Dog Community

Posted : 6/25/2007 10:20:04 AM

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

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.

Take anything you read on the NAIA web site with a grain of salt. Remember it is run by a lawyer for the Circus. ( That is of course, unless you believe everything a lawyer says.........[sm=rofl.gif] )

timsdat

Posted : 6/25/2007 10:26:45 AM

Take anything you read on the NAIA web site with a grain of salt. Remember it is run by a lawyer for the Circus. ( That is of course, unless you believe everything a lawyer says......... )

What about the numbers for the city of Santa Cruz. Those numbers came directly from the City's web site.

cakana

Posted : 6/25/2007 10:31:55 AM

quote:

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.
quote:

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.

I'm not worried about dogs in the general population if they're not ending up in the shelter. In addition, some of those opposed to bill state that finding a dog anywhere will be extremely difficult. Others say it won't make a difference. I realize that many of us are completely speculating on what affect this bill will have, but unless something changes, we can be 100% certain that the shelters will continue to be inundated with unwanted pets.

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]

We have these same type programs in California too. Why don't people use them? I still think it's due in large part to people's ignorance, stubborness and just plain laziness. I don't understand it, but maybe it's time for this state to be the first to say "it's not an option".

rwbeagles

Posted : 6/25/2007 10:36:40 AM

Cathy I just want to say...in some cities in California...they have programs (not always shelters, rescue orgs etc) where they travel to "find adoptable dogs", either in Mexico...or other cities in Ca. and bring them in.

This overpopulation in shelters is NOT a state wide issue...and it does not merit thus...statewide legislation. Individual cities should be tailoring their laws to what is needed by that city for that population.

If you have to import dogs from Mexico or other cities to fill your shelter...while another one is putting down 10,000 animals...then there needs to be more communication and COOPERATION within the shelter system IMO.

cakana

Posted : 6/25/2007 11:15:18 AM

This overpopulation in shelters is NOT a state wide issue...and it does not merit thus...statewide legislation. Individual cities should be tailoring their laws to what is needed by that city for that population.

I completely agree with you Gina. I'd rather see this done at the local level and it would be more likely to be managed/enforced. Maybe that's something that those of us in support or opposition should be pushing for.

rwbeagles

Posted : 6/25/2007 12:11:54 PM

There seems to be at times some reluctance for shelters to work together within a state...not being a shelter person I don't know the why's of it..perhaps funding jealousy or assumptions being made, etc.

But I've seen shelters in different states work together to move animals that "do better" in one state from a state where they are "overrun with xxx"....it just seems that if more of that were done...or indeed MANDATED and funded to be done...the numbers would go down. Some communities are "small doggy" or "kitty" ones...others "big active doggy" ones....there seems like there should be some way to work together...speaking of shelters.

Bobsk8

Posted : 6/25/2007 1:29:00 PM

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

There seems to be at times some reluctance for shelters to work together within a state...not being a shelter person I don't know the why's of it..perhaps funding jealousy or assumptions being made, etc.

But I've seen shelters in different states work together to move animals that "do better" in one state from a state where they are "overrun with xxx"....it just seems that if more of that were done...or indeed MANDATED and funded to be done...the numbers would go down. Some communities are "small doggy" or "kitty" ones...others "big active doggy" ones....there seems like there should be some way to work together...speaking of shelters.

Maybe you should try volunteering in a shelter some time and see how it changes your thinking on AB1634.

janet_rose

Posted : 6/25/2007 1:52:30 PM

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8
Stating and restating that AB1634 will not reduce the number of dogs in the general population, does not make it true.

Stating and restating the opposite doesn't make it true either. Without controls on commercial breeders (in and out of California), there will be plenty of puppies in California - albeit possibily less inexpensive ones. Just how is AB1634 going to keep those pups from other states out of California in a free market economy?

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8
Well you know that if it is ineffective and unenforceable as you are guessing at, that it will most certainly be repealed.

You must have missed the thread on dumb laws. It is hilarious!!
[linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/m.asp?m=381585[/link]>http://forum.dog.com/asp/m.asp?m=381585]http://forum.dog.com/asp/m.asp?m=381585[/link]

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8
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.

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8
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.

