AB1634 COULD DENY CALIFORNIA PETS MADDIE'S FUND GRANTS

ORIGINAL: janet_rose
There is nothing in AB1634 to decrease the percentage of people who will surrender/abandon their older pups and dogs. 

ORIGINAL: Quincy
Have you considered that under AB1634 that more pet cats and dogs will be spay neutered, consequently if abandoned and articularly if left to roam those who are spay neutered will not roduce litters of kittens and pups that contribute yet more to the shelter intake numbers.

Sure I have!  I have asked several times what percentage of the dogs PTS in shelters is made up of new puppies that have never had a home.  No one seems to know.  Do you?
 
If AB1634 reduces the number of new puppies in shelters to almost zero, the people who want puppies will go elsewhere (Internet?).  A few of the people that want puppies may be willing to adopt older animals especially if they can't afford a "pet store" pup. 
 
Mexican breeders and commercial breeders will be happy to take up the slack in providing new puppies, so the number of puppies going into the general population will not be significantly reduced.  People will be afraid to take litters to the shelter because that means they have an unspayed female, so many of those pups will wind up in a bag at the bottom of a lake. 
 
New puppies are a small fraction of the problem.  They are just used to pull on people's heart strings.  The big problem is people abandoning/surrendering/losing older pups and dogs.  AB1634 does nothing to even help get lost dogs back with their owners.
 
I see cats as a different issue from dogs.  I see far more cats running loose than I do dogs.  They eat mostly small rodents, but can take a severe toll on smaller birds (like songbirds).  Cats are much, much more difficult to catch than dogs, but are seldom a physical threat to humans, so they are often just ignored.  Feral cat colonies are tolerated where packs of dogs would not be. 

If what all the Anti California AB1634 people say is true, and AB1634 will not work, then why are people from as far away as Florida so concerned about it's passage?

They are worried because AB1634 is not the answer to the overpopulation problem, but the rest of the country tends to copy California and it may take 10 years before everybody admits that the law failed.  In the meantime,
(1)  litters are killed because folks will not admit that they 
      have an unspayed female,
(2)  responsible breeders are put out of business because
      (a)  someone decides they don't have a "valid" breed,
      (b)  some locality makes a breeder's license hard to get,
      (c)  breeding costs are pushed up high enough that the
             breeder can't afford to lose any more money,
(3)  the genetic diversity of rare breeds is compromised
(4)  dogs that are perfect examples of their breed can't be
       bred because they hate shows,
(5)  great dogs that mature slowly may not make the goal
       of being titled before age 3,
(6)  etc.

The spread of AB1634 would increase the number of poorly bred, poorly socialized dogs and decrease the number of well bred, well socialized dogs.  It sacrifies the cream of the crop without addressing the fact that we are a mobile, "throw away" society.  

The willingness of people to abandon/surrender their older puppies and dogs is the big problem and AB1634 ignores it.  People get dogs with no understanding of the breed, with no intention of training the dog, and with no commitment to provide a forever home.

My brother has a 1-year-old, very active Golden Retriever that he obtained at 9 months.  It is the pup's third home.  Home #1 didn't know what they were getting into when they bought the pup from a pet store.  In home #2 the husband got the dog as a "surprise" (alias "shock") for his wife who loves Goldens, but she realized that with multiple dogs and seven kids that they didn't have time for a Golden.  The woman treated the dog as a foster, did some training, and placed her with my brother after an in-person interview. 

This dog will never go to a shelter.  All animals spend their life with our extended family with the rare exception of a pup that bonded with the children next door.  The children were allowed to keep the pup and he wound up living out his days on a huge cattle ranch.  That family once even used a helicopter to look for the dog after they discovered the hard way that he would never be a hunting dog. 

AB1634 does absolutely nothing to help encourage owners to more highly value their pets and to treat them like members of the family.

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

ORIGINAL: janet_rose
I have asked several times what percentage of the dogs PTS in shelters is made up of new puppies that have never had a home.  No one seems to know.  Do you?

