Big Paws Only Dog Forums

BPO Legislation Forum => Bills & Other Legislative Acts => : NoDogNow April 24, 2007, 04:43:01 PM

: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: NoDogNow April 24, 2007, 04:43:01 PM
Well, we clearly didn’t send enough angry emails yet to the California legislature, because they’ve passed that horrible bill.

I’m going to cross post something from one of my other forums, because I know that everyone here is as passionate about dogs and breeding and PROPER breeding of dogs as I am. And as this breeder is.

I encourage everyone to check out the website and also the PetLaw group.  Whether your children and grandchildren grow up with the boundless love you all get from your dogs is at stake, IMNSHO.

*****************************************

Permission to crosspost:

CA AB 1634 has passed out of committee. It will now go on to the appropriations committee. If it passes there, the next stop is the full assembly for a vote into law.

If it becomes law, there will effectively be no more breeding in California.

The people who believe we should "work with" the fanatics who want these bills passed should read The Future of Dogs at http://www.pet-law.com/future/forward.html (http://www.pet-law.com/future/forward.html) It can also be ordered as a booklet from that site. These laws are not intended to lower euthanasia rate -- the DOG euthanasia rate has been dropping steadily for 30 years. They are intended to STOP BREEDING ALTOGETHER.

Unless you understand the animal rights agenda, you will never be able to protect your rights. When California develops a dog deficit, which is already happening in many parts of the state, when people cannot buy a quality purebred, guess where the puppies will come from? Over the border, as many are now. They are raised in uninspected, often filthy places that make the breeders we call "puppy mills" look like doggie heaven. Do you think the people who are already supplying puppies illegally ("Meet me in the Walmart parking lot at midnight. Bring cash.") are going to stop doing it when their market doubles and triples?

Since many of those pups will end up in shelters due to health or temperament problems, the ARS will be back in three or four years saying "The law isn't tough enough." And those Responsible Breeders who decided that since the laws would only apply to those Irresponsible Breeders, we should work on a compromise will find themselves caught in the web next. And guess who will NOT be there to help us? Remember those commercial breeders we threw to the lions??

The statistics cited as "horrific euthanasia rates" include:

1) Cats -- there is still a cat overpopulation problem, largely due to feral & "barn cats." Forcing purebred cat breeders to spay and neuter will not touch this problem. How many "excess euthanasias" do you think there are of, say, Abyssinians or even Persians? How many people with purebred cats allow them to roam and breed freely? Purebred cats account for one percent of the overall cat population.

2) Dogs brought to shelters FOR euthanasia. Many people cannot afford to have a vet euthanize an old, even very much loved, pet. Their only choice may be shelter euthanasia, where the perhaps 16-year-old chihuhahua is counted as "ANOTHER UNWANTED PET!!!!"

3) Dogs with no chance of being safe, happy or healthy pets. It's not true that there are no bad dogs, just bad owners. Just like some people, some dogs are just plain wired wrong. Yes, unfortunately they may bounce through a few homes before arriving at the shelter, but they too – even though no one could call them pets -- are counted in the "SKYROCKETING EUTHANASIA NUMBERS." If California goes mandatory spay/neuter, we will lose possibly ten percent of the gene pool of many of our breeds. What will that do for purebred dogs?

Folks, this is war. We are county by county and now state by state losing our right to not only breed, but to even OWN more than two or three dogs.

Compromising is not the answer.


Education is. I am amazed at the number of inquiries I get from people who already KNOW not to buy from pet ships, know what questions to ask, are prepared to pay a fair price for a good puppy. It will not help us to win the education war if we have meanwhile been legislated out of existence. There will always be shelter euthanasia and it will always include some dogs that could have been good pets. There will also always be child abuse, homelessness, and cancer. It happens. Life is not perfect. Passing laws to wipe out breeding as an approach to shelter euthanasia is like limiting couples to two children to prevent child abuse. The issues are not even related except that they both involve children.

We do not have a pet overpopulation problem. We have a pet retention problem, and the answer to that is education. Help people KEEP their pets by offering support and being open to questions. Many people who turn their dogs in to shelters do so because they don't understand the basics of housetraining or dog behavior. And yes, they may turn in their next dog too unless there is intervention. When your neighbor gripes about her Labradoodle peeing in the house, don't roll your eyes and preach about the folly of "designer dogs." Give her a copy of the housetraining paper you send home with puppies. Talk to her about what exactly is going on. Is he marking? Is he confined for too long and just can't hold it? Has he just never been housetrained? As breeders, we have a responsibility to address the owner turn-in part of euthanasia, but it is not fulfilled by cutting back on breeding or supporting laws against "those other guys." It is hands-on, one-on-one education provided in a friendly -- not condescending and bossy, which we all excel in! -- manner. We need to be making friends in the community and doing something to fight the "snobby dog breeder" image we've built over the years.

