actively dishonest.

    I did a cursory google search for spay and neuter programs and on my third link found a Best Friends description of a program in New Hampshire that claims to have reduced euthanasia by 30% as a result of a spay and neuter program. So much for Ms. Keith’s claim for “never, not once…”

    You are blurring the distinction between “spay/neuter program” and “mandatory spay/neuter”. Spay/neuter programs have made a huge impact, and we need more of them. Mandatory spay/neuter laws have never resulted in anything other than more surrendered pets, more seized pets, more pets killed.

    Is this the link you found? Statewide Spay/Neuter, Step by Step

    Or this one? Spay & Neuter Programs Are Helping Pets and People! From this one, note this quote:

    Poorer communities are often in a pet predicament. The people just don’t have the funds and/or transportation to get their animals altered. “Affordability and accessibility are the keys to having a successful program,” explains attorney by trade and leader Peter Marsh (pictured) of Solutions to Overpopulation of Pets.

    Or this one? Providing low-cost spay/neuter reduces shelter deaths by large percentages

    Notice that all of these, including the two from the Best Friends Network, describe voluntary programs having a huge impact on shelter intakes and shelter killings. Not mandatory spay/neuter. Find a mandatory spay/neuter law that has worked, and come present it, if you can.

    Comment by Lis — June 3, 2009 @ 10:45 am

41. Oops. Mishandled my tags, obviously. :(

    Comment by Lis — June 3, 2009 @ 10:45 am

42. Just another thought for those outside Sacramento, Dave Jones is leaving his Assembly post in 2010 to run for Insurance Commissioner, a statewide election.

    So in addition to letting your own district assemblyperson know how you stand on this bill, it would be worth reminding Mr. Jones as well that the fallout for those who support this could matter to him.

    Comment by Becky — June 3, 2009 @ 10:46 am

43. http://www.petconnection.com/b.....ent-454142

    Wonder if Dr. Jim Gardner falls into this demographic (those who get their “information” from soundbytes rather than reading WITH COMPREHENSION the ACTUAL legislation)?

    Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 3, 2009 @ 11:11 am

44. Great piece, Christie. A comment you made about HSUS, however, really made me sit up. If they have no official position on MSN, why, then have they spent months with their lobbyists in Chicago working with PAWS, one of the few large (read monied, not in number of animals kept)shelters pushing this legislation?
    The rest of us, along with the ISVMA and CVMA, made enough noise to have the matter tabled (again), but seeing what’s happened to CA, I figure it won’t be long before they turn to State legislators.
    As the OTHER Pat noted, sound bites is what even legislators pay attention to…god forbid they’d actually be required to Read legislation being proposed before voting on it.

    Comment by Mary Haight — June 3, 2009 @ 12:22 pm

45. Per their Sacramento-based lobbyist, the HSUS has not taken a position on SB 250.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 3, 2009 @ 1:20 pm

46. Why is that, do you suppose? I’d think they’d be all over it like one of my cats on a gopher.

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 3, 2009 @ 1:35 pm

47. Mary Haight, you wrote:
    “As the OTHER Pat noted, sound bites is what even legislators pay attention to…god forbid they’d actually be required to Read legislation being proposed before voting on it.”

    So has anyone taken a stab at creating sound bites for the anti-SB 250 stance?

    Comment by Mary Mary — June 3, 2009 @ 1:36 pm

48. SB250: Won’t save money. Will cost lives.

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 3, 2009 @ 1:47 pm

49. “This statewide California mandatory spay and neuter bill supported by HSUS and PETA….

    The major television stations and newspapers are all reporting on PetPAC’s effort to stop SB 250. But we are being outspent by our opponents including HSUS and PETA who are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby for mandatory spay and neuter and to eliminate pet owners rights.”

    These are quotes from an email that I just got from PetPac and was signed by Bill Henby.

    Gina say HSUS has taken no position, so does that mean Henby is lying? What are they and PETA spending “hundreds of thousands of dollars” on? What is implied is that there is a battle of the airwaves going on and PetPac is being outspent, so…..donate money.

    I don’t watch tv much and don’t read every newspaper in the state, so can anyone confirm any of this? Or is Henby pulling a Wayne P. and indulging in misleading fund-raising? If he’s engaging in inaccurate hyperbole, it really hurts the cause.

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 3, 2009 @ 2:47 pm

50. I got that mailing, too. And I double-checked with the HSUS lobbyist.

    The HSUS has still not taken a position, as of an hour ago. That’s a fact.

    Why PetPac is misrepresenting this, I don’t know.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 3, 2009 @ 3:01 pm

51. Check the HSUS California legislation page. HSUS endorses the ban on cattle tail docking that Florez sponsors, and a number of other bills, but they say nothing about Florez’s SB 250
    http://www.hsus.org/legislatio.....california

    Check the SB 250 Bill Analysis document generated by the Senate Local Government Committee. HSUS is not on the list of supporters.
    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/....._comm.html

    Finally, I spoke with one of the Sacramento lobbyists who is working against SB 250, who asked the HSUS lobbyist in the Capital what their position is on SB 250. Answer: HSUS has no position on SB 250.

    On the other hand…
    HSUS donated $10,000 to Judie Mancuso’s “Social Compassion in Legislation”, a group which exists largely to impose MSN laws.

    Comment by LauraS — June 3, 2009 @ 3:18 pm

52. Here’s the 2007 HSUS IRS form 990. See page 47, for the $10,000 grant to Social Compassion in Legislation.
    http://www.hsus.org/web-files/.....p-1_49.pdf

    Comment by LauraS — June 3, 2009 @ 3:29 pm

53. Flying under the radar, are we?

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 3, 2009 @ 3:43 pm

54. By the way:

    Social Compassion in Legislation?

    The Center for Consumer Freedom is more honest a name than that.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 3, 2009 @ 3:54 pm

55. Paging George Orwell.

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 3, 2009 @ 3:57 pm

56. I think these mandatory spay and neuter laws are quite draconian, and come not from a sense of concern for the suffering of animals but the desire to control other people, to aggrandize over them in a fury of self-righteousness.

    Most people want their dogs fixed. Mine is. Dogs are better off if they are fixed.

    But these things should be between a pet owner and the veterinarian. The government doesn’t need to be practicing veterinary medicine.

    As a progressive, I support true progressive policies. I don’t support self-righteousness that exists for self-righteousness’s sake.

    Comment by retrieverman — June 3, 2009 @ 3:58 pm

57. BTW, who are the people who come up with these laws? They sound to me like the worst kind of killjoys in the history of mankind.

    Comment by retrieverman — June 3, 2009 @ 4:00 pm

58. [Forced spay-neuter laws] come not from a sense of concern for the suffering of animals but the desire to control other people, to aggrandize over them in a fury of self-righteousness.

    Comment by retrieverman — June 3, 2009

    DingDingDing! A winner!

    Christie! Tell the man what he has won!

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 3, 2009 @ 4:18 pm

59. “Most people want their dogs fixed. Mine is. Dogs are better off if they are fixed.”

    Maybe, but it’s interesting. I have been comparing notes on life spans of dogs, bulldogs specifically, with friends.

    Males it’s not too much different, but with bitches, most of the girls who made it to twelve or into their teens were either intact their whole lives or not spayed until late middle age.

    There is also research that is pretty conclusive that intact males suffer less cognitive dysfunction. the GSD I grew up with lived to be just shy of 18, intact.

    Now indisputably, there are issues of mammary cancer and prostate problems in intact adults as they age, and more acute conditions such as pyometra.

    But spyaed bitches are more prone to incontinence and intact males almost never get prostate cancer, which, though still rare, is more common in neutered males.

    I think as far as the role of a house pet goes, altered adults are easier to fit into our lives, they may be more accepting of other dogs, less complicated behaviorally and there is the conveinence factor as well, girls in heat can be a messy proposition and as intact males age, their urine becomes much stronger in terms of smell. Some of them do get a bit musky if not bathed regularly.

    But where I used to blithely agree that dogs are better off altered, I am not so quick to make that as a black and white statement. Certainly for the vast majority of pets in average homes (whatever that means!) being altered after an appropriate age pays dividends of domestic harmony that outweigh most health concerns. But if someone chooses to keeps a dog intact in a responsible manner, that is their decision and I would not consider them to be doing their pet any harm by foregoing an elective procedure that removes a healthy body part.

    Comment by JenniferJ — June 3, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

60. “[Forced spay-neuter laws] come not from a sense of concern for the suffering of animals but the desire to control other people, to aggrandize over them in a fury of self-righteousness.”

    I thought it was all about money.

    Halt (decrease) production and, eventually, have less waste to manage.

    Comment by Mary Mary — June 3, 2009 @ 4:21 pm

61. Note: I am not saying that I believe that equation, but that the MSN supporters do.

    Comment by Mary Mary — June 3, 2009 @ 4:23 pm

62. Oh, but Retrieverman, I agree with everything else and I agree with everything else you said. :-)

    And yeah, killjoys. I would not want to have these folks as company on a desert island!

    Comment by JenniferJ — June 3, 2009 @ 4:24 pm

63. Whoops, sorry for the duplicative sentence there! Big thunder roll and I got up and came back mid post!

    Comment by JenniferJ — June 3, 2009 @ 4:29 pm

64. Gosh MM … I think there’s some seriously bizarr-o subconscious stuff at work here. I didn’t really believe that until Christie cross-posted this on Daily Kos, and all the “liberals” and “progressives” jumped on about how “the poor don’t deserve pets.”

    I’ve also had some mondo weird conversations with nice middle-class white women who voted for Obama and when talking about how they supported forced spay-neuter and BSL … well, it was confusing if they were talking about the dogs or the tough-looking young men on the other end of the leash.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 3, 2009 @ 4:29 pm

65. Mary Mary, we’ve heard i for years.

    In a test tube laboratory, controlled situation, or in the minds of zealots, or in the minds of most all of us before we did the research, it makes sense.

    But in the real world, it fails. And it backfires and it leads to more deaths.

    It’s the scientific method. You develop a reasonable hypothesis, devise a way to test it and then compare the result to your theory.

    You either prove or disprove your theory.

    MSN has failed every experiment tried. It does not work in the real socially dynamic world. Time to try something else.

    Comment by JenniferJ — June 3, 2009 @ 4:35 pm

66. Big thunder up here, too. Possible golf-ball sized hail east of us in the mountains. Things are weird all over.

    Doesn’t MSN also play to the haters who don’t have pets and have had issues with other people’s dogs and cats?

    The opportunities for abuse of this law are breathtaking. Where’s the due process? SB250 will make it easier to seize a family’s living, breathing animal family member than that family’s car, for crying out loud.

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 3, 2009 @ 4:38 pm

67. I agree - enforcement is about control and even punishing others - twisted thinking that will hurt animals - also HSUS donated $600,000 to Louisiana State University School of Veterinary Medicine - do they get their animals for research/surgical teaching from animal control facilities like Washington State University, Pullman Washington gets their research animals from Tri-City Animal Control, Pasco, Washington?

    Comment by francis — June 3, 2009 @ 4:38 pm

68. The HSUS says they’re in the process of re-evaluating policy on the efficacy of mandatory spay-neuter, although they are as yet not sure what the final policy statement will be. Hence, the lack of position on SB 250.

    In other words: Stay tuned, folks.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 3, 2009 @ 4:49 pm

69. Doesn’t MSN also play to the haters who don’t have pets and have had issues with other people’s dogs and cats?

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 3, 2009

    That was pretty clear in the discussion on Kos, too.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 3, 2009 @ 4:50 pm

70. I used to be pro-MSN. Not too long ago. Yes, minus research, it made sense.

    Speaking of research, I would love to learn how Calgary accomplished their successes with … what is the term. Animal management. They didn’t just wake up one day and have next to no killing.

    Anything good out there on that? Did they go from terrible to best-in-class? Or start out strong (somehow) and build on that?

    Comment by Mary Mary — June 3, 2009 @ 4:53 pm

71. Gina, could you post the link to the Kos diary?

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 3, 2009 @ 4:54 pm

72. http://www.dailykos.com/storyo.....pay-neuter

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 3, 2009 @ 4:55 pm

73. Wow, what a bunch of judgmental, ignorant, hypocrites. I guess if you go far enough in either direction on the political spectrum they meet in the middle. The only difference is what issues they feel entitled to dictate to people about.

    Honestly, if I’d come across those comments with no context, I’d have assumed that I’d stumbled on a neo-con wingnut site.

    Okaaay, so that’s what we’re up against. Who is socio-economically entitled to have a pet. Not to mention some barely disguised racism. Wow.
    ——-

    Oh, just had a flash flood warning issued for our area. The fun never ends. I iChatted my husband “Climate change, we haz it” and he replied “Comes instead of fries with the cheezburger”. Very weird. Front is coming in from the east instead of south.

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 3, 2009 @ 5:10 pm

74. Gina: “it was confusing if they were talking about the dogs or the tough-looking young men on the other end of the leash”

    Yes, many commentators have noted that the anti-pit bull movement often appears to be an “anti young men in baggy pants” movement, your friends at Bad Rap being one recent example: http://badrap-blog.blogspot.co.....types.html

    As for HSUS, interesting that they are re=evaluating their previous firm pro-MSN position. In light of actual facts, perhaps?

    If they come out in favor of SB250, we’re sunk. If they come out opposed to it, that’s HUGE news and support for Gina’s “they’re evolving” theory.

    (BTW: A recent HSUS press release about a fight bust incorporates their new “recommendation to evaluate the dogs” not the old “kill them; they’re all irredemably dangerous” one (though it doesn’t include the location of the re-education camp they had to send John Godwin to).

    Comment by EmilyS — June 3, 2009 @ 5:48 pm

75. If HSUS comes out in support….
    We will be….. pretty much where we’ve been. And the path of progress to better lives for pets, people and communities hits yet another road block.

    And I have to start fund raising again, not for low cost spay/neuter or new runs for our rescue but to help pay for lobbyists.

    Social Compassion…. Bet Terry Gilliam wishes he’d had that one to use in “Brazil”.

    Comment by JenniferJ — June 3, 2009 @ 5:59 pm

76. What are the cost comparisons for seize/impound/euthanize vs. spay/neuter for free?

    “Feels” like free speuter would be cheaper. Especially for cats. Unless you are adding the costs of promotion/speuter van/transport animal. Hmm … not sure.

    Anyone?

    Comment by Mary Mary — June 3, 2009 @ 6:09 pm

77. Hey, a poll on SB 250. Looks like the supporters and haters are onto it, we have some catching up to do.

    Not a push poll

    http://www.ksby.com/Global/cat.....#poll84078

    Comment by JenniferJ — June 3, 2009 @ 6:49 pm

78. 58% no, 43% yes, we’re pulling ahead!

