Santa Cruz Shelter expenses up 93% since S/N Law.

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

Bob you can call it whatever you'd like. *shrug*
I think the eventual outcome is more important likely than the 'name' people choose to give or catch phases they apply to it. The aim of anti's is to avoid giving AR's a foothold to exterminate pet ownership altogether...and if anti's keep that goal in mind...focusing on the bigger picture, rather than the many small digs others try to make...we can make the biggest impact.

That red herring argument about AR groups doing away with all pets was started years ago by the NAIA, in response to the animal rights groups going after the trainer that beat the Orangutan to death during the filming of a Clint Eastwood movie a few decades ago. The lawyers for the Film and Circus Industry got all upset with the AR folks, since they realized that they would now have to be held accountable for the mistreatment of many of these animals.  That is why the head of NAIA is a lawyer for the Circus. One of their constant Mantras was " AR's want to take all animals away from the Public".  They have been saying this same thing, year after year,  and like many forms  of propaganda,  they feel that stating something over and over convinces many people that it is true, even if it is totally illogical and false.

We also have post after post on these forums talking about how this law won't work.  "It won't reduce the number of animals going into the shelters and being executed, people won't abide by the law, it won't reduce pet populations, yada , yada, yada......."  Day after day, I read these same comments by the Anti 1634 follks......  Then the very next thing they say is.... " And it will do away with all the animals........"   It won't work, but it will do away with all pets" [sm=beatdeadhorse.gif]

How ridiculous.......[]

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles
More to come perhaps as well as thier clients leave them in favor of opposed vets. Breeders are good clients to have from a money standpoint for a vet...which some will likely be finding out the hard way.

 
The AKC and it's members threatened to boycott Californian dog shows where they even mentioned how many millions this would cost California, gees they even sent heaps of letters with such threats to Governor Arnold "The Terminator". This threatening backfired back on the AKC and it's members where 2 Assembly Members located where the Eukanuba Show is to be held then decided to vote to pass the Bill on to the Senate. Maybe those opposing should think again about using threat tactics even if towards veterinarians.
.
 

Bob you dont' have to believe it, no skin off my nose. I have read enough about AR to feel comfy with what I wrote. So again...we can agree to disagree...just like waaaay back then when people said that BSL wouldn't result in any dogs being seized or put to death...pre Denver.

ORIGINAL: Quincy

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles
More to come perhaps as well as thier clients leave them in favor of opposed vets. Breeders are good clients to have from a money standpoint for a vet...which some will likely be finding out the hard way.

The AKC and it's members threatened to boycott Californian dog shows where they even mentioned how many millions this would cost California, gees they even sent heaps of letters with such threats to Governor Arnold "The Terminator". This threatening backfired back on the AKC and it's members where 2 Assembly Members located where the Eukanuba Show is to be held then decided to vote to pass the Bill on to the Senate. Maybe those opposing should think again about using threat tactics even if towards veterinarians.
.

One must also keep in mind that the AKC actively solicits business with Puppy Mills to pump money into their coffers. Talk about doing anything for money, it's like making a pact with the devil to make a few dollars.  .....they should be ashamed of themselves.  [:@]
[linkhttp://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/0603_AKC_PupMillLett.asp]http://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/0603_AKC_PupMillLett.asp
[/link]

Quincy boycotts are hardly a threat tactic...they are the right of every American consumer out there, to voice their displeasure.
If you are anti boycott I think that says loads...
 
Here in my world...it's totally a viable option that has brought many a needed change. You're living very differently than I, if you honestly would remain at a vet that held totally opposing views as pertains to animals, saying nothing about it, just so they wouldn't feel "threatened"...or would attend a dog event in a state that say...banned every dog of a certain breed...because you wouldn't want to "threaten" them or make them feel the pinch financially.

AKC actively solicits business with Puppy Mills

 
 
Yep...and the irony continues with the fact that the above are the only breeding entities untouched by the Ca bill...lol.

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

AKC actively solicits business with Puppy Mills

Yep...and the irony continues with the fact that the above are the only breeding entities untouched by the Ca bill...lol.

 
The AKC has an inspection program that inspects high volume breeders and randomly active breeders.  These places are inspected for both record keeping and standards of care.  If standards of care problems are encountered they are reported to the local authorities.  Every month there are people fined and suspended for violations that were uncovered during those inspections and people that have been convicted of animal cruelty crimes. 
 
