Spay-neuter law works in Santa Cruz

ORIGINAL: mrv

The reason I responded was to clarify for lurkers that a sweeping generalization that people who show dogs dont care about performance.  That paints as unfair a picture as claiming that all pet owners breed their dogs one time to "settle" them down.

The current legislation impacts all breeds unilaterally.  Impacting the breeding population of goldens and labs is less of an issue genetically than the same impact on dogs that have far fewer registrations annually. 

 
Well I did NOT say "people who show dogs dont care about performance".
As you have obtained all those performance champion titles, you should know that it does takes a lot of time, effort and training applied to each dog to obtain all those performance champion titles. Due to work, hobby and life commitments the vast majority of breeders simply do not have the time and interest to take on yet another thing on to their life.
AND I did mention - "Yet they are very happy to hear and really spread it around if one of their pet owners obtains a working or performance title."
It was you who added in - "people who show dogs dont care about performancedont care", that as maybe you missunderstood what I mentioned.
 
As to your comment - "all pet owners breed their dogs one time to "settle" them down", I hope you did not ment I said that for I did NOT nor did I imply it. Maybe you are referring to someone else who might have made such a comment earlier on in the thread.
 
If there is provision in the Bill that breeders can obtain Intact Permits on ALL of their breeding dogs, then how is this Bill going to impact on all breeds unilaterally, and how is it going to effect dogs that have far fewer registrations annually when their breeders can also obtain Intact Permits on ALL their breeding dogs.
 

Clarification:  when I was writing about "all pet owners"  I was intending to provide an example from another prespective.  I did not nor did I intend to attribute that comment to any one poster on this thread.
 
I do not believe the breeding exemption permits will be effective...I just dont trust that the original form of the legislation will not rear its head again in the not too distant future.
 

ORIGINAL: mrv

Clarification:  when I was writing about "all pet owners"  I was intending to provide an example from another prespective.  I did not nor did I intend to attribute that comment to any one poster on this thread.

I do not believe the breeding exemption permits will be effective...I just dont trust that the original form of the legislation will not rear its head again in the not too distant future.

 
Well that's your views and opinions not mine. From my perspective, the Bill does provide for breeders and even for pet owners involved with conformation showing plus who also train and compete in working or performance, and I do not see anywhere in the Bill that it would affect the gene pool of any breed.
 

ORIGINAL: Quincy

.... From my perspective, the Bill does provide for breeders and even for pet owners involved with conformation showing plus who also train and compete in working or performance, and I do not see anywhere in the Bill that it would affect the gene pool of any breed.

Philosophically, I feel pretty strongly that in general a dog should be titled before it is bred. But, I think there are enough special circumstances that could justify an exception that I don't particularly like this being legislated. More important, the proposed mandatory spay/neuter bill in CA does more than just require that breeding dogs be titled. It places entirely unrealistic time restrictions on that titling. In order to be exempt, the dog must title before it is 3 yrs old, and in the meantime, the burden of proof is on the owner to show that the dog is "in training". There is nothing in the legislation that explains what "in training" entails. My hunch is that in most jurisdictions the person in charge of granting exemptions will just shrug and say, "yeah, whatever" and grant exemptions to anyone who earnestly declares that they are training their dog for something. But it is certainly possible that in some jurisdictions the requirements to be considered "in training" will be sufficiently restrictive that no one will realistically be able to meet them. And if that slow to mature dog hasn't finished his championship yet, and didn't get drawn for one of the few slots in a tracking test, and isn't quite settled enough to start working livestock in a trial situation yet, then on his third birthday if off with his testicles regardless of what his potential is.
On the other hand, once a dog has earned a title, it has a two year window in which to reproduce, and then once again it's off with the reproductive organs. So the prodigy that earns her championship and is so talented that she has earned advanced herding titles and is certified in search and rescue now has two years in which to be bred. If a breeding misses, and she's slow to cycle, she could well be out of the two year window before the two year time limit is up.
The "exemptions" in this bill, don't make allowances for serious hobby breeders who really do carefully evaluate and screen their breeding stock and select only the best to continue the breed. It makes allowances for breeders who jump through hoops to earn easy rally novice titles that mean nothing about the quality of the dog within an arbitrary time frame, and then breed the dog within an equally arbitrary time frame, rather than waiting for the time when the best mating can be made, and when the best chances of placing puppies in appropriate homes exists.

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8
We are executing the dogs that are perfectly healthy and would love to live another day if they could, but they have to be executed to make room for more homeless dogs that stream in on a regular basis due to overpopulation and a lack of people that will give these animals homes.