 
If you looked at the model for this Bill in Santa Cruz County, the mandatory spay neuter law reduced the shelters intake by 64%, with less entering the shelters the end result was a correspondingly less required euthanazia. Last years statistics shows an intake of 109 puppies, 26 returned to their owners, 65 were adopted, 10 were Euthanized, and at end of report period 8 still were in the shelters. You can see all of last years figures via this URL:-
[linkhttp://www.scanimalservices.us/intake-outcome%20stats%20yr%202006.pdf]http://www.scanimalservices.us/intake-outcome%20stats%20yr%202006.pdf[/link]
 
.

ORIGINAL: janet_rose
I have asked several times what percentage of the dogs PTS in shelters is made up of new puppies that have never had a home. No one seems to know. Do you?

ORIGINAL: Quincy
If you looked at the model for this Bill in Santa Cruz County, the mandatory spay neuter law reduced the shelters intake by 64%, with less entering the shelters the end result was a correspondingly less required euthanazia. Last years statistics shows an intake of 109 puppies, 26 returned to their owners, 65 were adopted, 10 were Euthanized, and at end of report period 8 still were in the shelters. You can see all of last years figures via this URL:-
http://www.scanimalservices.us/intake-outcome%20stats%20yr%202006.pdf

First, since other localities without mandatory s/n have had results equaling or exceeding Santa Cruz, it is doubtful that Santa Cruz's mandatory s/n can be credited for their entire shelter intake reduction.  The logic of A happened, then B happened, so A caused B makes for a lot of very erroneous conclusions.
 
Second, the current numbers from Santa Cruz are not useful here since there is already a mandatory s/n there.  In trying to establish the possible effectiveness of AB1634, we need to look at the stats (from the last year or two) on the number of healthy new puppies (from surrendered litters) that are PTS in locations without a mandatory s/n.  The stats should preferably come from a locality dealing with a lot more dogs than Santa Cruz.
 
Third, even considering the 10 puppies PTS by Santa Cruz last year as coming from healthy, new litters, a 64% reduction over the past 10 years means that 10 years ago there would have been approximately 27 pups.  The 17 pup difference could easily have resulted from 1-4 litters. 
 
AB1634 is based on a county that reduced their shelter intake by 1-4 litters per year over a 10 year period???  This is why I don't trust statistics until I see the actual numbers that go with them.  Running just one BYBer out of the county could account for this reduction.
 
Forth, my computer is old enough that I can't read most PDF files, so I can't look at the actual numbers on the web page you sited nor do I want to at this time.
 
-----------------------------------------
 
Puppies surrendered by the owners later in their lives are a different statistic than the one I want to see.  Those pups represent puppies that are purchased/adopted and have been surrendered with excuses like:
(1)  can't be housetrained
(2)  too active
(3)  dumb - can't train
(4)  allergies
(5)  moving
(6)  not good with kids
(7)  destructive
(  etc.
Many of those puppies are surrendered from 7-13 months while the pups are teenagers.

ORIGINAL: janet_rose
New puppies are a small fraction of the problem.  They are just used to pull on people's heart strings.  The big problem is people abandoning/surrendering/losing older pups and dogs.  AB1634 does nothing to even help get lost dogs back with their owners.
 

 
AB1634 won't help get my lawn mowed either, but I don't think that's a good reason to oppose it.  In a round-about way, AB1634 could help reunite lost dogs with their owners if there were less dogs going into the shelter system, which would mean that lost dogs would have more time to be found. 

ORIGINAL: janet_rose
AB1634 does absolutely nothing to help encourage owners to more highly value their pets and to treat them like members of the family.

 
Feel free to explain how that could be written into any law.  What AB1634 DOES do is to make it illegal to breed irresponsibly, and most of the dogs going into they homes who do not value their pets and do not treat them like family members, come from irresponsible breeders.

Feel free to explain how that could be written into any law. What AB1634 DOES do is to make it illegal to breed irresponsibly, and most of the dogs going into they homes who do not value their pets and do not treat them like family members, come from irresponsible breeders.

 
I don't see anything in the bill that forces responsible breeding any more than the a person getting a drivers license make them a responsible driver.  Heck the breeder (and I use that term loosely) of designer breeds could probably easily get a RN on their base dogs and then they would be exempt.  Or they could say they are training or competing and they could get the exemption.  All they have to do is compete once every 2 years to qualify. 
 