I have no sympathy for breeders who don't pay their taxes, but how about a case study that says that mandatory s/n will reduce shelter costs and shelter intake numbers? Santa Cruz is useless as such a study. Their numbers are a good example of taking data and using statistics to produce unwarranted conclusions. There is a reason that people use the phrase "lies, damn lies, and statistics". See [link>http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistics-Darrell-Huff/dp/0393310728/ref=sr_1_5/002-6154497-5476807?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182791671&sr=1-5]How to Lie With Statistics[/link] by Darrell Huff and Irving Geis (Paperback - Sep 1993).

According to their records, Santa Cruz shelter costs have not gone down. Maybe they reduced the rate of growth of those costs, but I have seen no such claims. They have done no better at reducing shelter intake than lots of California localities without mandatory s/n. They are small enough that they only PTS 10 puppies last year, so with their much touted 64% reduction over 10 years, that would mean about 27 pups PTS 10 years ago.

To be statistically relevant to the state of California, you must look at a locality with much larger shelters. You also need separate numbers for (1) new, healthy pups from surrendered litters, (2) new, sick or diseased pups from surrendered litters, (3) healthy, older pups surrendered by owners, and (4) sick or diseased, older pups surrendered by owners. Stats on the number of s/n surgeries in the area (and surrounding areas) would help to see if people did s/n or just left the area.

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8
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?

If California passes AB1634, the law may spread not because it has any real merit, but because law makers want to show the voters that they are doing "something" about the pet overpopulation. Most voters won't understand that it is ineffective and unenforceable. Pretending that you are accomplishing something means you don't really have to do anything.

Breeders don't want the government getting into the practice of telling them what dog breeds they can breed, what dogs they can breed, when to breed them, and when to perform surgery on them. To even come close to properly describing good husbandry the law would have to be a good sized book.

Breeders are fearful of terms like "valid breed". Who gets to decide? They are concerned about the puppies who will be killed rather than for the owner to admit they have an unspayed female or the puppies that are left in cardboard boxes at a shelter door where coyotes can get to them.

They worry about the whole country being a hodge-podge of different breeder's licenses requirements and litter permit requirements that could lead to defacto BSL legislation. They are concerned that PETA will try to get their people in charge of litter permits so that they can work toward their goal of "no pet breeding" in the U.S. and no pet ownership in the U.S.

Responsible breeders who seldom even cover their costs are afraid that with additional "fees" they will have to stop breeding completely. If AB1634 spread across the U.S., that could have a bad effect on the general health of the canine population. There could be a drastic reduction in the number of health checked puppies.

The undefined portions of the mechanisms behind AB1634 are even scarer than the details on paper.

Statistical question: Someone tells you that your risk of a particular disease just went up 200%. Should you be worried? How about if your risk went from 0.000001% (one chance in a million) to 0.000003%? Quess what - that is a 200% increase!!

janet_rose

Posted : 6/25/2007 3:14:12 PM

How about this:
(1) Make it illegal to sell or give away puppies or kittens along the road, in parking lots, or in stores. Fine people that do it and fine businesses that allow it. Owners can get out of the fine if they present documentation of a spay. Put out some TV promo spots that encourage people to call the police. Sellers would be spooked every time someone in a car picked up a cell phone. People holding a phone could just stare at them. Traffic cops could write tickets when they had time and it would help to make their quotas. (Yeh, I know. Police don't have quotas. [

] )
(2) Forget breeder's licenses, litter permits, and intact fees. Require a $5 "shelter" tax number and a microchip (allow breeder to always list breed as mixed?) for every new pup for sale that is physically in the state of California. No refunds if the pup isn't sold or dies. Fine California publications that list ads without the number. California residents whose web sites don't list the number could be fined, but get out of the fine with a spay. (Yeh, you may be able to get around this by having sites owned by non-California residents.) Commercial breeders and big puppymills would wind up paying most of $5 fees because they are easier to track. Fees go to support shelters.
(3) Pass a law that allows AC officers or neighbors to petition the small claims court for a spay order if litters are allowed to roam (kittens and puppies). Encourage people to report such litters to AC or to make their own videos. Also allow AC officers and neighbors to petition for a neuter order when a male is allowed to roam.

In increments:
(1) Increase the $5 fee to $10 if the female was not vet checked and OKed just before she was bred. Fee goes up to $20 if that happens again within 5 years (same breeder - same or different female).
(2) Add a requirement that the parents be OFA checked.

