WE DO NOT NEED ANYMORE LAWS!!!!!!!!!!

[kelpiegirl]

It has become a major pet peeve of mine- this mantra of "we need a law against that, or this....". No, we need RESPONSIBLE pet ownership. They do not spay/neuter pets any where NEAR the rate that we do in the USA, in Europe or the UK, and the numbers of homeless pets are considerably lower than here in the USA. The thing with enacting more laws is that piece by piece, our rights are taken away- taken away to the point where we can't burp without a permit. Did you know that in my area, we can't take trees down ON OUR OWN PROPERTY, without a permit? Not a safety issue- but a tree hugger "idea to keep the area green". When it comes to dogs, the humane care is paramount- a law issue. The rest, since they are still considered property- (although in California the "guardian" term is now used to describe the owner) should be up to us to decide. Don't kid yourself that the "guardian" term was put in place for cutesey reasons- no, it was put in place to redefine what a dog is, and move them up the ladder to having "rights".

As for this particular bill, it SCREAMS animal rights. This is a way to keep tabs on everyone and wear people down so that there are just plain LESS DOGS. If I were you in California, the time would be now to get butts in gear, and get some attorneys on this, and put together a grass roots effort to bring SANITY back to California. No, we don't need more laws- we need people to step up to the plate, and be responsible for their own actions. Are we so dumb that every aspect of our lives has to be legislated? This is how our country was founded folks. DO NOT PUT UP with this.

Rant over.

Julie

[Kyrasmom]

Just for the sake of conversation, how can we make people more responsible? I agree that there is less of a pet overpoulation problem in Europe when you take into account that spay/neuter is not common....I know that first hand having spent most of my life in Italy. But in addition to ranting about legislation, what changes can be proposed to change the mindset or people to render them responsible for their pets?

 

Maria

[freesoul]

what changes can be proposed to change the mindset or people to render them responsible for their pets?

 

Maria

 

Education? Myself as a teen/ young adult, I'm very ashamed to say, despite being an animal lover gave away more than one cat (luckily all found homes, mostly with friends) because of my circimstances, and also a puppy I had no idea how to housebreak. Then I heard about what that does...about shelters, rescues, euthanasia. And much worse (puppy mills, street cats life, lab animals...). And I held off for years on having any more pets, and fostered for rescues and the SPCA as an alternative and a form of atonement, until now I finally find myself in the situation (stable, knowledgeable) where I find I can take responsibility for an animal and give it a great forever home.

 

So if my own experience is any guide, education and publicity. Videos, photos, information, school-based programs and the like. In essense, same way as resposible relationships, sexuality and other things are taugth.

[bcollie]

Julie, I agree wholeheartedly. California is fast becoming the nanny state and where California goes, unfortunately other states often follow. I found my new great quote online today when I was looking at links about secession. It is "There is no government regulation, no matter how plausible it initially appears, that will not eventually be applied by some bureaucrat in a way that defies common sense."

 

Responsible pet ownership does not appear anywhere in the constitution, either state or federal. Government is not the solution but the problem. I agree that education is the answer not big brother.

[Kyrasmom]

I agree that education is the most plausible answer, but quite honestly, I think it's optimistic at best. Getting back to the initial example of Europe, education about pet ownership is NOT something that is discussed so my fear is that it's more of a "cultural issue, for lack of a better term.

 

With "rights" also come obligations. For every constitutional right there is also a moral obligation and that is where so many fall short because all we are worried about are "our rights'.

 

I'm not in favor of the spay/neuter mandate as a pet owner but as a rescuer, I do feel like I"m beating my head up against a wall every single day and constantly ask myself...what can we do?

