Mandatory spay/neuter and compromise

[runamuk]

***permission to forward***

CA AB 1634 has passed out of committee. It will now go on to the appropriationscommittee. 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

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

 

[Miniv]

What exactly does this law state? From what little I can figure out, I'm getting ready to be upset but don't want to jump the gun either!

MA

 

[disneyhorse]

How exactly is this law worded? Is there a fee for maintaining a breeding animal? I would imagine it is not to END breeding of cats and dogs, just limit it somehow.

I live in California and have not heard ANYTHING about this. I would assume it would be in our newspapers and on the local news?

It sounds like it is MANY steps away from being "passed" and remember the vast majority of laws and bills do NOT get passed.

There is not enough information in your post; it is very biased and does not examine both sides. It is merely written to inflame.

Andrea

 

[runamuk]

sorry having major issues getting on here......

http://www.legislature.ca.gov/cgi-bin/port...4&sess=0708

that is the bill

here is a letter of opposition from akc

http://www.akc.org/pdfs/canine_legislation...ter_ASM_B_P.pdf

This bill is very similar to what happened earlier this year in Louisville the difference is it will be statewide.

 

[disneyhorse]

I would be in favor of the bill; if I was breeding and showing cats or dogs I would be in support of reducing random breeding of mutts.

Our local animal shelters offer discounted licensing fees of neutered/spayed pets... I believe it is $30 for a spay/neuter and $200 for intact animals.

Monies raised goes towards "the cause" and that is fine.

I expect there to be lots of money involved with breeding animals... registration, showing, veterinary costs, and sure, a permit to have a breeding animal is fine with me too.

Lots of people want to just "breed to breed" or feel it is okay to "make pets" but I personally don't feel that way and have no problem with people putting their money where their mouth is if they feel they must breed.

Andrea

 

[MagicTheMini]

A bill like this has already been passed in some places. In the unincorporated areas of LA county they have the mandatory spay and neuter laws already along with mandatory microchipping. I thought that they were voting on it here in Riverside county, but I cannot find when or the results if they already have.

I agree with Andrea. Those who are breeding to make quality show puppies will pay and continue to do so. Those who are in it "make some money" or because puppies are cute, will hopefully stop.

I don't really see a puppy shortage here in CA. I do see a quality puppy shortage, but maybe that will change with this law. If quality breeders can get the money they deserve for their puppies then they will be more likely to breed quality puppies.

While this is probably not the answer to problem, maybe it will help. I think if they actually just enforced the laws in place, there would be much less of a problem. L

 

[runamuk]

Just thought I'd let everyone know. If it goes through it wont be too tough to later include miniature horses, miniature cows, miniature sheep, goats, etc.......and from the sounds of it people won't mind paying 200, 500, 1000 per intact animal in licensing fees. You say mares can't easily be spayed well that will be too bad.

Once these laws are put in place it is extremely easy to add to them.

The show breeders are actually the ones fighting this type of bill as it makes it very difficult for them.

Actually I remember when they started talking about requiring auto insurance and many people did not believe it would ever work........I do believe every state now requires liability insurance

: I also know that requiring people to wear seatbelts, helmets etc...was again not going to happen ...there are only a couple places where helmets aren't required and Idaho finally gave in and requires seatbelts now

:

: My state has taken it even farther and now parents must put all kids under 80 lbs in car/booster seats.........

I guess we do need our government to tell us how to live even though we fought to help free other countries from governments that were doing the same thing

 

[penny]

You can agree with this bill all you want...It is PETA backed and is meant to eventually stop all breeding..period.....next will be the agriculture animals (of which horses are part of)...they'll tell you because there are so many horses overrunning the country(because those 100,000 or so horses being slaughtered each year are adding up) they must limit or stop breeding of them.... Government is NOT out for your best interest....Why not use all the money to educate those that can't afford to send their children to school or even feed them right...Stop abuse of children and drug use....I could go on and on....People are going to breed no matter what....their just ignorants who think they'll make a few fast bucks..They don't know the background of their animals or what health problems there might be in the breed, or breeds, as in the case of mutts....and those DESIGNER dogs?????? Their MUTTS too....

UGH....have to climb down off the soapbox now.....getting dizzy from the height...

