What happens when you take your dog to the pound

I think the original intent of the bill was to spay and neuter every animal in CA.  I feel the modifications and changes are not substantive and a merely a masking of the original intent.
 
I do not trust the exemptions, nor do I believe that the original intent had the best interest of responsible breeders and pet owners in mind at all.

ORIGINAL: ottoluv

I would imagine the breeder permits would be very expensive. Here in los angeles, to licence an unaltered pet it is $150 and to licence an altered pet it is $10.

That's odd.  Right on the Los Angeles Animal Services website they list the differential as $100 to license an unaltered animal, and $15 for an altered one.  The head of LAAS, who is one of the authors of this bill, has stated that Los Angeles will not be raising it's prices for a breeder permit, but will keep it at the $100 so it will cost $0 extra.
 
[linkhttp://www.laanimalservices.com/serv_animallicense.htm]Los Angeles Animal Services[/link]

Sorry, my dyslexia is getting me, but still 100 is a lot more a year then 15 and the breeding permit will be in addition to all your dogs being licenced correct? I do think that more animals should be spayed/neutered but mandatory anything just punishes law abiding, responsible citizens that aren't the problem in the first place. In my neighborhood in west hollywood, there are TONS of unaltered dogs I see everyday when I walk Otto, I know for a fact a few of them are not licenced because I know the owners, the others I suspect aren't either because you just can't enforce a law without manpower.

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

 

pay a little more

This right here...is pure 100% conjecture on your part. You have NO idea what breeder permits will cost in every city in California...thus you have no idea what exactly financial burden will be placed on breeders. It will be up to each city to determine the cost....and that cost will be base dupon their need for funding to enforce.
 
Bobsk8 you make a GREAT point...they now will have MORE laws to enforce with the same amount of people..unless of course they make the permits EXPENSIVE enough to fund that...and hmm...we're back to it being beneficial to mills and high volume people...and detrimental to those breeding responsibly. And the BYB's will continue on again, doing what they do, off the radar. Thanks for the quick connection.

 
It seems to me that one of the problems with creating statewide law that includes all jurisdictions, is that in order to not overburden the bill and make it so unwieldy that no one can read it, they have to give an overview, and not be specific by jurisdiction.  So local jurisdictions will set their own fees based on what's needed to implement the permit program, according to the bill.  Now I suppose that might mean that a specific jurisdiction could use gold embossed paper to print the permits on, but I think that unlikely. 
 
As for anyone flying under the radar - currently we have no radar, and so even being able to have a radar will mean less unwanted animals born than there is currently.  And the less animals entering the shelter system (68% less in Santa Cruz), the more time ACOs will have for enforcement.

Some of the puppies surrendered by breeders are PTS in shelters.  Reduction of the number of those puppies surrendered and the number PTS are both admirable goals. 
 
Those puppies make up
(1) what percentage of the intake of dogs to shelters?  and
(2) what percentage of the number of dogs PTS in shelters?
 
Great reductions in overall shelter intake is being claimed for areas with bills similar to AB1634, but I don't see how puppies surrendered by breeders can account for those reductions.  I wonder how much the publicity around those bills has to do with the reductions.

Since the goal of AB1634 is to reduce the number of dogs in shelters and especially those being PTS, why not
(1)  require that all breeders microchip their pups, so strays can be returned to their owners     and
(2)  require that all big breeders producing over xx dogs per year be required to accept returns for rehoming and to report the animals PTS.
 
Funds for TV ads and classified ad notices that warn not to accept pups/dogs that are not microchipped with breeder identification would go a lot further than the enforcement funds that would be necessary for AB1634.  Private shelters set up by big breeders would relieve the load on public shelters.  Responsible small breeders already accept returns. 
 
Yes, ideally it would be great to require all breeders to accept returns, but tracking down BYBers and illegal Mexican importers would be difficult and would probably just result in returned dogs being PTS.   Public opinion would force the big breeders to rehome most of their returned dogs.

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

pay a little more

This right here...is pure 100% conjecture on your part. You have NO idea what breeder permits will cost in every city in California...thus you have no idea what exactly financial burden will be placed on breeders. It will be up to each city to determine the cost....and that cost will be base dupon their need for funding to enforce.
 

