AB1634 COULD DENY CALIFORNIA PETS MADDIE'S FUND GRANTS

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

All this AB 1634 debate is getting me to the point where I personally have zero respect for breeders. In my opinion, they are totally self absorbed and have no respect for dogs other than the ones they are selling.

 
Keep in mind that there are some breeders who do support AB1634, and where even some do spay neuter pets before handing them over this as it makes absolutely certain that they will NOT be bred. Also keep in mind that there are some people out there such as puppy millers, backyard breeders and designer breeders who know the scene quite well and know exactly what breeders want to hear, and they are not concerned about contracts involving spay neutering later on and not concerned about withheld AKC registrations, and where they will breed pets where some are of quite good quality as pure breeds go and which they want for their breeding purposes.
 

All this AB 1634 debate is getting me to the point where I personally have zero respect for breeders. In my opinion, they are totally self absorbed and have no respect for dogs other than the ones they are selling.

 
Yes and tell that to the Sheltie breeder I know that handles all the Sheltie rescues for central Florida.  Her and the foster homes who some are breeders also handle all the expenses out of their own pockets.
 

ORIGINAL: timsdat
Yes and tell that to the Sheltie breeder I know that handles all the Sheltie rescues for central Florida.  Her and the foster homes who some are breeders also handle all the expenses out of their own pockets.

 
Yes there are "breed rescue services" and who certainly do a great job, BUT then from what I've seen not ALL breeds have such services and which are available in ALL states, and where so many pure bred dogs do NOT get rescued. 

ORIGINAL: Quincy

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

All this AB 1634 debate is getting me to the point where I personally have zero respect for breeders. In my opinion, they are totally self absorbed and have no respect for dogs other than the ones they are selling.

Keep in mind that there are some breeders who do support AB1634, and where even some do spay neuter pets before handing them over this as it makes absolutely certain that they will NOT be bred. Also keep in mind that there are some people out there such as puppy millers, backyard breeders and designer breeders who know the scene quite well and know exactly what breeders want to hear, and they are not concerned about contracts involving spay neutering later on and not concerned about withheld AKC registrations, and where they will breed pets where some are of quite good quality as pure breeds go and which they want for their breeding purposes.

Well, I apologize to any breeders that agree with what you are saying, it's just that I haven't read much of that on this forum. Most of what I have read has been breeders bashing AB1634, screaming about owners rights, and not a mention of the short and miserable  life that these victims of overpopulation are facing.

Maybe you could start with apoligizing for the comment about 'fat ladies and their perfectly groomed dogs'.     

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

ORIGINAL: Quincy

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

All this AB 1634 debate is getting me to the point where I personally have zero respect for breeders. In my opinion, they are totally self absorbed and have no respect for dogs other than the ones they are selling.

Keep in mind that there are some breeders who do support AB1634, and where even some do spay neuter pets before handing them over this as it makes absolutely certain that they will NOT be bred. Also keep in mind that there are some people out there such as puppy millers, backyard breeders and designer breeders who know the scene quite well and know exactly what breeders want to hear, and they are not concerned about contracts involving spay neutering later on and not concerned about withheld AKC registrations, and where they will breed pets where some are of quite good quality as pure breeds go and which they want for their breeding purposes.

Well, I apologize to any breeders that agree with what you are saying, it's just that I haven't read much of that on this forum. Most of what I have read has been breeders bashing AB1634, screaming about owners rights, and not a mention of the short and miserable  life that these victims of overpopulation are facing.

 
Responsible breeders would want to improve the quality of not only their breeds, but the quality of breeding in general, and would want irresponsible breeders to either stop breeding, or become responsible.  The breeders who are against this bill seem to prefer the status quo, where most breeders just keep on breeding irresponsibly.  I don't think it's any surprise that irresponsible breeders would condemn what you are saying - after all, they have a vested interest in the status quo.

ORIGINAL: Pwca

Maybe you could start with apoligizing for the comment about 'fat ladies and their perfectly groomed dogs'.     

 
You don't think the dogs are well groomed????

ORIGINAL: Pwca

Maybe you could start with apoligizing for the comment about 'fat ladies and their perfectly groomed dogs'.     

Would overweight be more PC?

ORIGINAL: DogAdvocat

ORIGINAL: Pwca

Maybe you could start with apoligizing for the comment about 'fat ladies and their perfectly groomed dogs'.     

You don't think the dogs are well groomed????

LOL[]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DogAdvocat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pwca

Maybe you could start with apoligizing for the comment about 'fat ladies and their perfectly groomed dogs'.


You don't think the dogs are well groomed????


LOL

When digs and insults start flying, the whole discussion goes downhill fast.  Regardless of where you stand on the issue, it's important to remember that you're not going to be taken seriously, even by folks that support your position, if you start using juvenile insults. 

