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

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

 
Here are a number of quotes from different articles and books.
 
 
"In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest: raising their young, enjoying their native environments, and following their natural instincts. However, domesticated dogs and cats cannot survive "free" in our concrete jungles, so we must take as good care of them as possible. People with the time, money, love, and patience to make a lifetime commitment to an animal can make an enormous difference by adopting from shelters or rescuing animals from a perilous life on the street. But it is also important to stop manufacturing "pets," thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely on humans to survive." PETA pamphlet, Companion Animals: Pets or Prisoners?
 
“I don#%92t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don#%92t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I#%92m kind to them, but there#%92s no special bond between me and other animals.” Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 251.
 
"In a perfect world, we would not keep animals for our benefit, including pets," Tom Regan, emeritus professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University and author of "Empty Cages" - speaking at University of Wisconsin-Madison campus, March 3, 2004
 
"Our goal: to convince people to rescue and adopt instead of buying or selling animals, to disavow the language and concept of animal ownership." Eliot Katz, President In Defense of Animals, In Defense of Animals website, 2001
 
"I don't use the word "pet." I think it's speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal." For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship ­ enjoyment at a distance." Ingrid Newkirk, PETA vice-president, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.
 
"It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership." Elliot Katz, President "In Defense of Animals," Spring 1997
 
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Just Like Us? Harper's, August 1988, p. 50.
 
"Liberating our language by eliminating the word 'pet' is the first step... In an ideal society where all exploitation and oppression has been eliminated, it will be NJARA's policy to oppose the keeping of animals as 'pets.'" New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance, "Should Dogs Be Kept As Pets? NO!" Good Dog! February 1991, p. 20.
 
"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it." John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.
 
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.
 
"As John Bryant has written in his book Fettered Kingdoms, they [pets] are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves." PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals.
 
"In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of human interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme." PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals.
 
"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV," Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.
 

When you say "we" do you mean breeders? Where have you heard it said?

 
When I say "We" I mean this board.  When I say "heard" a mean written on this board. 
 
 

ORIGINAL: timsdat
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. 

 
That is correct, the AKC has had "Field Inspectors" for some years now. Here is a copy and paste of a part from the lastest AKC Board Minutes, and things like the below seem to appear on a monthly basis since inspections started years ago, everyone see for yourself and just pick any Board Minutes (not the highlights of the minutes), but keep in mind heaps of high volume breeders each month pass these AKC inspections with no problems at all:-
[linkhttp://www.akc.org/about/board_minutes.cfm]http://www.akc.org/about/board_minutes.cfm[/link]
 
The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Mr. Tim Amey, Grove, OK, from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $2000 fine for refusal to make his dogs and records available for inspection when requested. (Multiple Breeds)
 
The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Mr. Darvin Fowlkes, Newman Grove, NE, from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $2000 fine for refusal to make his dogs and records available for inspection when requested. (Dachshund, Shiba Inu, and Weimaraner)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Ms. Debby Loy, Barnard, KS, from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $2000 fine for refusal to make her dogs and records available for inspection when requested. (Multiple Breeds)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Mr. Steven Schulz, Fenton, MI, from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $2000 fine for refusal to make his dogs and records available for inspection when requested. (Golden Retriever)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Ms. Kimberly C. Schulz, Fenton, MI, from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $2000 fine for refusal to make her dogs and records available for inspection when requested. (Golden Retriever)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Mr. Henry Yoder, Cannelburg, IN, from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $2000 fine for refusal to make his dogs and records available for inspection when requested. (Multiple Breeds)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Mr. Kiplee K. Sherman, Show Low, AZ, from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $2000 fine for violation of the AKC#%92s record keeping and dog identification requirements, pursuant to Chapter 4, Section 7, of the Rules Applying to Registration and Discipline. (Alaskan Malamute and Chow Chow)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Ms. Carolyn Stoffel, Phoenix, AZ, from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $2000 fine for conduct prejudicial to purebred dogs, purebred dog events, or to the best interests of The American Kennel Club, based on her being found guilty of Cruel Neglect Or Abandonment Of An Animal in the Municipal Court of the City of Phoenix, County of Maricopa, State of Arizona. (Basenji)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Ms. Rebecca Wylie, Dormont, PA, from all AKC privileges for ten years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $2000 fine for conduct prejudicial to purebred dogs, purebred dog events, or to the best interests of The American Kennel Club, based on her being found guilty of Cruelty To Animals/Abuse Of Animals in the County of Allegheny, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. (Shih Tzu and Basset Hound)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Mr. Joseph Powers, Vinton, VA, from all AKC privileges for five years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $1000 fine for refusal to produce litter records when requested, pursuant to Chapter 4, Section 7, of the Rules Applying to Registration and Discipline. (Boxer, Dachshund, and Boston Terrier)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Mrs. Trisha Powers, Vinton, VA, from all AKC privileges for five years, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $1000 fine for refusal to produce litter records when requested, pursuant to Chapter 4, Section 7, of the Rules Applying to Registration and Discipline. (Boxer, Dachshund, and Boston Terrier)