Okay. Enough. Next time you see something about AB1634 or another bill in someone else's community, find out what you can do to help. Today it's California. Tomorrow it will be your state. You may not think you have time to help. You'd better make time or no one will be left to help you when it's your turn.


-- Sharyn Timbreblue Whippets ~ www.timbreblue .com Sharyn & Walt Hutchens Virginia Pet-Law: Protect Your Rights to Own and Breed Dogs http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pet-Law

*************************************

California Big Paw People: call your assembly rep and THREATEN TO CAMPAIGN AGAINST THEM if CA AB 1634 is passed.

And email the Governator, telling him to veto this bill if it passes.

This is an extremely bad law, with some extreme long range consequences; and if this bill passes in California, it's going to be put in front of every legislature in the country over the next year or two. We can't let this get past us.
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: Stacey April 24, 2007, 10:40:10 PM
I'm not really sure I understand this law at all.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I am able to pull up on Westlaw, it looks like the current version of the bill requires all owners to spay or neuter pets that do not qualify for some type of an exemption permit.  To obtain the permit, the animal must meet one of the following criteria:

(1)  The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or her business license and federal and state tax number, or by other proof, as requested by the local jurisdiction or its authorized animal control agency, that he or she is doing business and is licensed as a breeder at a location for which the local jurisdiction or its authorized animal control agency has issued a breeder permit.

(2)  The owner sufficiently demonstrates, as determined in the discretion of the local jurisdiction or its authorized animal control agency, all of the following:

(A)  His or her cat or dog is used to show or compete and has competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition, hosted by, or under the approval of, a recognized purebred registry or association in existence since at least October 1, 2007, within the last two years, or by whatever proof is requested by the authorized local animal control agency that the cat or dog is being trained to show or compete and is too young to have yet competed.

(B)  His or her cat or dog is a valid breed that is recognized by an approved purebred registry or association in existence since at least October 1, 2007.

(C)  The cat or dog has earned, or if under two years old, is in the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other title from an approved purebred registry or association.

(3)  The owner provides proof to the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency that the dog is being trained or is documented as having been appropriately trained and meets the definition of guide dog, service dog, or signal dog, as set forth in subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of Section 365.5 of the Penal Code.

(4)  The dog owner provides proof to the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency that the dog is being trained, or is documented as having been appropriately trained, and actively used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement or rescue activities.

(5)  The owner of a cat or dog provides a letter to the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog. This letter shall include the veterinarian’s license number and shall be periodically updated, and shall, if this information is available, include the duration of the condition of the dog or cat, and the date by which the dog or cat may be safely spayed or neutered.


So, if a dog is event competing, registered, a guide/service dog, law enforcement dog, ill, or if the breeder has priorly obtained a breeder permit, the dogs do not have to be spayed or neutered ... but other wise must be?  Is that correct?

If that is the case, I think it is an awesome law.
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: Nicole April 25, 2007, 06:56:23 AM
If that is the case, I think it is an awesome law.

That was my thought too, Stacey.  :-\

I'm with ya both. Sounds really good to me. It sounds like it truly WILL reduce the euthanasia rate.
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: Stacey April 25, 2007, 07:28:18 AM
I have read and read everything I can find on this bill, and I think it is outstanding!  I hope that they pass similar laws across the nation. 
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: schelmischekitty April 25, 2007, 08:40:06 AM
i agree with thinking it will help, in that it will regulate breeders, BUT it isn't really going to help with people who breed without a second thought.  esp. if the puppy #'s are down, you know they're going to get as many puppies out of their dogs as they can simply b/c the demand will be higher.
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: Nicole April 25, 2007, 08:43:02 AM
i agree with thinking it will help, in that it will regulate breeders, BUT it isn't really going to help with people who breed without a second thought.  esp. if the puppy #'s are down, you know they're going to get as many puppies out of their dogs as they can simply b/c the demand will be higher.

Hmm...that's not how I understood it. It seems like the breeeders DO NOT have to have their dogs spayed and neutered, but everyone else does, right? So, it seems like it would do more to regulate illegitimate breeders, right?
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: schelmischekitty April 25, 2007, 08:47:27 AM
how would they do that though?  there's not enough people to go house to house and inspect each pet, etc.  some of the worst people would try to hide their pets, wouldn't they?  the BYB's normally don't have papers, but they'll go to outrageous extents to breed still, even if they hide their dogs in bathrooms, etc.  (am i making sense, because i think i might be rambling again ha ha)
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: schelmischekitty April 25, 2007, 08:58:56 AM
it'd going to be interesting to see how this law works out.  i sure hope it works out for the best, and if it does, maybe they will make it a national law!
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: macybean April 25, 2007, 10:39:51 AM
While it might be difficult to implement, it has the potential to reduce the number of animals dying in shelters each year. I don't have a problem with that.
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: Mojo1269 April 25, 2007, 11:21:28 AM
Anyone who has spent anytime on Petfinder.com and has seen all the displaced dogs available would be on board with this.  Like most things, it is not perfect, but it is at least a step in right direction.  It would be nice to see more states take a more agressive stance on Puppy Mill's.  Sadly my state of MN is not but there are people starting to lobby for it.
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: NoDogNow April 25, 2007, 01:37:42 PM
Guys, you are NOT getting it, and that really surprises me.