 

[Whitestar]

Working on the front line of this subject as I run a non profit vet clinic & shelter, & work hand in hand with local pounds, I personally stopped breeding my own top quality miniature aussie pups after getting this job & I endorse mandatory spay neuter laws. We have too many people not fixing their dogs, especially large breed dog owners that end up having 8-15 puppies that they give away/sell with no thought to what happens to the puppy, only that it isnt their problem anymore, ( of course those pups go on to have huge litters & soon one unspayed female is reponsible for hundreds of dogs) or taking them to the pound to be "adopted" when they 9out of 10 are put to sleep....or bringing them to shelters & throwing a huge fit when we dont take them in on the spot, with no offer of any type of donation to help with their care, because again somehow or another it has become everyones problem but the owner of the female dog. Most shelters are run off donations which do not seem to be plentyfull anymore, but dogs & cats being put to sleep by thousands every day is.... I also use to raise & show Pomeranians & had no problem getting good prices for my puppies because I was a good steward of the breed, I made sure I sold healthy happy Vet checked & vaccinated pups to good homes, so I wouldnt have a problem with paying a breeders fee if I was to continue to breed. You can argue a solution to the overcrowding at the pound is to offer FREE spay or neuter service to pet owners to get them to finally do something about the baby machines. But think about it, the only way you can do free spay neuter is for someone to pay & frankly you will see your taxes rise so you can pay for other peoples dogs vet bills but you are all paying right now for all of this by tax dollars to run local pounds that capture, hold, take care & usually euthanise all these unwanted pets. So perhaps if goverment taxed all of us more to give it to the non profit clinics like us so that we can pay vets, techs & supplies to offer it free, then that would reduce the numbers...NOT. We had a gentleman step forward last year to give $10,000 to offer free spays to area residents, all the people had to do was pay the $8.00 rabies vacc required by law to spay neuter a pet & frankly the people getting those FREE services complained & complained that it didnt include the Rabies fee.

As far as the law going on to other animals, well when we see pounds full of miniature horses, cows & other livestock being put to sleep by the hundreds then I guess that will need to be looked at. Anyone that thinks that there is not a HUGE problem in the unwanted pet population in the US just needs to spend one day at their local pound or shelter volunteering. And I can promise you that the number of pets euthanised is not going down, if the numbers look reduced it is because more non profit agencys have stepped fornard to put in shelters, but most of us work on a shoe string. We do not get any money from the city, or state, it is only through hard work & fundraising. Sometimes we are too busy taking care of all these pets to have the rummage sales & bake sales that we need to keep money in the bank

I challange all of you to spend one week volunteering at your local shelter or pound before you make up your mind about this. When you are on the front lines, things look a lot different. I realize as Americans, none of us like to have any type of law pushed on us, but sometimes the laws are not so bad...

 

[Buckskin gal]

Sounds like a good way to stop some of this overbreeding of cats and dogs who then run around destroying other peoples property, pooping on other peoples lawns, keeping people awake with the barking and meowing etc. they can do. IF people were all responsible for their pets it wouldn't be necessary to have laws like this. It is when overpopulation of animals cause others problems, action has to be taken. As for minis, and other small breeds of animals coming under this law...I would doubt it because they are not free to roam as so many dogs and cats do and cause the problems that dogs, especially, can. I think it would be great for pet [dog breeders too] people to be responsible owners and spay/neuture their cats and dogs then there wouldn't be the fuss to enact laws that effect even the very best of breeders. I am sure AKC hates to see a law like this because it would do harm to the money they make. People should have rights but along with those rights should come the responsibilty of keeping that pet from being a nuiscance to someone else.

I would love to see proof that PETA is the one behind this bill because I was told it is just a lot of upset people who are tired of the animals who cause problems for others. Oh well, everyone can still have their pet just have to be responsible fo it not breeding.

 

[Minimor]

Well, I've read through the end result of the law in Louisville, and I have to say that I am just very, very glad I do not live in Louisville. I do not see that being a good law at all, for many reasons.

The issue I have with this proposed law being posted about above is--from what I can tell it is going to have a major impact on breeders. To have their breeding animals they will have to pay hefty licensing fees. No way around it for them, because if the breeder is reputable they probably already have a kennel license (assuming one is required--many places to have bylaws in effect stating that anyone breeding dogs or cats must be licensed, I don't suppose all do). They're already on file as having multiple animals & therefore if this new law is passed the authorities know who to look for when it comes to enforcing the law. Reputable breeders will pay dearly to stay in business. The little breeder who raises a couple litters a year from the family dog doesn't bother declaring their breeding business to the city/county/municipality and so doesn't pay any fees. Unless someone turns them in, the law won't affect them.