You are forgetting the enourmous amount of money that the California Spends ( $250,000,000 a year )  rounding up and  housing these animals until their execution date.   They could afford to hire quite a few enforcement officers with that money, and still have lot of money left over. 

How many big commercial breeders have breeding operations located in California?
 
A question for breeders who show or compete:  How many dogs owned by commercial breeders do you see being shown or in competitions?

ORIGINAL: mrv

I think the original intent of the bill was to spay and neuter every animal in CA.  I feel the modifications and changes are not substantive and a merely a masking of the original intent.

I do not trust the exemptions, nor do I believe that the original intent had the best interest of responsible breeders and pet owners in mind at all.

It was probably aimed more at saving dogs from being executed in shelters in massice numbers, and the inconvience to breeders was a secondary consideration. That is the way I feel about it, and so do most people, and that is why it passed the assembly yesterday and is on it's way to the senate.

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

I notice how quickly the focus switches  from the plight of the dogs in shelters , which is what my post was about, to defeating a mandatory S/N law that will inconvience some breeders, by costing them some money.   Shows how people have different sets of values in my opinion. 

 
My thoughts exactly.
 
Back to the purpose of your original post:  I'm at work and I'm trying to keep myself from bawling after reading that.  I agree with you, that every person that owns a dog or is thinking of getting one should read that first.  And let that be a litmus test for whether they should get/have a dog.  If they aren't moved by that, they shouldn't get or own a dog. 

ORIGINAL: amylu

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

I notice how quickly the focus switches  from the plight of the dogs in shelters , which is what my post was about, to defeating a mandatory S/N law that will inconvience some breeders, by costing them some money.   Shows how people have different sets of values in my opinion. 

My thoughts exactly.
 
Back to the purpose of your original post:  I'm at work and I'm trying to keep myself from bawling after reading that.  I agree with you, that every person that owns a dog or is thinking of getting one should read that first.  And let that be a litmus test for whether they should get/have a dog.  If they aren't moved by that, they shouldn't get or own a dog. 

[size="2"]That was the point of my post, but since I read this on a AB1634 site, it morphed into the debate on the 1634 bill. Kind of like quoting an article from the New York Times on child abuse,  and it  resulting in a long argument about the Times being a terrible newspaper and relatively zero mention of what the quoted article was about.....

This does make me realize, however , that  for some reason, I think  most of the people that are anti 1634, will be ecstatic if the bill is not made into law, even though that will almost guarantee  that the execution of thousands of dogs and cats every  week, will continue unabated. I guess it just depends on what your values in life are based on.   I was thinking about this issue last night, and it really disturbed me that today, probably hundreds and hundreds of dogs will be  facing their last day of being alive, and will have  to go though the horror of being executed as described in my original post.  All the while, this is going on, these absurd  arguments about the proposed  law is not perfect , the poor breeders having to pay a few dollars for a license,  freedoms are being taken away because people can't refuse to S/N their pets, etc..etc....drone on.  All the pro AB1634  people want to do is to reduce this daily horror story that is just  like a WWll concentration camp for dogs, complete with mass executions.  How sad that people want to fight this effort to stop all these animals from suffering!!  [/size]

Maybe because they are too overloaded taking care of all the animals already in the shelters?

Sorry, but this (at least where I live) is bull.  AC tends to be a completely separate entity from those working at the shelter.  When you're doing AC work you're out there in a truck, on call.  I've seen some of the call logs for the AC officers...somedays they ARE swamped, some days not so much...either way, I don't see them coming back with as many animals as they've been called out to capture/rescue.
 
The failure rate can't be THAT high for bringing in a stray can it!?  It makes me wonder sometimes....
 

[font=arial]I'm at work and I'm trying to keep myself from bawling after reading that.  I agree with you, that every person that owns a dog or is thinking of getting one should read that first.  And let that be a litmus test for whether they should get/have a dog.  If they aren't moved by that, they shouldn't get or own a dog.