The bill completely exempts operations with business licenses so they can breed whatever and as many as they want including mixed breed dogs.
 
One other note.  I don't consider anyone who has a litter of puppies to be a breeder anymore that I would call a person that has ever changed a lightbulb a electrician. 

ORIGINAL: DogAdvocat

ORIGINAL: janet_rose
New puppies are a small fraction of the problem.  They are just used to pull on people's heart strings.  The big problem is people abandoning/surrendering/losing older pups and dogs.  AB1634 does nothing to even help get lost dogs back with their owners.
 

AB1634 won't help get my lawn mowed either, but I don't think that's a good reason to oppose it.  In a round-about way, AB1634 could help reunite lost dogs with their owners if there were less dogs going into the shelter system, which would mean that lost dogs would have more time to be found. 

That is the thing that the anti folks don't want to address.  Lets dogs means fewer dogs into the shelters.   I still go back to the premise that the folks making money selling dogs don't like this bill because it cuts into their way of doing business . 

ORIGINAL: timsdat
One other note.  I don't consider anyone who has a litter of puppies to be a breeder anymore that I would call a person that has ever changed a lightbulb a electrician. 

 
Since assumably electricians can change lightbulbs, how much more do they need to do to prove they are electricians?  And please equate that to breeding.  What does a person have to do to prove to you that they are a breeder?  To me, all they have to do is breed (i.e., produce puppies).  The quality of their breeding puts them in the PM, BYB, or RB category.

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

ORIGINAL: DogAdvocat

ORIGINAL: janet_rose
New puppies are a small fraction of the problem.  They are just used to pull on people's heart strings.  The big problem is people abandoning/surrendering/losing older pups and dogs.  AB1634 does nothing to even help get lost dogs back with their owners.
 

AB1634 won't help get my lawn mowed either, but I don't think that's a good reason to oppose it.  In a round-about way, AB1634 could help reunite lost dogs with their owners if there were less dogs going into the shelter system, which would mean that lost dogs would have more time to be found. 

That is the thing that the anti folks don't want to address.  Lets dogs means fewer dogs into the shelters.   I still go back to the premise that the folks making money selling dogs don't like this bill because it cuts into their way of doing business . 

 
Yes, and their aranoia of the slippery slope. 

What does a person have to do to prove to you that they are a breeder? To me, all they have to do is breed (i.e., produce puppies). The quality of their breeding puts them in the PM, BYB, or RB category.

 
I real breeder to me is someone that has a responsible program to produce the best quality dogs that they can.  The amount of money they might make or lose does not apply.  What matters is the quality of the puppy that they produce.
 
While we are on the subject of breeders.  Here are things that I have read from people supporting this bill.
 
All breeders are irresponsible. 
Anybody that allows a puppy that is being born is a heartless person that doesn't care about the animals in shelters. 
How could anyone allow a puppy to be born while there are dogs in shelters.
All breeders are only in it for the money.
 
You wonder why the responsible breeding community is fighting this?  They know that they are the eventual target of legislation.
 
Pro bill people better face up to the reality that as long as there are dogs and cats on this world there will be dogs and cats in shelters.  It is a fact of life that not all pets will be wanted and there are some that will be PTS.
 

ORIGINAL: timsdat

What does a person have to do to prove to you that they are a breeder? To me, all they have to do is breed (i.e., produce puppies). The quality of their breeding puts them in the PM, BYB, or RB category.

I real breeder to me is someone that has a responsible program to produce the best quality dogs that they can.  The amount of money they might make or lose does not apply.  What matters is the quality of the puppy that they produce.

 
So what do you call breeders that aren't "real", who don't have a responsible program?  They still breed.  By that philosophy, what do we call those that aren't the best drivers, aren't the best parents, aren't the best doctors - yea, I know, quacks - but they still have their medical degree saying they are doctors.  Sorry, I don't buy it.  Someone who breeds is a breedER.  You can add any qualifier you like, they are still a breeder. 