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 3, 2009 @ 8:12 pm

79. OK, because we all could do with a little diversion and fun

    a nice OT YouTube find from Neotarama

    http://www.neatorama.com/2009/06/03/han-solo-pi/

    Comment by JenniferJ — June 3, 2009 @ 9:00 pm

80. We took our kitties to a low cost spay neuter program when we adopted them (one male, one female) and I have been contributing to the program since. While I would like to contribute more, I know my small amounts have added up and that I’ll be a life long supporter of them.

    We so easily say that people without money shouldn’t have pets. I can tell you one thing, I don’t think I would have made it through the last couple years without them and I don’t care who knows it. Animals have always been my life. I just happened to be born into a lower class family and have been struggling to get out of that income bracket. I couldn’t handle that struggle without my furry family members.

    We can’t legislate spay/neuter, but I do think it should be strongly encouraged and appropriately funded. Perhaps rewarded for those who enter the programs. This is not the appropriate way to stop unwanted strays and overpopulation. It’s so illogical that I don’t even know why this is discussed.

    Comment by Amy — June 3, 2009 @ 9:16 pm

81. We have a lot of “travelers” around in our area and a lot of them have dogs. I used to think how awful it was that they had a dog when they could hardly take care of themselves.

    But I’ve looked more closely and I must say I’ve never seen one that looked starved or miserable. I’m sure they don’t get the vet care they should and the food is probably whatever their people can scrounge, but they seem perfectly content with their situation, which I’m sure they are.

    But…living on the road for the humans is hard and probably scary at times and I’ll bet their dog is the one thing they can count on that will be loyal and never let them down. Who are we to tell them they shouldn’t have a dog? So I just smile and say hi to the dog and acknowledge the person.

    I know if I ended up in that situation I’d get me pit bull ASAP, no question.

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 3, 2009 @ 9:27 pm

82. LOL. Yes. I have also never seen a starving dog in that situation. It is usually a starving person and a dog that’s doing pretty well.

    I think it was last year, someone dog-napped a man’s dog in downtown Chicago. This homeless man was well-known to all and his dog was on meds and needed to take them regularly. Much of the vet care was donated or funded by people who knew him. There was a massive response and the dog was returned. Probably someone who thought they knew what was best but didn’t know the medical history like this man did. He was in tears.

    The only thing that kept bugging me? No one would have cared about this man if it wasn’t for his dog. Just like no one cares about the people that would be hurt by this legislation.

    Comment by Amy — June 3, 2009 @ 9:33 pm

83. The homeless population in Ukiah have a lot of dogs, happy, tail wagging generally looking healthy and friendly.

    i have no doubt they are anchors and protection and companionship and love for people who have a flexible and often tenuous relationship to the rest of humanity.

    I’d love to see them and their owners in better straits, but smarter folks than myself have been trying to figure that out for a long time.

    I will tell you though, if I was one of those dogs I’d rather be hanging out all day and night with my mom/dad than alone in the back yard of many of the nasty and possibly affluent persons on DKos.

    Comment by JenniferJ — June 3, 2009 @ 10:01 pm

84. Gina commented “The HSUS says they’re in the process of re-evaluating policy on the efficacy of mandatory spay-neuter, although they are as yet not sure what the final policy statement will be.”
    Good to know—and that clarifies a short conversation I had with John Goodwin maybe 3 or 4 of weeks ago…I was following up after a story I did on HSUS’s “End Dogfighting in Chicago” program and needed some info. In response to a direct question, I told him how bad HSUS looked re the Las Vegas meeting with Best Friend’s, et.al, while simultaneously their rep was working against Pit Bulls in Indiana by helping a rogue city councilman craft bsl legislation the the citizen’s did not want—that transparency is the only way to go, and even very large organizations like HSUS have to explain and continually communicate their positions so as not to put themselves in untenable positions. He said they were asked to check the legislation for anything that could be considered mistreatment, something they do all the time. Then he said something to the effect of ‘I don’t know why people are so against MSN’ I replied, it doesn’t work, and he quickly said that was not his area but if I wanted to talk to the people heading that section he would pass me back to Nadya in PR.
    So this has been evolving for weeks now…I wonder if that’s part of the reason why the MSN proposal got shelved in Chicago. I will stay tuned to see what goes with SB250 and HSUS,and thanks! Sometimes I think I can get a little paranoid, so it was good to hear the “flying under the radar” comment about possible HSUS stealth support for MSN witness the 10K to Mancuso. I may be paranoid, but at least I’m not alone! Ha!

    Comment by Mary Haight — June 3, 2009 @ 10:32 pm

85. Mary Haight - did you follow up with Nadya in HSUS PR about MSN? This could be a huge opening to get the truth across.

    Comment by LauraS — June 3, 2009 @ 10:55 pm

86. Since I just caught this article today and the comments that followed it have resulted in putting some pieces of this puzzle together for me, and creating still more questions, I’ll have to call tomorrow and ask specifically about what happened in Chicago and then about CA. I tell you, there seemed to be a lull in new and interesting news to report, so out I went to interview some “holistic” pet businesses(profit, community and charitable donations in equal measure)and suddenly the sky opens up and news is everywhere!

    Comment by Mary Haight — June 3, 2009 @ 11:35 pm

87. The homeless population in Ukiah have a lot of dogs, happy, tail wagging generally looking healthy and friendly.

    […]

    I will tell you though, if I was one of those dogs I’d rather be hanging out all day and night with my mom/dad than alone in the back yard of many of the nasty and possibly affluent persons on DKos.

    Comment by JenniferJ — June 3, 2009

    In my old neighborhood, there was a guy named Dave who had a shepherd mix, Brownie. Dave had an old bike and some kind of trailer set up for all his earthly belongings. I met him in the parking lot of the neighborhood market, when he was coming out with groceries. More food for the dog than for him.

    I started giving him food them both when I saw him. He wouldn’t go to a shelter because he couldn’t keep Brownie. Brownie was a great dog, easy-going and well-mannered. Dave himself was a sweet man, but obviously with some mental health and/or drug issues.

    According to the sanctimonious liberals on Kos, Dave wasn’t “entitled” to have Brownie. But that dog was what kept him anchored and relatively happy. He smiled when talking about the dog. And the dog loved him.

    What happened to them? I don’t know. They just disappeared from the neighborhood and I never saw them again.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 4, 2009 @ 6:00 am

88. I read through the Kos comments.

    I thought the main issue being debated there was not whether or not poor people should have pets … but who should have the responsibility to spay and neuter those pets. The owner? Or the government?

    And whether s/n is a measure of proper care, equal to providing food and water.

    Comment by Mary Mary — June 4, 2009 @ 7:05 am

89. I’ve definitely gotten a vibe more than once that the dog was the one looking after the human and was the stable, responsible adult in the relationship, watching over their unstable/loaded/hungover person. I’ve seen it mostly in pits and border collie mixes. They certainly make it clear that they have a job ;-)

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 4, 2009 @ 7:16 am

90. Oh, and the Daily Kos commenters on Christie’s diary could use some good, old-fashioned 1960s-style consciousness raising.

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 4, 2009 @ 7:18 am

91. Some of those homeless people that have a dog are no doubt people who are homeless because they have a dog.

    Try getting affordable housing when your pet is non-negotiable.

    Try renting a room.

    Shelters? Transition programs? Hah!

    I am reminded of the internet meme that apparently started as a Twilight Zone episode, about the man who finds himself walking with his long-dead dog and realizes that he is also dead. And what happens when they come to the gates of “Heaven.”

    How many of the sanctimonious “progressives” over on Kos would pass that test?

    Some of the homeless folks pass it every single day.

    Something about camels and needles …

    Comment by H. Houlahan — June 4, 2009 @ 7:25 am

92. Now, Heather, the man over on Kos who “knows the poor” and “knows what they need” says a pet is a “luxury.”

    Homeless shelters not accepting pets? Not a problem. Non-pet-friendly housing? Not a problem.

    Just toss the dog. Problem solved.

    Just ask the “economic justice” advocate on Kos. He knows what’s best.

    ***

    By the way, this is a great group.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 4, 2009 @ 7:38 am

93. Compassion for the less fortunate. What a concept.

    Comment by Susan Fox — June 4, 2009 @ 8:15 am

94. Mary Mary,

    It probably seems reading up on this that many of the people who post here are “reading stuff in”.

    We don’t have to, we’ve been learning, living, researching and contemplating this fight for 2 1/2 years.

    There are certain attitudes, biases, assumptions and cliches that just won’t shift, no matter what real world, documented evidence or reasoned argument is put before them.

    —Pets are a luxury, if you ever can’t afford something for your pet, you’re bad and unworthy and don’t deserve a pet.

    —S/N is the MOST important measure of pet owner responsibility. Wether you could not afford the procedure or have a health screened titled dog you’ve chosen not to alter, you are bad and irresponsible

    —Being intact is cruel. Sorry, being intact, with normal healthy organs is cruel? Nope. But intact pets do need a bit different management and those organs are inconvienent for many owners and after a certain age, the pet will be fine without them. so long as the decision is between a vet and owner I sure as hell have no issue with spay/neuter. Most of my pets are or will be altered, but a male dog in possession of his testicles does not equal suffering

    —If you breed a litter you have automatically killed the same number of pets in the shelter. Does not matter that there are more than enough homes and if shelter were able to gain just a small amount more market share, 5-10% depending on regional circumstances, we could get all placeable pets into homes.

    —there is no such thing as a responsible breeder, they’re all the same

    —All the opposition to MSN is from the wicked breeders

    —Breeders ALL make a lot of money (HaH! Ha hahahha We could have bought another HOUSE on what has gone into the dogs over 20 years. I am NOT exaggerating )

    —Feral cats are all the fault of bad owners, they are all only one generation out of homes and if we make the bad owners spay and neuter them then the feral problem will magically disappear. And if you click your heels together and wish really hard…

    —Those kittens flooding the shelters every spring all come from bad owners cats, because feral cats don’t have kittens where you can find them and remember, the moms weren’t really feral.

    —TNR does not work. And even if it works, it’s cruel because the cats would be better of dead than be at risk outdoors. And even if being outside is not cruel, they kill wildlife.

    side note here. Yes, they do kill wildlife. Not to the extent that they are blamed probably. Feral colonies do not belong near endangered species breeding grounds etc.. But in most urban and suburban settings the real killer is development. I’m rural and help manage a colony and because the wildlife has natural habitat, it is thriving in spite of the cats. plus as ferals age, they tend to eshew the birds for the kibble, word.
    And even if cats are responsible for every crime they are accused of A century of catch and kill has utterly failed to eliminate ferals. TNR has documented success in reducing numbers and numbers of kittens. Go with what works folks!

    —If you ever go into a shelter and see the animals there, you would never breed, oppose MSN blah blah… Sorry, I’ve been in a lot of shelters. Like MANY dedicated breeders I pull dogs from shelters and rescue other breeds and mixes and species when they cross my path.

    —Pets are all interchangeble. If the person who wants a small lap dog can’t find one they will be happy to come adopt an 85 lb lag mix or a cat instead.

    —people who buy a pet are evil or ignorant. people who adopt acquire automatic virtue. does not matter what kind of home they actually are.

    there are more but you get the idea. And it does not matter what arguments are brought forth or how much hard evidence you present.
    Being that rock solid sure of a conviction must be nice for them, but it’s not constructive. We need real world solutions and strategies that actually work. If something has failed for decades, it’s failed, time to move on and evolve.

    Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 8:36 am

95. Actually the fight to improve shelters etc… is much much older than 21/2 years, I’m just targeting the battle over statewide MSN

    Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 8:38 am

96. It looks as if Dr. Elvis has left the building.

    I guess being called to the carpet on his reading comprehension, sneaker envy, and superior attitude was not too comfortable. He’s left the question about what he intends to do as a city councilor hanging there, though.

    If I lived in Orange County, CA, I’d for sure be asking some pretty pointed questions about Dr. Jim Gardner’s intentions in re: ordinances if he was elected.

    And campaign accordingly.

    BTW, from a politician, no answer is the most telling answer of all.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — June 4, 2009 @ 8:43 am

97. At one point in the Kos discussion, one poster wrote that Christie’s arguing of, you know, the actual facts were making her angry. That MSN was necessary to STOP THE KILLING.

    Pointing out that it didn’t stop any killing didn’t work. At that point it was fingers in the ears, LALALALALALALA I can’t hear you from that poster.

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 4, 2009 @ 8:45 am

98. Jennifer,
    Thanks for that post. It’s a keeper.

    As for this:
    “And it does not matter what arguments are brought forth or how much hard evidence you present.”

    Well, I have to disagree, because I have changed my position on some things over the past months, and I was pretty rock-solid sure.

    However, because I know the power of working WITH (and through) other people, no matter how frustrating it can be at times … I took the time to read and think and ask for evidence supporting other positions.

    But more importantly, some people took the time to explain — not condemn me as a moron. I am not going to stick around to hear much from anyone calling me a moron.

    But trust me, I totally understand the urge to scold, condemn, punish the ones I happen to think are on the “moron” side of these debates.

    Comment by Mary Mary — June 4, 2009 @ 8:49 am

99. I guess being called to the carpet on his reading comprehension, sneaker envy, and superior attitude was not too comfortable.

    Comment by H. Houlahan — June 4, 2009

    Don’t you just love Teh Interwebs? You can’t control the message or hide the facts anymore. :)

    Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 4, 2009 @ 8:50 am

100. JenniferJ, love your list.

     I’m going to announce an initiative for which readers can nominate breeders over on my blog shortly.

     I think y’all will like it.

     Comment by H. Houlahan — June 4, 2009 @ 8:50 am

101. And Christie hits a hundred comments. Again. ;0)

     Comment by Susan Fox — June 4, 2009 @ 9:20 am

102. Mary Mary, most of us have shifted our positions. I was referring to the haters who just won’t hear squat if it’s not their own favorite kool-aid flavor. :)

     If you hang in here, you are not going to be in that camp!

     Anyone who does not shove their fingers in their ears at the first sign of POV threatening information is not in that camp. :)

     And I don’t mind people being on the other side of a debate, so long as it’s a debate. We sure as shootin do not all always agree on everything, but if you bring me good stuff, I’ll listen, and if it’s factual and sensible, I’ll learn something, happily. You might even convince me!

     Previously I believed the oft repeated yarn that No-Kill was just another word for hoarding, or that it meant selective cherry picking by affluent private shelters while public facilities suffered. Then I was introduced to the real definition, did some reading, listened, learned.

     I am not lying when I say I was in tears reading about No-Kills pit bull and feral cat policies and the embrace of rescue groups. I read up on
     Maddies Fund’s positions. After years of seemingly hopeless frustration, here was a system that made sense, did not castigate, blame or accept killing for space as an inevitability. I did not have an epiphany, but through research and listening i adjusted my own thinking to a new paradigm with regards to traditional sheltering.

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 9:28 am

103. “JenniferJ, love your list.”