Other for profit dog registrys were started by people that didn't want to or couldn't comply with the AKC standards!
 

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

I would also like to hear the outcome of the shell game that PetPac is trying to pull off.    Should be rather humourus. 

Bob, you remind me of a little kid with his hands over his ears singing, "La la la la, I can't hear you". The information on shelter expenses is right there on the city's web site. You can deny reality all you want, but it won't go away.

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

I wonder why this debate isn't simply called " Breeders against AB1634" because that is what it is all really about. It is people that profit from dogs versus people trying to keep dogs from being exterminated in shelters, in my opinion.

Well, it isn't just breeders who are against the bill. People who want a choice in the type of animal they own, people who want dogs bred for specific traits, people who want dogs from parents who have been health screened, and people who object to the removal of their right to pursue a hobby in a misguided and demonstrably ineffective attempt to solve a social problem also object to this bill. But, since you are so opposed to breeders who profit from breeding dogs, why are you so gungho for a bill that specifically exempts the only breeders who actually do profit - ie commercial breeders?

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

We also have post after post on these forums talking about how this law won't work. "It won't reduce the number of animals going into the shelters and being executed, people won't abide by the law, it won't reduce pet populations, yada , yada, yada......." Day after day, I read these same comments by the Anti 1634 follks...... Then the very next thing they say is.... " And it will do away with all the animals........" It won't work, but it will do away with all pets"

Noooo. We have people saying that the goal of the AR movement is to do away with companion animals. Don't take our word for it. Read their web sites and mission statements. This bill is one step toward that goal. And absurdly, what it will do is force conscientious breeders out of the state or underground, while giving free reign to puppy mills. So, this bill won't eliminate pets in CA, but it will eliminate the opportunity for people to acquire carefully bred pets from within the state, and force them to choose from poorly bred puppy mill dogs, or from irresponsibly bred and raised dogs that end up in shelters, or from out of state breeders. Oooooh. Great plan.

We have heard it said that breeders of purebred dogs are the evil that causes shelters to be overcrowed. 
 
Lets look at some numbers. 
 
It has been said and reported many places that purebred dogs make up 20% of the intake of dogs into a shelter. 
 
Lets assume that dogs are 50% of shelter intake.
 
That means that only 10% of the shelter population is because of purebreds dogs.
 
Pretty small number number to say that purebred breeders are the problem.
 
Now lets look at some other realities.  I believe that the shelter intake of cats is usually much more than 50%, probably closer to 60% at least.  That would drop the the 10% above to 8%. 
 
Also while it's easy to identity a urebred it can be very easy to mis-identify a mixed breed as a purebred.  I think that we have seen this enough times on this forum it the "What am I" posts. 
 

ORIGINAL: buster the show dog

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

I would also like to hear the outcome of the shell game that PetPac is trying to pull off.    Should be rather humourus. 

Bob, you remind me of a little kid with his hands over his ears singing, "La la la la, I can't hear you". The information on shelter expenses is right there on the city's web site. You can deny reality all you want, but it won't go away.

That is a rather rude remark and totally uncalled for in my opinion. 

ORIGINAL: buster the show dog



Noooo. We have people saying that the goal of the AR movement is to do away with companion animals. Don't take our word for it. Read their web sites and mission statements. This bill is one step toward that goal. And absurdly, what it will do is force conscientious breeders out of the state or underground, while giving free reign to puppy mills. So, this bill won't eliminate pets in CA, but it will eliminate the opportunity for people to acquire carefully bred pets from within the state, and force them to choose from poorly bred puppy mill dogs, or from irresponsibly bred and raised dogs that end up in shelters, or from out of state breeders. Oooooh. Great plan.

Please post a link to  an AR site supporting  your claim, which I believe is totally false by the way.  I would like to read it

ORIGINAL: timsdat

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

AKC actively solicits business with Puppy Mills

Yep...and the irony continues with the fact that the above are the only breeding entities untouched by the Ca bill...lol.

The AKC has an inspection program that inspects high volume breeders and randomly active breeders.  These places are inspected for both record keeping and standards of care.  If standards of care problems are encountered they are reported to the local authorities.  Every month there are people fined and suspended for violations that were uncovered during those inspections and people that have been convicted of animal cruelty crimes. 

