Dog Community

Posted : 4/30/2007 10:25:15 AM

I live here in California, where there are usually 2,000 dogs dead at the end of every day,

Gee that would be over 700,000 dogs each year!!!! Why is it then that the animal council only shows in the compiled statistics for California that that the number is more like 115,000 in 2005 and that this number has been declining since 2001!

Edited to add reference link.
[linkhttp://www.theanimalcouncil.com/files/CA_DHS_DogCat_Stats_summary_95-05.pdf]http://www.theanimalcouncil.com/files/CA_DHS_DogCat_Stats_summary_95-05.pdf[/link]

Pwca

Posted : 4/30/2007 10:38:14 AM

**Content Removed**
There is no record with USDAA, AKC, NADAC, or ASCA of any dog by "Mason's Ginger's Fancy" (Or any of the other variations you've posted, including "Fancy's Rising of GoldenStar" "Fancy of China" etc) ever having been entered in a trial.**Content Removed** You're not a CGC evaluator, affliated with CCI, or GDA.

edit amended

Laurelin_429

Posted : 4/30/2007 1:07:04 PM

Does anyone actually believe this law was meant to help the overpopulation problem? I see it as just another way to ticket and fine people to increase revenue. [&:]

cakana

Posted : 4/30/2007 3:06:13 PM

Does anyone actually believe this law was meant to help the overpopulation problem? I see it as just another way to ticket and fine people to increase revenue.

I don't think there'd be enough revenue generated to come close to what's needed to truly enforce this. As misguided as this bill might be, I do think that many people, possibly including the author of the bill, believes that this might help with the over-population problem. If you'd seen some of the bills that have been introduced this year and years past, you'd see that legislators often want to make a name for themselves (as in the "no-spanking bill") and don't take all things into consideration. It's almost comical and fortunately most of the really ridiculous bills never make it very far. This bill has a huge amount of support and opposition, so it's something that people feel quite passionate about. I still think that it's likely to be vetoed by the governor, if it makes it that far.

Pwca

Posted : 5/2/2007 8:26:10 AM

Cathy- I think that's possible, the problem is, this law is going to be a real problem if it DOES pass. Hopefully it won't, but I'm not very encouraged by that thought right now.

Anonymous

Posted : 5/2/2007 9:01:30 AM

[Deleted by Admins]

rwbeagles

Posted : 5/2/2007 9:04:05 AM

so Ginger...you don't plan to answer the questions about your dogs titles? and the pictures you've posted taken from other people/sources?
Oookay. Take care now.

timsdat

Posted : 5/2/2007 10:16:48 AM

I know that this is a little off topic but in the interest of full disclosure since I claim to do agility here is the registration information for my dogs.

UAG-1 Bonny Sprite Full of Pep OA MXJ AXP MJP5 CGC Akc Reg# DL80897002
MACH2 Himark's Blame it on Rio CGC Akc Reg# DL87827401

cakana

Posted : 5/2/2007 2:44:00 PM

[linkhttp://www.sacbee.com/101/story/164780.html]http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/164780.html[/link]

Although this article in our paper today has to do with increased fees for dogs who aren't spayed or neutered, I thought the following statement interesting:

"Fewer than 20 percent of dog and cat owners in unincorporated Sacramento County license their pets, county officials say."

timsdat

Posted : 5/2/2007 3:01:13 PM

"Fewer than 20 percent of dog and cat owners in unincorporated Sacramento County license their pets, county officials say."

This has been one of the talking points of the people in opposition to the mandatory S/N. There are a number of people out there breaking the law now, do you think that all of a sudden they will go out there and follow another law!

cakana

Posted : 5/3/2007 11:14:30 AM

There are a number of people out there breaking the law now, do you think that all of a sudden they will go out there and follow another law!

Not likely. I figured there were a large percent of people who didn't license their dogs, but I had no idea it was 80%.

Ratsicles

Posted : 5/3/2007 12:25:33 PM

I no longer license my dogs. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I honestly don't think it's the city's business how many and what breed of dogs I have. My dogs are UTD on shots, wear ID and rabies tags, and I'm considering having them microchipped- but I won't get them licensed.

I've heard stories of places passing BSL, and then using records of licensed dogs to find and seize dogs of whatever breed they've banned. I'm not sure whether these stories are totally true or not, but as an Akita owner, Pit mix owner, and future purebred Pit owner, its enough for me to not want the city to have records of what breeds I own. IMO, it's none of their business. Just my [sm=2cents.gif].

rwbeagles

Posted : 5/3/2007 1:22:19 PM

I am pretty sure that was used in Denver, Rats...or a form of that, where you were "required" to license your Pit to keep it...then a few months later oh look...we're coming to get your dogs. Terrifying...that they did that...to this day I still cannot believe it.

snownose

Posted : 5/3/2007 2:45:39 PM

I no longer license my dogs. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I honestly don't think it's the city's business how many and what breed of dogs I have. My dogs are UTD on shots, wear ID and rabies tags, and I'm considering having them microchipped- but I won't get them licensed.

Where I live you would be liable for a $50 fine for each dog, and I live out in the boonies.

agilebasenji

Posted : 5/3/2007 3:35:18 PM

I no longer license my dogs. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I honestly don't think it's the city's business how many and what breed of dogs I have. My dogs are UTD on shots, wear ID and rabies tags, and I'm considering having them microchipped- but I won't get them licensed.

I'm not going to flame, but couldn't the government just sieze vet records?

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