Personal Champ

Posted : 6/25/2007 3:34:14 PM

Can everyone please discuss nicely? No baiting, no personal jabs, no flippant remarks, etc.

This is not the first time that this thread has gotten a general warning, however, it will be the last. Next step is suspensions. The choice is yours.

Bobsk8

Posted : 6/25/2007 4:31:07 PM

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

Cathy I just want to say...in some cities in California...they have programs (not always shelters, rescue orgs etc) where they travel to "find adoptable dogs", either in Mexico...or other cities in Ca. and bring them in.

This overpopulation in shelters is NOT a state wide issue...and it does not merit thus...statewide legislation. Individual cities should be tailoring their laws to what is needed by that city for that population.

If you have to import dogs from Mexico or other cities to fill your shelter...while another one is putting down 10,000 animals...then there needs to be more communication and COOPERATION within the shelter system IMO.

Would you kindly post the name and address of any shelter that needs to import animals from Mexico, so we can contact them . We have animals right here in Georgia, that need homes so they can avoid being destroyed, and I am sure we can arrange to have them shipped to California.

timsdat

Posted : 6/25/2007 5:39:04 PM

Romania. [linkhttp://www.animalcenter.org/news/releases/romania_pups5-06-3.aspx]http://www.animalcenter.org/news/releases/romania_pups5-06-3.aspx[/link]

Rancho Santa Fe, CA - Orphaned puppies from Romania that landed in San Diego on May 16 will become available for adoption this Wednesday morning at 11:00 am at Helen Woodward Animal Center in Rancho Santa Fe. Their journey is being recorded for a documentary entitled "Rags to Riches - A Dog's Life". The film will follow a group of California animal advocates and US-based Romania Animal Rescue (RAR) to Galati (guh-Lot'), Romania to save pups thrown in the trash and roaming the streets.

There is a list of some organizations that have taken Potcakes (Bahama's) dogs: [linkhttp://www.potcakeplace.com/index.php?option=com_weblinks&catid=2&Itemid=23]http://www.potcakeplace.com/index.php?option=com_weblinks&catid=2&Itemid=23[/link]

or

[linkhttp://freeport.nassauguardian.net/national_local/286689395900754.php]http://freeport.nassauguardian.net/national_local/286689395900754.php[/link]

Nearly two dozen pups were flown to Florida from Grand Bahama to take up temporary residence at the Peggy Adams Animal Rescue League in West Palm Beach before they are adopted into new families.
The puppies, known in The Bahamas as potcakes, are mixed-breed dogs and range in age from eight to 16 weeks.
In fact, they received a warm reception when they arrived in Ft. Lauderdale with the U.S. media waiting.
The Humane Society of Grand Bahama has dubbed this new programme "Operation Puppy Lift" which has been running for the last two years.
Another 20 were sent over to the Florida humane society two weeks ago.

Lebanon [linkhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14997834/wid/6448213]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14997834/wid/6448213[/link]

Pets orphaned by Lebanon war to come to U.S.
300 homeless dogs and cats to be airlifted out of Beirut for adoption

Puerto Rico [linkhttp://www.saveasato.org/]http://www.saveasato.org/[/link]

[align=center]Following is a list of U.S. shelters that are currently helping us find homes for our
rehabilitated Satos. If you live in the area of any of these shelters and are interested
in being considered to adopt a Sato, please feel free to stop by and ask to see the
Satos that are currently available for adoption. If you are not near one of our
stateside shelters, please DO adopt a dog from another shelter or breed rescue
in your area.    Please don't contribute to the enormous pet overpopulation problem
by supporting a pet store, puppy mill or backyard breeder.   If you will be traveling
to Puerto Rico and would like to adopt a dog directly from Save A Sato, please
[email=chantal@prtc.net]email Chantal[/email] PRIOR to coming to the island. You will be required to complete
an adoption application and provide vet references in addition to proving eligibility
and ability to be a responsible pet owner. We are not able to ship Satos to the
states to be adopted rivately. You may either adopt a Sato from one of our
stateside shelters or adopt directly from us if you visit Puerto Rico.

SATO ADOPTIONS:
Before you make the decision to adopt a pet, please [linkhttp://www.saveasato.org/reasonstoadoptadog.htm]click here
[/link] to see if you have what it takes to be a responsible pet owner.

