 |
This is a forum to discuss legislation and legal matters pertaining to the rights and welfare of dogs. Please remember to counter ideas and opinions with which you don't agree with friendly and helpful advice and responses.
(Page 4 of 4: Viewing entries 31 to 38) 1 2 3 4 
 |
 |
 |
 |
Amy
Don\'t breed or- buy while- homeless die |
 | | Barked: Mon Apr 23, '07 9:17am PST | |  | |  | | This abject "won't work, I'm fighting it" posture is typical of the bill's opponents who on numerous occassions have been asked for input. After some discussion with working dog breeders, the bill was tweaked to accomodate their concerns and what happened? They howled! It's like their purpose in life was rejected. All this speculation about 'enforcement by vets' was untrue. The clamor changed to arguing health effects of spay and neuter. But even the AKC advocates altering as a means of population control! OOPS. So the gears shift again and the bill becomes "unfair".
Now we get the rants about the bill "empowering" the source of backyard breeding. Speculative rants. Before I address it: who creates the "mystique" of purebred dogs? Who creates not only the supply but fuels the demand for owning a PUPPY? What if breeders 25 years ago had heeded requests of really responsible breeders to chip, alter, screen, rescue, refuse stud service to backyarders? What if they get aboard the bus and work with us now?
You want to see who will be affected by AB 1634?
Go to Fresno SPCA and watch as Monte is powerless to suggest altering the bitch whose third litter this year walks thru the door in a basket, 29 puppies dumped on an agency by a woman who claims she cannot afford low cost spay... but drives a Lexus with a Starbucks Frappacino in the cupholder. That dog was finally altered this last week and guess what? She was pregnant again! AB 1634 provides a TOOL to address the breeders like this woman. IT ISN'T WRITTEN TO PUNISH LEGITIMATE BREEDERS!! It is designed to reduce incidental and accidental, unintended and unwanted littering!!
Another common misrepresentation by breeders is there ISN'T lowcost speutering. I've been in discussion with organizations which are DONATING the Speuter-Scooter to give FREE alters wherever they are needed. Statewide. It needs AB 1634 to pass, and the Scooter is on the Road!
The websites proclaiming service, working and herding dogs would "be extinct" are intended to be inflammatory, arouse emotions. They are also perversely deceptive. The creators of those sites have been asked to participate in working to craft a bill. If there is a group of legitimate dogs which requires exclusion, they will be excluded. But they'll have none of it. Their aim is to sabotage AB 1634 because they are indifferent to the money we spend. Uncaring of the dogs we kill.
A guy on the other coast named Walt has been 'combating the A/R movement for years' by his own BIO and doesn't get it: this isn't an A/R thing. This is about a million dogs we kill at a cost of $250 millions. Walt: see if you can get this: The pounds don't count the "unadoptable" they kill! They quit doing that after a CACDA response to the state mandate. Whats more: many healthy adoptable animals are labeled unadoptable out of political and managerial pressure. The old, sick, 'irremedially suffering'... uncounted. The radical, conspirital element, Walt... that would be YOU!
We kill NOT 800,000 dogs but over a million!
DON'T BE PART OF THE RECKLESS and IRRESPONSIBLE OPPOSITION
(including misguided cops)
SUPPORT AB 1634 to address the problem.
Breeders for Responsible Laws |  |  | |  |
| | my posts | my page | msg me | gift me | become pals | [notify] |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
J P
A DOG is for- LIFE. |
| | Barked: Mon Apr 23, '07 11:22am PST | | | | | | I think almost every dogster is concerned about the dogs killed in shelters. This bill is obviously a stab at dealing with that. However I won't be happy with any bill that targets individual dog owners without taking care of the puppymills and mass commercial breeders. It is just shoving buyers in their direction, and I am sure they are all too happy to supply.
You want to see who will be affected by AB 1634?
Puppymills will. They will profit, and the number of dogs suffering in cages will continue to grow.
