This has now passed to the Senate by a one vote margin… If you are from California, please now is the time to contact your Senator and express your voice about this bill. Also, it has been learn that Pedigree and its parent company also support this bill, please consider a boycott of their products and telling them that you are disappointed at their support of this bill.
For information about this bill go to http://petpac.net
Also remember if you are not in California, remember that if this passes here, your state could be next. This bill will only hurt the responsible Hobby Breeder and will NOT stop or reduce unwanted pets… It will not stop people breeding for profit as in a Back Yard Breeder as if caught they will just dump the dogs... this will not encourage responsible ownership... and least you think that as long as a responible breeder can just get an exemption for their in-tact dogs, think again.. 1st there is the cost.. 2nd it is built into the bill a date where even this will stop
Also, if you think this doesn't effect you, remember "Divide and Conquer". If pet owners do not stand together against anti-pet legislation then we will lose our rights one bill at a time.
I read the bill and I am not sure how it is a bad thing. With the 1 million + animalls being put down every year I would think this would be helpful. I can see why someone who bred would not agree.
I can't really see how you can be so sure it won't stop or reduce unwanted pets since it has not been tried before. And breeders can get a exemption as long as they prove the dog should be bred or is showable. Which are the ones who should be breeding anyway.
Puppy mills and BYB would be fined $500 per dog if caught. I think that would be a deterrant. Companies doing business with these breeders would be caught pretty easily as well. As far as the additonal cost, if it is a hobby and you are doing it for the love of the breed and not making any money anyway, what difference does it make? Not to mention, with the decrease in BYB and puppy mills you can increase the price of the puppies to cover the cost since you have decreased competition.
I think until every animal being born has a home something must be done to fix the overpopulation problem we have. I applaud California for, once again, being the first to make changes.
I have an issue with this as well. Bills like this will eventually make it virtually impossible for the average income household to own a dog because there will be so few of them and prices will go up. Which in turn will create a 'black market' for dogs. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for spaying and nuetering and I think more of it should be done. But there has to be a happy medium some where and I sure do wish I had the answer.
I see first hand how different the spay/nueter mentality is just from Cleveland to Columbus, Ohio. It is virtually impossibly to find puppies in our shelters because most people here spay/nueter and rescue. There are pretty much always puppies in the shelters in the Columbus area that we transport up to Cleveland so they can find forever homes, be fixed and live long healthy lives. To try and change the mentality of a whole country is HUGE. All you can do is educate one person at a time.
It's now being considered for Washington DC…it's spreading :mad:
I read the bill and I am not sure how it is a bad thing. With the 1 million + animalls being put down every year I would think this would be helpful. I can see why someone who bred would not agree.
I can't really see how you can be so sure it won't stop or reduce unwanted pets since it has not been tried before. And breeders can get a exemption as long as they prove the dog should be bred or is showable. Which are the ones who should be breeding anyway.
Puppy mills and BYB would be fined $500 per dog if caught. I think that would be a deterrant. Companies doing business with these breeders would be caught pretty easily as well. As far as the additonal cost, if it is a hobby and you are doing it for the love of the breed and not making any money anyway, what difference does it make? Not to mention, with the decrease in BYB and puppy mills you can increase the price of the puppies to cover the cost since you have decreased competition.
I think until every animal being born has a home something must be done to fix the overpopulation problem we have. I applaud California for, once again, being the first to make changes.
Do you really think that Puppy Mill will be paying? They ship into the state to pet stores? Do you really think that a BYB will pay? If caught they will dump the dogs and start over…. You are really wrong if you think this will help reduce BYB's and PM's.... And spay/neuter at 4 months is NOT in the best interest for the animals, especially large breed dogs. And the collection and "police" of this is left to the cities... oh great now they can be dog/cat police and lets not worry about real crime...? And breeders can only get an exemption till 2009... read the fine print.... and if this passes, what next?
PUBLIC EDUCATION is the answer, not laws that will not effect the real people that cause the problem. In my estimation there will be More dogs/cats dumped at shelters or just dumped....
I definitely can understand the underlying driving force behind helping control puppy mills and back yard breeders. We all know they need to be stopped & pet population control is one of the reasons they're doing this. However, there NEEDS to be a better way to legislate the real problem at hand & keep the integrity of responsible breeders that are looking to preserve breeds.
The way this legislation is written does not accomplish that. I also think it will just lead to other problems not considered…like black market for dogs, disturbing the supply/demand of pets such that it will become unaffordable for the common household.
The essence of the law is good but it needs work & further thought! Otherwise it will do more harm than good.
I definitely can understand the underlying driving force behind helping control puppy mills and back yard breeders. We all know they need to be stopped & pet population control is one of the reasons they're doing this. However, there NEEDS to be a better way to legislate the real problem at hand & keep the integrity of responsible breeders that are looking to preserve breeds.
The way this legislation is written does not accomplish that. I also think it will just lead to other problems not considered…like black market for dogs, disturbing the supply/demand of pets such that it will become unaffordable for the common household.
The essence of the law is good but it needs work & further thought! Otherwise it will do more harm than good.