     Thanks!

     I am thinking that someone clever could do a “you might be a redneck if” style one of all the cliches we hear over and over.

     “You may have drunk the kool-aid if…”

     Can’t wait to see what your cooking up on your blog. :D

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 9:33 am

104. “but through research and listening i adjusted my own thinking to a new paradigm…”

     “if you bring me good stuff, I’ll listen, and if it’s factual and sensible, I’ll learn something, happily.”

     Comments by JenniferJ

     This is precisely what (seems to be) what so many people are not willing to or cannot do. I have seemingly intelligent acquaintances that are doing some excellent work in rescue but no matter how much I have shared the same points outlined by Jennifer, they just turn off and even get somewhat hostile. As a response, they repeatedly chant the mantra “Why would you want people to have intact dogs when there are millions of dogs suffering in pounds and put to sleep every day?” I explain again. I bang my head on the wall. They will not/cannot wrap their minds around a larger, different concept. They see only their embedded, invalid version of cause and effect and can’t envelop a larger dimension that has been proven to work (which they don’t believe, even when presented factual documentation!).

     What is the difference in thinking? Who do they have to hear it from to accept and believe it? What do they have to hear? What will it take. (Maybe an endorsement from one of the commercial (poison) pet food companies plastered all over the TV? Godhelpus! Sadly, people still seem to buy into their ads though.) Why can those of us here embrace proven, effective solutions and others cannot? Is it a function of a part of the brain or what? Intelligence? How can people be reached? Frustrating. Wearisome. ::sigh::

     Comment by NadineL — June 4, 2009 @ 10:56 am

105. NadineL,
     You write,

     “… they repeatedly chant the mantra “Why would you want people to have intact dogs when there are millions of dogs suffering in pounds and put to sleep every day?” I explain again. I bang my head on the wall. They will not/cannot wrap their minds around a larger, different concept. They see only their embedded, invalid version of cause and effect and can’t envelop a larger dimension that has been proven to work (which they don’t believe, even when presented factual documentation!).”

     Here is how I see it.

     I’ve heard Nathan Winograd speak and I’ve read the No Kill principles over and over. I understand that he proved they can work.

     But they are NOT working now. In my city there are about 30-50 dogs and cats put down every day. Most shelters are not implementing the “bigger concept.”

     So in the meantime, while we wait for the shelters to catch up (5, 10, 20 years?), the risk of intact dogs/cats creating millions more unplanned, unwanted animals that will end up — either immediately or within a few years — in shelters seems not worth it.

     When people tell me their dog/cat will never have a litter because “she will never get out” or “I know what I’m doing,” I tell them story after story of people who were wrong when they said the same things.

     If they make a solid case for health benefits, then fine by me. But I have never heard that argument yet. It’s always been “It wasn’t in the budget” or just apathy.

     Note: This is not an argument for MSN.

     Comment by Mary Mary — June 4, 2009 @ 11:19 am

106. Kinda related: An organization that helps homeless people and their pets needs some help, hat top Dogster:

     http://dogblog.dogster.com/200.....warehouse/

     Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 4, 2009 @ 11:20 am

107. MM,

     Most all of my pets have been and will be altered. Even with a great understanding of the risk/benefit/convenience issues, that will still be the case.

     But I don’t think LYING to people — not that you’re doing it, mind you — is ever the answer. Give people the honest options, incentivize those options that are for the greater public good and then let people decide.

     Frankly, I can’t WAIT to get McKenzie spayed. Her mommy days are behind her. :)

     Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 4, 2009 @ 11:23 am

108. All these comments have been a joy to read (hope is alive) - ol’ Elvis with his sneaker envy - thanks for that one - I feel like Tiny Tim in the Christmas Carol - God bless us everyone!

     Comment by francis — June 4, 2009 @ 11:28 am

109. But Mary Mary, what about the story after story of the people who were RIGHT about their animals never having or engendering an unplanned litter?

     Yeah, they are boring stories. Non-stories. Nothing happened.

     In my adult life, fifteen cumulative intact “dog years” have gone by with nary a mishap. That includes having multiple intact animals at the same time, in a household where we are not exactly the most regimented people.

     I think it’s a perfectly reasonable position for a pet owner to say Surgical sterilization is major surgery. My default is to not perform major surgery on my animal without a good reason. I don’t at the moment have a good reason to perform this intrusive procedure. Have a nice day.

     Why is it reasonable to define “normal” or “baseline” as “has had major surgery performed” while the animal’s natural state requires the owner to gird his or her loins with facts, arguments, and defenses at every turn?

     Becuz Bob Barker sez so? Based on his history, he may be projecting onto the dogs. Let us not dwell.

     It reminds me for all the world of the owners of Dobermans, Danes, etc. who choose not to surgically amputate their dogs’ ears, having to continually justify this terrible omission to the show-dog “fancy.”

     Comment by H. Houlahan — June 4, 2009 @ 11:38 am

110. H.,
     You write,

     “But Mary Mary, what about the story after story of the people who were RIGHT about their animals never having or engendering an unplanned litter?

     Yeah, they are boring stories. Non-stories. Nothing happened.”

     Honestly? In my experience, I have not met any of those people. I will have to give it more thought. I know plenty whose puppies and kittens “just happened.” Abiogenesis.

     One of my colleagues adopted a dog from his vet; the owner had died. My colleague was bragging to me about his dog’s “papers.” I assume he was intact. He died (of leukemia) soon after at age four. I think he was a lab. My friend had him less than one year. So I guess that’s one.

     “Why is it reasonable to define “normal” or “baseline” as “has had major surgery performed” while the animal’s natural state requires the owner to gird his or her loins with facts, arguments, and defenses at every turn? Becuz Bob Barker sez so?”

     For me, it’s because I think intact dogs and cats under the management of MOST people — “normal/baseline” management — would add an additional burden to a shelter system that is already broken.

     Comment by Mary Mary — June 4, 2009 @ 12:02 pm

111. For me, it’s because I think intact dogs and cats under the management of MOST people — “normal/baseline” management — would add an additional burden to a shelter system that is already broken.

     Then explain why it is that in many European countries where s/n is MUCH less common than in the USA, they do not have anything remotely like the number of animals in shelters that we have here?

     Comment by LauraS — June 4, 2009 @ 12:12 pm

112. Laura,

     I would love to know how they do it.

     Again, what is “normal/baseline” for people in those countries? Do they never let dogs meet each other? Do they usually have only one dog or keep only one sex? Or do they have plenty of “oops” litters but kill any “excess” pets themselves, instead of taking them to a shelter?

     Comment by Mary Mary — June 4, 2009 @ 12:18 pm

113. I think I read somewhere on this blog that Germany prohibits many dogs to be bred … or maybe it was that owners who have puppies have to be “cleared” to do so … sounds like a version of MSN to me.

     Not sure how they enforce that.

     Comment by Mary Mary — June 4, 2009 @ 12:22 pm

114. I think at this point it is important to point out that I am willing to live in, say, Holland for a year to handle this fact-finding mission.

     Maybe I should apply for a grant.

     Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 4, 2009 @ 12:25 pm

115. Mary Mary, I’m familiar with breed club rules in Germany for some popular dog breeds, and it is not correct that they prohibit dogs from being bred. Breed clubs and kennel clubs DO NOT have that authority. All they can do is say, we will not REGISTER pups if certain requirements were not met. That is not remotely the same thing as MSN or any other government-imposed sweeping mandate. People in Germany are still free to breed their dogs if they wish. Not everybody cares about “papers”.

     They do not have nearly as many oops litters in these European countries even though a far greater percentage of their dogs are intact. In at least one of those countries, it is illegal to s/n dogs unless it is medically necessary (not saying I agree with that either, but it gives you the idea of how differently they view s/n).

     This gets back to point made here by others. MOST people who have intact dogs are responsible and do not allow their dogs to have oops litters. This is not unique to Europe. Millions of American dog owners are also this responsible. A SMALL FRACTION of dog owners in America are not this responsible.

     Comment by LauraS — June 4, 2009 @ 12:35 pm

116. my friend just came back from Austria - said you can be ticketed for having an overweight child (if you are seen to be driving that child excessively in a car rather than taking walks) might not be true but my friend has been known to be reliable on facts….or how about China with their forced abortion policy -there the granny patrols would turn neighbors into the government for pregnant neighbors having more children than allowed. Learned of that years ago in a political science class - yikes.

     Comment by francis — June 4, 2009 @ 12:41 pm

117. “Becuz Bob Barker sez so? Based on his history, he may be projecting onto the dogs.”

     LOL - that may be CA government’s problem too, given their own history.

     Comment by H. Houlahan — June 4, 2009 @ 11:38 am

     Comment by NadineL — June 4, 2009 @ 12:42 pm

118. “I would love to know how they do it.

     Again, what is “normal/baseline” for people in those countries? Do they never let dogs meet each other? Do they usually have only one dog or keep only one sex? Or do they have plenty of “oops” litters but kill any “excess” pets themselves, instead of taking them to a shelter?
     “Comment by Mary Mary — June 4, 2009 @ 12:18 pm”

     I don’t know for sure, MM, but my supervisor is from Germany and from what I’ve gleaned from her in conversations, it’s just not typical for the average pet owner to breed their pets over there — although they don’t seem to have a problem with people who are considered “professionals” doing so, and purebred dogs seem to be fairly popular.

     My feeling is that some of it is that people in this country tend to be a lot more egocentric, and they extend it to their dogs — “my dog’s bigger than your dog” and all that. Too many people figure if they have a purebred dog with papers, they MUST breed it, no matter what the source or quality of the animal.

     On the other hand, not everyone who has a purebred dog “with papers” is going to breed it — it depends on where they got the dog and what kind of education they got from the breeder as to whether their dog was breeding or pet quality to begin with. I know lots of purebred dogs that were never bred. I’ve owned several of them myself.

     Looking at the 4-page certified registration certificate/pedigree (for a German-bred GSD we recently received at the shelter) I have in front of me, there is a whole lot more to getting a dog “with papers” in Germany than there is here, so it’s probably not something that is done on a totally casual basis. We just make it way too easy and tempting here because our registries are set up to make money from registrations.

     Comment by stellaluna — June 4, 2009 @ 12:42 pm

119. Rebel is the first male dog I’ve ever owned who was neutered. I admit that having an intact bitch is much tougher, but managing intact males is not particularly difficult. I think that the message of universal spay/neuter being the absolute hallmark of responsible pet ownership has utilized a bit of propaganda about just how onerous it is to manage an intact male.

     I’m sure it would be different in some breeds, but in Deerhounds? Pffft.

     Comment by Christie Keith — June 4, 2009 @ 12:47 pm

120. #

     I think at this point it is important to point out that I am willing to live in, say, Holland for a year to handle this fact-finding mission.

     Maybe I should apply for a grant.

     Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 4, 2009 @ 12:25 pm

     Nah! France! Cote d’Azur! Magnifique! FCRs would love the gorgeous Mediterranean and cafes…you could even dine at restaurants with them at your feet. Dogs are royalty there.

     Comment by NadineL — June 4, 2009 @ 12:48 pm

121. My little mini Xolo female has been the WORST pain during her recent season, Christie — far more of a problem than any of my big dogs ever were. Aside from bleeding like a stuck pig and having to wear diapers for three weeks, she was the biggest horn-dog ever when we had her at a couple of shows. And she wasn’t at all particular who she was fond of — she fell madly in lust with a rather perplexed female Fox Terrier! :o)

     So yeah, when we’re through showing her and (hopefully) we have a litter in the future, she’s definitely going to be spayed. Until then, she’s “au naturel.”

     Comment by stellaluna — June 4, 2009 @ 12:59 pm

122. Some female dogs are quite polite about the whole business, others are total hussies.

     Neutering is often seen I think as a be all end all. And then people are shocked that a domineering obnoxious dog they have had altered is still a domineering , obnoxious dog. And there are also the folks who gt their pup fixed at 12-16 weeks but can’t figure out why he or she is dog aggressive or fearful or name-that-problem.

     It’s because altering a dog is NO substitute for training and socialization. But sometimes it sure has been marketed as such.

     I was in Marin sitting outdoors at a coffee shop waiting for a friend to bring me a rescue I was going to foster. I brought my retired show male along. The ladies, three of them, from the table next to me could not stay away. They fussed and cooed and scritched and petted him much to his delight. Several dogs passing by barked hysterically at him which he ignored. When my friend showed up and the dog and I stood up the gals were shocked to see he was intact. he had not eaten anyone! He was not hyper! He was not lifting his leg everywhere! He didn’t go after the passing, barking dogs!

     I just smiled, told them he was a well trained gent and pointed out that many therapy dogs that go into hospitals etc… are intact too and that most of a dogs behavior is how they are raised. Left them with something to contemplate I hope.

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 2:09 pm

123. Comment by Mary Mary — June 4, 2009 @ 12:02 pm

     “But Mary Mary, what about the story after story of the people who were RIGHT about their animals never having or engendering an unplanned litter?

     Yeah, they are boring stories. Non-stories. Nothing happened.”

     Honestly? In my experience, I have not met any of those people.

     I think you have met more of them than you realize. Right here on this blog, for example.

     Bet there are more than a few in your “real life” as well - it’s probably just never come up as a topic of conversation.

     Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 4, 2009 @ 2:39 pm

124. Stellaluna — WHAT IS THAT GSD DOING AT YOUR SHELTER?!

     Seriously, have you contacted the breeder?

     Oh, and if he’s from working lines, I’d suggest whatever qualified GSD rescue is nearby if the breeder won’t take back, because those guys are not going to work out placed with just anybody.

     LauraS or I can tell you whether he’s working-bred based on a photo or a gander at the pedigree that came with him.

     (Or, if his back is curved like a banana — he’s not.)

     Comment by H. Houlahan — June 4, 2009 @ 3:15 pm

125. Looking at the 4-page certified registration certificate/pedigree (for a German-bred GSD we recently received at the shelter) I have in front of me, there is a whole lot more to getting a dog “with papers” in Germany than there is here, so it’s probably not something that is done on a totally casual basis.

     Is that GSD still in a shelter? If yes, what’s the dog’s registered name (something like AAAAA von BBBBBBBBBB), registration number (SZ #######), and breeder’s name?

     Comment by LauraS — June 4, 2009 @ 3:35 pm

126. H.,
     You write,

     “But Mary Mary, what about the story after story of the people who were RIGHT about their animals never having or engendering an unplanned litter?

     Yeah, they are boring stories. Non-stories. Nothing happened.”

     Honestly? In my experience, I have not met any of those people. I will have to give it more thought. I know plenty whose puppies and kittens “just happened.” Abiogenesis.

     Honestly, Mary, would you notice? Remember, these would not be the pet owners who are attracting your attention by having puppies or kittens needing homes.