Stop looking at the pretty window dressing, and look at what this bill DOESN'T HAVE.

There's no limit on cost, period. EVERY JURIDICTION in California is allow to set ANY ANNUAL fee for the 'intact' animal permit that they choose to set, so long as they base in on their purported 'costs.' Cities and counties could decide to fund their entire Animal Control budget on the backs of breeders.

How many really good breeders can afford--given the good breeder are already losing money the vast majority of the time!--an intact animal permit that may very quickly begin to cost thousands per dog?

And there are NO EXCEPTIONS in this bill for non-resident dogs of any kind. Every owner coming to a competition of any kind from anywhere would have to purchase one of these permits for every dog they're bringing to compete, or Animal Control can confiscate their dogs, and will neuter them before returning them. Heck...never mind a competition. You couldn't even bring your dog to the beach on a VACATION.

Local jurisdictions are given TOTAL CARTE BLANCHE to decide to not only grant but revoke these permits annually or upon a single allegation of misconduct--without any recourse. There are NO overarching standards set by this law, other than "S/N by the age of four months." Any jurisdiction can do ANY thing they decide.

And understand very clearly that this law does NOTHING to prevent puppy mills--because the law allows local jurisidictions to recognize or refuse to recognize ANY ADDITIONAL REGISTRY/S THEY CHOOSE TO. That includes the so-called private registries, the various hybrid registries, and so on and so on.  The bill ONLY mentions 4 specific ones, but local jurisdictions to can set any arbitrary standard that they choose, including not setting any standard at all!

A puppy mill could set up a 'private' registry, and afford to pay whatever price the jurisdiction set, because they're going to make the money back on badly breed, sickly puppies sent to pet stores. And they're going to be paying sales tax and other fees to the jurisdiction as well. A puppy mill would be a total windfall for a city or county.

This bill is a disaster.

I've been researching this issue since I first heard about this disaster in the making, and the fact is that NO MANDATORY SPAY NEUTER BILL IN ANY JURISDICTION HAS WORKED.

Not anywhere.

No place, no time, no circumstance.

NOT EVEN ONCE.

In point of actual fact, MSN laws have across the board increased numbers of dogs being put down in shelters, in part because confiscated intact animals end up being put down BY THE PEOPLE WHO TOOK THEM, when owners can't afford to pay the $20+/day boarding fee for 30-60-90 days until their case comes to court! And because the dogs are involved in a court case, they can't be adopted out or found new homes. So their 'time' runs out, and they're PTS.

MSN bills are provably a failure. To claim otherwise is a lie worthy of Heinrich Himmler.

The radical anti-pet PETA people and the Humane Society of the US (who do not now, or have they ever had anything to do with shelters--that's only the SPCA, so if you're giving the HSUS money, please STOP) are behind this bill.  The Humane Society, in particular, wants to eliminate the ownership of ALL DOMESTIC ANIMALS. Dogs, cats, horses, rabbits, everything.

And what's the easiest way to do that? Keep them from ever being born.

Look, I know how much everyone here loves their dogs, and wants to make sure every dog gets a shot at a home and a family that will love them just as much. I want that, too. I firmly believe that every responsible pet owner should be talking with their vet from the minute they get that puppy about when their puppy should be neutered.

But bills/laws like this are NOT the way to accomplish our goal.

All bills/laws like this are going to do is 1) rip the gonads out of puppies without regard for best medical practice based on a vet's evaluation of each puppy; and 2) make it financially impossible for GOOD, loving, home/hobby breeders to produce well-thought out, well-cared for litters of well-socialized puppies who are as healthy as their genetics allow.

This is the first shot of a war our dogs can't afford for us to lose.

Are you aware that the PETA people have already gotten a law passed in San Diego requiring any breeder who is going to have more than one litter of pups over the life of his/her dog to become licensed as a COMMERCIAL KENNEL? And abide by all the zoning requirements OF said commerical kennel? And if, for example, your backyard is only 700 sq ft instead of 725 sq ft, you can't get a license, and are subject to thousands of dollars of fines if you breed your National Champion Chiahuahua twice in 3 years.

How long do you think it's going to be before there AREN'T any more breeders in San Diego?

And that all started with local spay/neuter legislation.