Amen to the "black market" statement…. it will be like the PM's and large volume BYB's that refused to follow the AKC rules of DNA testing and started their own registries.....because they didn't want to pay the money required for DNA testing and think about this, at most shelters you do not find purebreds, it is the mix breeds that are in high supply.... responsible breeders take care of their own, as does purebred rescue organizations. In one written article by a Vet in So. California that supports this bill, he states about a certain shelter being "packed" to the ceiling with unwanted animals, however, as Lisa can tell you, her Mom was there and the most animals there were rabbits? And I wonder if he is supporting it because of the increase business for spay/neuter? And I am not saying that spay/neuter is not a good thing, but not at 4 months.....
I think we will have to agree to disagree. Public education does not seem to be working. Something has to change.
But I see your arguments, I just don't agree with them.
Amen to the "black market" statement…. it will be like the PM's and large volume BYB's that refused to follow the AKC rules of DNA testing and started their own registries…..because they didn't want to pay the money required for DNA testing and think about this, at most shelters you do not find purebreds, it is the mix breeds that are in high supply…. responsible breeders take care of their own, as does purebred rescue organizations. In one written article by a Vet in So. California that supports this bill, he states about a certain shelter being "packed" to the ceiling with unwanted animals, however, as Lisa can tell you, her Mom was there and the most animals there were rabbits? And I wonder if he is supporting it because of the increase business for spay/neuter? And I am not saying that spay/neuter is not a good thing, but not at 4 months…..
I definitely can understand the underlying driving force behind helping control puppy mills and back yard breeders. We all know they need to be stopped & pet population control is one of the reasons they're doing this. However, there NEEDS to be a better way to legislate the real problem at hand & keep the integrity of responsible breeders that are looking to preserve breeds.
The way this legislation is written does not accomplish that. I also think it will just lead to other problems not considered…like black market for dogs, disturbing the supply/demand of pets such that it will become unaffordable for the common household.
The essence of the law is good but it needs work & further thought! Otherwise it will do more harm than good.Today 02:08 PM
jys1011 - your statements are dead on - tanza you make very important points!
Why can't the legislation step up and enforce the legality of Puppy Mills and Backyard Breeder's responsibilities for AKC rules and AKC approved DNA testing by AKC approved testing facilities. I know this would involve an amazing amount of red-tape paper work, but why not? If they are willing to approve an obscure bill . . . what better an argument!
And I do agree they should revise 4 month spay/neuter to 6 months.
If a bill is going to pass anywhere, legislation (people in politics) need to be fully educated with all aspects with what they are doing to make the intelligent decisions for the "real problem".
I can't really see how you can be so sure it won't stop or reduce unwanted pets since it has not been tried before. And breeders can get a exemption as long as they prove the dog should be bred or is showable. Which are the ones who should be breeding anyway.
The reason this bill is not going to work is because it does not address the main reasons dogs are surrendered to shelters. My local shelter is working with a group of local obedience trainers, myself included, to develop a training program to help keep dogs in their homes. The shelter acknowledges that the main reason dogs are given up is Behavior Problems due mostly to lack of training. This bill will do nothing to change that and will force most people to get dogs from pet stores where they will get no support to finding and training their dog.
Many breeders and Vets especially with large breeds recommend spay/neuter at 9 months to a year…. and I don't really think you can have a "age" that fits all animals.... it has to be done depending on the animal.. IMO....
And to Dash, while you think that Public Education is not working, because it is a slow process... is "putting laws into place that take away basic independent freedom right?"....
Even if you think this is a good thing.. (which I am not sure how) but why go after the responsible breeder? Why make them pay a fee to do what they are doing because they are responsible?
The reason this bill is not going to work is because it does not address the main reasons dogs are surrendered to shelters. My local shelter is working with a group of local obedience trainers, myself included, to develop a training program to help keep dogs in their homes. The shelter acknowledges that the main reason dogs are given up is Behavior Problems due mostly to lack of training. This bill will do nothing to change that and will force most people to get dogs from pet stores where they will get no support to finding and training their dog.
Great Point Lisa, thanks for adding that… and this is true.. very true... and this alone will put more dogs in shelters unwanted and untrained
This was part of the article in the Sac Bee quoting the author for this bill.
HUH???? if his point was to stop over population of dogs, how can he say this? And he doesn't own dogs or cats…
"In its current form, AB 1634 would leave it up to cities and counties to decide whether to issue permits allowing reproduction of mixed-breed dogs, often called mutts.
During Wednesday's floor debate, however, Levine said he was willing to accept an amendment to permit the owner of a mixed-breed animal to have one litter per year"
Here is the link to the entire article...
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/209429.html
More quotes from a different article… again Huh???? and I love the part about "unspecified amount" to purchase a "breeding permit" which is in the first noted article
"Levine promised to amend the bill in the state Senate to allow any dog or cat owner to buy a permit that would allow the animal to remain unfixed and have one litter a year. The permit would have to be renewed annually.
Levine also said he would modify the bill's language to ensure that a pet owner cited for failure to have an animal spayed or neutered would not have to pay the $500 fine if he or she agreed to have the animal fixed."
Also of note was that the vote was held up by aboutn 10 hours to convience two reps that AKC has now "agreed" with this law... which if you go to the AKC site is totally incorrect...