     All the people I know who have had oops litters, they either weren’t making any effort to prevent it (in my distant childhood, vastly more people believed in and acted on the “one litter” theory), or Life Happened; a major crisis meant they had to temporarily leave care of the animals to someone who didn’t understand correct management.

     I myself fifteen years ago took my now old-lady cat through several heats, waiting for her to get big enough for my vet to feel comfortable spaying her, without having a litter.

     “Why is it reasonable to define “normal” or “baseline” as “has had major surgery performed” while the animal’s natural state requires the owner to gird his or her loins with facts, arguments, and defenses at every turn? Becuz Bob Barker sez so?”

     For me, it’s because I think intact dogs and cats under the management of MOST people — “normal/baseline” management — would add an additional burden to a shelter system that is already broken.

     I think the people around you who are doing it successfully without producing unwanted litters are flying under the radar for you; you don’t notice the owners with intact dogs who aren’t causing a problem. The females in particular, if you only see them when they’re not in diapers because the owners are keeping them home and adequately confined when they’re in heat, how would you know they’re intact?

     All my family’s pets have been spayed or neutered at what we considered an appropriate age. Most likely, always will be. But it’s our choice, and if “appropriate age” means we go through a heat or two (or several, in the case of a cat), so be it. Still our choice.

     Comment by Lis — June 4, 2009 @ 3:42 pm

127. “Is that GSD still in a shelter? If yes, what’s the dog’s registered name (something like AAAAA von BBBBBBBBBB), registration number (SZ #######), and breeder’s name?
     Comment by LauraS — June 4, 2009 @ 3:35 pm”

     Of course you understand I can’t just give out the information on the dog, the breeder or the owner. And you have to understand that at this point (or rather, as of about two weeks ago), the dog is the legal property of the shelter. And since I work at said shelter, I could pretty much kiss my job goodbye if I just posted those details on a public message board.

     But I can tell you that she is a 4-year-old spayed female who was brought in by her owner, a German man who had had her imported as a companion, because she attacked a small dog that lived in the home. I don’t have the details on this. The dog came in while I was on vacation, so I haven’t even seen her, just her registration papers. (I take custody of registration papers for statistical and informational purposes, and we do not release them with animals that are adopted, however we will give the registration information to a rescue group or adopter if we know them well enough to know they aren’t going to be trying to obtain registration for another dog, but are just going to use it to get an ILP for performance.)

     We are well aware of the breeder; this is a “big time” kennel that does a lot of importing, and this is not the first dog we have gotten that has come from them, not by any stretch of the imagination. To my knowledge, they have never taken one of the dogs they have sold as pets back. So unless there was a compelling reason to do so, we would not contact them.

     (We have received dogs from several “Big Time” breeders who have refused to take their dogs back in the past, and it does tend to rub the wrong way. I have, however, contacted breeders who did have return-to-breeder contracts with the buyer — which is usually brought in with all the other paperwork — and who seemed to be otherwise reputable breeders who just got bypassed by the purchaser. For the most part, though, the breeders named on papers we get are either the “lets have a litter for fun” type or the “Petland” type, so there’s not much point spending the time hunting them down.

     But I have also had things happen like a sporting-breed breeder with the top winning dog in her breed at the time choose to leave a puppy she had sold as a pet here in the shelter because she felt that it would “get more exposure” and have more luck finding a pet home. Needless to say that did not go over big, and since the breeder knew I had her pedigree, big as life, right here, it was a very stupid thing to have done. We don’t call her anymore, either, but thankfully the breed is not very numerous, so we really don’t have to.

     I have also taken in several very well-bred GSPointers that have come from a breeder in this state who is well known for his dual-titled dogs. And he has never once called me back when we have tried to reach him about these dogs. Apparently he’s another person who doesn’t feel the need to take a dog back if it’s not up to snuff.)

     Anyway — this girl is currently being fostered by a GSD person on the staff who is working with getting her into rescue. We do work with some good rescue people here as well as with some schutzhund and law enforcement people (several of our shelter dogs have gone on to law enforcement and drug detection work), so this girl is in no danger at all.

     We are aware that certain breeds do not do well in the kennels, and we do try to get them out of here as soon as possible if we have alternative situations available for that breed. We’ve got an excellent track record of working with rescue groups for many different breeds.

     Hope this eases your minds.

     Comment by stellaluna — June 4, 2009 @ 4:47 pm

128. The OTHER Pat, you wrote,

     “I think you have met more of them than you realize. Right here on this blog, for example.

     Bet there are more than a few in your “real life” as well - it’s probably just never come up as a topic of conversation.”

     OK, let me clarify then. Of all the people I know/knew well enough to be in their homes and around their animals regularly — including more than 40 clients I served in my former pet-sitting business — none of them had intact animals, to my knowledge.

     And this is absolutely the kind of thing that would come up in conversation with me. Because I like to talk about animals, and so do most of the animal owners I know. But it doesn’t have to come up in conversation … about 95% of the animal owners I know well, whose homes and animals I visit on a regular basis, adopted from a shelter (meaning automatic speuter) or from another person and, if the animal was not already altered, chose to spay/neuter. I do not know a single breeder well. I meet them at animal-related events but I have no clue how they manage their households and their animals. No idea how many oops litters they have, if any.

     I am well aware that this blog community represents a group of people very different from the animal people I know. That’s why I’m here.

     Comment by Mary Mary — June 4, 2009 @ 6:39 pm

129. stellaluna, you write,

     “Looking at the 4-page certified registration certificate/pedigree (for a German-bred GSD we recently received at the shelter) I have in front of me, there is a whole lot more to getting a dog “with papers” in Germany than there is here, so it’s probably not something that is done on a totally casual basis. We just make it way too easy and tempting here because our registries are set up to make money from registrations.”

     Well that explains why Europe, or at least Germany, is not having the problems we are. Thanks.

     Your stories about these “reputable” breeders refusing to take back the dogs … nice. It’s good to read a shelter employee’s perspective in these comments.

     Comment by Mary Mary — June 4, 2009 @ 6:46 pm

130. Um, which stories about reputable breeders not taking back dogs?

     A breeder who does not take back dogs is not, by definition reputable.

     Often breeders are never contacted by shelters.

     Most shelter dogs are not registered anywhere. I’ve been to a lot of shelters to look at “purebreds” for rescue and they weren’t .

     The dogs from reputable breeders rarely enter the shelter system because they can ALWAYS come back to the breeder who will take them back, no questions asked if that is what it takes. And the breeders stay in touch for life to stay ahead of major problems.

     I did not see anywhere in Stellaluna’s posts complaints about reputable or “reputable” breeders.

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 7:19 pm

131. Those are not “reputable” breeders. They are breeders with a “reputation.” In the same sense it was used for high-school girls in my mother’s era.

     Just because someone is “big name” does not mean her or she has a shred of ethics.

     I would LOOOVE to post the Wall Of Shame for our breed rescue. Naming names. The others won’t let me.

     The breeders with the beautiful website who, when told that a dog they had sold as a pup knowing it would be a gift was in a high-kill pound, gave us the “Good luck with that.”

     The breeder whose dogs rarely come into rescue, because when their distraught owners contact us, they usually have a significant bite record that precludes us taking them.

     The one who was lecturing the lists on responsibility at the very same time that one of her numerous pups was in a kill shelter in the next state, and she had declined to reclaim the bitch — because she was already spayed. She swore the shelter workers to secrecy, but it wasn’t hard to pry it out on the first guess.

     The high-profile breeder who posted about a young dog “in foster” and “needing a new home” — and we come to find that the “foster” is someone who got the dog for free and is selling the untrained adolescent for more than a well-bred pup goes for.

     The frequent flyers who we don’t bother to call anymore.

     The ones who are so scattershot in their sales that they guarantee their pups will need new homes by adolescence.

     This is why I tell everyone looking for a purebred to inquire at the relevant breed rescue organizations and find out if the breeder is “known” to them. I don’t give a rat’s ass that the breeder is producing great dogs if she doesn’t stand behind them and care for them. If she’s burdening the canine welfare system, she needs to find herself unable to sell puppies.

     Comment by H. Houlahan — June 4, 2009 @ 7:20 pm

132. “OK, let me clarify then. Of all the people I know/knew well enough to be in their homes and around their animals regularly — including more than 40 clients I served in my former pet-sitting business — none of them had intact animals, to my knowledge.”

     So ALL 40 had had their pets altered. because MOST owned pets are.
     That’s a good thing.

     Mary Mary, most people with intact dogs or cats are very very careful who they leave them with. You may be a fantastic pet sitter, but it never occurs to me to get a professional pet sitting service in as for my situation I like to have a friend or someone else I know who has intact dogs stay with them or I leave them with a friend.

     Go to a large dog show and you will see hundreds of intact animal owners. And trust me, “accidents” are not well looked upon. I’m hard pressed to think of any amongst people I know, except second hand hearsay.

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 7:26 pm

133. JenniferJ,

     H. Houlahan beat me to it. “Big time,” dual-titled, top winning dog … those are the terms in stellaluna’s post I was referencing. I would bet many people would consider these breeders “reputable.”

     Comment by Mary Mary — June 4, 2009 @ 7:28 pm

134. Ahh, I somehow missed the post Stellaluna and Mary Mary, sorry.

     H. Houlahan nails it.

     Ditto.

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 7:28 pm

135. One of the nicest conversations I remember having about dogs—pit bulls, in particular—was with a homeless man in Union Square in SF, when I was walking Bella and Darcy there. He had had one and loved it. We talked about how sad it was that the breed was so maligned. Re Europeans and spay/neuter, I wrote an article probably 10 years ago about the differences between European and American pet owners. One of the Europeans I interviewed—a man who breeds Bernese—said that if Europeans realized how common spay/neuter surgery was in the U.S., they would think we were barbarians. At the time, of course, that was a shocking concept to me.

     Comment by Kim Thornton — June 4, 2009 @ 7:33 pm

136. “reputable’ when referring to breeders is strictly based on conduct and ethics, at least within the dog world.

     No breeder, no matter how much winning the dogs or cats do, is reputable if they dump at shelters or won’t take puppies back. Period.

     A winning track record may impress people looking for puppies, but it’s not going to impress much of the dog community if they have to clean up the mess they leave behind.

     Most breeds clubs have breeders and owners who participate in rescue and most of these organizations support rescue in multiple ways.

     I’ve been a volunteer for 22 years with Bulldog Club of America National Rescue Network and helped to found our local 501c3 rescue.

     We know who the stinkers are. Believe me, it’s not a reputation you want to get!

     H. Houlahan,

     we have a new condition of membership for our Breeder Referral that says if they sign on, and break the rules, we can and will post their names online and in print on our own Wall of Shame.

     Works pretty damn well so far. :)

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 7:40 pm

137. Stellaluna,

     Are you in AZ? Do you know Karen from Luv-A-Bull BulldogRescue?

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 7:42 pm

138. Go to a large dog show and you will see hundreds of intact animal owners.

     Comment by JenniferJ

     I daresay the vast majority of them, though some of the middle-aged women will be spayed due to medical necessity. Very few of the men will be fixed.

     And trust me, “accidents” are not well looked upon. I’m hard pressed to think of any amongst people I know, except second hand hearsay.

     Hey, my baby brother resembles that remark.

     Comment by H. Houlahan — June 4, 2009 @ 8:02 pm

139. we have a new condition of membership for our Breeder Referral that says if they sign on, and break the rules, we can and will post their names online and in print on our own Wall of Shame.

     WANT.

     Actually, never thought of having Rescue do our own breeder referral.

     That way, they have to ask, and have to abide by OUR conditions, which need not be democratic, diplomatic, or inclusive like the breed club’s.

     I’ll bring it up when we are recovered from the Montana deluge.

     Comment by H. Houlahan — June 4, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

140. Oh, and Stellaluna,

     other avenues for some dogs whose big name breeders are Behaving Badly

     —if the sire is from a different breeder, google them and see if you can find out who they are. If they are from out of the area, they may be unaware that Mr/Ms Big Time is doing this. some may even want to take back the puppy themselves or contribute to his/her care. Trust me, call me to say one of my dogs pups in your shelter and I’ll be setting up pick up!

     If they are active in dog sports or showing they may belong to the National or local club. Report the situation to the clubs. Some may not do much but others will rain down the wrath of dog. You never know, the club might be itching to bring disciplinary action and not have enough evidence until you call! ( this has happened and we booted his ass)

     If they are not club members, there is little disciplinary action a club can take, but a bad rep can precede people in the ring and hit them on that end instead.

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 8:05 pm

141. Comment by Mary Mary — June 4, 2009 @ 7:28 pm

     “Big time,” dual-titled, top winning dog … those are the terms in stellaluna’s post I was referencing. I would bet many people would consider these breeders “reputable.”

     And that’s part of the education that those of us who know better work on getting across to the general public every chance we get. Particularly shelter/rescue folks who are inclined to tar ALL breeders with the same brush because of the stories they’ve heard or experienced about these “reputable” breeders who don’t stand behind their dogs.

     Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 4, 2009 @ 8:08 pm

142. I ended up with the opposite problem from what Heather talks about. We got our purebred collie at one remove from a Oregon hobby breeder who has been around since 1965. One of their dogs won the National Specialty year before last. Cait would probably know who I mean.

     They had sold Niki’s mom to someone who wanted to get back into collies after a long absence. The breeder seemed to be doing all the right things, tests for CEA, etc.

     The bitch was bred and had five puppies. I got email photos of the puppies starting when they were a few weeks old.

     I was taken with one male, but told that he was going elsewhere to a show home. I found it kind of odd that my puppy was going to essentially be chosen for me, but because I had never had a dog of any kind, I just trusted that they had legitimate reasons for doing it that way. Which I now totally understand and agree with.

     When we went to get Niki, after filling out a two page application and being interviewed over the phone, we signed a contract that specified that we were to neuter him and that he was to be returned to the breeder if we couldn’t keep him. In fact, there was a big red stamp saying “This dog is not for resale” on the contract. That was the right thing, too.

     The breeder kept a male for herself to show and had very little success. We went to a regional specialty show and saw him. He was bounced because his back dentition was faulty on both sides. The breeder whined and complained how that was totally unfair because nothing like that was part of the breed standard.

     I remember thinking that if a confirmation show was supposed to be an evaluation of breeding stock, then she had no business breeding that dog, anyway, however great he was otherwise.

     By the time a couple of years rolled by, having stayed in touch, it became obvious, thinking back on it, that things weren’t right. The dogs essentially lived in the backyard. Her home was spotless with white wall to wall carpeting. The puppies had been brought inside for socializing, but otherwise were in the yard in a pen. She did take them out for the meet-so-many-people stuff, though.

     The jaw-dropper came when I got an email that she also sent to a bunch of collie people saying that she needed to rehome the show male and that if she couldn’t find someone, she would run an ad in the newspaper! In the meantime, she had rehomed the mom, lucky for her. For some reason, it had crushed me to leave her and I didn’t understand why at the time.