The AKC's Management Disciplinary Committee has suspended Ms. Rose Becker, Central Point, OR, from all AKC privileges for one year, effective May 7, 2007, and imposed a $1000 fine for non-compliance with AKC#%92s Care and Conditions Policy (unacceptable, conditions, dogs and/or facility). (Multiple Breeds)
.
 

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8


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

Here ya go: "We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed. " from [linkhttp://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp]PETA on pets[/link]

Or, check this one out: "To domesticate animals is to deny their right to live freely as they choose, for the advantage of humans. This necessarily means to treat non-human animals as less than humans, and to treat them as utilities. If it is not acceptable with humans, it shouldn't be with non-humans." from [linkhttp://www.animalrightsmalta.com/pets.html]pets are" captives"[/link]

Or, there's this one: "This is more or less true of all domesticated nonhumans. They are perpetually dependent on us. We control their lives forever. They truly are “animal slaves.” We may be benevolent “masters,” but we really aren#%92t anything more than that. And that cannot be right.

My partner and I live with five rescued dogs. ....But if there were two dogs left in the universe and it were up to us as to whether they were allowed to breed so that we could continue to live with dogs, and even if we could guarantee that all dogs would have homes as loving as the one that we provide, we would not hesitate for a second to bring the whole institution of “pet” ownership to an end." from [linkhttp://garyfrancione.blogspot.com/2007/01/animal-rights-and-domesticated.html]pets are" slaves"[/link]

Here are a couple quotes by Ingrid Newkirk, along with their published source:
"Pet ownership is an "absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human
manipulation."
(Washingtonian Magazine, August 1986)

"...Eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return
to a more symbiotic relationship, enjoyment at a distance."
(Harpers, August, 198

Enough?

Nice research Buster.  I hadn't even seen those.
 

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

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.

Yes I think we are living differently, for a veterinarian that I have trusted for years with my dogs and who has served me and my dogs faithfully to the best of their abilities, I would not threaten to boycott them if I found out that they had different views to this Bill than I, nor would I threaten to boycott a friend or relative if I found out that they had different views to this Bill than I.

ORIGINAL: timsdat

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.

So the AKC claims they go to the puppy mills,  they see what is going on at the puppy mill , and despite what they see they still register the Puppy Mill dogs and collects their fees?  Or are you saying, that  an AKC Registered dog that is sold in a Pet Store,   would  guarantee that the dog was raised in a good environment and that particular puppy mill would be called a " Resposible Breeder", because the AKC inspected that Puppy Mill and approved of it's operation?

Maybe they could have a new  PR campaign with the head of the AKC and one of the large Puppy Millers shaking hands and holding a puppy between them   [linkhttp://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/0603_AKC_PupMillLett.asp]http://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/0603_AKC_PupMillLett.asp [/link]

ORIGINAL: buster the show dog

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8


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

Here ya go: "We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed. " from [linkhttp://www.peta.org/campaigns/ar-petaonpets.asp]PETA on pets[/link]

You have to read the entire article, not little parts of it, for it to make sense. Here is the text at the bottom of what you quoted".

