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

Disclaimer....this is my personal opinion only and in no way reflects the views of the administration.....
 
Laws do not make for responsible people, period.  Be it pet owners, parents, citizens, whatever.  I see this law, and thankfully I don't live there and have to worry about it, as yet another intrusion by Big Brother into my personal affairs.  And I know that the enforcement of this law will be spotty....and yep, probably someone like ME who is responsible with my animals will be the one to get smacked for being "over limit" or because ONE of my six is not altered.  There is a REASON that hasn't happened yet...and it's probably a little half arsed, but it will be done in time and for now, she is perfectly safe from unwanted pregnancy since everyone ELSE in the house is altered and she certainly doesn't leave the property at a vulnerable time.
 
I made the concious decision to live in the country where my dogs wouldn't bother anyone.  My dogs are licensed and legal.  I'm easy pickings for ACO should a law such as this be adopted in my area.  So even the potential threat to my animals is enough to get my back up.  I am a responsible pet owner, but remember, my last foster litter was from SHOW DOGS.  One would think that a "valuable" show animal wouldn't be allowed to get pregnant and then LOST for months on end before owners started "looking" for her and her offspring.
 
I'm gonna get off the soap box and quit before I tick anyone off, but, as a rescue/foster person AND a pet owner, gosh darn it, this law stinks.

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.

 
I seriously don't have an educated opinion on this but I'd like to, so bear with me please.  Why are rescue groups "anti-breeder"?  If dogs from good breeders rarely end up in their rescue groups (and they shouldn't) then why would they care?
 
I assume that you know what you're talking about, but it's hard to imagine the the head of HSUS is against any companion animal.  Do you know why?
 
I'm guessing here, but I'd think that most rescue groups get their money from donations.  As for political leaning.  Do you mean Dem or Rep?  If so, are you inferring that they're generally Dems and therefore want more not less govt control?

Why are rescue groups "anti-breeder"? If dogs from good breeders rarely end up in their rescue groups (and they shouldn't) then why would they care?

I don't think they all are so I'd like to know, too.  I'm getting a dog from a rescue group.  Who runs the rescue? A woman who owns purebred dogs from a local reputable breeder who works at her training facility and is her good friend (they own dogs together).  I'm getting a purebred dog - this breeder's progeny - through the rescue group.  Personally, I prefer people like this who are in the middle ground.  They understand what is a good breeder and what is not.  They have adopted well-bred and abandoned dogs alike.  They are active in dog sports, showing, working dogs, etc.  If they read my application and genuinely think a puppy from a certain breeder is a better match than one of their foster, they will tell me so and help find the best breeder for me.  But they realize how important it is to also give back.  Improving the breed isn't JUST breeding the best genes, but also making sure the rest of the dogs have homes too.  I'm really impressed with this rescue and if I stick around, I hope to become more involved.

I know that with the first rescue group I volunteered with, many of the long-time volunteers felt that breeders were taking away homes from rescue dogs- even responsible ones. I didn't agree then, and I don't know- people who just want a pet and don't mind an adult are almost always going to go to rescue- it's MUCH cheaper, it's much more visible in most cases, and it's got a significantly lower irritation factor (at least with that group- no homecheck, just references). People who want puppies aren't willing to wait for rescue to get them all the time- so they're going to go to a breeder- my goal is to steer them to a responsible breeder. Does that mean they'll end up there? No. A lot of times they're folks sthat a responsible breeder won't approve- rescue might, or might not- and they end up with BYBs or the pet store. I want to make those second two options less accessible- by educating the BYBs into becoming at least somewhat responsible, and getting rid of the puppy mills that supply pet stores. I tihnk the vast majority of rescuers- like the population as a whole- have probably never MET a responsible breeder. The ones that have, tend not to be anti-breeder.

My experience has been the people who seek out and wait for responsible breeders generally wouldn't adopt a rescue dog anyway, at least not as their first choice.

I assume that you know what you're talking about, but it's hard to imagine the the head of HSUS is against any companion animal. Do you know why?

 
Why he is that way I don't know but here are some quotes that Wayne Parcelle (head of HSUS) has made.
 
“I don#%92t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don#%92t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I#%92m kind to them, but there#%92s no special bond between me and other animals.” Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 251.
 
"We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. . One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP of Humane Society of the US, formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Animal People, May, 1993
 
When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don#%92t want to see another dog or cat born.” Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 266.
 
 
 
These quotes where compiled from the follow web site.  [linkhttp://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/animalrightsquote.htm]http://www.naiaonline.org/articles/archives/animalrightsquote.htm[/link] 
I would recomend that you look at all contained in that page.  It is very interesting.  Also the NAIA is a very good site that exposes the AR movement and their objectives.

You know this is mearly a terminology post but the terms BYB or puppy miller really don't have any hard criteria.
 