     The male, a killer beautiful sable merle, ended up with some people who live a few hours east of us on acreage and travels everywhere with them in their rv. We hope to see him again sometime.

     My husband and I talked it over and decided that there was no way in hell that we would ever return Niki to her, even if she would take him. Our wills now state that he will go to willing family members, because, as my stepson said, “Of course we’d take Niki. He’s part of the family!”

     So, it can go both ways.

     Comment by Susan Fox — June 4, 2009 @ 8:10 pm

143. This is the National Clubs Referral but several of us who were involved sat on rescue and breeder referral and we used a large nationally prominent rescue/auction situation to push it through the National Council two years ago. . ;-)

     It’s totally separate from the National Code of Ethics and only for breeder referral so you can’t say you were coerced. Even if you quit the club, you’ll be up there.

     Another selling point was National Breeder Referral put’s the integrity of the National Club on the line if an endorsed member goes off the rails.

     We have every intention of tightening the code of conduct requirements down year by year, as getting it going was more important than anything else.

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 8:15 pm

144. Stellaluna wrote:

     For the most part, though, the breeders named on papers we get are either the “lets have a litter for fun” type or the “Petland” type, so there’s not much point spending the time hunting them down.

     Okay, I see your point on that, but two things —

     You never do know about the individuals in the first group until you contact them.

     One dog I fostered came from a first-time, one-time breeder who thought she had placed him in a good home. He slid down the ownership food chain for about two years before hitting bottom, and by lucky chance he was ID’d as an ES and the man who dumped him at the pound was persuaded to relinquish the papers.

     The pound called NESR, NESR called the breeder, the breeder’s head exploded. She was in her car heading to that pound in the next state before the phone hit the wall. Who knew? Certainly not us.

     The dog ended up in foster because members of the breeder’s family were very sick and one was busy dying, and she could not spend the time on retraining for him. We agreed to take him. That’s what breed rescue ought to be for. A safety net for individual hard times.

     Second, the “let’s have a litter for fun” folks might reconsider another one if they were getting plaintive, then firm, then bill-collector aggressive, phone calls from animal shelter staff about pups they’d sold through a newspaper ad two years ago.

     They deserve a chance, and if they don’t deliver, they deserve to be uncomfortable, challenged, and to feel “exposed” if they won’t step up to the plate.

     And, okay, it’s three things. Three is the number of the counting. Five is right out.

     I think puppymillers whose pups end up in pounds ought to have their Sunday dinners disrupted every single week by these phone calls.

     Comment by H. Houlahan — June 4, 2009 @ 8:24 pm

145. “Are you in AZ? Do you know Karen from Luv-A-Bull BulldogRescue?
     Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 7:42 pm”

     Jennifer, I know of Luv-A-Bull, but don’t know Karen personally. One of the other people in the shelter probably knows her. Since I work in a different department now, I’m not as “hands on” as I used to be.

     Comment by stellaluna — June 4, 2009 @ 8:36 pm

146. Susan - the tricky thing is, there IS no perfect dog. In collies, I’d probably be okay with breeding a dog with wacky denitition IF it did not impair the dog’s quality of life AND if the dog had some other good qualities. (For example, being CEA non-affected).

     Now, all that said? I want to know when it became evil to run ads in the newspaper. I missed it, apparently- I’ve been told that now, but I remember the local breed club running regular ads there as a kid, and seeing champion sired, champion parents, etc ads there until maybe 5-6 years ago. WHEN DID IT BECOME A SIN TO ADVERTISE?

     Of course, I’d also like to see rescue doing breeder referral instead of just trying to convince people that no, really, you want an adult dog instead of a puppy. Some people may be convinced, others aren’t. And I wish they’d maintain courtesy listings for say, retiring show dogs- it’s a great option for folks who don’t want a puppy but also aren’t in a position to do any issue-correction and NEED a dog with a known history with kids or cats or other dogs.

     Comment by Cait — June 4, 2009 @ 8:37 pm

147. Oops - left out a sentence in the ifrst paragraph. “Grousing about getting judeed in hello, the breed ring, for something that just plain IS a fault is just tacky.”

     Comment by Cait — June 4, 2009 @ 8:38 pm

148. Cait-
     I was under the impression that “responsible” breeders carefully screen the people who get their dogs. But maybe it wasn’t the ad per se, but the implied threat that if someone didn’t take the dog, she’d run an ad and sell him to whoever would buy him. And this was the dog that she fell in love with the minute he was born, yadda, yadda.

     So glad you showed up and commented. I really was interested in reactions and feedback for my (one) dog acquisition experience.

     Comment by Susan Fox — June 4, 2009 @ 8:45 pm

149. Heather, I wish it were possible to contact every breeder of every dog that entered the shelter with papers and have it do some good, but there are only so many hours in the day, and at some point all we have to go on is what the owner releasing the dog tells us.

     Sometimes owners tell us they have contacted the breeder and they don’t want the dog back; sometimes the dog came from way out of state and we are unable to find any information on the breeders because they’ve moved. While it sounds tempting to call everyone and bug them to do something, it just isn’t practical in every situation.

     If the animal is healthy and adoptable and is of a breed that we aren’t worried about placing directly (and by this I mean breeds that have specific needs, or those that are just too much for the average pet owner, like Beaucerons — we had a whole family of those brought in several years ago when their owner went to prison), we are more likely going to just put the dog into adoptions, and try to let rescue know it’s there if they want to send someone over. That seems to work very well in most cases.

     We walk a fine line with how we have to do things sometimes so we address all interests, but nothing is set in stone. It just depends on the situation.

     Comment by stellaluna — June 4, 2009 @ 8:48 pm

150. Boy, “known history”. That’s a biggie. And something that really puts rescues and shelters behind the eightball unless they can foster the dogs in a home situation.

     Comment by Susan Fox — June 4, 2009 @ 9:01 pm

151. Susan - exactly. But when i’ve fostered, I know *I* am leary of the liability of placing a dog whose history is totally unknown (and in my case, was a typically ‘nippy’ breed - Pembroke Corgis!) in a household with kids, especially since I don’t have kids of my own here to extensively ‘road test’ them with. I think home fostering is just SO important for folks who are specific in what they want from a dog and aren’t able to do more than basic training.

     Comment by Cait — June 4, 2009 @ 9:06 pm

152. The dogs essentially lived in the backyard. Her home was spotless with white wall to wall carpeting. The puppies had been brought inside for socializing, but otherwise were in the yard in a pen.

     Comment by Susan Fox — June 4, 2009

     Guess I’ll never be “big-time.” The puppers here were born in my bedroom, and lived there for the first three weeks. Last six, in a pen in my office, which is where *I* basically live.

     I had all the remaining carpet ripped out when I bought the house. It’s all tile and hardwoods.

     And the house … uh … well, it’s not pristine at the moment. I have tried my best, but … it’s a mess now, and will be for weeks after they leave as I catch up.

     But oh, what people-oriented puppies. They sure know they are loved, and that they always will be.

     Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 4, 2009 @ 9:06 pm

153. PS Pembroke people, don’t kill me. But most of the fosters I got WERE nippy.

     Comment by Cait — June 4, 2009 @ 9:10 pm

154. Yes, she wanted dogs, but they were kept at arm’s length. We were left with the impression that the clean house was far more important. Best for everyone that she doesn’t have dogs anymore.

     We’re long since resigned to a steady stream of plant and yard material being deposited on the floor via the collie’s bigger than average coat.

     I do understand now why the English in those posh country houses never let anything but the little lap dogs out of the kitchen. :-)

     Comment by Susan Fox — June 4, 2009 @ 9:17 pm

155. For 19 years, I NEVER had to advertise to place puppies or the odd adult (owner return, a girl who had never wanted to share space with other dogs) as all my inquiries came via breeder referral from the club or word of mouth via breeder friends, the vet and rescue.

     Then had my first toy fox litter. Breeder referral? Yeah if you can find it? Word of mouth? What’s that?

     So I did something that would have earned my a scarlet letter in bulldogdom, I put an ad in the paper. Used all the same screening criteria I would for any other inquiry, told most people “sorry, but no” and found three great homes.

     In the past three years I’ve gotten established enough with tfts to get adequate inquiries. But when i had the three year old girl to re-home
     I put her in the paper and online. Pretty sure I also helped place a few other adult tfts by referral after she was placed.

     There is no bad venue. Screening is the key. Frankly, by making the paper and certain sort of OK internet sites taboo (breeders.net NOT nextdaypets!) we have surrendered the most visible and visited advertising sites to the millers, brokers and bybs.

     I bit the bullet and put myself on breeders.net for that reason. Inquiries get referred to breeder referral, the health info data bases and rescue. /maybe it takes a few bucks from the millers pocket

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 9:49 pm

156. “Heather, I wish it were possible to contact every breeder of every dog that entered the shelter with papers and have it do some good, but there are only so many hours in the day, and at some point all we have to go on is what the owner releasing the dog tells us.”

     Boy I know. But if you do have the dogs registered name or breeder and they are unknown quantities, a less time involved option is to shoot the local or national breed club a quick note. If the breeder, sire or dam are known, they will most likely get in contact with the people involved.

     My prefix is very well known in bulldogs. If a dog shows up with it, any bulldog exhibitor or member of our national rescue network would be able to get a hold of me almost immediately. And believe me, to use Heather’s phrase, my head would explode and arrangements would be made double quick!

     I sure as heck do not want to make more work for anyone. It’s just a way to let someone else do some of the leg work. :)

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 9:57 pm

157. Gina, what does Christie get if she breaks 200? :D

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 9:58 pm

158. Lookee here another poll

     “snip the roamers” passes barf bag….

     Let’s get her turned around. We do not want Judie to have these as “evidence of a public mandate” She’ll buy her own poll soon enough!

     http://ocpets.freedomblogging......uter-bill/

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 10:03 pm

159. The more comments my posts get, the more work Gina piles on me behind the scenes…

     Comment by Christie Keith — June 4, 2009 @ 10:13 pm

160. Sorry,
     But the only way to discourage us is to stop writing such great articles! XD

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 10:27 pm

161. “Boy I know. But if you do have the dogs registered name or breeder and they are unknown quantities, a less time involved option is to shoot the local or national breed club a quick note. If the breeder, sire or dam are known, they will most likely get in contact with the people involved.”
     “Comment by JenniferJ — June 4, 2009 @ 9:57 pm”

     We’ve definitely contacted local and national breed clubs and rescue groups for help with dogs in our shelter. The parent clubs are usually the first ones I go to when we have a breed for which there is no local rescue.

     I am experienced enough with dogs to know the difference between a good pedigree and a bad (puppy mill) pedigree when I see them, and I do recognize many of the kennel names. That gives me clues as to who is likely to be worth calling and who is going to be a waste of time.

     All things considered, we do a good job of handling the purebreds we receive; at least that’s what we are told by the rescue groups and clubs we have worked with. We’re not perfect (nobody is), but we are always learning, and I’m confident that we do a whole lot more than most other shelters do. Thankfully we have a lot of good contacts that help us cover most of the bases when necessary.

     I did forget to add earlier that we do scan every animal that comes in and follow up on microchip information that is not registered in the name of the person who signs the dog over, just to be safe.

     Comment by stellaluna — June 4, 2009 @ 11:41 pm

162. Heather, I wish it were possible to contact every breeder of every dog that entered the shelter with papers and have it do some good, but there are only so many hours in the day, and at some point all we have to go on is what the owner releasing the dog tells us … While it sounds tempting to call everyone and bug them to do something, it just isn’t practical in every situation.

     I appreciate that. Here’s the thing.

     If a shelter does not make reasonable efforts to contact a breeder in one of those rare cases where the dog comes in with the paperwork, then that shelter, its staff, its sympathizers, and the ultimate adopters have no right to bitch about that breeder.

     And no right to bitch about “breeders” in general using that dog as a data point in the screed.

     Yes, this reflects my paranoia that somewhere, one of my puppy buyers will lose his damned mind or suffer some acute tragedy, one of my pups will end up in a shelter, and a holier-than-thou staff will snark about “breeders” as they peruse the paperwork. (And yeah, I’ve moved, but I’m awfully easy to google, and of course the registry has my contact information. So do all the pup buyers.)

     I don’t check in every week with every pup, you know?

     Lightning, the ES foster I referenced before, was in his original home and “just fine” three or four months before landing in the pound in South Carolina. His breeder was performing due diligence — not for the sake of her “reputation,” but because she loved her puppies. The dog nearly died despite this.

     I will make an exception for any dog whose papers or history reflect that he was ever in the hands of a broker or retailer, since most reasonable people can regard this as prima facie evidence that the breeder clocked out on that pup the moment the first check cleared. And for repeat offenders who have been contacted before.

     But if you don’t call and ask, you can’t dismiss the breeder as pond scum, and you have no right to bitch.

     Comment by H. Houlahan — June 5, 2009 @ 6:22 am

163. … referring to breed club requirements in Germany

     Well that explains why Europe, or at least Germany, is not having the problems we are. Thanks.

     You are buying into the flawed notion that breeders are to blame for most of the dogs euthanized in shelters. They are not.

     Breeding does not explain owners having to relinquish their pet after losing their home to foreclosure.

     Breeding does not explain owners moving to a new city and having to relinquish their pet because they cannot find any rental housing that allows their pets.

     Breeding does not explain owners who otherwise fall on to hard times and have to relinquish their pet.

     Breeding does not explain the why so many dog owners do little or no training of their dogs, and end up with out-of-control adolescent and adult dogs that they dump them in shelters.

     Breeding does not explain the many dog owners who don’t take adequate precautions and allow their dogs to roam, so their dogs are picked up as stray.

     Comment by LauraS — June 5, 2009 @ 7:44 am

164. LauraS, you write,
     “You are buying into the flawed notion that breeders are to blame for most of the dogs euthanized in shelters. They are not.”

     No, I’d say it’s more the breeders who don’t take back the dogs they’ve bred and sold. Which, as I’m learning here, even some of the “top” breeders don’t do.

     Comment by Mary Mary — June 5, 2009 @ 9:50 am

165. “If a shelter does not make reasonable efforts to contact a breeder in one of those rare cases where the dog comes in with the paperwork, then that shelter, its staff, its sympathizers, and the ultimate adopters have no right to bitch about that breeder.

     And no right to bitch about “breeders” in general using that dog as a data point in the screed.”

     Heather, if you read through what I have said, you may notice that I do not ever “bitch about breeders” in general, and I would never dismiss ANY breeder as “pond scum” without good reason. Far from it — I spend a lot of time defending breeders to our staff and I make it a point to show them the distinction between good and bad breeders.

     As I have previously stated, I have been involved with purebred dogs for 37 years now — since I got out of high school. I have worked as a groomer, as a handler’s assistant, as a show kennel assistant; I have shown dogs of my own in three different breeds (even ended up with a few champions); I’ve been a member and an officer of all-breed and breed clubs and am currently on the board of a national breed club.