People who want puppies are not going to go to the shelter. They are going to go on the internet and have a puppy shipped. Some of these people will in turn discard that puppy in a couple of years time, as the mills do not screen their buyers. The cycle continues and the shelters remain just as crowded.
You can not bring in legislation that will work to help keep the shelter population down without addressing commercial breeding first. You are just substituting one kind of suffering for another.
In all of those proposals and negotiations was the nationwide problem of commercial breeding ever addressed? It seems obvious to me it should have been at the top of the list. | | | | |
| | my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals | [notify] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Breeze
486094 |
| | Barked: Mon Apr 23, '07 12:56pm PST | | | [notify] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Murphy
526121 |
| | Barked: Mon Apr 23, '07 1:09pm PST | | | | | | Permission to cross post is granted
AB 1634 SHOULD BE LABELED THE "CALIFORNIA PET EXTERMINATION ACT".
AB 1634 WILL NOT MAKE ANY ANIMALS HEALTHY.
AB 1634, even as amended on 4/17/07, will do nothing to make any California pets healthy. It does not address the root causes of shelter euthanasia. AB 1634 will cause serious financial harm to this State and to its law abiding citizens, and will lead to the extermination of most purebred dogs and cats in California within 10 years, or perhaps within 15 years for those long-lived breeds who may still have the privilege of being born today before their parents are neutered. The extermination of all purebred dogs and cats is not healthy for anyone - not for dogs, or cats, or people. If this bill passes in California, it will be proposed in other states, and all of its negative consequences will impact those other states. This bill is bad for people and pets in all jurisdictions and should be defeated.
"ONE GENERATION AND OUT" - IT WILL HAPPEN IF THIS BILL PASSES.
Wayne Pacelle, who is now the President of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a supporter of this bill, said over ten years ago in Animal People News: "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ... One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."
PUREBRED DOGS AND CATS ARE A GOOD THING AND SHOULD BE TREASURED AND PRESERVED.
Breeders of purebred dogs and cats provide the California pet loving population with a consistently reliable source of well-bred, well-socialized, and healthy pets. AB 1634 will eliminate this source of healthy pets for California pet owners, and we will be left only with the feral cats and mongrel dogs that now populate our shelters and their euthanasia chambers.
FERAL CATS AND MONGREL DOGS MAKE UP THE BULK OF THE ANIMALS KILLED IN OUR SHELTERS - NOT PUREBRED DOGS AND CATS - AB 1634 WON'T CHANGE THAT.
Feral cats and mongrel dogs have no owners who will comply with any of the provisions of any spay/neuter law, and feral cats and mongrel dogs will not be spayed or neutered under this bill. Feral cats and mongrel dogs will not pay fines for their intact existence under this bill. Feral cats and mongrel dogs will continue to breed in our streets, alleys, fields, industrial parks, schoolyards, parks, nature preserves, and all of the other open areas throughout California where they now live. Their many feral kittens and mongrel puppies will continue to populate and repopulate our animal shelters. Their many feral kittens and mongrel puppies will continue to be euthanised in our animal shelters. The care and euthanasia costs incurred by our animal shelters who deal with these feral cats and mongrel dog populations will not be reduced by this bill. AB 1634 does nothing to deal with the problems of those unmanaged populations of feral cats and mongrel dogs.
I have nothing against feral cats or mongrel dogs - I love them too, and have had them, and still have them, as pets, and they are all neutered by my choice. But I understand that feral cats and mongrel dogs cannot be compared to purebred dogs and purebred cats, and they should not be the reason purebred dogs and purebred cats become extinct in California or anywhere else.
PUREBRED DOGS AND CATS ARE NOT THE SOURCE OR THE CAUSE OF SHELTER EUTHANASIA PROBLEMS
THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIONS REMAIN TO AB 1634 WITH RESPECT TO PUREBRED DOGS AND CATS UNDER AB 1634:
122336.2. (a)(1) - "INTACT PERMITS" FOR BREEDERS
MOST BREEDERS OF PUREBRED DOGS AND PUREBRED CATS WON'T QUALIFY FOR "BREEDER PERMITS".
