Dog Community

Posted : 6/24/2007 9:14:25 PM

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.

Yes this bill is going to turn everyone into responsible owners. No animals left running loose, proper training for all dogs. No feral cats. No mistreated pets. After all aren't these the real reasons there are so many animals in shelters.

timsdat

Posted : 6/24/2007 9:41:26 PM

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.

Don't forget the internet sales sites both on-shore and off-shore. They are going to love this.

cakana

Posted : 6/24/2007 9:48:49 PM

No one is going to argue the point that "less dogs means fewer dogs into the shelters." That is a no-brainer.

Janet - you may not have meant to make this point, so simply, but if that is the end result of this bill then I wish I did have the ability to vote for it. Ultimately, above all else, that is what I'd wish for. Fewer dogs into the shelter = [

]

miranadobe

Posted : 6/24/2007 9:50:36 PM

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.

absolutely! and bustertheshowdog's post is on-point, too.

timsdat

Posted : 6/24/2007 9:53:16 PM

Janet - you may not have meant to make this point, so simply, but if that is the end result of this bill then I wish I did have the ability to vote for it. Ultimately, above all else, that is what I'd wish for. Fewer dogs into the shelter

Many other communities have been able to accomplish this without such legislation. How did they do it???

miranadobe

Posted : 6/24/2007 11:03:40 PM

Many other communities have been able to accomplish this without such legislation. How did they do it???

from my very own Live Free or Die state... low-cost spay/neuter assistance programs.
[linkhttp://www.mfoa.net/news/companion_animals/spay_maine.html]http://www.mfoa.net/news/companion_animals/spay_maine.html[/link]

janet_rose

Posted : 6/24/2007 11:18:52 PM

ORIGINAL: janet_rose
No one is going to argue the point that "less dogs means fewer dogs into the shelters." That is a no-brainer.

ORIGINAL: cakana
Janet - you may not have meant to make this point, so simply, but if that is the end result of this bill then I wish I did have the ability to vote for it. Ultimately, above all else, that is what I'd wish for. Fewer dogs into the shelter = []

Nope, AB1634 has no hope of reducing the number of canines in the general population.

Bobsk8

Posted : 6/25/2007 7:28:30 AM

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.

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.

If this bill is destined to be ineffective in reducing the overpopulation of dogs, as the anti-1634 continually claim, then why would "responsible breeders" worry about the law passing?. That is the unanswered question that continues to go unanswered while all the negative rhetoric goes on and on.

Bobsk8

Posted : 6/25/2007 7:30:15 AM

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

ORIGINAL: janet_rose
No one is going to argue the point that "less dogs means fewer dogs into the shelters." That is a no-brainer.

ORIGINAL: cakana
Janet - you may not have meant to make this point, so simply, but if that is the end result of this bill then I wish I did have the ability to vote for it. Ultimately, above all else, that is what I'd wish for. Fewer dogs into the shelter = []

Nope, AB1634 has no hope of reducing the number of canines in the general population.

Stating and restating that AB1634 will not reduce the number of dogs in the general population, does not make it true. That is what bothers the breeders the most, because it will work, and it will spread from state to state when the states find out about the millions of dollars they can save each year. The breeders will have to start running their businesses like a businesses and documenting their sales and paying taxes like the rest of us.

cyclefiend2000

Posted : 6/25/2007 8:21:14 AM

If this bill is destined to be ineffective in reducing the overpopulation of dogs, as the anti-1634 continually claim, then why would "responsible breeders" worry about the law passing?

because we dont need another nonsense and unenforceable law on the books. there are plenty of those already. [

]

cyclefiend2000

Posted : 6/25/2007 8:22:00 AM

it will spread from state to state

like a virus?

Bobsk8

Posted : 6/25/2007 9:39:51 AM

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

If this bill is destined to be ineffective in reducing the overpopulation of dogs, as the anti-1634 continually claim, then why would "responsible breeders" worry about the law passing?

because we dont need another nonsense and unenforceable law on the books. there are plenty of those already. []

Well you know that if it is ineffective and unenforceable as you are guessing at, that it will most certainly be repealed. That of course , is not going to happen, once the shelter populations and the cost to the state start lowering.

Bobsk8

Posted : 6/25/2007 9:44:46 AM

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

it will spread from state to state

like a virus?

Probably . People are looking for ways to lower their taxes, and dog lovers are looking for ways to reduce the number of dogs that are being executed in shelters on a daily basis, all over the country. Once they see this law in operation, it is only a matter of time before it is adopted in other states.

timsdat

Posted : 6/25/2007 9:53:30 AM

cost to the state start lowering.

Right. Why don't they post all the saving that the city of Santa Cruz and the county of Santa Cruz have saved with their law. I'll tell you why. They haven't saved money in fact shelter budgets keep going up each and every year and have since the law was introduced. It's right there in city and county published numbers. I wouldn't think that they are lying on their budgets.

rwbeagles

Posted : 6/25/2007 10:00:46 AM

Think the SC budget is posted on the NAIA site...it has gone up a lot. But I am sure that's all made up...libel rules aside...lol.

AB1634 COULD DENY CALIFORNIA PETS MADDIE'S FUND GRANTS