     I’ve only had a couple of litters in that time (both co-bred), but that’s only because I prefer to support other breeders who have more resources than I do. (I find it a lot easier to buy another dog when I want one rather than to breed a litter, but doesn’t everybody?)

     My point here is that I am not your average shelter worker. I was hired 15 years ago because of my experience with dogs, because the shelter wanted to improve their knowledge, particularly of breeds, so they could do their job more efficiently. I have done a lot to change their attitudes about purebreds and about breeders, and have helped them see that responsible breeders are not “the enemy.” I helped them set up their first real purebred rescue program as well as their first organized foster care program, and have held breed-identification classes for both our shelter and our local animal control.

     That said, you really need to know that it is not a “rare occurrence” when a dog comes into our shelter with at least an AKC registration application or certificate. I get them on an average of once or twice a week most of the time. Some weeks I may not get any, some weeks I may get two or three. In any case, I have a couple of good-sized boxes of paperwork that have come with the dogs we have received (as well as a few cats and rabbits).

     As I said earlier, I do know what I’m looking at, and for the most part, I do know when it’s appropriate to call a breeder or not. And I can assure you that in most cases, it is not — most of the papers we get are on dogs that were purchased from one of several local pet shops, and many of the others are from known “puppy mill” breeders in the area. Some are clearly from “one-off” litters, and our experience has been that these people are very hard to locate as well as not the least bit interested in coming to get a puppy they may have sold five years earlier, assuming they even remember it. For goodness’ sake, we have had “one-litter” breeders bring us the majority of their own litter when they couldn’t sell them by 10 weeks and the little darlings were pulling up all their carpeting! And we have contacted some quasi-legitimate breeders who we have practically begged to help us with dogs from their breeding that we have been unable to do anything with, who have blown us — and the dogs they have bred — off completely.

     Have some situations fallen through the cracks? I’m sure they have, but like I’ve said, there are only so many hours in the day, and we can only do so much. It would be a full-time job to try to trace every single animal that came in with papers to its origin, and I know it would result in very few happy reunions, so it is simply not a priority. But I assure you that our efforts are MORE than reasonable, and I dare say more than most other shelters’ efforts. (Or to put it this way, when I first started working at our shelter, SOP was to simply throw the registration papers away and not even bother trying to contact a breeder at all, because they always assumed the worst — which is what many other shelters still do. I like to think we have evolved.)

     “Yes, this reflects my paranoia that somewhere, one of my puppy buyers will lose his damned mind or suffer some acute tragedy, one of my pups will end up in a shelter, and a holier-than-thou staff will snark about “breeders” as they peruse the paperwork. (And yeah, I’ve moved, but I’m awfully easy to google, and of course the registry has my contact information. So do all the pup buyers.)
     I don’t check in every week with every pup, you know?”

     I can appreciate that, but at the same time, I don’t believe shelters should have to bear the responsibility that ultimately belongs to a breeder. “Shit happens,” doesn’t it? That is one of the risks you take as a breeder — you cannot control every situation. One of the reasons I prefer to leave the breeding to others, I don’t want to have to worry about what might go wrong. I’ve had things go wrong, even in my limited experience as a breeder. I’ve taken puppies back when owners divorced, and they ended up living with me until they died.

     You don’t need to keep contact with your puppy buyers every week, but if you want to be fairly well assured that you will be contacted if something goes wrong, you do need to maintain a good relationship with that owner and remind them from time to time that you are there if they need you. All the contracts in the world aren’t going to save some dogs otherwise. (The breeder of several of my greyhounds was very good about keeping contact by sending out Christmas cards and a calendar every year, as well as visiting with us at every show we were at together. That’s usually sufficient enough to let them know you’re still around.)

     You know, it’s pretty much a two-way street, the relationship between shelters and breeders. And you get what you put into that relationship. If you always assume the worst and assume they’re “out to get you,” and if you approach them with that attitude, that’s the kind of attitude you will get back.

     If you put aside past histories and negative images and work to make a good relationship with a shelter, they are FAR more likely to respect you and to consider you as a valuable resource that they will contact when the need arises. And you might even have the opportunity to change a few minds about breeders at the same time.

     Some of the biggest impressions our shelter staff have had of responsible dog people was when those people treated them as allies — when they took the time to stop by the shelter with representatives of their breeds so they could become familiar with them and the breed’s variations. Likewise, they always remembered the people who did recognize how hard their jobs were, and who would stop by with the occasional box of doughnuts or cookies and a thank-you card for a job well done.

     Those things get you a whole lot further than to tell them they are screwing up, or that they “have no right to bitch” about something if they don’t do things the way you believe they should be done.

     Comment by stellaluna — June 5, 2009 @ 10:25 am

166. No, I’d say it’s more the breeders who don’t take back the dogs they’ve bred and sold. Which, as I’m learning here, even some of the “top” breeders don’t do.

     Let’s be clear who is responsible for dogs dying in shelters. It’s the shelters that do not implement every proven program that saves lives. Those that do save all treatable non-aggressive dogs.

     Breeders who take back their dogs can certainly help reduce shelter euthanasias, but I reject the notion that those who do not are responsible for the killing. [For those who are tempted to toss your “irresponsible breeder!” grenades my way, I’ve never bred anything]

     Comment by LauraS — June 5, 2009 @ 10:46 am

167. Laura, I’m not sure which message your quote is from as I am unable to find it here, but I do wish to comment on the following:

     “Let’s be clear who is responsible for dogs dying in shelters. It’s the shelters that do not implement every proven program that saves lives. Those that do save all treatable non-aggressive dogs.”

     This is one of the things I have a problem with as far as the “Winograd solution” is concerned. We’ve gone from placing all the blame for animals dying in shelters on the breeders and/or owners, to putting all the blame on the shelters, and I just don’t think it’s that simple.

     In my opinion, we need to get away from the idea that there are good guys and bad guys in this situation and learn to play nice with each other. That is going to get us a lot closer to a solution than pointing fingers and blaming one group or another ever will. We are all in this mess together, we all need to share finding and implementing the solutions.

     That is one of the things I really despise about Nathan Winograd. While the man has got some very good ideas about how to make changes, he’s also managed to get a lot of people to go from one extreme to another as far as blame goes, and has created a whole new level of hatred among animal people. He spends more time accusing than he does acknowledging and encouraging progress (that isn’t nade according to his plan), and I just don’t think that approach is going to change help in the long run.

     Comment by stellaluna — June 5, 2009 @ 12:33 pm

168. whup — bad eyesight rules. last sentence should read:

     He spends more time accusing than he does acknowledging and encouraging progress (that isn’t made according to his plan), and I just don’t think that approach is going to help in the long run.

     Comment by stellaluna — June 5, 2009 @ 12:35 pm

169. Mary Mary

     the definition of “top-breeder” is not today what it once was.

     Frankly it’s a loose term.

     What does “top” mean? Biggest web presence? Most titles? Top winning dogs in whatever field. Most produced?

     In general, it used to mean the breeders who produced large numbers of titled dogs and usually top scoring/winning dogs.

     That term is now in flux.

     The breeder who produced 10 trial champions or conformation champions from 300 puppies, even if there are record holders in there, is unlikely to be considered tops by anyone.

     The breeder who produces 4 titled dogs from a litter of 5 or six, who breeds a limited numbers but puts out consistently high quality healthy dogs is more likely to earn that recognition, particularly from their own peers or the dog community at large.

     And to have that sort of recognition, and to keep it, they need to be ethical, responsible breeders.

     The blind eye that was formerly turned towards people who breed indiscriminatly , dump puppies by whatever means , etc… is clearing. It’s not 20/20 yet, but it’s sure getting clearer and sharper.

     The majority, the vast majority, of purebred dogs in shelters did not originate from responsible breeders. In some regions, specific shelters will see dogs come in from Big Names, but it’s not an all over phenomenon. AZ, sadly, has way more than their fair share of importers, millers, brokers and skeevy “legit” breeders who advertise nationally and import titled dogs and who may even have success in the ring or field. The web sites may make them look like “big names” but in many cases they are known as pond scum to the responsible breeders in their breed or sport.

     We have a “big name” breeder in my breed in who certainly brags on numbers of champions and titles, but the behavior and treatment of the dog and placement of dogs makes for “small time scum” in most minds.

     Health temperament. Keeping only screened dogs in a program. Standing behind them for a lifetime, participating in health studies and rescue are all now part and parcel of “top”

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 5, 2009 @ 1:38 pm

170. Well, I hear what you’re saying about Nathan being very polarizing, but the plain and simple statement that shelters are responsible for dogs dying in shelters… which is a limited statement… is actually correct.

     They aren’t responsible for the dogs being there, nor the lives the dogs led before they get there, nor a lot of other things truly out of their control, but if you operate an agency that’s supposed to be about saving animals and you’re killing them because of a failure to do things that ARE in your control… who else’s fault is it?

     I’m not defending Nathan’s “take no prisoners” approach, but I don’t see any other way to describe this particular scenario.

     Comment by Christie Keith — June 5, 2009 @ 2:46 pm

171. Nathan Winograd can be polarizing but that will end when animal control stops the killing - not so easy, but all great leaders made waves…initially I attended a lecture not knowing what he was about - in fact I sat by the door so I could leave without being noticed - curious but not in least bit hopeful….I was wrong - I’ll never see things at animal control/shelters the same and how the system got so tragically broken - what approach should he take? I keep buying and giving away copies of Redemption in hopes I’m doing my part in getting the word out…..I wouldn’t know of the Pet Connection if not for him.

     Comment by francis — June 5, 2009 @ 3:48 pm

172. Well, I guess the part that I am missing on how shelters are to blame is the part where nobody seems to be offering a whole lot of solutions on what shelters are supposed to do with all those big, untrained, unsocialized Chow-Shepherd-Lab-Pit Bull mixes when they aren’t being adopted. (You know the ones that aren’t interchangeable with the Toy Poodles or Chihuahuas everybody would rather have?)

     It’s very easy to say that we shouldn’t put dogs like that down when you aren’t the ones who take them in and care for them for months on end because they are so unwanted. We are never at a loss for dogs like that here, and as we have no set time period for holding them and we do give everybody a fair chance, we have dogs that are constantly ignored that have literally been here for months.

     And we do a hell of a lot of marketing of our animals — they are always in the media, in ads, on the internet, and at numerous offsite locations each week. But we’re one of the shelters that is lucky enough to have a separate marketing department where that’s most of what we do each day.

     The simple truth is that those dogs are not what the average person wants to adopt or is willing to live with, so they end up being the long-term residents until they are either adopted or they go stir-crazy and have to be pulled for temperament issues. (We have another one in our office here today who has been with us for months and was pulled because she started attacking any dog that was put in with her; we simply do not have the room for single dogs this time of the year, so now we have to decide if we can find a foster home for her to try to salvage her.)

     So what do you propose we do, given that people aren’t beating down the doors to adopt or foster the big, unruly mixes? We work on training and socializing. We market them. We foster them. We give them lots of time. If worse comes to worse and we have to pull them and put them down, we’re bad guys. If we just keep stacking them up and end up with dogs having fights or getting sick, we’re bad guys.

     Seriously, how many of you here would take one, or two, or more of these guys home just to save its life? I’m not ashamed to say I wouldn’t — not that they aren’t worthy of being loved and appreciated and aren’t potentially great companions for the right people, but that I know my limitations, and I know I don’t have the time or the energy to handle that kind of dog at this point in my life. But I am doing all I can to help them, which is more than most people seem to be doing.

     The thing is, it seems to be very easy for people to buy into that “you’re killing them because of a failure to do things that ARE in your control” when you don’t seem to realize how much we really DO or don’t do — other than what Nathan claims we do, or don’t do — and it’s much harder to get out there and really DO something that will help get more of these dogs into homes.

     I see how many people run for the hills whenever rescue people ask around for someone to foster a dog — I have worked with rescue long enough — and how many of them end up with the same foster people, over and over and over. I’ve fostered dogs for what was supposed to be a couple of days, that turned into a week, then a month, then a couple of months, because there were so few people willing to take them in, for so many reasons — “I’m too busy,” “My dogs won’t accept other dogs,” “I don’t have room,” “I’ve got a litter on the ground and I can’t afford to take any chances” — anyone who has been in dogs for any length of time, anyone who has been in rescue knows exactly what I mean.

     If we can’t find people to foster and care for dogs from our own breeds that we know at least have some kind of chance at finding a home at some point, how are shelters supposed to find open arms to take on the basically unadoptable (via being numerous and undesirable) mixed-breeds? And what are the alternatives?

     I am NOT saying that all shelters are equal, or that they are all doing what they could, or should be doing — there are crappy shelters out there, and crappy municipal animal controls, that are certainly not doing everything they can to save as many animals as they can. But there are lots of good people out here who are doing all they can to help these animals, and just as breeders are often painted with the same brush, so are shelters (unless, of course, they subscribe to you-know-who’s solutions).

     None of this is easy — NONE of it. Okay, I take that back — it’s VERY easy to find homes for adorable little puppies and kittens, and for small, cute, and well-trained dogs, preferably purebred. But that is NOT the majority of what is in shelters, it’s not what we have to work with in most cases. It’s very easy to criticize and to place blame, but it’s much, much harder to come up with real-world solutions than many people care to realize.

     Comment by stellaluna — June 5, 2009 @ 4:24 pm

173. “I keep buying and giving away copies of Redemption in hopes I’m doing my part in getting the word out…..”
     “Comment by francis — June 5, 2009 @ 3:48 pm”

     And he’ll keep selling you those books, too. He is a marketing genius, afterall. Feh.

     Comment by stellaluna — June 5, 2009 @ 4:28 pm

174. Comment by stellaluna — June 5, 2009 @ 4:24 pm

     what shelters are supposed to do with all those big, untrained, unsocialized Chow-Shepherd-Lab-Pit Bull mixes when they aren’t being adopted. (You know the ones that aren’t interchangeable with the Toy Poodles or Chihuahuas everybody would rather have?)

     And there are rural shelters who have no trouble placing big dogs, but who find themselves killing the “itty bitty” dogs they get that have limited utility on a farm.

     Again I find myself focussing on the “Nation” part of “No Kill Nation” and wondering how actively shelters are trying at casting their nets over a wider geographical area (and I mean around the COUNTRY, not just around the STATE) when they have excess dogs of a given “demographic”.

     What I’ve read is that this somehow messes up the shelter’s “numbers” (in terms of kill rates, successful adoptions, etc.) which is one reason they resist it even if volunteer transport is available. And once again, that’s simply not a good enough reason. Not when animals are dying.

     Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 5, 2009 @ 5:02 pm

175. I know it sounds easy to just move the animals from one location to another, Pat. An interesting idea, animals being passed around hither and yon to spread them all around.

