legislating morality

Steve I think you are one of my favorite people.  []  Wonder if you will PM me all this information.  I wanna forward it off to a few other forums I belong to that are against this bill.  Not sure all of it has been brought up.
 
Thanks.

I stopped at a Target store this afternoon to pick up something, and a boy about 12 or 13 was in the lobby with a laundry basket filled with kittens. He was just handing them to people, and usually the person handed the kitten back. I asked him where he got the kittens, and he said "his cat" had them a few weeks ago... That is just beyond sad.....

did you try to educate him on the importance of spay/neuter?

The term "legislating morality" caught my eye. The way I see it, making laws has everything to do with standardizing community conduct, so legislation is precisely the act of enforcing moral codes. The only questions is ... whose morals?

To look at the alcohol analogy ... our gov could legislate (and have a war) against alcohol and tobacco, like we do with other drugs, but our gov choses not to. In S/N legislation, who are the sides? Who's morals are represented for/against the legislation?

Here's a question: our Animal Control doesn't have enough manpower to respond to off-leash dogs, even ones that charge at you or kill cats. So, whose going to check that animals are spayed/neutered?

In the alcohol analogy, it's ... how much are city budgets increased to cover roadblocks and breathalizers? There were a few years of that back in the 90's, when MADD and DARE got busy ... but it kinda faded away.

My biggest issue with mandatory spay neuter involves unintended outcomes.  Commercial breeders who supply poorly bred animals to Petland and the like will continue unabated, that includes doodles and other designer mutts.
 
Neighborhood disputes could likely result in emotion based enforcement. 
 
Local control over who gets what could likely result in significant variability in implementation.  So moving from one part of the state to another could be problematic.
 
Yes I understand these are could be's.  I do however work from a direct experience knowledge base.  The field of education is full of unfunded mandates that have swung from one end of the pendulum to the other.  What is the only recent legislated requirement that actually seems to be making a positive difference, data based decision making (under a number of different acts both statewide and national).
 
There have been repeated questions about what would those who oppose spay neuter suggest instead and enforcement of existing laws is a generally accepted answer.  So adding a law that addresses data collection related to enforcement is more likely to have a direct result on the problem than legislation that has no funding included.
 
If you can not enforce the code, you can not impact behavior.

ORIGINAL: mrv
My biggest issue with mandatory spay neuter involves unintended outcomes. Commercial breeders who supply poorly bred animals to Petland and the like will continue unabated, that includes doodles and other designer mutts.

Neighborhood disputes could likely result in emotion based enforcement.

So, S/N would be mandatory for those who don't hold a special license, like commercial breeders? (Sorry, I'm new to this discussion, please direct me to an URL if I'm asking boring questions []).

So the only breeding would be from companies whose gross revenue is over $XXXXXXX dollars? That would be the standard for licensing?

Small time breeders (ostensibly good ones and bad ones) wouldn't be eligible for the licenses?

Individual owners would not bel eligible for licenses? But some would manage to breed anyway, then it's just a matter of who can get away with it? Which probably means that patrolled neighborhoods would get managed, and unpatrolled neighborhoods would not? Imagine that [>:]

ORIGINAL: Ixas_girl

ORIGINAL: mrv
My biggest issue with mandatory spay neuter involves unintended outcomes. Commercial breeders who supply poorly bred animals to Petland and the like will continue unabated, that includes doodles and other designer mutts.

Neighborhood disputes could likely result in emotion based enforcement.

So, S/N would be mandatory for those who don't hold a special license, like commercial breeders? (Sorry, I'm new to this discussion, please direct me to an URL if I'm asking boring questions []).

So the only breeding would be from companies whose gross revenue is over $XXXXXXX dollars? That would be the standard for licensing?

Small time breeders (ostensibly good ones and bad ones) wouldn't be eligible for the licenses?

Individual owners would not bel eligible for licenses? But some would manage to breed anyway, then it's just a matter of who can get away with it? Which probably means that patrolled neighborhoods would get managed, and unpatrolled neighborhoods would not? Imagine that [>:]

Many small breeders resent this law going into effect, because they will have to place their businesses "on the books" and pay income taxes on their sales because of the requirement  of documenting their sales , versus, not reporting the income which is what some  are doing now. I have had 2 different breeders tell me this.

Many small breeders resent this law going into effect, because they will have to place their businesses "on the books" and pay income taxes on their sales because of the requirement of documenting their sales , versus, not reporting the income which is what some are doing now. I have had 2 different breeders tell me this.

 
How does that work?  In order to have a "business" you have to prove an intent to make money.  And the breeders I know aren't making money off their dogs.  Considering the shows they go to, the classes they attend, the travel expenses, the entry fees, the food, vet care, materials/equipment (agility equipment is $$$$!!!!), heath testings, stud fees, pre/during/post pregnance expenses, etc there's no way they're going to make money.  Gina is our most vocal resident breeder on this board; perhaps she'd be willing to let us know how much she made off her last litter - 3 pups, one died but not before spending several days at the vets (think$$$).  RedyreRott's spent $1385 on her bitch attempting to get her pregnant.   That didn't include stud fees, show entries, health tests, etc.  No guarentee of puppies. 
[linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=367640]http://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=367640[/link]
(As it turns out it looks like the bitch may be preg.)
 
So how do you get a business license if you're not/not planning on making money?

So how do you get a business license if you're not/not planning on making money?

