I cannot imagine committing to buy a puppy without seeing the animal and if possible the sire and dam. OTOH, a rescue (or adoption of an older dog) is a different thing. My last two Basenjis came to me sight unseen, and turned out to be wonderful dogs, but the breeders I got them from wanted to place their dogs in an experienced Basenji home, and I only paid the cost of getting the dogs to me. One came by air, one was personally transported to me by his breeder. If she hadn't been happy with what she found I expect she would have taken him back with her when she left. I also had to commit to return him if ever I couldn't keep him. Good breeders care about where their dogs end up.
Barker in Chicago
-
Not sure if this made national news, but I thought it was a thought provoking topic.
CHICAGO (STNG) ― Retired "The Price is Right" game show host and animal activist Bob Barker is scheduled to testify Tuesday morning at City Hall in favor of legislation which would require all Chicago dog and cat owners to spay or neuter their pets once they reach the age of six months.
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/bob.barker.ordinance.2.781684.html
What do you think? IMHO, you buy a pet, as a pet. Breeding never figures into to equation (or shouldn't). You spay/nueuter as soon as possible. I don't have a problem with this law.
Have any thoughts???
-
For pet folks I am all for it.
Breeders will have some issues with it, as they need to make sure they have quality dogs to continue their lines.
But for pet folks, yes…lets get these numbers down of unwanted pets in the humane socieities...
-
For pet folks I am all for it.
Breeders will have some issues with it, as they need to make sure they have quality dogs to continue their lines.
But for pet folks, yes…lets get these numbers down of unwanted pets in the humane socieities...
I am TOTALLY against it.. just as I am in California.. this will NOT solve the unwanted pet population.. it will add to it… period.... the reason is education .... not laws... again... I am totally against it....
-
For pet folks I am all for it.
Breeders will have some issues with it, as they need to make sure they have quality dogs to continue their lines.
But for pet folks, yes…lets get these numbers down of unwanted pets in the humane socieities...
I am TOTALLY against it.. just as I am in California.. this will NOT solve the unwanted pet population.. it will add to it… period.... the reason is education .... not laws... again... I am totally against it....
And last I looked, I am a responsible breeder
-
Why, doesn't it target the pet folks?
Why don't you want the uneducated to be regulated?? -
Pat, there is no way I or anyone said your not responsible.
BUT many are not.
What do you do for the great uneducated??
Just hope they will get a clue??? -
i agree with it IMO i think there should only be a limited # of breeders at once anyways there's to many people that think cuz there dog has puppies there a breeder now for every 5 great breeders out there there's 40 of them that aren't …
-
I, as a dog sport enthusiast, am dead set against it. Here's why:
http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html
yes, I do conformation, but I do waaay more agility than conf. With my latest, I am thinking I might (or might not) breed, IF the heath tests and titles come about like I expect. But even if I never breed anything (and I'm okay with that too), I would never spay/neuter a dog before it reached maturity. (At least until further evidence that early spay/neuters do not compromising the sport dogs' health.) And I don't know of any breed of dog that I would consider mature by 6 months. Not basenjis, and certainly not larger dogs (FYI my non basenji is a malinois).
Yes there are many idiots out there. I would not expect those people to follow these laws anyway. Laws like this only hurt responsible breeders/owners. A friend of mine, who shows and does agility (perhaps OB as well) said she had applied for a breeders exemption since she had intact animals and that was required in her town. They told her she was the second person to apply for that in 1.5 or 2 years, which is when it became effective.
-
On the surface I would agree with the proposal (particularly especially for cats - they should never be sold unneutered - too many feral cat populations up here anyway and its been demonstrated they cause huge mortality in the bird population).
However on second thought, I think there might be a number of people who acquire a dog (purebred for this example) who then decide later they want to enter the dog in some kind of competition or special training. How would this proposal impact that sort of thing? -
I disagree with it. In theory, yes getting pets fixed should be regulated to help control the pet population problem. However, I'd imagine that most individuals who do not neuter/spay their pets to begin with will not run out & get their animals fixed solely because a law is made. People break laws daily, far worse ones than getting a pet fixed. My question is, what is the result or punishment if you are caught with an intact dog & no breeding license? How strict are they going to be with this law?