I suggest that you start where I did several weeks ago:

http://www.pet-law.com/index.html

This guy has done a lot of the initial research and while he sees the worst case scenario, I think his extrapolations are well supported by the data available.
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: morph's mom April 25, 2007, 02:35:24 PM
Well I can answer this one.  I was not going to get involved with this thread but now I am.  In San Diego the HSUS and as ASPCA are two seperate intities that work together.  At the Central shelter in San Diego there are two seperate buildings side by side.  To the Left is the ASPCA which is the for lack of a better term, the pound where all incoming dogs and cats go.  The building to the right is the HSUS.  The HSUS is acting kind of like a rescue group there.  They screen all of the pets from the ASPCA and if they are getting short on time and can pass the behavior test then the pull them from that building and take them to the HSUS building.  The ASPCA is involved with the county goverment because the county pays the animal control officers and for the vets that are employed there.  The HSUS is completely self sufficient from the county and city gov.  They built and payed for their new building with state of the art animal condos from donations, the HSUS headquarters, and federal grants.  They also pay thier trainers and their own vets and all thier staff from donations and the HSUS.  Nothing there comes from the city or county goverment. 
We lived in San Diego for the last 6 years and I have adopted pets from both organizations.  I also volunteered with the San Diego HSUS for 5 years.
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: Mojo1269 April 25, 2007, 02:39:10 PM
You have thrown a lot of information out there but have failed to give any substantiated backup.  Show me your allegations are not urban myth but steeped in facts and I could be persuaded, but at this time all I have seen is allegorical theories and nothing that adds proof to your view.  
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: Nina April 25, 2007, 02:46:32 PM
Granted I live in Canada but I am going to throw my 2 cents in anyway. At least they are trying to do something about the pet over population. I'd rather see no breeding and all pets being spayed/neutered than being put down. If people want to get a dog from a breeder they can do so from another state or country, or rescue. We have to think of what is best for the animals not the breeders(no offense to any breeders out there) And having your pet "fixed" is what is best. Lower risk of cancer in males and infection in females, and those are facts. Anyway I could go on an on about this. Again just my 2 cents, but I think this bill is a good thing.

Nina 
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: People Whisperer April 25, 2007, 02:47:12 PM
I pesonally don't believe that the mandatory spay/neuter would solve the problem. I think that the government need to work on shutting down all the puppy mills and pet stores. Responsible breeders on the other hand have to make sure that the puppies who are not being shown in conformation/obedience get fixed.

Animals who and up in the shelters usually come from irrisposible owners and are being purchased from BYBs or pet stores.

Very sad! My heart is breaking thinking about it...

: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: schelmischekitty April 25, 2007, 02:51:51 PM
i also don't think it would solve the problem but it would put a dent in it.  it will be interesting to see how this works out.  as for the fees, i know the county over from us does the same program, BUT they only charge a small fee for all pets.  also, if you're from out of state / county, all you have to do is bring proof, which would be your shot records that most people bring anyways.  they won't just take your dog and neuter it just b/c it's in the county, if you're not from there.

Dog and Cat License Fees
$10.00 One year sterilized animal fee
$25.00 Three year sterilized animal fee
$25.00 One year sexually intact animal fee
$60.00 Three year sexually intact animal fee

you also have to pay a permit fee for over 4 dogs, and if you own a pitbull, rotty, or other "potentially dangerous breed" you also have to get a separate permit for them (or a proven dangerous dog, it's not ONLY breed specific).
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: NoDogNow April 25, 2007, 04:34:50 PM
OK, let's start with a PROOF:

Directly from the HSUS website, bottom of the page:

http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/animal_abuse_and_neglect/reporting_animal_abuse_or_neglect.html

"The Humane Society of the United States does not have animal control capabilities; that is a function of local animal control programs. The HSUS is neither legally nor contractually affiliated with—nor is a parent organization for—local humane societies, animal shelters, or animal care and control agencies. In short, The HSUS does not operate or have direct control over any animal shelter."

You can read the rest of the page for yourself, but whoever's running that Humane Society shelter in San Diego, it's not HSUS, unless they're lying on their website as well.

I'm not familiar with that shelter in specific, but based on my reading, I would bet it's a completely independent humane society that has paid a very pretty penny to have HSUS personnel come in and review/help design/endorse the place. That appears to be their typical 'consulting' role.

They have a budget of over $100 million a year, and in 2002, they spent/gave less than $150,000 for actual hands on shelter or humane societies, according to one analysis of their IRS returns of that year. I haven't found any more recent information than that, but then I haven't spent more than a few minutes at a time digging at this.

Check out activistcash.c om, though.

They're basically a hardline consumer rights advocacy group, dedicated to identifying and tracking the lobbying efforts and cash flow of a variety of "we know better than you, so shut up and we'll tell you how to live" activist groups, so you have to take their statements with a grain of salt--but if you google their facts, you'll come up with verification of the information, whether you agree with their interpretation of it or not.

Did I mention that even AKC says CA AB 1634 is a bad, dangerous law?