 

Maria

[kelpiegirl]

Maria

There is an old saying: "Locks on doors keep honest folks honest". This applies to this topic. The people who are producing dogs en masse will not be affected by this. They will simply not register their dogs, and when they get charged a fee, will dump the dog, and get another. The honest people- ranchers, breeders (good) will be the honest folks who get laws rammed up their noses, and pay through that nose, for the right to breed their dogs- THEY will be affected- NOT the people who don't have the God given sense to prevent unwanted litters. Charging the people who SHOULD be breeding is the answer. We do not need laws scr***** the good guy, and ignoring the real bad guy. Furthermore, our RIGHTS are something that our countrymen fought LONG AND HARD for, and that is why we have a constitution. Those who put less value on our constitutional rights, might consider living some where that there aren't any. Sorry, but this business of being laissez-faire about our rights really irks me. We are very fortunate to live in a society where individual rights are held dear.

As for what we can do, is keep on rescuing, and perhaps convincing people that maybe they don't really want a dog. Have an ad campaign out there, put together by a group of rescue folks describing just how much work/responsibility it IS to own a dog. Most rescue dogs are out there because the committment to the dog got lost in the shuffle- a 1.5 year old un-neutered male, who is now lifting his leg on furniture and jumping on people- a very common description of shelter/rescue pets.

Julie

I agree that education is the most plausible answer, but quite honestly, I think it's optimistic at best. Getting back to the initial example of Europe, education about pet ownership is NOT something that is discussed so my fear is that it's more of a "cultural issue, for lack of a better term.

 

With "rights" also come obligations. For every constitutional right there is also a moral obligation and that is where so many fall short because all we are worried about are "our rights'.

 

I'm not in favor of the spay/neuter mandate as a pet owner but as a rescuer, I do feel like I"m beating my head up against a wall every single day and constantly ask myself...what can we do?

 

Maria

[Kyrasmom]

Julie,

 

I agree that the law will punish those who are responsible towards their animals, I'm not debating that and if you are inferring that I should not question any opinion out there...then I believe there is also a right to free speech which is so often disregarded in attempts to be politically correct. I grew up in Europe because my father was military but am a US citizen and am quite aware of US history....though with laws like the Patriot act en vogue I really question which rights we should be protecting...but that's a whole other subject.

 

I posed my question simply to better understand the options that everyone believes there to be to regulation because there has to be a better way. There is no doubt that midwest puppymills will be licensed and allowed to breed, the thought in itself is disgusting to me but from a practical standpoint, living in a very high kill county, I seriously wonder about the options when I find myself surrounded by ignorant people who have zero responsibilities for their ACTIONS in general, much less their pets.

 

So, in addition to education and rescue (which really does feel like a bottomless pit even if it is our only venue) if government wants to be proactive I think there are better ways....but they won't line anyone's pockets which is a big hurdle to begin with.

 

I think there should be hefty fines for irresponsible owners, I think large scale breeders should be out-lawed, and I think government should fund spay/neuters in their entirity...yes, expensive, but then so il manning Animal Controls and killing them. Then again, you need to get the people with the intact animals to the clinic...so it really is a never ending circle. Obviously not a complete solution, and neither is mandatory spay/neuter...but there is a huge problem that does need attention.

 

Maria

[Bill Fosher]

The question is what is responsible?

 

The lady in town here who bred her beagle X golden retriever bitch to the Australian shepherd thinks she was being responsible. She picked out the sire and paid a stud fee after all. And the bitch is so sweet and nice to the kids, and so is the father. At least several of the "responsible" health checks were done.

 

Do we really need this kind of litter? Pretty debatable. But all her puppies have gone to good homes; people will love those dogs and care for them.

 

Under most of the paradigms that are bandied about for "responsible" dog breeding, this woman would not have qualified. She is clearly a backyard breeder, and that litter will clearly clutter up the shelters with unwanted pups. But the fact of the matter is that not everyone understands, wants, or can afford purebred dogs from breeders who do all the things that would qualify them as "responsible breeders." Does that mean they shouldn't have dogs, or that they should only have dogs that come from the pound -- about which nothing is known?

 

Maybe it does ... I don't know. Just something I've been thinking about lately.