Then there's the guy down the road who gets a few barn cats, throws them out into the barn to catch mice & doesn't bother to spay, neuter or even feed them. Lo & behold they multiply and pretty soon the neighbors--who do feed, neuter and spay!--are well supplied with cats from this guy. (Yep, I have a neighbor like that. Actually a couple of them. And yes, I'm well supplied on cats, all of which are "fixed" and well fed.) Even if this law were brought into effect here, it would have no impact at all on this neighbor, and the hundreds of people like him in this province. It wouldn't even occur to him that the new law should apply to him.

Or there's the person who gets a stray female kitten, takes her in & grows her up. Plans to get her spayed but can't afford it, can't afford it & still can't afford it. Next thing you know that cat has 4-6 kittens, and then there are even more cats which must be given away or which may stay with their original home, only now there are more cats that the owner can't afford to neuter & spay...the law isn't going to affect these people. They can't afford to neuter/spay, and they certainly aren't going to be going in to license their pets...

So, like the letter states above--the reputable breeders close up shop, but the other individuals keep churning out unwanted pets. Really, how does this law help??

I just don't see it as a good thing and yes, PETA and HSUS (which is pretty much like PETA--it is not like your local SPCA) are behind these laws.

 

[anoki]

I've been reading this post since it first went up....just didn't know how to respond....but Minimor has said exactly how I felt.

Look, I am all for spaying & neutering, that isn't the problem. I've been in the 'dog show world' for the past year and a half, and it has really opened up my eyes to those that are in the 'game'. The large majority of them are responsible breeders (yes, I know they aren't ALL that way...there are always those in it for the bucks, there is in EVERYTHING animal related or not). The resonsible breeders are the people that are going to get screwed in this type of bill. They are the ones ALREADY following the laws and paying for kennel licenses, etc, etc.....The ones who SHOULD be paying for the proper set up don't...THEY are the ones in it for the money!! And a bill/law won't change that....they will still skirt around having to pay.

I understand what these types of bills are trying to do....but I don't see it accomplishing what it is meant to accomplish....weeding out those that can't be bothered spaying/neutering and getting rid of puppy mills. Instead making those who are resposible with their breeding pay through the nose even more....the puppy mills will still be out there....they can't find them on a good day, why would a bill/law make it any easier....and those byb who are just in it for some more money....well they'll just keep things hush, hush, and unless someone turns them in, they'll get away with it. I can't see this helping out with the puppy mill issue either....I think it just plays right into their hands....

but that's jmo.

~kathryn

 

[Reijel's Mom]

So, for those in the know on this bill, give us some figures. How much for a licensing fee for a breeding dog or cat? Is this a one time fee or every year, or every litter, or how does this work?

Please stick with the current facts of this particular bill, not wild assumptions about what will happen in the future.

 

[runamuk]

I am not 100% in the know...but I have spoken with people who already in certain cities are paying upwards of $200 per intact animal per year. This fee is charged even if they aren't breeding that animal. This is the problem when they leave a "blank" space where the fee's are decided by the local animal control....those fees can be arbitrary depending on how "animal rights" the person making decisons is.

OK lets take this another direction for just a minute.

You are a professional handler and yes you get paid to keep these show animals in your care. Can you truly afford/and keep clients....if you suddenly have to pay 50, 100, 200 per animal? Do you truly believe most of your clients will happily pay you that much more? or will they take their business elsewhere?

Eukanuba is one of the premier shows in the world of dogs. This show is very likely to lose entries or it will have to be moved. The loss to the local economy is going to be huge (millions).

This particular bill has a nice big open hole regarding USDA inspected kennels.......it basically gives those "puppymills" everyone is so uptight about an invitation to continue. The commercial kennels as long as they maintain their commercial license are exempt, the way the law reads............yet the show fancier who has a prospect and say 1 litter every few years, is going to pay to license those dogs.

So the person who is responsible and has maybe 5-6 intact dogs, and is actively showing is going to be penalized. The person who holds a USDA kennel license and breeds 30, 40, 50 dogs twice a year gets a free pass. The person who never has paid to license their dogs will continue to not license their dogs until they are caught at which time their dogs will enter the system contributing to the problem not decreasing it. CA already has a shortage of dogs/puppies ........it is another state where importations are UP people cannot get those small dogs so they import them from mexico and other foreign countries.