Other for profit dog registrys were started by people that didn't want to or couldn't comply with the AKC standards!

Does the AKC inspect the Puppy Mills that they try and encourage to  use their services to generate income?   I would doubt that. That is like biting the hand that feeds you. ( no pun intended)
[linkhttp://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/0603_AKC_PupMillLett.asp]http://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/0603_AKC_PupMillLett.asp [/link]
 

We have heard it said that breeders of purebred dogs are the evil that causes shelters to be overcrowed.

 
When you say "we" do you mean breeders?  Where have you heard it said?  I think that breeders of purbred dogs are the least likely cause of the high numbers of dogs in shelters.  I've made that point several times.  My hope for this bill will be the impetus for the average person to get their pet spayed/neutered.  I'm talking about the people who are ignorant/stubborn/don't want to spend the $$/lazy, etc.

ORIGINAL: buster the show dog
So, this bill won't eliminate pets in CA, but it will eliminate the opportunity for people to acquire carefully bred pets from within the state, and force them to choose from poorly bred puppy mill dogs, or from irresponsibly bred and raised dogs that end up in shelters, or from out of state breeders. Oooooh. Great plan.

 
American breeders including those who carefully bred pets will do as breeders have always done, and that is pass the costs of these Intact Permits on to those who buy their puppies, and over a litter of pups the cost each puppy purchaser pays maybe less than a cup of coffee, and the breeder gets their money back from each puppy purchaser.
Los Angeles Animal Services has already on record stated that an Intact Permit in LA will cost exactly $0.00.  LA is planning on just using the current "Intact Dog License" as the permit, at no extra charge. Maybe we can expect other jurisdictions might follow suit, or to set low-cost intact permit fees. At Santa Cruz (the functioning model for this Bill) they charge right now $15 for their Intact Permits (Unaltered Animal Certificates), and maybe some other jurisdictions might follow this suit, see for yourself $15 on that form via this link address:-
[linkhttp://www.scanimalservices.us/uac.pdf]http://www.scanimalservices.us/uac.pdf[/link]
 
I really cannot see your point in that this Bill will eliminate the opportunity for people to acquire carefully bred pets from within the state.
.
 

Does the AKC inspect the Puppy Mills that they try and encourage to use their services to generate income? I would doubt that. That is like biting the hand that feeds you. ( no pun intended)

 
From the AKC Web site: [linkhttp://www.akc.org/about/depts/investigations.cfm]http://www.akc.org/about/depts/investigations.cfm[/link]
 
Investigations and Inspections Department
AKC Inspections Fact Sheet

The AKC is the only purebred registry in the United States with an ongoing routine kennel inspection program. The AKC has a dedicated team of field inspectors who visit kennels to ensure the proper care and conditions of AKC-registered dogs and verify that breeders are maintaining accurate records for their dogs. In 2006, AKC field inspectors conducted approximately 5,000 inspections nationwide. The AKC dedicates nearly $6 million annually to its compliance programs to ensure the accuracy of its registry and the care and conditions of dogs raised by breeders of AKC dogs.

 
Investigations and Inspections 

Routine AKC field inspections involve several steps. Inspectors begin by examining the dogs as well as the condition of their environment. Inspectors check to ensure all the dogs have proper identification. They review breeder records, which must be maintained for at least five years.
AKC inspects breeders who register seven or more litters per year. AKC also randomly selects some breeders who register between four and six litters a year for inspection.
In addition, AKC inspects breeders based on written, signed and substantiated complaints.
Inspectors enforce the AKC Care and Conditions policy to ensure that dogs have access to adequate food, water and shelter and that kennel space provided them is appropriately constructed and not overcrowded. If a dog appears to have a health issue, inspectors make sure it is being addressed.
Through kennel visits, inspectors seek to work with breeders to help correct any deficiencies, as well as help new breeders develop effective practices and procedures.
If an inspector finds minor deficiencies, the issues are noted and discussed with the breeder, and AKC expects the issues to be taken care of before the next inspection. While the AKC does not have penal or regulatory authority, breeders who have major kennel deficiencies may lose AKC privileges (ability to register dogs or compete in events). In some cases, fines will be imposed, AKC privileges may be suspended and appropriate law enforcement authorities contacted.
AKC automatically imposes a 10-year suspension and a $2,000 fine on anyone convicted of animal cruelty involving dogs.