For training information, see bottom of page. [blockquote][align=left][linkhttp://www.petfinder.org/shelters/NJ158.html]BLOOMFIELD-BUKOWSKI ANIMAL SHELTER [/link]OUR NEWEST SHELTER ADDITION
61 Bukowski Place
Bloomfield, NJ 07003
Phone: 973-259-0016
Email: [email=ellen_powley@bloomfield.edu]ellen_powley@bloomfield.edu[/email]
[align=left][linkhttp://www.capeannanimalaid.com/]CAPE ANN ANIMAL AID[/link]
260 Main St.
Gloucester, MA 01930
(97 283-6055 [align=left][linkhttp://www.mtpleasant.petfinder.org/]MT. PLEASANT ANIMAL SHELTER:[/link]
194 Route 10 West
East Hanover, NJ 07936
(973) 386-0590 [align=left][linkhttp://www.daws.org/]DANBURY ANIMAL WELFARE SOCIETY (DAWS)
[/link]PO Box 971
Danbury, CT 06813
Directions and hours on their website
(203) 798-5816 (Answering service - your call will be routed to the appropriate person and returned ASAP)
[align=left][linkhttp://www.northeastanimalshelter.org/]NORTHEAST ANIMAL SHELTER[/link][linkhttp://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Ranch/6353/index.htm]:[/link]
204 Highland Ave.
Salem, MA 01970
(97 745-9888 [align=left][linkhttp://www.sterlingshelter.org/]STERLING ANIMAL SHELTER:[/link]
17 Laurelwood Rd
Sterling, MA 01564
(97 422-8585

[linkhttp://www.buddydoghs.com/]BUDDY DOG HUMANE SOCIETY:
[/link]151 Boston Post Rd (Rt 20)
Sudbury, MA 01776
(97 443-6990
(781) 237-4747

[linkhttp://www.spcahouston.org/]HOUSTON SPCA:[/link]
900 Portway Dr.
Houston, TX 77024
(713) 869-7722[align=left][linkhttp://www.wchs4pets.org/]WINDHAM COUNTY HUMANE SOCIETY:[/link]
916 W River Rd
Brattleboro, VT
(802) 254-2232 [/blockquote]

More Save-a-Sato

A little old: [linkhttp://www.saveasato.org/satonewspaperarticlegreenwichstamford.htm]http://www.saveasato.org/satonewspaperarticlegreenwichstamford.htm[/link]

PAWS regularly sends puppies to the The Animal Shelter: The Best Little Humane Society in Central Florida in Winter Garden, Fla., and recently has been sending them to Greenwich-based Adopt-a-Dog.

From July 16 to 23, PAWS sent 28 puppies to the Florida shelter and seven to Adopt-a-Dog in Greenwich.

From a 2003 article: [linkhttp://www.saveasato.org/courantnewsarticle.htm]http://www.saveasato.org/courantnewsarticle.htm[/link]

The event was also attended by members of the Save A Sato group, which has partnered with American Airlines since 1996 to rescue more than 15,000 stray dogs from the streets of Puerto Rico. American Airlines flies 30 to 40 dogs a week into Boston, which are then sent to shelters for spaying, neutering and adoption.

timsdat

Posted : 6/25/2007 5:53:26 PM

Do you notice a theme about these dogs coming from overseas.
puppies, puppies, puppies.

timsdat

Posted : 6/25/2007 6:17:45 PM

Mexico. [linkhttp://www.cwob.org/rescue.html]http://www.cwob.org/rescue.html[/link]

Since 2001, Compassion Without Borders, has been coordinating an international rescue from Mexico to Northern California. To date, we have saved the lives of hundreds of dogs. The rescue is a collaborative effort between Compassion without Borders and our partner organizations.

and I found another. [linkhttp://www.komotv.com/news/archive/4185851.html]http://www.komotv.com/news/archive/4185851.html[/link]

SEATTLE - How's this for ironic.
Here we are trying to wrestle a huge immigration issue to the ground, only to find out the Seattle Animal Shelter is importing dogs from South of the border.

timsdat

Posted : 6/25/2007 7:19:57 PM

China. [linkhttp://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=133678]http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=133678[/link]

IFAW and North Shore Animal League America team up to rescue 30 dogs from shelter in China and re-home them in the United States

AB1634 COULD DENY CALIFORNIA PETS MADDIE'S FUND GRANTS