I saw a post that stated that:   "Actually, ya know there is a full definition of "puppy mill"....it means person that breeds dogs that I dont like........"
 
It is really hard to get a definition.
 
Here are some other term that could be more descriptive.
 
"Responsible Breeder"
"Irresponsible Breeder" - BYB
[size=3]"Substandard Kennel"  - Miller
"Disreputable Breeder" - BYB or Miller
"Commercial Breeder" - follows the AWA and USDA standards
"Irresponsible Pet Ownership"  - why there are dogs in shelters
 
[/size] 

As far as euthanasia of cats and dogs goes, is it due to an overpopulation issue or a training issue?  If masses of young (less than, say 4 or 5 months) puppies and kittens are being euthanized, it is really due to the lack of homes for these pets.  If however, the bulk of euthanazied pets are more than 6 months, the problem is lack of responsible owners or a training issue (debatably the same thing).  If an 8 month old puppy is being euth'd, you cannot convince me that it didn't have a home two months ago.  Six month old puppies just don't survive out there on the streets. 

As far as euthanasia of cats and dogs goes, is it due to an overpopulation issue or a training issue?

May a little of both.  With feral cats I would think that there is an overpop problem.  Seems like every year the numbers keep growing and growing.  Even with TNT the colony numbers increase.  But you are right the vast majority of the animals had a home.  They just weren't cared for responsibly.

With feral cats I would think that there is an overpop problem.

 
Okay, I'll give you that.  But really how many homes are there for feral cats?  Add to that the criteria that most shelters have on adoptees (not saying that's a bad thing), and there goes the barn cat homes. 

From my understanding, unless you can snag a new litter at a VERY young age, there isn't much hope for domesticating feral cats.  This is why groups work so hard to catch, sputer and release so at the very least the numbers aren't constantly growing.

Glenda, I think you're right. My BF's family "has" a feral cat that they've been feeding for years, but it still runs if his family gets closer than 30 feet or so. They trap the cat every couple of years to keep it up to date on shots and it has been neutered, but there's no way in heck it could ever be a housecat.

Ocracoke Island, NC has a great catch/spay-neuter and release program.
Every store, giftshops....even gas stations have donation jars for that, and you will see many cats roaming and literally just hanging out.
The folks on the island realized quickly the benefit of keeping cats around.......less rodents.

This is why groups work so hard to catch, sputer and release so at the very least the numbers aren't constantly growing.

 
Problem is though that in my area they are trying to do this but the number of new colonies and numbers within these groups keep growing.  They don't catch them all.    There is a person in the apartment complex next to ours where she is feeding a colong of about 4 or 5 from her front door porch.  Well I just saw the other day 4 kittens about 4 months old hanging out there.  Looks like that group just doubled.  Imo seeing cats running loose encourages people that don't want their cat to just dump them since so many others are running loose anyway and someone will feed it.  Also they are being fed.  If you didn't feed the colony and let nature take it's course the population would stabilize and diminish since most all are being neutered.  Many feral proponents also want them to be classified as wild.  Is it a good idea to feed a wild population of predators?? 
 
 

All right, here's another example of how poorly thought out this bill is. As it stands, in order to for your dog to remain intact, the dog has to be registered and titled by a national kennel club. Many working breeds in California do not have affiliations with US kennel clubs, and certainly not ones that award titles. McNabs, Tatras, Koolies, New Zealand Heading Dogs, Hangin' Tree Cow Dogs, McCallums - none of these rare breeds fit in the future that these legislators are drawing for the future of the state.

Representatives of these working breeds, and other working dog handlers and trainers, have been lobbying against this bill and having face to face discussions with legislators to no avail. Obviously they have the bit in their teeth and this will pass - it went through on a partisan vote and the CA legislature is heavily weighted toward the Dems.

If they were really interested in overpopulation and not, I don't know, pandering to the sympathies of the masses, they'd put their energies into banning puppymills, commercial breeders, and storefront puppy sales.

ETA: This is a nice summary of the opposition points. http://www.ab1634.com/

ETA again (lol): I'm a rescuer and I'm NOT NOT NOT in favor of this and dread the day it spreads this way - and today CA, tomorrow the nation.

So what can a non CA resident do to help stop this bill?
 
According to the AKC website:
 
The 2006 AKC/Eukanuba National Championship, held at the Long Beach Convention Center, brought a significant economic impact of $21.7 million to the local economy. Under the provisions of AB 1634, an out-of-state dog entering California temporarily to compete would not be exempted from its provisions. This would make it virtually impossible for the vast majority of our exhibitors to attend this event. This would mean a major loss of revenue for California as well as the probable loss of this prestigious event to another state.

 
Yep, part of that $21.7 million was my money.  So this bill does impact me and quite a few of my friends, but I don't see anywhere for  non residents to voice their concern.