And lord knows I'm no fan of the AKC.
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: Mojo1269 April 26, 2007, 02:54:57 AM
Each post you have made comes at this thing form a differnet angle.  I looked at the AKC web page and see where you have pulled a lot of your information from.  I still see this as a good thing.  I am more concerned with the over abundance of unwanted pets and puppy mills than I am with small breeders concerned about forlking over money to breed their animals.  While I agreee this is not ideal, I see more good than harm coming from it.
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: Nicole April 26, 2007, 12:19:11 PM
NoDogNow,

I think that you are being super rude, confrontationa l, condescending and just down-right unpalatable.

Sheesh.

What is wrong with people thinking that mandatory spay and neuter is a good idea? You point out all the flaws, but tell me, how do YOU propose we deal with the sick over population problem? And what is so wrong with making breeders accountable? Who CARES if they have to pay to keep their dogs intact? That is the cost of doing business!

You sound like those corporate whiners that complain about how environmental legislation hurts their business. Waaaaaaah. Look at the big picture, will ya? There's lots of dogs out there being put down. We have to start somewhere. If it becomes too expensive to be a breeder, well, that's the case. But, maybe, just MAYBE people will start to THINK about where they are getting their puppies because of this legislation. Maybe it will make puppies a little more precious. Maybe it will make them harder to get and to that I say WHOOP! GOOD JOB!
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: schelmischekitty April 26, 2007, 12:26:29 PM
nicole, i couldn't have said it better.  while it won't solve the problem completely, there are little to no options available that will.  i would much rather a few small breeders go out of business than see thousands of animals put to sleep for no reason.  good animals. ones that would make the best pets in the world, if only given the chance.  just like nicole said, look at the big picture please (california spends $250 million a year on controlling strays and euthanizes 500,000 cats and dogs annually.).  think of all the lives that will be spared, not the ones that some breeders won't create, and put into this cruel world.  at least someone is making an effort to make a difference to the animals.
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: bigdogs@5501 April 26, 2007, 01:40:11 PM
This is definitely a hot topic. I am a member of a yahoo group that does rescues and transports. I get about 4000 emails a month that are all about dogs needing homes. I know that there were a lot of members of that group that really pushed for the bill. I stayed neutral. I think that the law could have been written better, but by the time that I knew anything about it- it was way past changing the wording.
 Its like a train wreck with me- I dont want to open that email- but then I do, then you see that poor dog or get the story about how the dog ended up in that particular shelter and then I get depressed. Sometimes I have to get up and walk away from my computer.
Then I work with a person who is a back yard breeder- serious backyard breeder. Has about 20 females that she keeps pregnant all of the time. In order to keep my job or at least peace at the job- I have to shut my mouth. I am a firm beleiver in spay and neuter. All but the baby here are spayed and neutered.
Then there are the ways that the dogs are pts. I really have stressed out incredibly over the horrible ways that this takes place on a daily basis. I am not an emotional person- but this is one of the things that just tears me up.
I cant save as many as I want to, I am doing my part though, and not with just what I have at my house.
I really do love each and every dog here at my house and yes folks I probably have too many dogs, by many peoples standards. But they are loved- they are well taken care of and they are alive and I think that they are happy for the most part.
I want to always be able to own a dog and breeding should be a responsible act.
I dont know if this law is a good thing or a bad thing- but if more shelter dogs find homes, then its a good thing.
One kudo I have to give to California is the law that they passed about not being able to make a dog live on a 6 foot chain, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.So there are some caring animal folks in that State that are trying to do the right thing for dogs.
I can only hope that in the future there wont be a 6 week old puppy facing a gas chamber or worse because of some inconsiderate human being.
Maybe the groups against the law could rally to have some of the wording changed, that would be a lot more productive than to totally rally against it.
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: Mojo1269 April 26, 2007, 03:32:13 PM
Well said.
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: Care2Adopt April 26, 2007, 07:00:51 PM
I dont want to jump in but I can't help it.

I am a breeder, and I compete in conformation and obedience- all dogs that I have bred were finished Champions or obedience titled, thoroughly health checked, proven in the ring, the vets office and the home. It's also mandatory to me that all my dogs pass a CGC and/or TDI. Why? because a well balanced dog has a title on BOTH ends.

I spend thousands of dollars on entry fees, travel expenses, health scans, food, care, and grooming of my peformance dogs. You don't win money in dog shows (Well.. 99.99999% of dog shows) I spend weeks, months and in some cases YEARS researching pedigrees and lines before selecting and planning a litter. I breed once every few years, and I have finished dogs that have never once been bred. My FULLY VETTED, contracted, and guarenteed pet puppies sell for anywhere between 800-$1000 on a mandatory spay/neuter contract, and my show puppies (Same as above) are either given to good friends to help their breeding/show lines, or I sell for $1000-$2000. Do I make money? HECK NO. Do I break even? Don't make me laugh.

