AB1634 COULD DENY CALIFORNIA PETS MADDIE'S FUND GRANTS

"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. "

 
That's pretty depressing too.  I guess some people might turn around with their unwanted litters and go home, but many will likely dump them along the way.  How sad.

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8
Unless something has changed dramatically, older dogs and puppies start out as small puppies....

One more time - The only thing that AB1634 may reduce is the number of puppies produced by breeders without a license.  It does nothing to reduce or control the number of puppies produced by puppy mills or commercial breeders.  It does nothing to reduce or control the number of puppies brought in from other states or from other countries.  It may drive up the cost of a pup.
 
Therefore, there will be plenty of puppies to meet demand - albeit less well-bred, properly socialized pups with breeders that act as mentors to their puppy buyers so the pups don't wind up in shelters.  That means no reduction in the number of older puppies and dogs surrendered or abandoned - unless you think AB1634 will reduce the population or the percentage of people wanting puppies or the ercentage of people that can afford pups.

[sm=haha.gif]

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8
I didn't think that I was insulting anyone.

[sm=funnypost.gif]   [sm=rofl.gif]  If anyone believes that, I have some fantastic farmland in the Florida Everglades that I will sell cheap. 
 

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|]

 
You're right, insults are juvenile, but then so is focusing on whether someone is being politically correct instead of focusing on the message, which was in this case, that while the focus is on the pampered dog and it's handler in the show ring, dogs (even purebreds) are dying for lack of homes, and that's not mentioned, or if it is, it's given lip service.

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8
Unless something has changed dramatically, older dogs and puppies start out as small puppies....

One more time - The only thing that AB1634 may reduce is the number of puppies produced by breeders without a license.  It does nothing to reduce or control the number of puppies produced by puppy mills or commercial breeders.  It does nothing to reduce or control the number of puppies brought in from other states or from other countries.  It may drive up the cost of a pup.
 
Therefore, there will be plenty of puppies to meet demand - albeit less well-bred, properly socialized pups with breeders that act as mentors to their puppy buyers so the pups don't wind up in shelters.  That means no reduction in the number of older puppies and dogs surrendered or abandoned - unless you think AB1634 will reduce the population or the percentage of people wanting puppies or the ercentage of people that can afford pups.

 
Actually it will affect puppymillers and commercial breeders within the state, because most of them are not going to be involved with competition with their dogs.  And if they did decide to go into competition, they might actually learn something about producing quality dogs.  It will also cut down on the offspring of puppymilled/commercial dogs, by requiring their owners to have breeding permits and be in competition.
 
I don't understand why you are saying that there would be less well-bred, properly socialized, mentored dogs because those are not the dogs bred by the backyard breeders that couldn't qualify for the permits.  Since the average backyard bred dog can be gotten anywhere from free to a couple of hundred dollars, it's unlikely that the people that would have bought those dogs will now pay the $1000+ for a pet shop puppy.  IMO, there will be less dogs available and hopefully that will make people value them more.  Right now, if a dog is inconvenient, it's easier to dump it at a shelter and get another free or low-cost dog from the classifieds.  In fact, one of the problems we have is people buying puppies for their kids for the summer, and dumping them at the shelter when school starts.  This is a lot less likely to happen if it's harder to get a dog.

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8
Unless something has changed dramatically, older dogs and puppies start out as small puppies....

One more time - The only thing that AB1634 may reduce is the number of puppies produced by breeders without a license.  It does nothing to reduce or control the number of puppies produced by puppy mills or commercial breeders.  It does nothing to reduce or control the number of puppies brought in from other states or from other countries.  It may drive up the cost of a pup.
 
Therefore, there will be plenty of puppies to meet demand - albeit less well-bred, properly socialized pups with breeders that act as mentors to their puppy buyers so the pups don't wind up in shelters.  That means no reduction in the number of older puppies and dogs surrendered or abandoned - unless you think AB1634 will reduce the population or the percentage of people wanting puppies or the ercentage of people that can afford pups.

This is all speculation by you, that has absoultely zero basis in fact, and is really your opinion. I and many other people totally disagree with your opinion.