[Kyrasmom]

Bill, that is a very interesting consideration and one that probably does not have any right answer that would seem considerate to some people. Given that so many dogs die every day, I don't think the breeding you mentioned was responsible even if made with the best of heartfelt intentions. I suppose I could half heartedly justify it if every one of those puppies were spay/neutered and the line ended there...but what about the people who got those pups, what if they want to replicate the whole thing. It's a never ending cycle of well meaning pulled by the heart decisions that don't consider anything beyond their immediate wants and needs.

 

I do think though that our immense over population problem stems more from irrisponsible breeders who breed for profit or ego or negligience (backyard, high volume, even purpose) versus families who breed their mutt as in the situation you described above. It's still wrong...it's just not tempered with greed. And whn you compound the fact that irresponsible breeders outnumber those that are not, they reach that many more people who have not fully thought out their decision and thus the number of irresponsible owners multiplies as well.

 

Bill wrote: But the fact of the matter is that not everyone understands, wants, or can afford purebred dogs from breeders who do all the things that would qualify them as "responsible breeders." Does that mean they shouldn't have dogs, or that they should only have dogs that come from the pound -- about which nothing is known?

 

My short answer would be yes...because as is so often pointed out (to me as well) supporting those who are irresponsible makes us irresponsible as well. If I had to choose tomorrow between another show bred border collie, no border collie, or a pound puppy, well, I would obviously choose the latter (Wenty..hello) or none because if I go out and purchase another show bred border collie...wouldn't I be wrong? Even if I don't breed or show and my dogs have an incredible life?

 

And if someone is hell bent on a pure bred....and they want to make a responsible choice, then they wait until they can afford it. They wait, they plan, they learn...as it should be with dogs to begin with.

 

In keeping with the analogy that it can be responsible to breed as long as the puppies and/or dogs all go to good homes...then there should not be a controversy of working dog versus conformation dog. And yet there is.

 

Just some rather confusing thoughts...even to me as I read back.

Maria

[justdogs]

I just had a conversation with a friend about the debate Bill and Maria are chatting about. It was more on the cost of Vet care, but It came down to Dog and Cats should not be only for the rich! Certainly people need to be able to afford a pet. The benefits of pets are well documented. (vets need to make money) BUT what do you call afford:

 

How many single ladies (like myself) living on $2000 a month can get it done? I live with roommates because I cannot afford to rent a place to myself and still keep my dogs (which are being trained by myself as sheepdogs).

 

The question is can I afford to buy a $1500 puppy, and pay $3 a day for dog food, $50 a visit to the vet, $7 a month for heart worm pills, $80 a year for heartworm tests my vet requires or they will not sell me the pills. I could get the pills cheaper, but then the vet charges $10 a year to write a perception. $400 for a spay (unless I did it before 4 month of age when it was $100). $50 for a crate, etc?

 

That first 12 months of a pup's life now becomes over a $3000 investment. That is 1 1/2 month's salary. Is that cheap? What if I made $1000/mo? Should I give up my dogs? If I just want a pet, There is no way I would shell out $1500 for a pup. I would find the cheapest pup I could. And it would be VERY hard for and average job to know who is a puppy mill and who is not. Not all puppy mills have dogs that live in deplorable conditions.

 

I am afraid these laws are going to make a HUGE split between good breeders and crap breeders. It will make it hard for the average person to get a quality dog.

 

What we need is to get Animal care and breeding practices back into the Grade schools. Talk about selection. Teach them how to train and care for animals.

 

The other pet peeve I have: Who are we to decide today that no other new breed can ever be made? My Mutt (and many people will agree) is the best of both breeds. I would not want either breed by themselves. If someone takes the time to do the research to make the best cross (whatever breed) they are responsible. If they have good home for the pups before they breed they are responsible.

 

The people who breed Purebreds without any though except that they both have papers and have no homes in mind or purpose for the dogs are much worse than said aussie mutt cross.