Do I care? NO WAY. I do it because I love my breeds, and I want to improve the breed. I also rescue, and volunteer with breed clubs to go out and educate and inform. I have a personal rule that in my household I will be directly involved in the rescue of 10 dogs for every ONE I breed.

Now, I am not a fan of mandatory spay neuter laws that do not provide exemptions for responsible breeders. Never have been, never will, because it WILL mean that BYBs will take the rise, because they dont care if they abide by the laws. However, this law is NOT one of those. It will require licensing of purebred kennels, including responsible show kennels, and it will attempt to shut down and erradicate BYBs, puppy smugglers and puppy mills. are their holes in the law? Yes, absolutely. There's holes in every law. There isn't anything mentioned about visiting dogs, but as you mentioned each district is responsible for their own laws, and before there is an AKC sanctioned show, you better believe AKC will guarentee the saftey of their members before invitations go out. There are a few other things that need to be reworded or edited to ensure the saftey of private individuals, however, in general, this law is fairly well written.

Here's the thing with the licenses. It may drive the price of a well bred dog up, just like when breeders began doing OFA/PENN hip and CERF/OPTIGEN testing. So what? People who care where their dogs come from aren't going to mind shelling out a few hundred dollars extra. The people who DO mind are going to go out of state to purchase their puppy mill dogs, and end up paying more on vet bills then they would have on a well bred dog, but fine, whatever, it gets rid of the BYBs and mills in CA, and thats the goal- also they will have to come back and abide by the MSN laws and thats going to help so much on the "Bingo here is a pureblooded blue eyed husky out to stud to any pretty lady ready to get it on"


 I know that the point has been brought up that there could be an issue with a responsible breeder who doesnt have the ability to meet the requirements to get a lisence. We may loose a few good breeders over this, but in general, who do you know that wouldn't move to fix that? Who do you know, that is a responsible, show breeder who loves and takes excellent care of their dogs, would not do anything in their power to continue the improvement of the breed they dedicate themselves to?

This isn't a ban on breeding. This is a step in the right direction (However scary, and tense the ground is, since it is government overruling... but hey, unfortunatly the bad breeders outway the good, and we just have to accept that as a fact of life) to give MORE power to responsible breeders, and shelters.

Good breeders wont LET this bill harm their dogs.

Ok.. im off my soapbox.  ::)


: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: Care2Adopt April 27, 2007, 03:46:39 AM
I wanted to add... at least it isn't breed restricting o.O
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: Gracie Belle April 27, 2007, 04:14:38 AM
Whiskeyandsake,

{STANDING OVATION} 

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: Mojo1269 April 27, 2007, 04:20:05 AM
Its beuatifull when people can stand back and see the big picture.  Well Said Whiskey and Saki.  Heres to you...
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: People Whisperer April 27, 2007, 04:37:32 AM
whiskeyandsake, I am clapping my hands!!!
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: Nicole April 27, 2007, 07:55:27 AM
Whiskeyandsake-

RAISE THE ROOF, GIRL! That was very VERY VEEEEERY well said. You eloquently worded everything I was trying to get across when I spouted off in my last post. Thanks so much. You have particularly keen insight, and I like it.
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: Care2Adopt April 27, 2007, 10:43:15 AM
awwww shucks marm(s)... t'werent nuthin  8)


Now, someone gave me back my soapbox, so be careful, hold onto your hats and get a cup of joe, this will be long.


I guess I'm just willing to give up some of my personal freedoms for that of my dogs, the future of the breeds that I love, and the future of the sport of showing. People put too much into breeding, making it a buisness. It is true that it's a living, I live and breath dogs, but it sure isn't a buisness. I really dont mean to sound preachy or know-it-all. These laws DO worry me, because you have to wonder where they are going to stop. I think that clear cut exceptions should be approved by AKC and a panel of excellent breeders. Probably a crap shoot- but it's worth a shot. If everyone fighting this law came together to work with the legislation to improve it, rewrite the parts that come off a little loose, then we'll be ok. They have been really good about some things; for instance, your dog doesnt have to be currently competing, but must be in training or prove that they have competed at some point in their lives. Well thats fair! That gives retired CHs, veterans, puppies and fuglies (Er... thats a term I use to describe akward puppies waiting to mature before they get in the ring) a chance, without having to go under. If we can limit people's choices to good breeders or rescues, we have won 90% of the battle. There will be people that slip through the crack, just like any law, but not as many. And with proper education, campaigning and legislature we can make it possible for people to UNDERSTAND the point of this law- they aren't taking away your rights, they are GIVING rights to animals. I think too many people feel that what they choose to do with their "property" (Dogs) is their buisness and no one elses. Well, sorry folks, it aint the case. You're going to have to meet some standards. It's like breed bans. I am a FIRM believer of punish the deed, not the breed- however, if neighborhood associations want to make it a rule that any dog (NO MATTER THE BREED) has to pass a CGC test to live there? h*ll, I'm all FOR that.