Most breeders of purebred dogs and purebred cats do not actively breed all of their animals all of the time. Most purebred dog and purebred cat breeders breed their animals only occasionally, cautiously, and with the goal of producing healthy purebred animals for the show market or the much larger pet market. Many breeders maintain their breeding animals and retired show animals intact so that they may be bred in the future. Many share their animals with others who breed the same species to maintain and improve bloodlines.
Under this bill, while a few breeders of purebred dogs and purebred cats may be able to demonstrate that they are "active" breeders (in those jurisdictions which actually allow breeding and issue breeding permits), many breeders will not be able to demonstrate that they are in fact "doing business and licensed as a breeder" under 122336.2.(a)(1), especially in those jurisdictions which don't allow any breeding of dogs or cats of any kind.
Because most breeders of purebred dogs and purebred cats don't breed their animals all of the time, under AB 1634 their purebred animals will have to be neutered, even in jurisdictions that allow breeding, and even if they are rare breeds needed to maintain healthy purebred bloodlines. As more purebred animals are neutered, more bloodlines will become concentrated, and more and more genetic diversity will be lost. Genetic diversity is healthy - loss of genetic diversity is not.
122336.2. (a)(2) - "INTACT PERMITS" FOR PUREBRED DOGS AND CATS
INTACT PERMITS WILL BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN FOR PUREBRED DOGS, AND IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN FOR PUREBRED CATS.
Under Section 122336.2.(a)(2), "intact permits" MAY be available to SOME purebred dogs, but are NOT AVAILABLE to ANY purebred cats. In 10 years "intact permits" will be a moot issue, since by then all purebred dogs and cats will have been neutered, and in 10 to 15 years all purebred dogs and cats will be dead. California pet owners will then only have feral cats and mongrel dogs available to them as pets - and feral cats and mongrel dogs do not make consistently reliable good pets. The extermination of purebred dogs and cats is not healthy for anyone - not for dogs, or cats, or people.
VERY FEW INTACT PERMITS FOR ADULT PUREBRED DOGS CAN OR WILL BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 122336.2.(a)(2), WHICH REQUIRES THAT A DOG COMPLY WILL ALL SUBSECTIONS (A), (B), AND (C).
Only a relatively small number of the purebred dogs who participate in shows or events will be able to qualify for ALL of the requirements of Section 122336.(a)(2) subsections (A), (B), and ©(C). Not all purebred owners of dogs show or compete with their dogs all the time. Permits may be obtainable by some of those people who own ADULT purebred dogs who are now actively being shown, or now actively competing in events, or that are now acting as guide dogs, service dogs, or search and rescue dogs. However, when those intact permitted ADULT dogs retire, they will have to be neutered, and their bloodlines will die. When those intact permitted dogs eventually ALL DIE there will be no more of any of these dogs. Within 15 years, when these remaining intact permitted ADULT dogs die off, all purebred dogs will cease to exist in the State of California. All of the young they may have produced will all be neutered, and THE PUREBRED BLOODLINES OF ALL OF THESE ADULT PUREBRED DOGS WILL DIE.
NO ADULT PUREBRED CATS CAN OBTAIN INTACT PERMITS.
Adult cats do not compete in events, and are not guide dogs, service dogs, or search and rescue dogs. Because they are cats, not dogs, adult cats cannot possibly meet all of the requirements of Section 122336.2.(a)(2), subsections (A), (B), and (C), AND NO ADULT CATS WILL EVER RECEIVE AN INTACT PERMIT. All adult purebred cats that are not actively being bred will have to be neutered. When the adult purebred cats that are being shown die, THE PUREBRED BLOODLINES OF ALL OF THESE ADULT PUREBRED CATS WILL DIE.
