Spay-neuter law works in Santa Cruz

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. Since reading all the rhetoric and the lack of empathy for the dogs that put down every year by the anti group which I feel is mainly composed of breeders, I have decided to actively encourage people never to buy a dog from a breeder, as long as they can get one from a rescue or shelter.

Well gosh damn darnit, you know I can't believe that people here would use their money to pay for Internet service and luxuries like having dogs as pets when there are millions of orphans starving to death every year!  Talk about a lack of empathy. You know I'm just gonna start telling everyone I know that they are terrible people if they don't stop going to the mall forever and don't sell all their possessions so they can save all the starving orphans.

Geez, what a stupid, heartless idiot I am for volunteering at a shelter, fostering animals, helping people adopt animals.....  What was I thinking?!?!  Oh and I should go tell of my breeder friend who's only been working for the welfare of animals for the past four decades that she's pretty heartless and cruel too, helping with the breed rescue, fostering, getting dogs out of shelters.  Wow, how dumb.

/sarcasm

ORIGINAL: cakana

You state it as fact that all breeders care about is money and don't care a whit about the animals being euthanized (yes, I said euthanized, I won't say executed because it's just more emotional clap trap that you use to sway people). That is just outright bull pucky.

Xeph - I don't think negatively about breeders and have the utmost respect for people like Gina or others who care so much about their dogs.  I don't understand the reason that the breeders are so "anti" this bill though.  If there are exclusions for them, then why are they so adamantly against it?  If the whole point was that the bill won't reduce the number of animals euthanized, then just say that.  If it's about the right to breed being more important than the number of animals being euthanized, then it seems a little selfish to me.  I also don't think that being euthanized as the ultimate sadness for these animals.  Many are sick, starving and living their lives in cages. I don't want responsible breeders to stop doing what they do best and I don't think that is the intent of this legislation.  I'm not sure it'll do a think to irresponsible backyard breeders and if it passes, it may merely have the affect of a drop of water in a huge pond, but I think that the dialogue is important and hopefully someday will see positive changes come about that we can all agree are for the best.

I had two different breeders tell me that the proposed  law would be bad, because most of their business is a cash business or "off the books".  They felt that if these laws became more common in other states, they would have to document their sales and file Tax on those sales, and that is why they are fighting the passage of this law. I can't see any other reason for the tremendous hostility towards this bill which would save thousands of dogs from having to face  execution  every day. 

Bob-I am a rescuer myself, I foster dogs and cats. I acutally just lost a baby kitten last night. He died in my arms....
 
That being said, I do not agree with you. "The" Dalmtian contact for rescue is also a reputable breeder. She knows every single Dalmatian or Dalmatian mix that needs to find a home. She spends all of her time rescuing, but yes she does breed every couple of years. If you knew how many dogs she had placed you would not make the statement that "breeder folks don't seem to give a hoot about the millions of dogs executed every year"
 
If you knew how much Gina had helped the beagles here in Little Rock you would also not make that statement.
 
 

I also get  truly annoyed reading all the Anti1634 claptrap that is posted on the forums on a continual basis. It seems like every couple of days, someone comes up with another way to demonize people that are for making the situation better for these animals that die by the millions each year.

 
I get just as annoyed reading the pro 1634 posts.  Every couple of days, you Pro 1634 people find a way to demonize breeders who are doing right by their dogs AND others.
 

 I don't understand the reason that the breeders are so "anti" this bill though.

Because it is SO open ended.  So terribly, horrendously, disgustingly open ended!

Dear Bobsk8, I think a lot more people might be willing to hear your side of the argument if you didn't begin by telling them that they and their friends don't care about dogs because they own purebreds.  You dug your own hole.  There's some things you say that I basically agree with, however I do not like to be associated with people that make such hostile, sweeping judgments about others.  Just sayin'....

There are different breeds of dogs for different things, and most times a a mixed breed from the pound will not do the job needed.  i believe most any   breed of dog or mix can be a therapy dog--all it takes is love of humans, manners, training  etc.  But somehow i don't see a chihuahua/pom mix going out in the cold water to retrieve a duck.  I can't see a collie/sharpei mix pointing a covey of quail.  I can't see a doxie/peke mix herding sheep.  WE need breeders for the retrievers, points/setters, herders, etc, etc.  I do have a rescue--she was one hour from being gassed at the county pound.  She is a golden/sight hound mix and you could not ask for a more loving dog in your life.  It is as if she knows we saved her life--not only did we adopt her, we had to put her thru heart treatment a month after we got her. And of course we have our pure golden girl, KayCee.

There is not a thing wrong with adopting a dog from a shelter or pound.  We wouldn't take a million dollars for our Honey.  But there is a place for pure blood dogs.  Honey was spayed before we got her, and we had KayCee spayed when she was about 7 months old.  Below is our adopted mix, Honey.

Because it is SO open ended. So terribly, horrendously, disgustingly open ended!

 
I've heard that from when the bill was first introduced, but it's been amended so many times, that it's now quite descriptive and breeders of just about any type can be exempted.  At least that's how I read it.  Now since then, I've heard from the opposition that there will be additional costs to those exemptions.  So, if that is the arguement, and I'm not saying it is or it's the only one, then it makes Bob's case about the concern being tied to cost.  I'm still trying to figure out why breeders who could be exempted from this bill would be so adamantly opposed.  In some ways, I think this bill started out horribly written and was quite ambiguous, so there was a lot of reason to flame it.  Now that it's addressed so many of the initial concerns, many people are still opposed and much of the opposition is to issues that have been dealt with.

ORIGINAL: mmthomason

Bob-I am a rescuer myself, I foster dogs and cats. I acutally just lost a baby kitten last night. He died in my arms....