I agree with you that euthanasia is a misnomer. Most of what happens to unadopted animals in shelters is not mercy killing - it's just killing. But your much touted Santa Cruz ordinance does not prove that mandatory spay/neuter does anything to reduce the killing. In fact, it demonstrates just the opposite. While it is apparently true that shelter killings decreased in Santa Cruz since adoption of mandatory spay/neuter, shelter killings dropped at an even greater rate throughout CA over the same time period. So, if anything, the county with mandatory spay/neuter had less success in decreasing shelter killings than the parts of the state without mandatory spay/neuter. Care to comment?

My hunch is that in most jurisdictions the person in charge of granting exemptions will just shrug and say, "yeah, whatever" and grant exemptions to anyone who earnestly declares that they are training their dog for something.

 
This is how I see things going also.  I truly think that anyone who has a vested interested, whatever that may be, in not spaying/neutering their pet, will figure out how to do so.  Fine.  I don't think those are the majority though.  What if this worked ONLY for the average person who is either ignorant or lazy?  Might that not be enough to make it worthwhile?  I've known more than a few people, males usually, who think that it's just mean to have their male dogs neutered.  Short of educating them, which would be ideal, maybe saying "it's not an option..get over it" would work.  Maybe?
 
 

While it is apparently true that shelter killings decreased in Santa Cruz since adoption of mandatory spay/neuter, shelter killings dropped at an even greater rate throughout CA over the same time period. So, if anything, the county with mandatory spay/neuter had less success in decreasing shelter killings than the parts of the state without mandatory spay/neuter. Care to comment?

 
I think that you might find oranges to apples are being compared in the recent released numbers.  First of all, 16 LHJ (basically counties) did not report their numbers for at least 2005 and the number has fallen from 58 to 44 in the last few years.  In fact, approximately 25% of the populated areas didn't report - some of these counties have large populations of a million or more (of the 36 million plus Californians).  The larger the human population, the greater the unwanted overpopulation problem.  So of course, if 24.6% haven't reported their numbers, the ending totals will be lower.
 
Secondly, many counties are now 'massaging' their reported numbers in regards to society's perceptions.  Ten years ago owner relinquished numbers were included across the board.  We didn't have the illegal drug trade connection to the dog fighting industry, so we have a lot more evidentuary euthanasias now - those are listed differently or not at all (i.e. court-ordered destruction of aggressive dogs, dog fighting rings, etc.).  Again, we're not comparing oranges and apples.
 
And finally?  Ten years ago California didn't have over 1,000 rescues pulling dogs off the kill lists at the shelters, sometimes on a daily basis.  Rescues aren't showing in the shelter numbers at all, but they pick up a LOT of the unwanted overpopulation problem, rehabiliatate, provide medical to help get an unwanted dog adoptable, etc.

I think that you might find oranges to apples are being compared in the recent released numbers. First of all, 16 LHJ (basically counties) did not report their numbers for at least 2005 and the number has fallen from 58 to 44 in the last few years. In fact, approximately 25% of the populated areas didn't report - some of these counties have large populations of a million or more (of the 36 million plus Californians). The larger the human population, the greater the unwanted overpopulation problem. So of course, if 24.6% haven't reported their numbers, the ending totals will be lower.

 
If you look at the population in 2005 it was 32,000,000.  Now taking your 36 million and removing about 25% of the population to account for the LHJ's that didn't report you end up with a population of about 27,000,000.  That is a 15% decrease from the 1995 number.
 
Now the number of dogs euth. in 1995 was about 282,000.  In 2005 that number was about 115,000.  That is a 60% decrease.  So even with the adjustments to the population base the percentage of euth. has decreased quite a bit.
 
 
[font="times new roman"][size=3]

Secondly, many counties are now 'massaging' their reported numbers in regards to society's perceptions.  Ten years ago owner relinquished numbers were included across the board.  We didn't have the illegal drug trade connection to the dog fighting industry, so we have a lot more evidentuary euthanasias now - those are listed differently or not at all (i.e. court-ordered destruction of aggressive dogs, dog fighting rings, etc.).  Again, we're not comparing oranges and apples.

[/size][/font]
 
Can you quantify those numbers.  If not it is pure conjecture.
 
[font="times new roman"][size=3]

And finally?  Ten years ago California didn't have over 1,000 rescues pulling dogs off the kill lists at the shelters, sometimes on a daily basis.  Rescues aren't showing in the shelter numbers at all, but they pick up a LOT of the unwanted overpopulation problem, rehabiliatate, provide medical to help get an unwanted dog adoptable, etc.

[/size][/font]
 
Again can this be quantified.  These rescues aren't euth. the dogs they are getting are they?  You would need to include the numbers of dogs adopted to the numbers that are adopted from the shelters therefore making the euth rate even lower.  Wouldn't these dogs get adopted no matter who has them.  After all the numbers adopted throughout the system are based on demand.
 
