"Cruelty by Breeders"

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

True, but then that can be handled by a contract requiring the level of care that a rescue or breeder expects for his/her dog, and a proviso that the dog will be reclaimed if the contract isn't followed.

so you would take back a dog just because someone moved from a home with a fenced yard to an apartment? but you just condemned a person for returning a dog because they moved into an apartment in a post above.

i dont get your point.

 
My point is that I protect my dogs.  Ideally the person wouldn't put themselves in the position of having to relinquish the dog at all, but I act as a safety net for my dogs at all times.  And the person I "condemned" above wasn't returning a dog, they were giving up a dog.  The dog wasn't mine, and wasn't being returned.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

The question is, not how many comply, but how many don't comply?

that will always be in question even with laws on the books.

 
But that question can be quantified by statistical information.  In the case of recycling, it's fine to talk about how many people were standing in the recycling line - but how much recyclable material is not being recycled?  That's how you figure the compliance rate.
 
In the case of dogs, if the bill passes, then we'll have to wait and see if the shelter intake number goes down.

My point is that I protect my dogs. Ideally the person wouldn't put themselves in the position of having to relinquish the dog at all, but I act as a safety net for my dogs at all times. And the person I "condemned" above wasn't returning a dog, they were giving up a dog. The dog wasn't mine, and wasn't being returned.

sometimes we have little control over our economic situations (being fired or laid off comes to mind). i think it has been pointed out a person can offer a good home in an apartment. i think it can equally be said that a fence doesnt make a perfect home also.

most rescues (at least the ones i am familiar with) act as a safety net for their dogs too. however, i would hope that the lady we adopted amelia from would not come to take her back if we were economically forced to move into an apartment. we still would love her and provide for her needs regardless of our housing situation.

In the case of dogs, if the bill passes, then we'll have to wait and see if the shelter intake number goes down.

and if it doesnt?

ORIGINAL: DogAdvocat

I don't think this bill is aimed at the puppymillers. 

 
Well...  You wont solve overpopulation.  Hmm interesting how things keep changing in what you say...  One minute it is one thing and one minute it isnt.  Please, make up your mind.  You are confusing me from if you are right or wrong.  I hate being confused by people that seem to only be in this for a arguement.  :-D
 
Other places have mandatory spay/neuter laws for certain things, they also have breeding permits and pet limits...  PA requires you to be over $100 for if you are running a commerical breeding operation.  Numbers havent gone down.  But...  we all by pass that.  PA is the puppymill capital of the world and these people have to pay for $100+ for ever 25 dogs.  It hasnt stopped people. 
 
So again, instead of trying to harm GOOD breeders, focus on the puppymills.  Puppymills sell 20+ dogs per 1 that a good breeder sells, where is the problem?
 
These are the things that make one go:  hmmm... [sm=huh.gif]
 
 

Ok, let me try it this way. Here in California, there was a lot of education on the importance of not littering and of recycling. But education alone wasn't getting it done. So they passed a law saying we must recycle and not litter, and the education continued. Having both is the way to go, IMO. Education alone is simply someone's opinion that I don't have to follow. As a law abiding citizen, I will comply with a law, but I also need education to explain how to comply with the law. It takes both.

 
Another good example (sorry for the repeat) is the smog certificate.  When they first passed the law that cars produced from a certain year on had to have a catalytic converter, some people were outraged.  Even though we were all watching the news about air pollution and smog.  Everytime we went into L.A., we all complained.  Yet my dad and many others found a way to disable the catalytic converter and found shops that would sign off on your car being a non-pollutant.  It's taken several years, but no one I know does any of that any longer.  People finally accepted the changes and quit complaining about it.  I think this law will be much the same way, but eventually people will learn that not only is it a law but it's for the benefit of the animals.  Ultimately that is all any of us want, right?

Yes masses of people can be lulled into complacency if their hollering is ignored long enough by a government. I for one don't find that to be a good thing, and IMO it's why Americans rights, have been whittled away more and more and will continue to be so...in all avenues of life.

but how do we achieve all that without legislation? Right now society sees nothing wrong with animals being disposable

 
I won't quote your entire reply but you do have a good point in that creating a law at least sets a limit. Example, in my little town, we do have a domestic animal at large ordinance. This does not stop people from letting their dogs run loose. But, once in a while, the dogs do get picked up. Lately, the occurences have been less. And a law might have a more immediate effect than waiting for education to take hold. More than likely, the solution will be a combination of the two.
 

Numbers havent gone down. But... we all by pass that. PA is the puppymill capital of the world and these people have to pay for $100+ for ever 25 dogs. It hasnt stopped people.

 
That reminds me of what I stated about Missouri's fine for puppy mills. $1,000 per year. It's just a business expense if you sell enough. The cost gets passed on to the consumer. The miller sells to a broker who sells to pet stores. Everyone gets their cut. So, in some ways, increased license fees or fines just raises the price of "that puppy in the window."
 

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

My point is that I protect my dogs. Ideally the person wouldn't put themselves in the position of having to relinquish the dog at all, but I act as a safety net for my dogs at all times. And the person I "condemned" above wasn't returning a dog, they were giving up a dog. The dog wasn't mine, and wasn't being returned.

sometimes we have little control over our economic situations (being fired or laid off comes to mind). i think it has been pointed out a person can offer a good home in an apartment. i think it can equally be said that a fence doesnt make a perfect home also.

most rescues (at least the ones i am familiar with) act as a safety net for their dogs too. however, i would hope that the lady we adopted amelia from would not come to take her back if we were economically forced to move into an apartment. we still would love her and provide for her needs regardless of our housing situation.

