Dog Community

Posted : 7/7/2007 11:18:12 AM

In 1994 (before the Santa Cruz law went into effect) California had a total Euthanised 273,342 dogs. In 2006 they euthanised 129,346 dogs (estimate based on the population of counties reporting vs the total population).

In Santa Cruz county in 1994 they euthanised 966 dogs. In 2006 they euthanised 626 dogs.

Now the entire states numbers dropped 52% and Santa Cruz dropped 35%.

Santa Cruz is doing better?????

How come whenever anyone touts that Santa Cruz works they never compare it to state totals?

janet_rose

Posted : 7/7/2007 11:25:26 AM

Bobsk8
It is amazing what people will stoop to when money is involved.

The law is way out the range of just effecting income now. It has entered the area of how to conduct breeding programs. Most good, responsible, hobby breeders are lucky to ever make any money anyway. They are thankful if the price of the pups just covers their expenses!

If one is a responsible, hobby breeder with dogs placed in (and owned by) individual homes, how many breeder's licenses are you going to require for this breeding program? This is not an usual arrangement for a good hobby breeder.

I guess I should assume that the big puppymills and commercial breeders that do have breeder's licenses are contributing to the campaign funds of the California legislators to get AB1634 passed. This bill will sure help their pocketbooks.

janet_rose

Posted : 7/7/2007 11:29:15 AM

Bobsk8
Kinda funny, when you think about it.....

I don't think any law that encourages people to drown newborn litters is at all funny.

janet_rose

Posted : 7/7/2007 11:38:00 AM

Bobsk8
in the very next breath they are telling people that pets will disappear because of the law...

What will start disappearing are healthy, well bred, well socialized puppies. Those are already in short supply.

Anyone on either side that thinks California won't have plenty of puppies if AB1634 is passed needs a few courses in the economics of supply and demand in a free economy - especially since AB1634 doesn't touch the big, commerical breeders.

KCSO

Posted : 7/7/2007 12:35:41 PM

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

In other words, the email is encouraging people to not tell the truth when they contact the senate committee. It is amazing what people will stoop to when money is involved.

The sad reality is that in politics, nobody tends to care about what JQP thinks, but JQP Co.'s voice is more likely to get heard. It *is* amazing what people will stoop to when money is involved. Those people are called politicians and they will stoop to listen to you if they think you have money. If I needed to .com or .org myself to have a shot at my due representation, I dont consider that my crime.

Bobsk8

Posted : 7/7/2007 1:03:53 PM

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

I really doubt that you live in California either.

I don't, but I've a good many friends that show who do live in CA. So this law, IMO is ridiculous for the reasons I've stated, as well as for the show-dog owner that isn't a breeder.

So how much money do you think it will cost to enforce this law? Less than $2.5M?

I have friends that live in LA, San Jose, and Sacremento, so I guess we are even [

] I think any estimate of how much it will cost to enforce would be a wild guess, no matter who makes it, so I think it is pointless. To take the attitude that " It would cost to much to enforce, in my opinion, is just as pointless." If every law we had in this country was not enacted, because some special interest group said it would cost too much to enforce, we probably wouldn't have any laws at all.

Bobsk8

Posted : 7/7/2007 1:09:36 PM

ORIGINAL: timsdat

In 1994 (before the Santa Cruz law went into effect) California had a total Euthanised 273,342 dogs. In 2006 they euthanised 129,346 dogs (estimate based on the population of counties reporting vs the total population).

In Santa Cruz county in 1994 they euthanised 966 dogs. In 2006 they euthanised 626 dogs.

Now the entire states numbers dropped 52% and Santa Cruz dropped 35%.

Santa Cruz is doing better?????

How come whenever anyone touts that Santa Cruz works they never compare it to state totals?

Guess you didn't read this on another thread, so I will repost it here. Turns out that the NAIA Petpac lies and distortions about Santa Cruz was found to be incorrect, and they sort of have egg on their face now....

http://www.cahealthypets.com/07-03-stats.htm

Bobsk8

Posted : 7/7/2007 1:11:04 PM

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

in the very next breath they are telling people that pets will disappear because of the law...