NO INTACT PERMITS WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANY YOUNG PUREBRED DOG OR CAT.
No owner of a young purebred dog or cat who is not a "breeder" will be able to obtain an intact permit, since no 4 month old dog or cat can qualify for ALL of the requirements that are required under Section 122336.2.(a)(2), subsections (A), (B), and (C).
NO 4 MONTH OLD PUREBRED DOG OR CAT CAN QUALIFY FOR ANY OF THESE INTACT PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.
Puppies and kittens are just babies, and at 4 months are just beginning to learn social skills. No 4 month old puppy or kitten is "in training" or "competing" for anything other than toys, food, and their owners' affections. No 4 month old puppy or kitten is shown, they do not compete in show or sporting events, they are not trained to compete, they are not in the process of earning any titles, they are not being trained as guide dogs, service dogs, or search and rescue dogs. Since no 4 month old puppy or kitten can meet ALL of these requirements, no 4 month old puppy or kitten can qualify for an "intact permit", they will ALL have to be neutered. THE PUREBRED BLOODLINES OF ALL THESE PUREBRED PUPPIES AND KITTENS WILL DIE WITH THEM.
THE PERMIT PROVISIONS ARE A SHAM - LOCAL JURISDICTION INTACT PERMITS EXPIRE BY JANUARY 1, 2009 UNDER SECTION 122336.1.(e)
“(e) Any person who, on or after April 1, 2008, is in possession of any document issued by the local jurisdiction or its authorized animal control agency that permits the owner to possess an unaltered cat or dog shall be deemed in compliance with this act until the document expires, or January 1, 2009, which ever occurs first. “
IF YOU DIDN'T REALIZE IT BEFORE, YOU SHOULD REALIZE IT BY NOW - SOME ANIMAL RIGHTS EXTREMISTS ACTIVELY SEEK THE END OF DOMESTIC PETS, AND AB 1634 IS DESIGNED TO HELP BRING ABOUT THAT GOAL. HERE'S WHAT SOME OF THEM HAVE SAID PUBLICLY ABOUT PET OWNERSHIP:
"In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. .... But it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive."
-PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners?
"I don’t use the word "pet." I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal." For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance."
-Ingrid Newkirk, PETA vice-president, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.
"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership."
-Elliot Katz, President, In Defense of Animals, "In Defense of Animals," Spring 1997
"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the first step ... In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'"
-New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog! February 1991, p.20
"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles -- from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it."
-John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic, PETA, 1982, p.15.
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear..... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist."
-John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic, PETA 1982, p.15.
"As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, they [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves."
-PETA's Statement on Companion Animals
"The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats ... If people want toys they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship they should seek it with their own kind."
-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, "Animals," May/June 1993
"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV."
-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.
"Pet ownership is an abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation."
-Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA, Washingtonian, August 1986
AB 1634 WILL LEAD TO THE RAPID AND INTENTIONAL EXTINCTION OF OUR PUREBRED DOGS AND PUREBRED CATS.
AB 1634 DOES NOTHING TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH OF ANY ANIMAL.
AB 1634 NEEDS TO BE DEFEATED. PLEASE DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO AND STOP AB 1634.
Thank you. | | | | |
| | my posts | my page | msg me | gift me | become pals | [notify] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
♥- Francis CGC
Support Winograd- NO KILL not MSN |
| | Barked: Mon Apr 23, '07 1:53pm PST | | | | | | Well said MURPHY!