 


 

ORIGINAL: timsdat

I think that you might find oranges to apples are being compared in the recent released numbers. First of all, 16 LHJ (basically counties) did not report their numbers for at least 2005 and the number has fallen from 58 to 44 in the last few years. In fact, approximately 25% of the populated areas didn't report - some of these counties have large populations of a million or more (of the 36 million plus Californians). The larger the human population, the greater the unwanted overpopulation problem. So of course, if 24.6% haven't reported their numbers, the ending totals will be lower.

If you look at the population in 2005 it was 32,000,000.  Now taking your 36 million and removing about 25% of the population to account for the LHJ's that didn't report you end up with a population of about 27,000,000.  That is a 15% decrease from the 1995 number.

Now the number of dogs euth. in 1995 was about 282,000.  In 2005 that number was about 115,000.  That is a 60% decrease.  So even with the adjustments to the population base the percentage of euth. has decreased quite a bit.


[font="times new roman"][size="3"]

Secondly, many counties are now 'massaging' their reported numbers in regards to society's perceptions.  Ten years ago owner relinquished numbers were included across the board.  We didn't have the illegal drug trade connection to the dog fighting industry, so we have a lot more evidentuary euthanasias now - those are listed differently or not at all (i.e. court-ordered destruction of aggressive dogs, dog fighting rings, etc.).  Again, we're not comparing oranges and apples.

[/size][/font]

Can you quantify those numbers.  If not it is pure conjecture.

[font="times new roman"][size="3"]

And finally?  Ten years ago California didn't have over 1,000 rescues pulling dogs off the kill lists at the shelters, sometimes on a daily basis.  Rescues aren't showing in the shelter numbers at all, but they pick up a LOT of the unwanted overpopulation problem, rehabiliatate, provide medical to help get an unwanted dog adoptable, etc.

[/size][/font]

Again can this be quantified.  These rescues aren't euth. the dogs they are getting are they?  You would need to include the numbers of dogs adopted to the numbers that are adopted from the shelters therefore making the euth rate even lower.  Wouldn't these dogs get adopted no matter who has them.  After all the numbers adopted throughout the system are based on demand.

You seem to really be in a panic about this law being passed in California. Since you live on the other side of the country , may I ask why?  I would really like an honest answer to my question. 

That question's been answered Bob...numerous times likely.
Perhaps your memory fails you. Incrementalism...spreading legislation...maybe that'll help. Might be all the going round and round in circles...

The thing that I find really amazing is that all these breeders folks don't seem to give a hoot about the plight of the millions of dogs that are executed in this country every year.  It is all about them and their fancy breeds, and all the other dogs, seem to be expendable as far as they are concerned. 

 
This comment of yours, is truly insulting to me personally...you are so, so incredibly lost. 

Thank you Gina.

 
There is one other reason,  to stop the AR groups from their eventual goal of the elimination of pets.  This law is just their first step.


I think the following statement best sums up why this bill need to be fought is the following comment on a AR web site following the passage of the bill from the house.

"Now if we could only stop breeding altogether... Then we wouldn't find ourselves in the predicament of messing with animals' reproductive systems in the first place."

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

That question's been answered Bob...numerous times likely.
Perhaps your memory fails you. Incrementalism...spreading legislation...maybe that'll help. Might be all the going round and round in circles...

But if the law is "destined to fail and not reduce the number of dogs in shelters, and the number that are executed and the cost to the state", as all the opponents of the law claim , then why would the legislation spread? [&:]

ORIGINAL: timsdat

Thank you Gina.


There is one other reason,  to stop the AR groups from their eventual goal of the elimination of pets.  This law is just their first step.


I think the following statement best sums up why this bill need to be fought is the following comment on a AR web site following the passage of the bill from the house.

"Now if we could only stop breeding altogether... Then we wouldn't find ourselves in the predicament of messing with animals' reproductive systems in the first place."

I heard the exact same hysteria when the birth control pill came out. The human race would die off because of it....  Give me a break.... By the way, I thought that was addressed by the OP of this thread.

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

The thing that I find really amazing is that all these breeders folks don't seem to give a hoot about the plight of the millions of dogs that are executed in this country every year.  It is all about them and their fancy breeds, and all the other dogs, seem to be expendable as far as they are concerned. 

This comment of yours, is truly insulting to me personally...you are so, so incredibly lost. 

I am simply expressing my impression of what I am reading in the Anti 1634 mantra's, and there are many people that feel the same way about it.  Sorry it bothers you, but that is my opinion.

I think that certain individuals need to step back and take a deep breath before commenting further on this issue. I'm sure that you know who you are.

Sensationalism will not get anyone, anywhere.