While we are on the subject of breeders.  Here are things that I have read from people supporting this bill.

All breeders are irresponsible. 
Anybody that allows a puppy that is being born is a heartless person that doesn't care about the animals in shelters. 
How could anyone allow a puppy to be born while there are dogs in shelters.
All breeders are only in it for the money.

 
So?  We should judge the bill by what some of it's supporters say?  Have you heard the authors of this bill say all those things?  Some of the opponents are saying that the only people that are for this bill are those who are for extinction of animals and are animal rightists.  That's pretty inflammatory too.  Especially when a good portion of the groups listed on the website as supporters are simply people doing pet rescue.

You wonder why the responsible breeding community is fighting this?  They know that they are the eventual target of legislation.

 
No, actually what I wonder is why the responsible breeding community isn't coming up with legislation of their own?  Why keep putting all this effort into fighting what everyone else is doing, instead of proposing their own bill that would mandate what they are already doing - responsibly breeding?

Pro bill people better face up to the reality that as long as there are dogs and cats on this world there will be dogs and cats in shelters.  It is a fact of life that not all pets will be wanted and there are some that will be PTS.

 
I don't think there is any question that there will always be pets in shelters.  People die, dogs and cats get lost, people go to jail, go into assisted living, and just simply cannot physically take care of their animals.  But if that's all there was.  If animals were placed responsibly and the breeders had a safety net in place if the animal had to be returned, then shelters would have the room to house the animals in need until adoption or rescue.  And only the truly unadoptable would be PTS.
 
And by the way, PTS is all very sweet for dogs whose quality of life is not viable - but let's be honest - the rest are KILLED.

What AB1634 DOES do is to make it illegal to breed irresponsibly, and most of the dogs going into they homes who do not value their pets and do not treat them like family members, come from irresponsible breeders.

Huh?  [sm=asking03.gif]  No, AB1634 is an attempt to make it illegal to breed without a breeder's license or some kind of litter permit.  The LA litter permit doesn't even require that a bitch be purebred or health checked.  Some people would spay/neuter and stop breeding, but others would increase breeding to make up for it.
 
AB1634 doesn't do anything to make people breed more responsibly - no health checks, no selectivity of buyers. What makes you think that commercial breeders are any more "responsible" in that regard than the little guys with "oops" litters? 
 
AB1634 could decrease the number of small puppies in shelters and increase the number of litters killed by their owners.  It does nothing to decrease the number of "dogs going into they homes who do not value their pets and do not treat them like family members."
 
In case you think that making puppies cost more will make people value them more, my brother's Golden cost over $1000 at a pet store.  He got her for free off of Craig's List at 9 months.  Yes, she is spayed.

That is the thing that the anti folks don't want to address. Lets dogs means fewer dogs into the shelters.

No one is going to argue the point that "less dogs means fewer dogs into the shelters."  That is a no-brainer.
 
However, will the lack of puppies in shelters mean that there are less puppies available for people in California?  No.  Commercial breeders and Mexican breeders will easily take care of that.

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

That is the thing that the anti folks don't want to address.  Lets dogs means fewer dogs into the shelters.

Not necessarily. First of all there isn't any reason to think there will be fewer dogs, because people who want dogs can still buy them from large scale commercial breeders who are completely exempt from this bill. That's something none of the proponents of this bill will address - why exempt large scale commercial breeders who already have business licenses and target small scale breeders? People who want dogs can also get them from folks who smuggle them across the border, and of course people can order dogs on-line from any of a zillion large scale commercial breeders. And these puppies will not be taken back by the breeder once the family tires of their adolescent dog peeing on the rug or decide that they can't afford the vet bills for the poorly bred dog. As the source of well bred puppies dries up, people who want dogs will be forced to go to these unsavory sources, and they will be more than happy to fulfill the demand by upping their own "production" off the puppy assembly line. Great plan.

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8
   I still go back to the premise that the folks making money selling dogs don't like this bill because it cuts into their way of doing business . 

Well, you can go back to that premise all you want, but it doesn't square with the reality that the only group that actually does make substantial income selling dogs - large scale commercial breeders - is specifically exempted by this law.