     We do already “share the wealth” whenever possible, and I’m sure we would be more than happy to send some of our big dogs out of the area if a way could be found to do so. We didn’t have a problem with sending 100 of the small dogs we received from a huge puppymill bust last year up to Marin, so I doubt we’d have a problem with sending some of the big dogs out.

     I’m sure it would be an interesting endeavor, and look forward to seeing someone work out the logistics of something like that. I hope they will take things like disease into account — the only dog we have received here that did test positive for rabies came to us from a shelter a couple of counties away. (Thankfully it didn’t end up being adopted to someone in another state before the disease was discovered.)

     But of course that’s just too much negativity on my part, so I’ll just let that one go and instead provide some food for thought…

     I was just comparing our shelter’s statistics for last year with the statistics for the Tompkins County SPCA, since that one has become such a model of success. Here are a few highlights:

     2008 Intake:
     Tompins Co. — 2,380
     Us — 12,482

     2008 Owner-requested Euth:
     Tompkins — 11
     Us — 896 (we do not euthanize healthy animals at the owner’s request)

     2008 Adoptions:
     Tompkins Co. 1,742
     Us — 8,000

     I didn’t bother to do the “razzle-dazzle” with the numbers that they’ve done, but our “Annual Live Release Rate” has been averaging over 95% for the past several years, which is somewhat higher than theirs.

     And I can’t find these figures listed in their annual statistics for last year, but we had a total of 471 animals remaining in foster care at the end of the year.

     And, we did a total of 10,970 surgeries here, of which 10,799 were spay/neuters (5,473 shelter animals, the rest at our low-cost spay-neuter clinic and free clinics.) That doesn’t count additional surgeries done by outside vets and specialists.

     All things considered, I think we’re doing a pretty good job. Which is why I tend to get a bit resentful when we are criticized by people just because we are a shelter.

     Comment by stellaluna — June 5, 2009 @ 6:06 pm

176. mmmmm… my last post doesn’t seem to have gone through. oh well.

     Comment by stellaluna — June 5, 2009 @ 6:08 pm

177. ah, there it is. nevermind.

     Comment by stellaluna — June 5, 2009 @ 6:10 pm

178. Wow, stellaluna. Just wow.

     Comment by Mary Mary — June 5, 2009 @ 6:26 pm

179. My post wasn’t meant to be directed at your shelter alone. Clearly, for a “No Kill NATION” to work, it will take buy-in by far more than one shelter or even just a few. I don’t think anyone is saying it’s going to be easy, or that it’s going to happen overnight.

     But I DO think people are saying that if we don’t at least begin THINKING about these kinds of alternate approaches, and starting to talk about what it would take to put them into action, then nothing is ever likely to change.

     Your ” big, untrained, unsocialized Chow-Shepherd-Lab-Pit Bull mixes” are a legitimate concern. And so are the toy-sized dogs I’ve heard about being killed in rural shelters who would have more success adopting out larger dogs. In this day of widespread Internet access and computer networking (and Petfinder.org and so on) it just doesn’t seem like making a start on this should be all that difficult.

     Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 5, 2009 @ 6:28 pm

180. Washoe County, Nevada has a live release rate of almost 90 percent with intake of over 19K. And that’s the county, not one shelter. So it’s not just in smaller areas that this has worked. But it does take community collaboration, not just one single shelter or agency trying to do it on their own. That’s incredibly frustrating and, I would think, usually impossible.

     Comment by Christie Keith — June 5, 2009 @ 8:10 pm

181. Yes the collaboration is the key from what I’ve read, too - I live in a community with a hardcore circle the wagon mentality but that infamous Kennewick puppy mill bust happened here - so many people have known about that place for nearly 20 years yet no one would do anything (every excuse was used, outside city limits, no county animal service, property rights and more I’m sure) yet the HSUS came and in DAYS rounded up over 400 mini eskimo dogs and rescued them - no one I know how they did it….but they did. Thank God they did…but if Nathan Winograd could go into Tomkins County and declare it NO Kill overnight and indeed made it so - and HSUS could rescue 400 plus dogs almost overnight - I’d say its possible we can change the kill rate in shelters/animal control - since I was a little kid this has been my wish and now that I’m nearly 60 I’m seeing its possible…..

     Comment by francis — June 5, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

182. I know AZ gets hammered Stellaluna, sounds like you guys are working hard and big kudos!

     My ire at the moment is directed at shelters that could/should be doing so much better. The lake county shelter system http://saveourdogs.net/2009/05.....alifornia/

     here are their hours

     SHELTER HOURS:
     Monday - Friday:
     10:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
     Saturday:
     1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.

     yep two whole hours on the weekend. WooHoo!

     Not great for working families.

     The fact that the shelter (brand new!) is down a long frontage road with no signs is NOT helping. Neither is the fact it’s behind the JAIL.

     And they have MSN. It’s apparently working according to Jeff Smith who DVM actually has the cahones to point to Lake Co as an MSN success. Oy Vey!

     My new rescue hails from a nice mobile home park there. He made it through the shelter once already with no heartworm check and no microchip. He starts heartworm treatment Monday. Fingers crossed, he sleeps about 231/2 hours a day and is only around 5

     Your AZ shelter sounds like it is making a huge effort and commitement. Karen Farrish in bulldog rescue has been very appreciative at the willingness of most of the shelters she deals with to work with rescue.

     But there are some shelters and programs that just suck. :(

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 5, 2009 @ 10:35 pm

183. Read my story regarding my dog Coto posted on another blog
     Coto’s Story
     Patti McLeod | Jun 06, 2009 | 0

     Coto my dog was a 4 month old stray mixed breed running the streets in a bad area of LA South Central. He was picked up and put in a cage with about 20 other dogs in the overcrowded South Central Animal Shelter and slated to be euthanized in 5 days not given a name. I happened to see his picture on Petfinder, went up there, I live in Mission Viejo Orange County and now he is a 4 year old dog licensed dog with a good home. The other ones, not so lucky as the people in that area are struggling to feed their familes much less adopt a dog. The fact is LA has a problem with dogs running loose that end up having puppes that are very unwanted in most areas. They are dumped or picked up 3-4 months down the road and end up in shelters most with no chance of a good life, scared and confused. My point is although I love Coto very much I can see where strict rules are necessary to cut down on people letting their dogs run loose. Too bad for the breeders and the people who feels sorry for irresponsible dog owners who run into problems. Maybe their dogs should be turned into the shelters I don’t think the dogs will have that great a life anyway if that is the way the owners treat their dogs. No one should let a unaltered dog run loose and breed unwanted puppies it just adds to the problem. Yeah for laws enforcing penalties on people letting unaltered dogs run loose.

     Comment by Patti McLeod — June 7, 2009 @ 6:53 pm

184. Great piece!! I’m all for helping reduce the amount of stay and unwanted animals on the streets - but they need to think this through a bit better!!

     Taylor

     *Help pets through Petfinder and http://DoGreatGood.com - saving pets with every search*

     Comment by Taylor — June 8, 2009 @ 1:23 pm

185. My point is although I love Coto very much I can see where strict rules are necessary to cut down on people letting their dogs run loose. Too bad for the breeders and the people who feels sorry for irresponsible dog owners who run into problems. Maybe their dogs should be turned into the shelters I don’t think the dogs will have that great a life anyway if that is the way the owners treat their dogs. No one should let a unaltered dog run loose and breed unwanted puppies it just adds to the problem. Yeah for laws enforcing penalties on people letting unaltered dogs run loose.

     Comment by Patti McLeod — June 7, 2009 @ 6:53 pm

     So, if due to someone else’s carelessness, your beloved Coto got out and was picked up, and killed as an unwanted stray an hour or so before you got to the shelter he’d been taken to, you’d be totally okay with that, recognizing that it meant you’d been a bad pet owner and Coto really didn’t have all that great a life with you.

     That IS what you’re saying, right?

     Comment by Lis — June 8, 2009 @ 2:26 pm

186. 1.Poor people should not have pets. They often suffer, neglected as the rule, cared for well, as the exception. Everyone has the right to companionship, but at what price? You say the law hurts the poor, but… the poor hurt animals… an observation not judgement.
     2. S/N release programs are a bad idea at best. Heard of FIV? Feline leukemia ring a bell? Oh yeah,zoonotic parasites and diseases too. Feral cats got em’ all, so doo doo on the release thingy.
     3. I agree the law will miss its target and fail. Animals need more rights and to have them enforced. Also, we don’t know if it will work until we try it. Your hearts in the right place though, and the article is thought provoking. Being an advocate for animals is what we share that matters.

     Comment by Burke — June 24, 2009 @ 7:08 pm

187. Spay/Neuter for ferals is free at my local SPCA but do you know…. ppl are even too lazy to transport and re-release.Not to mention some local businesses & neighborhoods do not want volunteers on their properties who do TNR. In my opinion these ppl should be charged with neglect & animal cruelty.

     No one wants to touch feral cats or cats in general but there is such a huuuuge overpopulation,still! So in my opinion all cats/kittens should be fixed, from breeders to rescue groups to A.C & volunteers doing TNR. Trap-neuter-return should be mandatory and a law.I mean… don’t we want these sad stories to end??? I DO!

     Comment by ila Ratterree — June 24, 2009 @ 7:16 pm

188. p.s When I do private adoptions,my foster kitten or cat is fixed,tested and fully vaccinated.If someone can’t afford the adoption fee then this person can not afford future care. Poor ppl can adopt a cat or dog that is already fixed,ect. believe me! most of them are still young, too.

     Comment by ila Ratterree — June 24, 2009 @ 7:18 pm

189. BTW! Ferals are actually healthier than housecats.

     My own are tested,fixed,vaccinated and set free because ferals were/are born free and without human contact. Killing them is cruel.Have a heart and let them live their lives out with food,water and shelter,like an old dog house or an igloo.

     Comment by ila Ratterree — June 24, 2009 @ 7:22 pm

190. 1.Poor people should not have pets. They often suffer, neglected as the rule, cared for well, as the exception. Everyone has the right to companionship, but at what price? You say the law hurts the poor, but… the poor hurt animals… an observation not judgement.

     You are denying the lived experience of many who read and/or comment on this blog. The poor are limited in their ability to provide some things, but many, many poor people—and even homeless people—have pets who at least as well fed s their owners, clean, and parasite-free. And loved. Let’s not forget loved. Whereas all too many people with substantial incomes neglect their pets, emotionally, physically, or both, and treat them as disposable fashion accessories.

     Being a loving, responsible owner is not a function of income level.

     2. S/N release programs are a bad idea at best. Heard of FIV? Feline leukemia ring a bell? Oh yeah,zoonotic parasites and diseases too. Feral cats got em’ all, so doo doo on the release thingy.

     Again, you are talking airy ideas, not reality. TNR is far more effective that “collect and kill” at reducing the numbers of feral cats, and most TNR programs include vaccinations.

     Collect and kill the ferals, and the places are taken by more ferals, who also haven’t been speutered and vaccinated. Not a winning plan, in terms of reducing disease risk.

     3. I agree the law will miss its target and fail. Animals need more rights and to have them enforced. Also, we don’t know if it will work until we try it. Your hearts in the right place though, and the article is thought provoking. Being an advocate for animals is what we share that matters.

     But Mandatory Spay/Neuter has been tried—over and over again. And every time, it has failed. It increases shelter surrenders and shelter deaths. But then, since you believe that the poor do not deserve pets, perhaps you feel it’s appropriate that they should be punished for their temerity by having the pets taken and killed.

     Comment by Lis — June 24, 2009 @ 7:24 pm

191. No one wants to touch feral cats or cats in general but there is such a huuuuge overpopulation,still! So in my opinion all cats/kittens should be fixed, from breeders to rescue groups to A.C & volunteers doing TNR. Trap-neuter-return should be mandatory and a law.I mean… don’t we want these sad stories to end??? I DO!

     Do you mean that kittens from responsible breeders who are being placed as pets should be fixed?

     Or do you mean what superficially you seem to say—that every single cat should be fixed, including those belonging to responsible breeders? Which would be, in fact, a plan for making cats extinct. Which would certainly end the sad stories, but also all the joy that cats bring into our lives.

     Comment by Lis — June 24, 2009 @ 7:29 pm

192. Well… in my experience,volunteering at many spay/neuter clinics for ferals, there are many,many purebreds in the mix. So… I truly feel that after seeing what I see on a daily basis until domestic cats are in danger of being extinct, every cat should be fixed-

     To the posters out there saying that ferals carry diseases,please get educated by Alleycatallies or the SPCA ect. Ferals already have it tough. Please look out for them and please know that we do our best to test,vaccinate & spy or neuter. We do know that ferals are actually healthier than housecats but living outside cuts their life short. Please *care* for the ferals! they do not ask to be here. Thanks! ila~

     Comment by ila Ratterree — June 24, 2009 @ 8:25 pm

193. I see feral cats on a daily basis because I feed a couple of colonies - I have had them all spay/neutered ear-tipped vaccinated the works - even found many homes - its really difficult to relocate them so re-homing is not easy if done at all - I’ve been threatened for feeding them but managed to make peace with folks by educating them the best I can - I’ve been at this for many years - but I am against mandatory spaying and neutering - all that will do is penalize people who can’t afford the surgery - penalize responsible breeders - people will abandon pets rather than face punishment - banning pit bulls is another tragic disaster - instead we need affordable spay/neuter services - enforce cruelty laws and provide services for pet owners - reform animal control - Redemption (by Nathan j. Winograd) just came out revised - I’ll be reading it.

     Comment by francis — June 24, 2009 @ 8:39 pm

194. Well… in my experience,volunteering at many spay/neuter clinics for ferals, there are many,many purebreds in the mix. So… I truly feel that after seeing what I see on a daily basis until domestic cats are in danger of being extinct, every cat should be fixed-

     If you spay and neuter every cat, domestic cats will be extinct in a generation.

     The fact that a cat looks recognizably like a particular breed, doesn’t mean it is a purebred cat. Without knowing where the cat came from, you don’t know.

     And even if the cat really is a purebred, that doesn’t mean it came from a responsible breeder. There are kitten mills and bybs and “just one litter” folks and all the rest, just like for dogs. Meanwhile, responsible cat breeders, just like responsible dog breeders, take responsibility for the cats that they breed, and for their safety throughout their lives.

     Or are you one of those who believes that “a breeder is a breeder is a breeder” and they’re all in it only for the money?

     Comment by Lis — June 24, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

195. Yes! I have been threatened and nearly arrested but it hasn’t stopped me from helping Feral cats. Sadly Ferals are the biggest victims of being “thrown away” abused & neglected *just like pittbulls* WE must really fight to stop the suffering. Ferals,pittbulls,rottweilers… they all get such bum raps but who is really to blame,humans! How do we hold them more accountable??!! and how do we stop more from suffering???? Many of my ferals have been poisoned,shot or had rocks thrown at them by humans!