 

The other issue with saying go the shelter to most people, too many people who rescue tend to get high and mighty about their breed and insult the potential new owners. It is happening more now than 9 years ago when I went to get my second dog (a mutt). The people who rescue need to get out into the communities and "sell" the idea that their dogs are pre-trained, healthy, Happy dogs that will make great pets and Guess what do puppy stage. And prove that a rescue will bond with them, adapt to their life style, etc.

 

Okay, nuff said to the choir.

 

My new logo:

 

Dog people (all breeds) need to band together to Stop more pet laws. NO MORE LAWS!!!!! Don't let JOE SHMOE Politician and PETA tell us how to live.

 

 

PS We also need to stop insurance companies from driving up the costs of vet care, and DNA/Titer testing cites from Gouging us with monopolies on patents. And anyone want to guess the new costs of pet food once the FDA puts tons of regulations on that.

[Root Beer]

The other pet peeve I have: Who are we to decide today that no other new breed can ever be made?

 

I've wondered this myself!

 

I think it should be done for a well thought out purpose. I don't think the end result dogs should be exploited as "designer dogs". But I personally can see justification in trying to develop a new breed.

 

There were no Border Collies at one time. I'm very glad the folks who developed them way back when didn't feel that it was a cardinal sin of some sort to do so!

[Kyrasmom]

I've wondered this myself!

 

I think it should be done for a well thought out purpose. I don't think the end result dogs should be exploited as "designer dogs". But I personally can see justification in trying to develop a new breed.

 

There were no Border Collies at one time. I'm very glad the folks who developed them way back when didn't feel that it was a cardinal sin of some sort to do so!

 

Ok, but most people who breed their mutts aren't selecting for a new breed. They're just making cute puppies. I can justify most things if I put my head to it, and the aussie/mix crossing could potentially be so if all pups were spayed and neutered, but by and large, this isn't it. And I've got nothing against mutts...have a handful myself. Actually a hand a one finger.

 

So many problems, so many solutions, but unfortunately, very few pair up.

 

Maria

[sharkie]

education can only be so effective...man i remember the first time i had D.A.R.E. and mandatory health science...the only time it was cool was when the teacher spilled the jar of black lungs or when the officer showed us his gun.

 

similarly, i think the only way a new breed can sprout is if there's actually a need for it. most are "uncool" and the idea'll just die off if there's not some kind of financial incentive to breed.

[sharkie]

can we levy a tax on breeders and/or on each pup that gets sold?

[bcollie]

More taxes????? That reminds me of the old quote "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." Why do we feel the need to penalize responsible breeders to make up for the irresponsible ones? Whether it is this speuter bill or taxing dogs, only the law abiding people are going to adhere to it and the ones causing the problems in the first place are still going to be causing the problem. They have found in several places where they have enacted mandatory spay and neuter that licensing of dogs goes down and rabies goes up as people don't get rabies vaccinations.

 

California is a very big state and what is needed in Los Angeles County is very different than what is needed in Modoc County. This bill supposedly gives all enforcement, fees, penalties and decisions to the local jurisdiction. If that is true, then just leave it up to the locals entirely. If LA wants to pass a mandatory speuter bill then they can do that. Pass it in Modoc County where there are more cows than people and there are 2.6 people per square mile (LA county has 2344 per square mile) then you would be drummed out of office. With cattle ranching the major industry, people rely on their dogs day in and day out. Personally, we run cattle over a hundred square mile area in the summer time and could not do it without dogs. We have a line that works for us and should not be told that we can no longer carry on this line that we have bred and bred responsibly since the late 70s. And if this bill passes, that is what we would be told, as ranch dogs are not eligible for 'intact permits'.

 

End of rant.

[sharkie]

More taxes????? That reminds me of the old quote "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." Why do we feel the need to penalize responsible breeders to make up for the irresponsible ones?

 

totally agree, but as you mentioned you breed for moving cattle. in a sparsely populated county how many border pups per year does the entire county need? most new owners are not ranchers and so perhaps there could be a tax exemption for those who actually need bcs for work.