 
All else being equal, if I trusted you to keep her safe, I wouldn't either, but I sure would keep tabs on the situation because in my experience one of the problems with apartments is the inherent tranciency and unfriendly landlords.  Nothing is across the board, there are mitigating circumstance in any situation that's being considered for adoption.  But having no fence, and I'm specifically talking about unfenced yards, or rentals are a red flag, as is leaving a dog alone for long hours (depending on the dog).  There are no hard and fast rules, but with breeders and rescue alike, the dog is our responsibility to place them in the best possible situation to have the best chance of success.  Those who do less have a higher return rate and a higher disaster rate.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

In the case of dogs, if the bill passes, then we'll have to wait and see if the shelter intake number goes down.

and if it doesnt?

 
Then we have the status quo and the killing of adoptable animals continues.

ORIGINAL: Shadomoon

ORIGINAL: DogAdvocat

I don't think this bill is aimed at the puppymillers. 

Well...  You wont solve overpopulation.  Hmm interesting how things keep changing in what you say...  One minute it is one thing and one minute it isnt.  Please, make up your mind.  You are confusing me from if you are right or wrong.  I hate being confused by people that seem to only be in this for a arguement.  :-D 

 
Feel free to clarify what you don't understand.  I'll try to answer best I can.  And I'm not in this only for the argument.  This is something that hits me personally, but when I try to express that, I'm told I'm too emotional.  Seems everyone wants to criticize my methods instead of addressing the issue.

Other places have mandatory spay/neuter laws for certain things, they also have breeding permits and pet limits...  PA requires you to be over $100 for if you are running a commerical breeding operation.  Numbers havent gone down.  But...  we all by pass that.  PA is the puppymill capital of the world and these people have to pay for $100+ for ever 25 dogs.  It hasnt stopped people. 

 
So because that law doesn't work, this one won't?  Does PA have as strong of a rescue community as CA does?  Did their laws target irresponsible owners?  In my opinion, everytime a restriction is put on puppymills, it just going to make it harder for them to do business as usual, and whereas one law won't stop them, multiple laws making it difficult for them to continue, will stop them.

So again, instead of trying to harm GOOD breeders, focus on the puppymills.  Puppymills sell 20+ dogs per 1 that a good breeder sells, where is the problem?

 
No one is trying to harm good breeders.  The law isn't aimed at good breeders.  If it was, then there would be no provisions for breeding at all.  I don't understand why this comment keeps coming back to haunt these discussions -- how do you think good breeders are being harmed?  Los Angeles has already committed to there being no extra fees, and breeders are already required to be licensed.

ORIGINAL: cakana

Ok, let me try it this way. Here in California, there was a lot of education on the importance of not littering and of recycling. But education alone wasn't getting it done. So they passed a law saying we must recycle and not litter, and the education continued. Having both is the way to go, IMO. Education alone is simply someone's opinion that I don't have to follow. As a law abiding citizen, I will comply with a law, but I also need education to explain how to comply with the law. It takes both.

Another good example (sorry for the repeat) is the smog certificate.  When they first passed the law that cars produced from a certain year on had to have a catalytic converter, some people were outraged.  Even though we were all watching the news about air pollution and smog.  Everytime we went into L.A., we all complained.  Yet my dad and many others found a way to disable the catalytic converter and found shops that would sign off on your car being a non-pollutant.  It's taken several years, but no one I know does any of that any longer.  People finally accepted the changes and quit complaining about it.  I think this law will be much the same way, but eventually people will learn that not only is it a law but it's for the benefit of the animals.  Ultimately that is all any of us want, right?

 
Absolutely !!!  Thank you !!!

ORIGINAL: ron2

but how do we achieve all that without legislation? Right now society sees nothing wrong with animals being disposable

I won't quote your entire reply but you do have a good point in that creating a law at least sets a limit. Example, in my little town, we do have a domestic animal at large ordinance. This does not stop people from letting their dogs run loose. But, once in a while, the dogs do get picked up. Lately, the occurences have been less. And a law might have a more immediate effect than waiting for education to take hold. More than likely, the solution will be a combination of the two.

 
Exactly.  Thank you [sm=happy.gif]

Furthermore, since fines don't often stop millers but simply raise the price of their animals, miller or byb caught breeding without a license and following ethical protocols should be banned from doing so again, by a court of law. That way, further infractions would incur criminal penalties. And seizure of all the animals and equipment. Any future infraction against the injuction would be contempt of court.
 
And, in my limited knowledge, I don't think a good breeder has anything to fear from the laws. It should, eventually, clean up the bad ones and make a good breeder not only more desirable but, eventually, the only option. Or, in other words, make the byb's adhere to the high standards that good breeders hold themselves to. In essence, if you can't be a good breeder, you don't get to be one at all. That's why I didn't let Shadow breed.
 
1. He is from a mixed, unregistered litter. None of his pups can be registered, which is important to people who will pay money.
2. The other owners' reason of wanting to mate their bitch to "settle her temperment" is never a good reason to breed.
3. Shadow's temperment is more Husky than anything and people who think they getting a neat-looking Lab are in for a surprise.
4. Most important of all, I couldn't guarantee, and neither could both other parties that expressed interest, a good home for all the pups. And I simply will not contribute another litter to the shelter population.
 
So, I practiced good breeding by not breeding because I didn't have all the requirements of good breeding. Why can't more people be like me?[]
 
Also, too, it's easy to get wrapped up in a debate over an issue like this, which is emotional for all of us. I think you have a valiant and valid cause to pursue. And much energy can be consumed trying to defend a statement or part of a position. Maybe we can work toward sensible legislation AND education. It won't happen overnight but every journey starts with one step, followed by another.