That being said, I do not agree with you. "The" Dalmtian contact for rescue is also a reputable breeder. She knows every single Dalmatian or Dalmatian mix that needs to find a home. She spends all of her time rescuing, but yes she does breed every couple of years. If you knew how many dogs she had placed you would not make the statement that "breeder folks don't seem to give a hoot about the millions of dogs executed every year"
 
If you knew how much Gina had helped the beagles here in Little Rock you would also not make that statement.

And from what you are saying, I doubt very much, if this person would be on forums telling everyone that groups like the Humane Society, SPCA, etc. are demons trying to take pets away from everyone, and that is why tehy are for AB1634. 

ORIGINAL: cakana

Because it is SO open ended. So terribly, horrendously, disgustingly open ended!

I've heard that from when the bill was first introduced, but it's been amended so many times, that it's now quite descriptive and breeders of just about any type can be exempted.  At least that's how I read it.  Now since then, I've heard from the opposition that there will be additional costs to those exemptions.  So, if that is the arguement, and I'm not saying it is or it's the only one, then it makes Bob's case about the concern being tied to cost.  I'm still trying to figure out why breeders who could be exempted from this bill would be so adamantly opposed.  In some ways, I think this bill started out horribly written and was quite ambiguous, so there was a lot of reason to flame it.  Now that it's addressed so many of the initial concerns, many people are still opposed and much of the opposition is to issues that have been dealt with.

And just like any other bill that is introduced in government , it is tweaked an modified into the final version. The Anti People, seem to only want to talk about the original, and resent being presented with the current bill.

ORIGINAL: sandra_slayton

There are different breeds of dogs for different things, and most times a a mixed breed from the pound will not do the job needed.  i believe most any   breed of dog or mix can be a therapy dog--all it takes is love of humans, manners, training  etc.  But somehow i don't see a chihuahua/pom mix going out in the cold water to retrieve a duck.  I can't see a collie/sharpei mix pointing a covey of quail.  I can't see a doxie/peke mix herding sheep.  WE need breeders for the retrievers, points/setters, herders, etc, etc.  I do have a rescue--she was one hour from being gassed at the county pound.  She is a golden/sight hound mix and you could not ask for a more loving dog in your life.  It is as if she knows we saved her life--not only did we adopt her, we had to put her thru heart treatment a month after we got her. And of course we have our pure golden girl, KayCee.

There is not a thing wrong with adopting a dog from a shelter or pound.  We wouldn't take a million dollars for our Honey.  But there is a place for pure blood dogs.  Honey was spayed before we got her, and we had KayCee spayed when she was about 7 months old.  Below is our adopted mix, Honey.

Great looking dog......

Thaks Bob.  As I sit here at my computer she is on the end of the bed nearest me so I can reach out and pet her.  Is never far from me, those huge brown eyes watching me all the time. I don't think there is a dog on this earth that loves and shows it more than Honey does to us.  I thank God all the time that she was not gassed at the pound, that we have that sweet, precious girl.

I'm still trying to figure out why breeders who could be exempted from this bill would be so adamantly opposed.

It's not just breeders that are opposed. 

Local laws still have to be passed to allow breeding permits.  No local law no permits.  There is no guarantee that the local governments will follow the exemptions or will allow breeding permits at all.

You have worked in government.  Haven't you seen incremental legislation before.  Lets start out easy and then  make it gradually tighter and tighter.  This is the strategy of the AR community.  We can't get everything passed now but in increments we can get to our final goal.  Also in the first draft they put a number of extra restrictions in there that they know will get pulled out and it looks like they compromised so much.  You may not lose 100% of your rights on the first pass but if you lose any rights you still lose.

Here's a quote from an e-mail by an AR person, celebrating that AB 1634
passed the CA Assembly

"Indeed. I'd like to join Judie in thanking everyone who turned up
the volume to make sure the animals' voices were heard over the
breeders and other exploiters who would rather see animals suffer
for their own gain than to see a reduction in the unnecessary
euthanization of unwanted animals.

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: cakana

Because it is SO open ended. So terribly, horrendously, disgustingly open ended!

I've heard that from when the bill was first introduced, but it's been amended so many times, that it's now quite descriptive and breeders of just about any type can be exempted.  At least that's how I read it.  Now since then, I've heard from the opposition that there will be additional costs to those exemptions.  So, if that is the arguement, and I'm not saying it is or it's the only one, then it makes Bob's case about the concern being tied to cost.  I'm still trying to figure out why breeders who could be exempted from this bill would be so adamantly opposed.  In some ways, I think this bill started out horribly written and was quite ambiguous, so there was a lot of reason to flame it.  Now that it's addressed so many of the initial concerns, many people are still opposed and much of the opposition is to issues that have been dealt with.

 

All Bills are amended in the process that Bills go through, and AB1634 is no exception, and there maybe yet more amendments, and even if this Bill is later voted as "not passed" then it could be amended and resubmitted.
 
I too wonder why so many are adamantly opposed when they can easily obtain exemptions and Intact Permits.
 
From what I've seen many just want to "Oppose and Kill the AB1634 Bill", and they are really not interested in what is written in the Bill, and whatever is written they will continue to criticise and try to pull apart. I can even see it in this thread where they are criticizing and trying to pull apart what's happened in Santa Cruz, to them it too needs to be opposed and killed. 

I too wonder why so many are adamantly opposed when they can easily obtain exemptions and Intact Permits.

I love how people keep assumingthat it's going to be easy to obtain an exemption.

I'm not opposed to the bill, per se, but I'm very frustrated that this bill is not in any way addressing the real source of the problem, and they could have very well written a different bill that does.  I don't understand it.  It's like I almost have to oppose it because supporting it sort of implies that I do think it's the "answer", when I don't.