"to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world."

If you are going to quote something, either put the link up and let people read it, or quote the the entire thing. Editing what you put up does not give an honest impression of what the author is trying to say. 

So the AKC claims they go to the puppy mills, they see what is going on at the puppy mill , and despite what they see they still register the Puppy Mill dogs and collects their fees? Or are you saying, that an AKC Registered dog that is sold in a Pet Store, would guarantee that the dog was raised in a good environment and that particular puppy mill would be called a " Resposible Breeder", because the AKC inspected that Puppy Mill and approved of it's operation?

 
I don't know what you are trying to prove.  We have posted the policies of the inspection program of the AKC.  We have posted minutes of a given board meeting where people were fined and suspended for violations of the inspection policy (btw you see these suspentions list in every board meeting).  If the kennel in question were indeed a puppy mill by commonly defined definitions I doubt if they are trying to register those dogs with the AKC.   That is why you see other registries being used.  Of course a lot of this discussion depends on what your definition of a "Puppy Mill" is to begin with.  There is a standard as defined by the USDA for kennel conditions by a commercial breeder.
 

"to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world."

 
I guess that in PETA's eyes that means also taking animals out of shelters to the back of their van and killing them and then dumping them the trash bins.
 
 

ORIGINAL: timsdat

So the AKC claims they go to the puppy mills, they see what is going on at the puppy mill , and despite what they see they still register the Puppy Mill dogs and collects their fees? Or are you saying, that an AKC Registered dog that is sold in a Pet Store, would guarantee that the dog was raised in a good environment and that particular puppy mill would be called a " Resposible Breeder", because the AKC inspected that Puppy Mill and approved of it's operation?

I don't know what you are trying to prove.  We have posted the policies of the inspection program of the AKC.  We have posted minutes of a given board meeting where people were fined and suspended for violations of the inspection policy (btw you see these suspentions list in every board meeting).  If the kennel in question were indeed a puppy mill by commonly defined definitions I doubt if they are trying to register those dogs with the AKC.   That is why you see other registries being used.  Of course a lot of this discussion depends on what your definition of a "Puppy Mill" is to begin with.  There is a standard as defined by the USDA for kennel conditions by a commercial breeder.

What I am trying to show is that AKC is full of it.  They act like they are protecting the public by inspecting breeders and fining breeders that don't measure up to "their standards", and then out of the other side of their mouth they are soliciting Puppy Mills to register their dogs by mail with the AKC.....   Did you read the link that I posted under my comment?  If not, here it is again.

[linkhttp://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/0603_AKC_PupMillLett.asp]http://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/0603_AKC_PupMillLett.asp [/link]

ORIGINAL: timsdat

"to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world."

I guess that in PETA's eyes that means also taking animals out of shelters to the back of their van and killing them and then dumping them the trash bins.

How on earth did  you come up with something like that ? [sm=backtotopic.gif]

What I am trying to show is that AKC is full of it. They act like they are protecting the public by inspecting breeders and fining breeders that don't measure up to "their standards", and then out of the other side of their mouth they are soliciting Puppy Mills to register their dogs by mail with the AKC..... Did you read the link that I posted under my comment? If not, here it is again.

 
Yes I did read it and are aware of the issues around registration.  You quote the Dog Press which is very show breeder biased.  Some show breeders believe that they should be the only ones breeding dogs and anyone else is a "puppy miller".  Don't you think that it would be better to get the high volume breeder back registering with the AKC.  At least then there would be some inspections done.  The USDA and local authorities aren't doing a very good job now.  A lot of the high volume breeders quit using the AKC or registered very few litters to fall under the radar when they started the inspection program and the DNA program.  Yes it means more revenue for the club but also it gets these breeders involved in inspections.  Wouldn't it be good to get them to raise their standards.
 

I've seen pure-breds at my local shelter in our rural county. I even saw a Shiba Inu there, which would normally be rare to non-existant for this area, since Labs are king around here.
 

How on earth did you come up with something like that ?

 
Because it's an established fact, with arrests, court cases pending, and newspaper coverage.