Go to these website to find out how this proposed legislation is flawed.
http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/CA_action_center.cfm# contact
http://www.theanimalcouncil.com/
http://www.naiatrust.org/
http://www.saveourdogs.net/
http://www.noab1634.com/
http://action.alleycat.org/c.mmL3KgN3 LzH/b.806667/k.9ED9/Action_Center/siteapps/advocacy/ActionItem.aspx? c=mmL3KgN3LzH&b=806667&aid=8393
http://www.cfa.org/exhibitors/CFA-B &Pletter-reCAAB1634.pdf
Online petition against
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/414897802?ltl=117 6479489 | | | | |
| | my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals | [notify] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Austin
GET THE BUNNY! |
| | Barked: Tue Apr 24, '07 12:18am PST | | | | | | it's been said, but I think it bears repeating. You can NOT show a dog in AKC under the age of 6 MONTHS. It is unheard of for a 6 month old puppy to complete a conformation championship. Also, not every person who shows their dog breeds their dog. A lot of us are ordinary dog owners, who happen to enjoy the sport of purebred dogs. To require these folks to pay $500 a year to just own a showdog is ludicrous.
Maybe if AKC/UKC could work with the government to institute a kennel inspection program, to visit individual breeders and inspect the dogs, show records, and just interview the breeders before granting a breeders' license, that might work. The inspectors would have to be knowledgeable dog folks, though, bureaucrats won't do. I also think the catch-all registries should be outlawed, and the sale of pets in stores or newspapers.
Anyone deliberately breeding mixes should be fined. It would be difficult to track this, but if they monitored online classifieds, the paper, and bulletin boards, I bet they would catch a lot of fish.
Purebreds would have to be registered with an approved registry, AKC or UKC, and breeders would have to be able to show proof of enforcement of their contracts. Different breeds have different ideal spay/neuter guidelines, and the individual breeder would be responsible for enforcing that. For instance, RR's shouldn't be fixed before one year of age.
AKC needs to toughen their registration laws and stop pandering to the millers.
That's all off the top of my head. BOL. But it's just some ideas I have, probably not very realistic. | | | | |
| | my posts | my page | msg me | gift me | become pals | [notify] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ida
belly rubs, plz |
| | Barked: Tue Apr 24, '07 12:43am PST | | | | | | "Those exemptions will be gone within 10 years if this bill passes. "
I assume you received this as an e-mail or got it off a website and are not its original author, but I take exception with this statement. Now, I don't know anything about the proposed MSN law in California, or how similar laws have worked or not worked in other states or countries. However my gut instinct is "making people alter their dogs and cats = good"; my heart does not break for anyone who doesn't get to breed their pet and I do not believe breeding a companion animal is a right.
So what I'm asking is (and forgive me if this is redundant; I haven't read others' responses yet): what's the precedent for this alarmist statement? HAS THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED in places with MSN laws? What ACTUAL EVIDENCE is there for "within ten years etc."?
While I'm no fan of PETA (no fan at all) I'm far, far more willing to trust associations of veterinarians and the humane society. I don't mean to be rude and I hope my tone isn't taken as confrontational (because I know you and other people opposed to this law do so because you're passionate about your animals) but based on this post I can't see any logical, legitimate reason why it would be bad. The only real argument in the essay you posted seems based in hysteria (I hope that's not too strong a word) and speculation. I don't see any persuasive evidence, sorry. Unless there really is something much more sinister afoot--and I admit I haven't read about this bill--I hope it passes.
But I'm glad you care enough about it one way or another to try to persuade people. | | | | |
| | my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals | [notify] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Katrina- Rescues
525131 |
| | Barked: Tue May 1, '07 3:06pm PST | | | | | | This law is a great idea for anyone who has ever rescued!
If you rescued a pet, it is because you love the animal enough to want it to live out a humane life. As long as we have a surplus of pets, we are committed to killing. The only way to stop the killing is to ensure that we have enough responsible households for them. This is just not the case. We have 3-10 million surplus animals in this country. As long as we continue to cater to the special interests of the AKC, and the breeders, we are not giving those animals a chance at life. We are spending millions of taxpayer dollars to kill them. It is financially as well as morally irresponsible to continue doing business this way.
 | | | | |
| | my posts | my page | msg me | gift me | become pals | [notify] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
  | (Page 4 of 4: Viewing entries 31 to 38)
1 2 3 4 |
|
 |
My Account