What will start disappearing are healthy, well bred, well socialized puppies. Those are already in short supply.

Anyone on either side that thinks California won't have plenty of puppies if AB1634 is passed needs a few courses in the economics of supply and demand in a free economy - especially since AB1634 doesn't touch the big, commerical breeders.

If the law won't work, as all the breeders that are fighting it tooth and nail claim, then why would all the pet's disappear? [&:]

Bobsk8

Posted : 7/7/2007 1:12:16 PM

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

[font="verdana"]Kinda funny, when you think about it.....
[/font]
I don't think any law that encourages people to drown newborn litters is at all funny.

Are you telling me that AB1634 encourages people to drown puppies? If so, where is that stated?

Xerxes

Posted : 7/7/2007 1:12:49 PM

It would cost to much to enforce, in my opinion, is just as pointless." If every law we had in this country was not enacted, because some special interest group said it would cost too much to enforce, we probably wouldn't have any laws at all.

To take the attitude that it will "save" that much money is the same. Not once have I read any words on this thread that indicate to me you are a dog advocate. You have clearly made your case that this will "save alot of money" but not that it will save or spare any dog's lives.

Janet put it the best when she said:

Anyone on either side that thinks California won't have plenty of puppies if AB1634 is passed needs a few courses in the economics of supply and demand in a free economy - especially since AB1634 doesn't touch the big, commerical breeders.

AND:

I guess I should assume that the big puppymills and commercial breeders that do have breeder's licenses are contributing to the campaign funds of the California legislators to get AB1634 passed. This bill will sure help their pocketbooks.

I encourage you to take a macro economics class because in this capitalist free market economy, where there is a demand, a supply will come. (Look at illegal drugs- we ain't winning that war either.)

Bobsk8

Posted : 7/7/2007 1:15:10 PM

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

It would cost to much to enforce, in my opinion, is just as pointless." If every law we had in this country was not enacted, because some special interest group said it would cost too much to enforce, we probably wouldn't have any laws at all.

To take the attitude that it will "save" that much money is the same. Not once have I read any words on this thread that indicate to me you are a dog advocate. You have clearly made your case that this will "save alot of money" but not that it will save or spare any dog's lives.

You better go back and read all my posts for about the last 2-3 months , before you make a wild claim like you just did.

Xerxes

Posted : 7/7/2007 1:16:40 PM

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

in the very next breath they are telling people that pets will disappear because of the law...

What will start disappearing are healthy, well bred, well socialized puppies. Those are already in short supply.

Anyone on either side that thinks California won't have plenty of puppies if AB1634 is passed needs a few courses in the economics of supply and demand in a free economy - especially since AB1634 doesn't touch the big, commerical breeders.

If the law won't work, as all the breeders that are fighting it tooth and nail claim, then why would all the pet's disappear? [&:]

What will disappear, as she clearly stated would be the well bred, well socialized puppies [font="times new roman"]not the puppy mill pups, or the smuggled pups, nor the ones bred without license. But a law will make this all better, won't it? Laws are magic, and criminals just magically obey them-even though there is no enforcement. [/font]

Xerxes

Posted : 7/7/2007 1:17:34 PM

I don't have to, I clearly stated my parameters: within this thread.

timsdat

Posted : 7/7/2007 1:17:34 PM

Guess you didn't read this on another thread, so I will repost it here. Turns out that the NAIA Petpac lies and distortions about Santa Cruz was found to be incorrect, and they sort of have egg on their face now....

Guess what I didn't get those numbers from NAIA.

They came from Department of Health Services, Veterinary Public Health Unit

They were posted on the Animal council's web site and were verified by Ca Assemblyman Rick Keene's office.

Is Rick Keene lying????

Bobsk8

Posted : 7/7/2007 1:18:16 PM

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

I encourage you to take a macro economics class because in this capitalist free market economy, where there is a demand, a supply will come. (Look at illegal drugs- we ain't winning that war either.)

So according to your theory, we should void all drug laws which would be similar to not enacting AB1634, and let the free market handle the drug problem? You are joking aren't you.

CVMA withdrawals support for AB1634