CA AB 1634 PASSES COMMITTEE ON PARTISAN VOTE, 4/24/07

ORIGINAL: chmissgingerisfancy

Halleulujiah!  Thanks for sharing our good news!!  More letters of support headed to the Capital tomorrow from my rescue.

 
Why don't you post a link to your rescue? Maybe some of the folks here could help spread the word about it or help you with it if they live close by? 
 
BTW I think this law is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is an attempt to erode the rights of dog owners under the guise of helping animals. It does nothing to address commerical breeders and pet stores. In fact it will give puppy mills an advantage over responsible breeders who would need to keep showing their finished dogs in order to breed. An outstanding dog with multiple titles who could no longer compete for some reason would have to be altered rather than bred. 
 
Add the fact that local municipalities would have the authority to determine which titles and registries are acceptable and how much to charge for an intact permit fee and you have a law destined to create a crazy quilt of unequal treatment, unequal enforcement which gives advantages to commercial breeders and disadantages to responsible breeders.
 
Next: limits on the number of dogs you can own.
 
Don't believe me? San Jose is holding a meeting May 1 about limiting dog ownership to 3 adult dogs unless you have a commericial kennel permit. HUNTINGDON BEACH is considering changing its dog laws too.
 
Are you okay with being limited to 3 dogs?

ORIGINAL: polarexpress

Why don't you post a link to your rescue? Maybe some of the folks here could help spread the word about it or help you with it if they live close by? 

BTW I think this law is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It is an attempt to erode the rights of dog owners under the guise of helping animals. It does nothing to address commerical breeders and pet stores. In fact it will give puppy mills an advantage over responsible breeders who would need to keep showing their finished dogs in order to breed. An outstanding dog with multiple titles who could no longer compete for some reason would have to be altered rather than bred. 

Add the fact that local municipalities would have the authority to determine which titles and registries are acceptable and how much to charge for an intact permit fee and you have a law destined to create a crazy quilt of unequal treatment, unequal enforcement which gives advantages to commercial breeders and disadantages to responsible breeders.

Next: limits on the number of dogs you can own.

Don't believe me? San Jose is holding a meeting May 1 about limiting dog ownership to 3 adult dogs unless you have a commericial kennel permit. HUNTINGDON BEACH is considering changing its dog laws too.

Are you okay with being limited to 3 dogs?

Actually almost all cities have dog limits. Sacramento is I think 4, Citrus Heights 4, Roseville 3. And most all cities have them, which is a good think.

And most all cities have them, which is a good think.

 
I don't think it's a good thing. I have 5 dogs, a cat, a goose, 5 chickens, 11 rats, 2 ferrets, a fish, and a ball python, and you'd never know it. The dogs don't bark (more than 3 barks and they come inside) don't leave the yard, and aren't even outside for more than a few minutes at a time. They're crated when we're not home. Most of our neighbors, the first time they see us out walking our dogs, say "Oh wow!! We had no CLUE you had 5 dogs!!!"
 
So, my dogs aren't bothering anyone. As far as I know, there are no pet limits in Macon...but if there were, I'm betting they'd be lower than 5 and I'd be in violation. So all of the people around me, who have one or two dogs that bark and run around unsupervised and cause all sorts of trouble would NOT be in violation...but I would. So what are the points of limit laws? To prevent people's animals from becoming nuisances in residential areas? Obviously that wouldn't work in my area. [&:] It isn't the number of animals you have, it's how you manage them. Limit laws only hurt the responsible pet owners, who CAN handle more animals, since the irresponsible owners won't follow them anyway..and 1 dog can be just as much of a problem, if not more, than 10 dogs...it all depends on the owner.
 
Gah, all the more reason I'm moving to the country. I don't need other people deciding how many pets *I* can responsibly handle.

I refuse to breed my dogs regardless of their proven breeding qualities solely because of how terribly overbred Goldens are.

I don't see how it makes sense to refrain from breeding excellent stock.  Granted, Goldens are one of the most overbred, but I would think that if your dogs did well in all venues, and were sound of body and temperament, that those would be the dogs to breed.  My question is how to stop the others.
I don't think mandatory spay/neuter helps.  (I guarantee the drug dealers will ignore it and continue to breed their Pits, Presas, and Cane Corso's)  Perhaps it would help to have standards that breeders must meet to be deemed qualified, and require mandatory PennHip, OFA, and CERF, etc. instead.

ORIGINAL: Ratsicles

And most all cities have them, which is a good think.

I don't think it's a good thing. I have 5 dogs, a cat, a goose, 5 chickens, 11 rats, 2 ferrets, a fish, and a ball python, and you'd never know it. The dogs don't bark (more than 3 barks and they come inside) don't leave the yard, and aren't even outside for more than a few minutes at a time. They're crated when we're not home. Most of our neighbors, the first time they see us out walking our dogs, say "Oh wow!! We had no CLUE you had 5 dogs!!!"

So, my dogs aren't bothering anyone. As far as I know, there are no pet limits in Macon...but if there were, I'm betting they'd be lower than 5 and I'd be in violation. So all of the people around me, who have one or two dogs that bark and run around unsupervised and cause all sorts of trouble would NOT be in violation...but I would. So what are the points of limit laws? To prevent people's animals from becoming nuisances in residential areas? Obviously that wouldn't work in my area. [&:] It isn't the number of animals you have, it's how you manage them. Limit laws only hurt the responsible pet owners, who CAN handle more animals, since the irresponsible owners won't follow them anyway..and 1 dog can be just as much of a problem, if not more, than 10 dogs...it all depends on the owner.