ORIGINAL: DogAdvocat

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8
Unless something has changed dramatically, older dogs and puppies start out as small puppies....

One more time - The only thing that AB1634 may reduce is the number of puppies produced by breeders without a license.  It does nothing to reduce or control the number of puppies produced by puppy mills or commercial breeders.  It does nothing to reduce or control the number of puppies brought in from other states or from other countries.  It may drive up the cost of a pup.
 
Therefore, there will be plenty of puppies to meet demand - albeit less well-bred, properly socialized pups with breeders that act as mentors to their puppy buyers so the pups don't wind up in shelters.  That means no reduction in the number of older puppies and dogs surrendered or abandoned - unless you think AB1634 will reduce the population or the percentage of people wanting puppies or the ercentage of people that can afford pups.

Actually it will affect puppymillers and commercial breeders within the state, because most of them are not going to be involved with competition with their dogs.  And if they did decide to go into competition, they might actually learn something about producing quality dogs.  It will also cut down on the offspring of puppymilled/commercial dogs, by requiring their owners to have breeding permits and be in competition.

I don't understand why you are saying that there would be less well-bred, properly socialized, mentored dogs because those are not the dogs bred by the backyard breeders that couldn't qualify for the permits.  Since the average backyard bred dog can be gotten anywhere from free to a couple of hundred dollars, it's unlikely that the people that would have bought those dogs will now pay the $1000+ for a pet shop puppy.  IMO, there will be less dogs available and hopefully that will make people value them more.  Right now, if a dog is inconvenient, it's easier to dump it at a shelter and get another free or low-cost dog from the classifieds.  In fact, one of the problems we have is people buying puppies for their kids for the summer, and dumping them at the shelter when school starts.  This is a lot less likely to happen if it's harder to get a dog.

I think that many of the negative statements regarding the effect of this bill are from people that don't understand the bill and don't have much experience around shelters. They don't see the boxes of 6 week old pups that are brought in all the time, or left in the parking lots over night at the shelters.

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

[sm=haha.gif]

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8
I didn't think that I was insulting anyone.

[sm=funnypost.gif]   [sm=rofl.gif]  If anyone believes that, I have some fantastic farmland in the Florida Everglades that I will sell cheap. 
 

Name the person I insulted?

You're right, insults are juvenile, but then so is focusing on whether someone is being politically correct

it is an insult to call someone fat. there is nothing PC or not PC about it.

This is all speculation by you, that has absoultely no basis in fact, and is really your opinion. I and many other people totally disagree with your opinion.

the same can be said for the propaganda you have been spouting as well.

Name the person I insulted?

how about everyone showing their dog at the dog show in question? i can  probably get a list if you like.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

You're right, insults are juvenile, but then so is focusing on whether someone is being politically correct

it is an insult to call someone fat. there is nothing PC or not PC about it.

Calling someone Fat, would be an insult. However, I didn't do that.

**Content Removed - Rude Comment** handlers prancing around with the dogs

just because a moderator removed your words doesnt mean it wasnt said.[]

I think that certain individuals need to step back and take a deep breath before commenting further on this issue. I'm sure that you know who you are.

Sensationalism will not get anyone, anywhere. Nor will insults.

ORIGINAL: DogAdvocat
Actually it will affect puppymillers and commercial breeders within the state, because most of them are not going to be involved with competition with their dogs.

Read the text of the current version of the law - not someone's interpretation of the law - the actual text.  Those who obtain a breeder's license are NOT required to do any kind of competition.
 

ORIGINAL: DogAdvocat
[font=verdana]I don't understand why you are saying that there would be less well-bred, properly socialized, mentored dogs because those are not the dogs bred by the backyard breeders that couldn't qualify for the permits. 

[/font]
Qualify for the permits?  I assume you mean qualify for a breeder's license.  Since AB1634 doesn't establish any qualifications, you don't know how difficult they will be to get.  In fact, since a lot of localities don't even have bureaus set up it issue the licenses, some breeders may be caught in the catch-22 of not having a way to get the required license for several years - long enough to destroy a breeding program.