[/font]
 
By that logic, I shouldn't own a dog.  Not everybody collapses into a pile of blubbering tears when they read something sad like that.  I sure don't.  I'm not what one tends to call "emotionally available".  Emotional?  Yes.  Emotionally available?  No.  I read the article, I agree it was sad, but in the end? ....Well what do you want me to say?  That I bawled like a baby?  My stomach turned into knots?
 
That'd be a lie.  It didn't.
 
I've helped hold down dogs and cats to be euth'd, I've torn their cards, I've said goodbyes to my "favorites", but I know it'll all be happening again the next day, so I don't have time to break down and cry over every single animal that heads to "that room".
 
There will be others.  Others that will go to "that room" and others that will make it out the front door.
 
I own dogs, I love my dogs.  I personally think that if breeders had to follow the rules like the ones in the SV system, we'd be better off.  No licensing fees or any of that crap...the SV keeps it simple.  You've got breed wardens that come out and check the validity of paper work and the health of the bitch/litter, they make sure everybody has their titles and proper health testing, you're clear to breed.
 
No muss, no fuss.  But OMG heaven forbid we have breed wardens.  That takes away our right to breed.  Breeding is not a right, it is a privelege, BUT I don't think you can truly legislate it.  The crappy people will keep on breeding crappy dogs, and the responsible breeders will close down their breeding programs/kennels.
 
That's no good for anybody.

ORIGINAL: Xeph

Maybe because they are too overloaded taking care of all the animals already in the shelters?

Sorry, but this (at least where I live) is bull.  AC tends to be a completely separate entity from those working at the shelter.  When you're doing AC work you're out there in a truck, on call.  I've seen some of the call logs for the AC officers...somedays they ARE swamped, some days not so much...either way, I don't see them coming back with as many animals as they've been called out to capture/rescue.

The failure rate can't be THAT high for bringing in a stray can it!?  It makes me wonder sometimes....

[font="arial"]I'm at work and I'm trying to keep myself from bawling after reading that.  I agree with you, that every person that owns a dog or is thinking of getting one should read that first.  And let that be a litmus test for whether they should get/have a dog.  If they aren't moved by that, they shouldn't get or own a dog.

[/font]
 
By that logic, I shouldn't own a dog.  Not everybody collapses into a pile of blubbering tears when they read something sad like that.  I sure don't.  I'm not what one tends to call "emotionally available".  Emotional?  Yes.  Emotionally available?  No.  I read the article, I agree it was sad, but in the end? ....Well what do you want me to say?  That I bawled like a baby?  My stomach turned into knots?

That'd be a lie.  It didn't.

I've helped hold down dogs and cats to be euth'd, I've torn their cards, I've said goodbyes to my "favorites", but I know it'll all be happening again the next day, so I don't have time to break down and cry over every single animal that heads to "that room".

There will be others.  Others that will go to "that room" and others that will make it out the front door.

I own dogs, I love my dogs.  I personally think that if breeders had to follow the rules like the ones in the SV system, we'd be better off.  No licensing fees or any of that crap...the SV keeps it simple.  You've got breed wardens that come out and check the validity of paper work and the health of the bitch/litter, they make sure everybody has their titles and proper health testing, you're clear to breed.

No muss, no fuss.  But OMG heaven forbid we have breed wardens.  That takes away our right to breed.  Breeding is not a right, it is a privelege, BUT I don't think you can truly legislate it.  The crappy people will keep on breeding crappy dogs, and the responsible breeders will close down their breeding programs/kennels.

That's no good for anybody.

I hope you can sleep at night doing what you do.  I couldn't.....Have you ever thought, as your holding the dog or cat down to be executed, that it could be your own dog could be the one about to die like that? 

Xeph,
 
It sounds like you've become hardened.  Maybe you've had to become that way to do what you do day in and day out.  It's a shame, really.  Because I believe that one of the reasons that dogs are so benefitial is the way they soften our hearts and make us more emotionally available and better people.  

ORIGINAL: amylu

Xeph,
 
It sounds like you've become hardened.  Maybe you've had to become that way to do what you do day in and day out.  It's a shame, really.  Because I believe that one of the reasons that dogs are so benefitial is the way they soften our hearts and make us more emotionally available and better people.  

You are right as far as I am concerned.  If I had to execute innocent dogs in a shelter in order to make a living, I would rather be homeless and live on the street...