     Comment by ila Ratterree — June 24, 2009 @ 8:49 pm

196. My parents bred Siamese cats for years.My sister bred Persians & Himis. I have seen many of these beautiful cats in kill shelters & S/N clinics for ferals. My own family now understands much better since seeing the work that I do and btw! my parents were very responsible breeders but they would agree with spaying or neutering everything before adoption time too. It can help protec the breed too. There would be less inbreeding.

     Now don’t get me wrong! I love exotic cats.I’d looove to get some Tonkinese or a Savannah. So can we comprimise on dsh/American cats living in Feral cat colonies or strays???

     Comment by ila Ratterree — June 24, 2009 @ 8:56 pm

197. No! some breeders ( like my parents who bred Siamese ) truly looove the breed. I remember my mom & dad telling adoptees that there was a contract and that the cats were to never end up in a shelter.

     I was raised by Siamese cats.lol~ I still love & cheerish the breed but gawd! it breaks my heart to see soooo many in kill shelters :(

     Comment by ila Ratterree — June 24, 2009 @ 8:59 pm

198. Ila, no, you can’t tell by looking at them that they are purebred. Mixed breed cats, like mixed breed dogs, can turn out looking identical to one or another of their parental breeds. In order to know that they are purebred, you have to know where they come from, i.e., who the parents are.

     my parents were very responsible breeders but they would agree with spaying or neutering everything before adoption time too. It can help protec the breed too. There would be less inbreeding.

     Um. Ila. That’s part of what makes them responsible breeders. Responsible breeders take responsibility—and that means, among other things, either speutering the kittens before placing them, or having an iron-clad contract requiring they be spayed or neutered.

     But you said, when I asked, every cat, including those owned by responsible breeders. Would your parents and your sister agree to speuter all their own cats, ending the possibility of a next generation? Agree never to place a show-quality kitten intact? Agree that until there are no ferals, there should be no more purebred cats?

     Now don’t get me wrong! I love exotic cats.I’d looove to get some Tonkinese or a Savannah. So can we comprimise on dsh/American cats living in Feral cat colonies or strays???

     Um. Ila. Did you read what I wrote?

     Again, you are talking airy ideas, not reality. TNR is far more effective that “collect and kill” at reducing the numbers of feral cats, and most TNR programs include vaccinations.

     I’m in favor of spaying and neutering feral cats. And the cats in shelters, before they’re adopted out. And most pet cats, unless there are medical reasons not to, or they are owned by responsible breeders.

     But I believe, also, that it should remain a voluntary choice, encouraged and supported but not mandated by law, when we are talking about owned cats.

     Comment by Lis — June 24, 2009 @ 9:15 pm

199. I totally read what you wrote but I respectfully disagree.

     Everyone needs to walk through a kill shelter and look at the cages stacked on top of each other with cats ( lots of them ) and dogs looking back at you. Most are owner turn in(s). Yes. Ppl just dump their pets off there and btw! quite a few are purebreds. O.K! so we do not have the papers of who their mother or father is ( rolls eyes ) Soooooo could *you* give up going to a breeder and adopt from a kill shelter? Many animals are waiting….

     Spay/Neuter, make it mandatory.Even if it’s for the next five years. Then,maybe? we can get the ones on death row adopted.The ones who never did anything wrong,except ask their person to be with them until the *natural* ending.

     Thank-you,
     ila Ratterree

     Comment by ila Ratterree — June 25, 2009 @ 8:33 pm

200. Comment by ila Ratterree — June 25, 2009 @ 8:33 pm

     Spay/Neuter, make it mandatory.Even if it’s for the next five years.

     At which point you will have effectively driven Responsibly bred purebreds to extinction.

     You keep posting messages here over and over, but that’s one message you keep missing. Whether you’re ignoring it or just don’t care I can’t tell. But that doesn’t make it any less true.

     Spay/Neuter every intact dog and cat for five years, and you will bring an end to dogs and cats as pets.

     Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 25, 2009 @ 8:55 pm

201. My post was held up in the spam filter, but it said basically that, ila, you need to do a little math.

     17 million people will bring a pet into their home this year. The annual death rate for shelter pets is around 4 million. The key issue here is that only around 20% of pet owners adopt, NOT that there is some mythical ‘overbreeding’ problem.

     We need to find ways (thru advertising, etc) to RAISE THE ADOPTION RATE, because there ARE enough homes for every animal currently in shelters today, there are just not enough ADOPTERS. Forcefully sterilizing every pet in America is not the answer.

     Comment by Pai — June 25, 2009 @ 10:15 pm

202. ila is passionate, but does not want to learn.

     Yep, there are a lot of shelter animals, but there were once, 1975 anyone?, 4-5 times MORE.

     Irregardless however of whether or not the homes are out there (and Maddies Fund and others have all crunched the numbers and they are)
     Mandatory Spay neuter DOES NOT WORK.

     In every case of it’s application, impounds have at least initially gone up. And in places where there were eventual declines, they were out-performed by neighboring regions, so MSN still continues to cause more death (Santa Cruz).

     And licensing goes down, and fewer dogs and cats get vaccinated.
     Costs soar as funds that could be going to outreach and low cost services and TNR programs are spent on fruitless, targeted, ineffective enforcement of an unpopular ordinance.

     Enforcement of leash laws etc… becomes more sparse even though the failure to enforce these was a contributing factor to the issues MSN purports to address.

     People working TNR become easy targets for harassment. And ferals continue to be slaughtered in shelters. Why else would Alley Cat Allies be so adamantly opposed to MSN?

     When the “reasonable” MSN ordinance fails, instead of admitting the error, MSN proponents push for MORE laws and inspired ideas such as 5-10 year moratoriums on breeding. The end of vital genetic diversity in many breeds and the effective extinction of many as by 5 years fertility in many breeds of dogs is already ebbing.

     MSN has failed the real world acid test. It fails the Scientific Method most of us learned in what, sixth grade? It has been a disaster in many places and a sick sick joke in others. Lake County with MSN and the worst kill rate per capita in California and killing well above the national average. Los Angeles instituting MSN and seeing a nearly 300% rise in costs while reversing their precedent setting trend of shelter number reduction through services and outreach

     MSN COSTS, FAILS, KILLS.

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 25, 2009 @ 11:09 pm

203. Proponents of mandatory spay/neuter often bring up Santa Cruz County as their “model for the state” for what they (falsely) claim is a successful mandatory spay/neuter law.

     Santa Cruz County’s per capita annual spending for animal services is $11.92, having doubled since mandatory spay/neuter passed. That is extremely high. If all of California paid that much, yearly animal control costs statewide would increase from $250 million to $453 million.

     California’s state and local governments are being crushed by huge budget deficits. California cannot AFFORD the cost of mandatory spay/neuter.

     By comparison, Calgary’s per capita annual spending for animal services is $3.30 (US dollars). If all of California paid that much, yearly animal control costs statewide would decrease from $250 million to $125 million. Costs to the taxpayers would decrease to ZERO using the Calgary model, because Calgary’s animal services are entirely funded by licensing fees.

     Santa Cruz County’s per capita kill rate for dogs + cats is 16 times higher than Calgary’s.

     Everybody loses with mandatory spay/neuter. The citizens lose with high taxes, and the dogs and cats lose with their lives.

     Comment by LauraS — June 26, 2009 @ 12:07 am

204. Does anybody have a statistics link that shows shelter deaths have decreased since the 1970’s? I’ve been looking but haven’t found a good one yet.

     Comment by Jean — June 26, 2009 @ 4:11 am

205. For California shelter stats from 1973

     http://saveourdogs.net/2009/03.....tatistics/

     http://www.hsus.org/pets/anima.....on_us.html

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 26, 2009 @ 7:12 am

206. The HSUS info is National, not Ca only.

     Comment by JenniferJ — June 26, 2009 @ 7:13 am

207. Also, SpayUSA has the numbers as well.

     http://www.spayusa.org/about/about.asp

     Comment by Pai — June 26, 2009 @ 10:05 am

208. California Department of Finance tells it like it is on SB 250:
     http://www.dof.ca.gov/legislat.....B00250.pdf

     Comment by LauraS — June 26, 2009 @ 11:06 am

209. I have an answer for Mary Mary who posted this regarding European countries:

     “I would love to know how they do it.

     Again, what is “normal/baseline” for people in those countries? Do they never let dogs meet each other? Do they usually have only one dog or keep only one sex? Or do they have plenty of “oops” litters but kill any “excess” pets themselves, instead of taking them to a shelter?

     Comment by Mary Mary — June 4, 2009 @ 12:18 pm “

     I wrote to a friend of mine who has dogs in Holland and had her read this blog and write me an answer. She gave me something I can post—without her name. But it will give you an idea of what Europeans think, because she is not alone (I’ve heard similar before). Here’s what she told me:

     “Lots of people over here see Americans indeed as barbarians in reference to
     neutering/spaying dogs in general. We donot understand that at all. Because
     we simply donot neuter or spay any dogs without a very good reason. And that
     is mostly a healthreason (sickness). So the main reasons for
     neutering/spaying is because of medical reasons.
     Some people donot like that their female comes into heat; problems with the
     hormons, the bleeding so too much of dirth in the house and problems with
     keeping them several weeks in the house as well. And also not taking any
     risk for a litter.
     The males mostly are helped because of a too dominant charakter. And lots of
     people think that the charakter will be less dominant afterwards!
     So mostly females also are helped because they got an infection (mostly
     after their heat). Or get an infection during the pregnancy or after giving
     birth.
     We also think that it is really barbarian to neuter/spay a female especially
     before their first heat.
     Not only that but it is proven also to be very wrong! And also the chance on
     other forms of cancer are higher incase you neuter/spay before the first
     heat.

     People over here very are very capable of handle their intact males and
     females together.
     Also without too much of accident litters. And when an accident by
     coincidence comes than suitable people are found for
     the puppies often very quickly. But it really does not happen very often.
     Nowadays also some people use a medication to break of the pregnancy.

     I hope you can do something with my comments.”

     Comment by Melissa — July 15, 2009 @ 1:11 pm

210. Melissa,

     Thanks. So for some reason, people in her country are more savvy about dog reproductive systems. And it sounds like they use some sort of abortion drug when females get pregnant by accident. I wonder what it would take to get animal owners in this country to follow suit on both.

     Unaltered cats that roam free are a whole different topic.

     Comment by Mary Mary — July 15, 2009 @ 1:23 pm

211. Hi all, there is an anti SB 250 editorial in the OC Register today.

     http://www.ocregister.com/arti.....ter-animal

     There is also a comments section. Dr Jim from these blog comments is active in them as drjames. LauraS is doing a slam bang job of countering him, but it could use more commenters from those opposed to MSN in general.

     If you have forgotten, Dr Jim tried to use New Hampshire (a state funded voluntary program to help financially disadvantaged residents) to justify SB 250, a state mandated unfunded ordinance guaranteed to punish low income pet owners.

     Anyone else think it’s a complete coincidence that NH was used to support SB250 by proponents in the bill analysis? And carefully worded to give the impression it’s MSN when it’s not????

     My account with the OCR is not letting me comment, I have an email in and hope to have it rectified soon

     Comment by JenniferJ — July 24, 2009 @ 6:28 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Syndication

• Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed
• Subscribe to the Comments RSS

Recent Comments

• Sandi K on: Countdown to puppy breath
• Christie Keith on: It's bunny day!
• JenniferJ on: Rimadyl, Deramaxx, Metacam
• ericka on: It's bunny day!
• Gina Spadafori on: Rimadyl, Deramaxx, Metacam
• JenniferJ on: Rimadyl, Deramaxx, Metacam
• Mary Mary on: Rimadyl, Deramaxx, Metacam
• Lis on: Rimadyl, Deramaxx, Metacam
• Gina Spadafori on: Rimadyl, Deramaxx, Metacam
• Mary Mary on: Rimadyl, Deramaxx, Metacam

Categories

• 2007 food recall
• administration
• animal charities
• animals: pets
  • behavior
  • medical
  • news
• animals:general
• Books
• contest
• Disasters
• dogcars.com
• dogmobiles
• Dr. Marty Becker
• feral cats
• Foreclosure pets
• GoodMorningAmerica
• GPE
• Gratuitous blogging
• Ketamine Recall
• Life
• Media
• No Christmas Puppies
• No Kill
• Pet-lover life
• pit bulls
• polls
• products
• puppy mills
• Syndicatedcolumn
• The blogroll
• The Dr. Oz Show
• The Making of a Therapy Dog
• Ultimatebooks
• Uncategorized
• Westminster
• Why is anyone still listening to PETA?
• Worth a click

Recent Posts

• Images, imagination and genetics
• It’s bunny day!
• Countdown to puppy breath
• Veterinarians, new cool stuff … and rabbits!
• Where do your pets sleep? Mine get to choose
• How about we save money and NOT kill the cats?
• More accolades for the dog-friendly Honda Element
• Lots of good news on the legislative front
• Is the unexamined chicken worth keeping?
• Keep pets secure before and after a move

• Pet Connection Team

  • Each post is the opinion of the person who wrote it (click for our biographies).

• Search

• Read more from the Pet Connection team

  • -Dr. Marty Becker
  • -Gina Spadafori
  • Christie Keith
  • David Greene
  • Dr. Narda Robinson
  • Dr. Tony Johnson
  • Keith Turner
  • Kim Campbell Thornton
  • Liz Palika
  • Mikkel Becker Shannon
  • Phyllis DeGioia
  • Susan and Dr. Rolan Tripp

• Worth reading

  • A Dog’s Life
  • Alltop: Pets
  • Ark Animals
  • BadRap
  • Best In Flock
  • Did A Cat Shit In Here?
  • Disapproving Rabbits
  • Dog Art Today
  • Dog Star Daily
  • Dogged
  • Dogster
  • DrawTheDog
  • Food Politics
  • Frogdog Blog
  • Fugly Horse of The Day
  • Full Cry: A Hound Blog
  • Fully Vetted
  • Guinea Pig Connection
  • ICanHasCheezburger
  • KC Dog Blog
  • Land of PureGold
  • Lassie Get Help
  • Nathan Winograd
  • Ohmidog!
  • Patricia McConnell
  • Pawcurious
  • Pet Health and Nutrition
  • Pete the Vet
  • Petfinder blog
  • PetHobbyist.com
  • PetSitUSA
  • Philly Dawg
  • Raised By Wolves
  • Sarah Andrew’s RockAndRacehorses
  • Smartdogs
  • Speaking For Spot
  • Terrierman’s Daily Dose
  • The Cat’s Meow
  • The No Kill Nation
  • Vet Blog @ Dogster
  • Vet On The Edge
  • VMDiva
  • Winn Feline Health
  • YesBiscuit!
  • Your Pet’s Best Friend

• Archives

  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009