Until they can assure me that it will actually make an impact because people will actually go through with getting their animals fixed, I see it as more of a problem imposed onto the few good breeders we have in the world.
-
I agree with agilebasenji on this one, IMO there is more than enough evidence showing that dogs involved in performance events shouldnt be S/N before their growth plates close. There doesnt seem to be an exemption for this unless you also show the dog, and many people, myself included, have no desire to participate in conformation but enjoy competing in other events.
I also agree with Pat that these types of laws will not solve the problem. The irresponsible people the law targets will simply not follow it just like they dont follow the current laws. I dont know for sure but there is probably a leash law and yet there are packs of pit bulls running around attacking people. Its also illegal to fight dogs yet they think these gang members are going to comply with a mandatory S/N law. The irresponsible owners will simply ignore the new law just like they ignore the current laws and the only people hurt by it are responsible owners and breeders.
The other major problem I have with these laws is how they determine who is eligible for a breeders license and who isnt. Many times the only people able to get them are the commercial breeders, aka puppy mills. Or the license cost so much that it strains the finances of responsible breeders that much more, which just takes money away that they could have put into health testing which all breeds need so desperately. Also many responsible breeders dont breed litters every year, in fact they may go several years in between breedings, so how do the laws handle this?
As its been said before in the end the only solution to the problem will be the education of the public no law will magically fix the overpopulation problem.
-
Thank you for the different perspectives on this topic. Always good to have as many facts as possible when forming (or in this case re-forming) an opinion.
-
Pat, there is no way I or anyone said your not responsible.
BUT many are not.
What do you do for the great uneducated??
Just hope they will get a clue???You educate the "un" educated, not pass laws that they will not follow regardless.
-
Here is an update about California AB1634, this was received from PetPac
www.petpac.netDear Pat,
The California Department of Finance opposes AB 1634, the mandatory pet sterilization bill. In their analysis of the legislation they state: “(AB 1634) may result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered…the result would be an increase in the General Fund costs…the bill is also unclear in its definition of the term ‘complaint’, there is a concern the complaint may be unsubstantiated. Read the full report.
So let’s set the record straight. AB 1634 will:
Result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered and ultimately sent to their death.
Cost California taxpayers millions of additional dollars
Allow unsubstantiated complaints to be used, forcing pet owners to sterilize their dogs and cats.
We must stop AB 1634 now! Our opponents including PETA and the Humane Society who support this crazy legislation are spending millions of dollars to push their disastrous agenda. They are using AB 1634 to push a nationwide agenda for mandatory pet sterilization.Will you help us today? Please write or call your State Senator and contribute to PetPAC today.
PetPAC continue to lead the fight to stop AB 1634. We need your help to win. Our pet owner rights and our pets are at stake!
Sincerely,
Bill Hemby
-
Some more information
http://www.dof.ca.gov/Legislative_Analyses/LIS_PDF/AB-1634-20080725094150AM-AB01634.pdf
-
Although I have a bit of an outside perspective (being just a pet owner), this legislation seems a lot like the legislation in cities like DC which outlaw handguns. Responsible people wind up either paying fines or following the rules only to then have the irresponsible criminal element aquire illegal handguns anyhow. The law does not decrease crime rates to the extent that it's proponents put forth. I see the same situation happening with this sterilization legislation. It will be those who are responsible breeders and owners who will suffer.
I do think the person who mentioned sterilization of cats to prevent feral populations makes a lot sense than dogs. Cat fanciers could apply for exemptions and the people who own cats as pets wouldn't be nearly as affected as those who own dogs. I would hazard a guess that a great deal fewer pet owners show/compete with cats than dogs.
My big question is why does the "solution" always appear to be legislation and punishment. What about an incentive program instead? A small percent decrease in property tax for neutered pets…waiver of dog license fee...access to a special dog park for free where intact animals are charged a small fee...etc. There is just way too much legislation put forth without first initiating active problem solving.