 
I don't think the bill requires anyone to get a business license nor do I think you are required to pay taxes if you haven't had an income.  Like anything else, you deduct the cost of doing business from the income you made, and if it's a loss or a wash, then no taxes need be paid.  I also don't think that's the reason that breeders of any kind are against the bill, but that's just a hunch.  I think it really does boil down to people who are doing a reputable job, such as Gina, not wanting govt sticking their nose in their business and yet, byb or puppy mills still carrying on as usual.  I understand and agree with this.  I wish there were a way to deal with that issue and still do something (yes - in legislative form, if necessary) to turn things around.
 
I just wanted to add - what if in the case of the boy with the kittens at Target, you could say "did you know that the law says your cat must be spayed?"  Not to pick on the little boy, but rather than trying to educate someone about the health benefits, the stats on euthanized animals, etc., and have them say "yeah, whatever"...we could say "it's the law!"  I guess I'm just not feeling patient or optimistic that education will turn the tide fast enough.

ORIGINAL: cakana
I think it really does boil down to people who are doing a reputable job, such as Gina, not wanting govt sticking their nose in their business and yet, byb or puppy mills still carrying on as usual.

I don't understand how a law could be written that would protect byb/puppy mills, but harrass the reputable folks. Isn't BYB just a pejorative term for disreputable private breeder? How would the gov determine who's reputable and who's not?
Why wouldn't everyone get harraseed equally?

I still don't understand how this is to be regulated? Can anyone just get a breeding license/business license and be good to go?

I don't understand how a law could be written that would protect byb/puppy mills, but harrass the reputable folks. Isn't BYB just a pejorative term for disreputable private breeder? How would the gov determine who's reputable and who's not?
Why wouldn't everyone get harraseed equally?

 
Sorry I didn't explain that very well.  I think that smaller, reputable breeders feel that while this will create headaches for them, it won't likely have much of an impact on the situation.  The backyard breeder may or may not even comply, but if they do, so what, they'll still keep on cranking out litters of sub-standard pups.  The puppy mills likely won't even bat an eye at this bill.  I *think* that's one of the issues...but I'm sure there are more and I probably shouldn't be talking for anyone else []

Can you legislate morallity?

Well, you can legislate anything, but it doesn't mean that the law is going to be worth any more than the paper it's printed on.  Drugs are illegal, but I could easily buy any drug I wanted without leaving town.  Prostitution is illegal (most useless law ever-- you can sleep with who ever you want to for free but heaven forbid someone pay you for it) yet if you have ever been to Las Vegas you know that "hooker cards" are handed out to people on the strip and the yellow pages are FILLED with ads for "full service exotic dancers."

Well, you can legislate anything, but it doesn't mean that the law is going to be worth any more than the paper it's printed on.

 
I understand the point you're making, but I don't think that we can afford to not have laws because some people won't abide by them. 

ORIGINAL: agilebasenji

Many small breeders resent this law going into effect, because they will have to place their businesses "on the books" and pay income taxes on their sales because of the requirement of documenting their sales , versus, not reporting the income which is what some are doing now. I have had 2 different breeders tell me this.

How does that work?  In order to have a "business" you have to prove an intent to make money.  And the breeders I know aren't making money off their dogs.  Considering the shows they go to, the classes they attend, the travel expenses, the entry fees, the food, vet care, materials/equipment (agility equipment is $$$$!!!!), heath testings, stud fees, pre/during/post pregnance expenses, etc there's no way they're going to make money.  Gina is our most vocal resident breeder on this board; perhaps she'd be willing to let us know how much she made off her last litter - 3 pups, one died but not before spending several days at the vets (think$$$).  RedyreRott's spent $1385 on her bitch attempting to get her pregnant.   That didn't include stud fees, show entries, health tests, etc.  No guarentee of puppies. 
[linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=367640]http://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=367640[/link]
(As it turns out it looks like the bitch may be preg.)

So how do you get a business license if you're not/not planning on making money?

If you get any money from selling a  dog, and don't report it, you are breaking the law and are a tax cheat. It has nothing to do with your P and L at the end of the year, which might very well show a net loss.  You may not make any money, and your documentation on your IRS forms would prove that, but you still have to file a return with all  income and expenses clearly accounted for. If you are not doing that, and are caught,  you could go to jail. It's called income tax evasion.  Anyone can claim they have alot of expences, but it has to be proven to the IRS. If you are giving the dogs away for free, and have zero income, then you would not have to file. That is what I have been told is the real issue that the anti AB1634 folks have, because now they will have to start documenting their buisness P and L. By the way, I now  have a small business, and do not have to get a business license. I do give my  accountant all my income and expences at tax time,   and I then pay all taxes that are due.

ORIGINAL: sillysally

Can you legislate morallity?

Well, you can legislate anything, but it doesn't mean that the law is going to be worth any more than the paper it's printed on.  Drugs are illegal, but I could easily buy any drug I wanted without leaving town.  Prostitution is illegal (most useless law ever-- you can sleep with who ever you want to for free but heaven forbid someone pay you for it) yet if you have ever been to Las Vegas you know that "hooker cards" are handed out to people on the strip and the yellow pages are FILLED with ads for "full service exotic dancers."

So you would suggest that laws protecting people from robbery, murder, rape, child molestation, identity theft, should be abolished, because people break them anyway?   [&:]

I saw this quote reciently and I think it is worth remembering when laws are concerned.
 
[size=4]"You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will
convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would
do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.
 [/size]