As someone who hasn't had much education on this issue, it's been tough to sift thru the outright lies by groups on each side and try to decipher what data is actually accurate.  I'm glad I don't have to vote on this bill [8|]

ORIGINAL: cakana

quote:

ORIGINAL: DogAdvocat

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pwca

Maybe you could start with apoligizing for the comment about 'fat ladies and their perfectly groomed dogs'.


You don't think the dogs are well groomed????


LOL

When digs and insults start flying, the whole discussion goes downhill fast.  Regardless of where you stand on the issue, it's important to remember that you're not going to be taken seriously, even by folks that support your position, if you start using juvenile insults. 

As someone who hasn't had much education on this issue, it's been tough to sift thru the outright lies by groups on each side and try to decipher what data is actually accurate.  I'm glad I don't have to vote on this bill [8|]

I didn't think that I was insulting anyone.  I mentioned nobody in particular, and I was just describing in general , what I was seeing on a national TV show last evening.

When digs and insults start flying, the whole discussion goes downhill fast.  Regardless of where you stand on the issue, it's important to remember that you're not going to be taken seriously, even by folks that support your position, if you start using juvenile insults. 

As someone who hasn't had much education on this issue, it's been tough to sift thru the outright lies by groups on each side and try to decipher what data is actually accurate.  I'm glad I don't have to vote on this bill [8|]

Thanks cakana for saying this. Insults are certainly not going to help people listen to your opinions on the issue.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

i think the burden of providing low cost spay/neuter should be on the state if they make it mandatory. 

  It was pointed out earlier that owning a pet is a choice not mandatory and gov#%92t assistance for mandatory spay/neuter was compared to gov#%92t assistance for getting smog control done on your car. It has also been claimed by the gov#%92t that they will save $100#%92s of millions per year if mandatory spay/neuter is put into place.   Here is why I think the burden of providing low cost spay/neuter fails on the state…. The state (or most states) provide assistance for people on welfare, single mothers, and the like to get a GED or higher education. The think (in my opinion) is that if we spend a little money now to educate the people in need, then we spend less money (as tax payers) overall. The needy people (by way of education) are able to get jobs that will support their families without having to rely on gov#%92t assistance any further. At least this is the best case scenario (and I know it doesn#%92t always work).   If the gov#%92t is going to save $100#%92s of millions by having every pet spay/neutered, then it is in the long term best interest of the state (the tax payers) to subsidize mandatory spay/neuter.   I think this is a very different scenario than the example of smog control on a car.[sm=2cents.gif]

If the gov#%92t is going to save $100#%92s of millions by having every pet spay/neutered, then it is in the long term best interest of the state (the tax payers) to subsidize mandatory spay/neuter. I think this is a very different scenario than the example of smog control on a car.

 
Again, I don't disagree with you at all and my opinion was never that the government shouldn't pay for this if they mandate it, but because the government does mandate something doesn't mean that they will pay for it.  It might be worthwhile in the long run to offer free spay/neuter if the end result would save taxpayers millions.  I'm pretty sure that this bill would go up in flames though if it became a state-funded mandate.

Having read the memo from the City of Los Angeles (link above), it appears that they've begun a few new programs that might account for the increased budget. Interesting memo to read and it sounds like they're making some progress.

 
Yes there is some cost but according to the the the following web site [linkhttp://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/info/rumor/rumor8.pdf]http://www.laanimalservices.com/PDF/info/rumor/rumor8.pdf[/link]
 
"Rumor 8: Mr. Boks has not used available monies from the Animal Welfare Trust Fund

to promote his Bottle Baby Program.

 

 
It sounds like the cost isn't that great since they only have to supply the food and medical checkups and all the work is done by fosters.   Doesn't look like facilities and staff are required which would be a large expense.  I tried to find a line item in the budget for this program but I couldn't find anything.
 

If you like the budget is listed posted here.  [linkhttp://www.lacity.org/cao/budget07-08/Proposed_Blue_Book_2007-08.pdf]http://www.lacity.org/cao/budget07-08/Proposed_Blue_Book_2007-08.pdf[/link] .  Search for Animal services.  From looking at it you see that the majority of costs are personnel. 

 

I found interesting the low number of licenses issued.  Approx 130,000.  There has to be a whole lot more dogs in LA than that. 

 

Here is something interesting I was sent concerning the cat population of LA. 

 
[linkhttp://www.dailynews.com/ci_6144840]http://www.dailynews.com/ci_6144840[/link]

 

"Caught between thousands of feral kittens and public pressure to limit the number of animals it puts down, Los Angeles animal shelters will for the first time restrict hours to drop off all unwanted pets.
The onset of kitten season - when thousands of stray cats across the city begin producing litters - has packed shelters so much that officials say they might have to kill more animals to make room.
Beginning next week, animal shelters will limit hours for dropping off unwanted pets. Their plan: If they don't have them, they can't kill them.
"We're taking in about a thousand kittens a month right now, in addition to the hundreds of dogs or cats," said Ed Boks, general manager of Los Angeles Animal Services.
Citywide, shelters on average receive a total of about 150 animals a day. But during kitten season from March to September, that number can double on some days. "