Gah, all the more reason I'm moving to the country. I don't need other people deciding how many pets *I* can responsibly handle.

I'm with you on that!  I mean... my aunt cat collector with her 35 cats without shots is one thing.  Us with four well taken care of dogs is different.  We can't have any more, we're already up over the neighborhood  limit by one.  Luckily we're not in the city limits and NO ONE in our neighborhood follows the codes as far as sheds and fencing goes.  No one cares and has said anything, but if they did I'll tell them that as soon as they tear down their illegal shed in their yard and fix their fence and fence their pool (which to me is a MUCH bigger issue) then we can talk.  It'd probably shut them up.  If left to our own devices I can assure you we'd have at least one or two more papillons at home.

Next house is in the country for us! 

From the San Diego Union Tribune.
 
[linkhttp://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/editorial2/20070426-9999-lz1ed26bottom.html]http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/editorial2/20070426-9999-lz1ed26bottom.html[/link]
 

I'm not taking sides on this issue because I don't understand it's implications enough.  Like the general public, the idea of reducing the number of dogs and cats that are euthanized, is very appealing.  I see that some opposition says that it won't have that affect.  Based on the support letter from the Santa Cruz SPCA, it has been successful there though.  My real question is this.  Based on the link below of groups in support or opposition, is there something to be read into the fact that most of the support of the bill is from rescue groups and most of the opposition is from breeder clubs? 
 
 [linkhttp://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm]http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm[/link]
 

Based on the support letter from the Santa Cruz SPCA, it has been successful there though.

 
Think that it is successful in Santa Cruz.  Take a look at the shelter statistics for that county in the below post.  They are killing more and more dogs and cats each year.
 
[linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=328909]http://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=328909[/link]
 

Okay Steve, help me understand.  Is the support letter a lie?  If so, what would be the reason? 

The statistics are there.  The raw numbers don't lie.  You forget how easy it is to manipulate numbers if you don't have to show the source information.  The numbers I posted are the raw source obtained from the county web site.
 
You are asking my why a politician would lie?
 
Better yet check out the following web sites.
 
[linkhttp://www.saveourdogs.net/]http://www.saveourdogs.net/[/link]
 
[linkhttp://bluedogstate.blogspot.com/]http://bluedogstate.blogspot.com/[/link]
 
 
 
 

I know that politicians lie and I know why.  Back to my orginal question. Why are rescue groups generally in support of the bill?  I don't really need an explanation why breeder groups are in opposition.

is there something to be read into the fact that most of the support of the bill is from rescue groups and most of the opposition is from breeder clubs?

 
Yep...it means they (rescue groups and shelters) have "no" idea where all their dogs are coming from to fill up their shelters. I doubt they're euthanizing litters of purebred puppies...more likely older dogs of mixed breed, oh yeah...cats, feral and otherwise.
 
And again...many of those wouldn't be there if they enforced the rules already on the books regarding strays, licensing, etc. Dogs kept in yards, cats kept indoors, owners being held responsible when they get out,= many less unwanted litters.

They support it because it's what they want...an end to breeding of dogs and cats...period. They think that in the absence of puppies..."their" dogs will find homes. Which on another thread....we found is highly unlikely. People do not always want a rescued dog...and if they have no choice they will simply get a dog elsewhere, another state, another country...and those rescue groups will still have just as many animals without homes.

Why are rescue groups generally in support of the bill?

 
Ask the rescue groups.  Many are very anti breeder to begin with.  Ask them where they get their money from.  Ask them what their political leaning are. We know why the HSUS is the lead organization on this.  I would be willing to bet that has as something to do so many rescue groups being involved.  The head of the HSUS is for no companion animals anywhere.
 
Gina is right also.  Puppies from good breeders usually don't end up in rescue anyway. 
 
 

ORIGINAL: Ratsicles

And most all cities have them, which is a good think.

I don't think it's a good thing. I have 5 dogs, a cat, a goose, 5 chickens, 11 rats, 2 ferrets, a fish, and a ball python, and you'd never know it. The dogs don't bark (more than 3 barks and they come inside) don't leave the yard, and aren't even outside for more than a few minutes at a time. They're crated when we're not home. Most of our neighbors, the first time they see us out walking our dogs, say "Oh wow!! We had no CLUE you had 5 dogs!!!"

So, my dogs aren't bothering anyone. As far as I know, there are no pet limits in Macon...but if there were, I'm betting they'd be lower than 5 and I'd be in violation. So all of the people around me, who have one or two dogs that bark and run around unsupervised and cause all sorts of trouble would NOT be in violation...but I would. So what are the points of limit laws? To prevent people's animals from becoming nuisances in residential areas? Obviously that wouldn't work in my area. [&:] It isn't the number of animals you have, it's how you manage them. Limit laws only hurt the responsible pet owners, who CAN handle more animals, since the irresponsible owners won't follow them anyway..and 1 dog can be just as much of a problem, if not more, than 10 dogs...it all depends on the owner.

Gah, all the more reason I'm moving to the country. I don't need other people deciding how many pets *I* can responsibly handle.

 
I didn't really mean that it was a "good" thing that they have limit laws...I should have not used that word, because you are right my neighbor who has one dog is much more of a nuisance then our 4 dogs that are indoor dogs and raley bark.
 
I guess I should have said it seems like limit laws *could* be a good thing, in the way that someone couldn't keep 20 dogs in a city setting. I guess I was thinking maybe it would help the hoarding of animal issue,and people that have 15 dogs all penned up and not taken care for....
 
but then again just because there is a limit law doesnt mean any less people will neglect their animals.....so I guess there really is not a point for limit laws the more I think about them