I bet when the first speeding laws came out, people were furious. "How dare you tell me how fast to go! Its my car, my life! It's just going to make it more annoying for those of us who drive safe." Well... if you do drive safe.... it really shouldn't affect you, now should it?

Here are a couple of points that someone (who will remain namless) argued with me in a PM.

#1- we wouldnt be able to attend shows in CA, because they could seize our dogs and spay/neuter them immediatly.

Ok.. lets look at an average three day AKC event, with conformation, obedience and agility trials. Do you know how many THOUSANDS of dogs and people would attend that? Thousands..of people..and dogs.. who need Hotels. Food. Gas. Supplies. (God, we spend money like WATER when we go to shows.) Events that draw tourism, attract people to stadiums and other places. Draw people into cities. Seriously- do you think a local government would allow AKC to pull shows from the entire state of California? I promise, there WILL be exceptions for dogs coming into a state for events, and if not, AKC would pull shows from the state, and I guarentee an amendment would be written reeeeeeal quick.

#2- you say that peoplle should just up and move, what if they cant, what if they cant move say, 25 dogs?

Well, most responsible breeders dont have 25 dogs. I know a few, but most dont. So, fine, lets look at those that do. I have moved with 32 dogs. My home came into new zoning, affecting the shelter that I ran and it required me to move. Immediatly. Instead of wasting my time fighting to stay, I enlisted the help of friends, fellow show people and rescue groups, to take the dogs while I moved, settled, and then took them all back. If you are a breeder, then you belong to a very close knit family- the club of your breed. There WILL be options.

#3 what if they charge a licensing per litter?

What if they do? Say they charge $1000 to register a litter, and you have 2 litters a year. That's $2000. Lets add ANOTHER $1000 for a general breeders permit. So, $3,000.
(These are just random guesses at licensing, I dont think it will be this high, but lets just pretend ;) )

You have 8 puppies per litter. Normally, you would sell 75% of your litter at show cost, which for you is $1800. 25% go to pet homes at $1000 Normally, that would bring in $25,600 (that sounds like a lot, but trust me, when you actually DO it and realize how much you spend on vet bills and health scans and the 5 years of showing it took to get you to a place to breed, its chicken scratch)

To stay at 25,600, you would need to add a mere $200 to each puppy. Is that really too much to ask? I dont think so. Not when people are standing in petstores every day shelling out $3500 for a designer mutt.

And hey, I bet thats going to stop a lot of "I like this dog, but dont know if I want to waste all the money on showing him, let me breed him once and see what he throws" breedings.

#4 What about vacationing dogs?

See number 1. CA would loose a WHOOOOlE lot of dollers, and once that was brought to their attention I think there would be an amendment. I mean c'mon. These aren't aren't the ellusive ferret owners complaining. This is Mr and Mrs DOG owner here.

#5 they will take peoples dogs and kill them when they can't oblige by the law

Seriously. There would be rioting in the STREETS. You can't get your dog altered by 4 months? Then your dog gets taken, ok so what. Guess what, I do that on my pet puppies. I dont get a spay contract by 6 months, that puppy is BACK IN MY HOME immediatly, and you just lost all your rights. Its in my contract. Do I have a problem with a puppy gestepo knocking down doors and clubbing dogs to death because they aren't spayed and neutered? !&@*(! yes! But that wont happen. What will happen is the same enforcment there is for all animal control laws. You'll get a notice. Then a ticket. Then another notice. Then a polite "You really need to handle this" then a fine. Then another notice. Then maybe.. they will take the dog. And guess what, it wont be put to sleep, it will be altered and put up for adoption for those people that want a dog and can't afford to get one from one of the remaining breeders.

Holy smokes thats horrible!!!!!!!  ::) You think shelters won't have the room after all the BYBs and puppy mills get shut down? Please, that will be their main job! It will be hectic for the first few years, but I think the death toll would be substantially LESS then what it is now- and in a decade, if everything went perfect, shelters would be filled with only a few of those situations.

Let me also mention this. Responsible breeders have their own spay/neuter contract. I've already mentioned this. I take back my puppies if they are not altered. So do most breeders I know. Its in the C-O-N-T-R-A-C-T. So, lets say that the law mandates a 6 month alter. Well, breeders, put it as 5.5 months in your contract. Good breeders take any of their dogs back, no matter what. I just took a 14 year old doberman back I bred (yep you guessed it) 14 years ago, because her owner died. You dont get an alter certificate by 5.5 months, take the dog back and alter it yourself. Problem solved, no one goes to doggy jail.

Theres going to be flukes, theres going to be problems. But people, there is with ...every... law. We CANT please everyone. It WILL hurt some responsible breeders, but its gunna hurt the bad breeders a LOT worse, and guess what, sometimes you gotta take one for the team.