When you pass laws like this you turn the ownership of pets into a blackmarket item. Those who don't follow the rules will continue and those who do will quit or move until there is nowhere left to move.

 

[Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis]

Well while I dont show dogs i never did understand why an animal HAS to be intact for you to show them- I realize many want them to be to breed them but I am sure there are those that don't care if they are or not.

I also find it interesting that these kind of threads always seem to pit breeder against breeder,

Who is to say who is "better or worse"

the show breeder who has litters trying to get that perfect dog? The breeder who is using the dogs to make money and pay there bills ( I know lots of people who breed dogs and truth be told there is money in it sometimes good money many do it to support there horse habit) The person who has a couple of litters just to have them.

All of those are selling the resulting pups and just like the mutt down the street from joe schmo.. the pup sold on limited registration can just as easily make as many pups and sell for money as the mutts down the street

Who is to say who is more ethical when in fact all are breeding to breed just that there personal reasons for doing so may or may not be different if that makes sense?

Most everyone who breeds ANY animal feels there animals are superior in some way be it a purebred show dog or horse or a mutt or grade horse, most can justify it any way they wish that they are doing the right thing the ethical thing and everyone else is not.. but when it comes right down to it are ANY Of us doing the ethical thing breeding any type of animal? And who are we to truly judge others on what and how and why they breed if we are doing it ourselves?

I dont really have an answer and not sure how I feel about the bill I just always find these type of threads interesting

: sure makes me think about what is going on in my little corner of the world and my own decisions and the effect they have

:

 

[runamuk]

Well while I dont show dogs i never did understand why an animal HAS to be intact for you to show them- I realize many want them to be to breed them but I am sure there are those that don't care if they are or not.

I also find it interesting that these kind of threads always seem to pit breeder against breeder,

Who is to say who is "better or worse"

the show breeder who has litters trying to get that perfect dog? The breeder who is using the dogs to make money and pay there bills ( I know lots of people who breed dogs and truth be told there is money in it sometimes good money many do it to support there horse habit) The person who has a couple of litters just to have them.

All of those are selling the resulting pups and just like the mutt down the street from joe schmo.. the pup sold on limited registration can just as easily make as many pups and sell for money as the mutts down the street

Who is to say who is more ethical when in fact all are breeding to breed just that there personal reasons for doing so may or may not be different if that makes sense?

Most everyone who breeds ANY animal feels there animals are superior in some way be it a purebred show dog or horse or a mutt or grade horse, most can justify it any way they wish that they are doing the right thing the ethical thing and everyone else is not.. but when it comes right down to it are ANY Of us doing the ethical thing breeding any type of animal? And who are we to truly judge others on what and how and why they breed if we are doing it ourselves?

I dont really have an answer and not sure how I feel about the bill I just always find these type of threads interesting

: sure makes me think about what is going on in my little corner of the world and my own decisions and the effect they have

:

The reason conformation dogs must be intact is that conformation classes are for the judging/evaluation of breeding stock

: this doesn't mean every conformation animal goes on to a breeding career.

I agree that when one type of breeder pits themselves against another it causes more problems....I am not sure how to fix that issue.

I think the same can be said about making money breeding and selling horses, I know plenty of people who make good money selling horses and they also never show. Yet those who do show will say there is no money to be made in horses.

:

As a society we have become so judgmental and we all want to be "right" and what many don't realize is we are all someone elses other guy and in the proccess we are losing the right to make our own choices with regards to owning animals. What most areas need is enforcement of existing laws not new laws.

 

[anoki]

Lisa,

please don't feel that I think that ALL byb are wrong....I don't!!!! There are some really nice dogs out there that are from byb!!!!

There are some 'breeders' in this area who are basically 'puppy mills' but their dogs aren't in tiny cages, and everything seems soo 'happy'. They come across as 'byb' to people, when really they're not. They kinda get my hackles up, because other than the fact that their dogs are kept in a better environment, they are no better than puppy mills.

the show breeder who has litters trying to get that perfect dog? The breeder who is using the dogs to make money and pay there bills ( I know lots of people who breed dogs and truth be told there is money in it sometimes good money many do it to support there horse habit) The person who has a couple of litters just to have them.

I don't feel any of these type are any better than the next!

:

What most areas need is enforcement of existing laws not new laws.

And I agree with that!!!

~kathryn