Good breeders are going to have to network, stay close, share ideas and leads. Theres going to have to be a panel of educators to step in and take the reins of this and help lead it in the right direction, or there is a good chance that it could slide down, that IS true. However, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

It's time for a change people.
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: Nicole April 27, 2007, 12:07:04 PM
***RIOTOUS APPLAUSE***


***SHRILL WHISTLES***

***MY LIGHTER FLICKERING IN YOUR AWESOMENESS***


hahah, well said. AAAAAAAY-MEN sister.
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: NoDogNow April 27, 2007, 01:52:46 PM
I'm not against MSN per se; only MSN as envisioned by animal rights radicals who don't think we should have pets at all, and who are doing their best to see to it that we don't.

I'm against THIS bill in specific, because:

#1: As the first item under the permits section, it deliberately EXEMPTS anyone with a BUSINESS license as a breeder from the Show/Competition/Purebreed Registry/Titling or any of the “working dog” requirements imposed on home breeders who try to get intact permits for their dogs. That would be, um, puppy mills, right? So those taxes still get paid, and badly bred puppies/kittens will still show up in the window of your local pet store, and thence to the shelters when they don't work out.

It deliberately leaves the issue of determining reasonable costs up to local jurisdictions or their assigns. This is an open invitation to have animal care and control offices and contract agencies hijacked by radical animal rights activists, giving them the legal right to charge any breeder any amount of money they choose to justify.

It deliberately ignores requiring medical evaluation by a vet as part of the SN process in favor of a wholly arbitrary timeframe. There is NO exception for puppies whose lives/health are endangered by the procedure, only a 75 day delay. So if your puppy has a bad heart and still isn't strong enough at 6 1/2 months, too bad, so sad--better a dead puppy than an unaltered one!

It deliberately leaves the setting of any standards for breeder facilities, etc. to the local jurisdiction, again openly inviting ACC offices to be hijacked by radical animals rights activists, allowing them to set unreasonable/unattainable/potentially arbitrary criteria for whether or not someone will be allowed an exception. There's no provision whatsoever for 'best practices' review of any criteria a local jurisdiction may set down, by person, agency or professional organization. If the ACC Director of Berkeley, California decides that any person who wishes to have an unaltered dog permit in Berkeley must have 1 square mile of open land with a 12 foot fence for dogs/puppies to run free on, there is absolutely NOTHING in this law to stop that ruling, anyone to appeal that ruling to, or any mechanism to get that ruling changed.

It deliberately leaves the granting of 'unaltered' licenses to the local jurisdictions WITHOUT RECOURSE. That means if the PETA people manage to get one of their true believers placed as your local Animal Care and Control Director and he/she decides that your Field Book registered Champion Chesapeake Bay Retriever isn't a ‘show’ dog because you don't compete in AKC conformation shows, you either lose your dog to a breeder in some other state or you have it SN. Period, end of story.

Those are just the BIGGEST and most immediate holes in this bill, on its way to law. The long term consequences are even worse, in my not remotely humble opinion. And yeah, I’m confrontationa l on this point, because I work on a specialty DOG MAGAZINE with national distribution. This is a constant issue around here, with differing laws in differing parts of the country coming up all the time—and the consensus around here is that this is a perfectly dreadful law.

If you want me to support a SN law, then...

Draw up a law that applies to EVERYONE. Breeders with business licenses should have to obey the same set of arbitrary standards as home breeders to get an maintain their intact animal permits. If you’re going to require ‘show/registry/title’ standards or proof of 'working' status, then require them of everyone.

Draw up a law that puts VETS in charge of determining medically sound criteria for MSN standards by breed, to be reviewed based on the best available science at specifically stated intervals. Say every 3-5 years.  Require proof of vet exams to get ANY dog license or permit renewed, not just a one-time spay neuter certificate.

Draw up a law that sets a reasonable MAXIMUM on costs. I can see an intact animal permit costing a couple of hundred dollars, but no more than that—because higher than that will only encourage more commercial breeding, where the costs can be recouped, as BYBs get priced out of the market.

Draw up a law setting very clear, specific, unmistakable boundaries around what local jurisdictions can or can't use as 'additional, more restrictive' criteria for allowing or denying intact permits; and include in that a procedure for appealing any and all of those decisions.

Draw up specific criteria for approving--or rejecting--ANY animal breeds registry, and put in place a process whereby the criteria may evolve over time, in accordance with technology.

A bill will those elements is worth discussing.

But CA AB 1634 is just a badly written bill, with purposeful holes in it that the radical animal rights crowd plan to drive a Mack truck through in their efforts to ‘liberate all animals.’

I'm telling you, don't be fooled by the bait and switch scheme of a law. And don't let them pass one like it where you live, either.
: Re: HORRIBLE BILL HAS PASSED.
: Nicole April 27, 2007, 02:47:34 PM
"in my not remotely humble opinion."

Ain't that the truth.