Pet Nation

[bunnybutts]

Here is an interesting article on MSNBC about pampered pets. It also talks about basic dog & cat nature and brings up The Dog Whisperer and a few other better know Dog Handlers and their ideas about our pets. Even touches on the current pet food scare.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18846816/site/newsweek/

[sutulu]

Yes... I am "puppy whipped"!

My colleagues were in the book club meeting discussion their latest read: Marley and Me. Come on folks! Any book about a cute yellow lab is NOT going to end well!

So I just poked my head in and asked who cried their guts out over Marley. We got to swapping dog stories. One of my colleagues was telling about having dinner with 6 women she had just met in her new golf league. They spent some time talking about husbands and kids, where they were going to school, etc. Then suddenly someone mentioned their dog. Everyone whipped out their cell phones to show pictures of their dogs.

No pictures of the kids but had to share pictures of their dogs.

On another corgi site (hahahaha....) - and maybe here... I read posts about how PETA and the Animal Rights folks will put an end to pet ownership. Reading this article and seeing the research about how much money is being spent on pets and how it keeps increasing, I just don't see it happening.

I also found the demographics of pet owning homes to be very interesting:

"Now, the majority of pet owners, 61 percent, are childless—singles, unmarried couples waiting to have kids, gay couples, empty-nesters."

Whereas it used to be families getting pets.

Interesting article!

[bunnybutts]

"Now, the majority of pet owners, 61 percent, are childless—singles, unmarried couples waiting to have kids, gay couples, empty-nesters."

Yep I thought that was interesting too....

I am trying very hard to be an empty-nester but they keep coming back! :ROLLEYES

[Fluffypants]

"
I am trying very hard to be an empty-nester but they keep coming back! :ROLLEYES

Maybe you need some more ferocious dogs to drive those pesky kids away! :LAUGH:

And Susan, you are not nearly as bad as the folks in that article. Tucker and Lulu are definitely dogs, and they know it. Yes, they are priviledged, lucky dogs, but you have done nothing to spoil their innate dogginess. You are a good mom with both feet on the ground!+WUBCLUB+

[bunnybutts]

Jess,

everytime my Sons come home I open the door and tell The Girls to attack but.... they only lick them into submission...

I can hear The Girls thinking:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means..." from Igino Montoya from one of my favorite movies The Princess Bride

[glencorgi]

On another corgi site (hahahaha....) - and maybe here... I read posts about how PETA and the Animal Rights folks will put an end to pet ownership. Reading this article and seeing the research about how much money is being spent on pets and how it keeps increasing, I just don't see it happening.

Okay, I'll bite. First one only has to look as to what has already passed - HEART in Albuquerque, NM; the Louisville ordinance. Next I'll ask where will one propose to get their next generation of corgis in CA should AB 1634 get signed into law? I can give you the solutions IF you like. 1634 is already making the rounds and being toyed with being proposed in my local county (and d*mn straight I'm in there fighting to get rational, reasonable and enforceable modifications made to our already more than adequate statutes).

Look at what's being proposed in the District of Columbia:

From the AKC's legislative alerts:
DC Area Dog Fanciers Alert

Proposed amendments to the District of Columbia Official Code, known as the
Animal Protection Amendment Act (B17-089), threaten the rights to own and
breed dogs responsibly in the District of Columbia. It is imperative that DC
area dog fanciers and AKC-affiliated dog clubs contact the DC Council to
express opposition to the proposed amendments.

The proposed ordinance amendments include the following:

* Mandatory spaying or neutering of all dogs and cats 6 months of age
or older unless the owner possesses a breeding permit.
* The breeding permit application process requires that the owner’s
premises be inspected. Anyone with an animal “capable of breeding” must secure
a breeding permit, even if the animal is never bred. The fee for the
breeding permit is unspecified and could costs hundreds of dollars.
* Any “nonprofit” organization that claims to be “concerned with
humane treatment of animals” may legally enter private property and confiscate
another person’s animals. Any individual who qualifies as a nonprofit
organization can bring suit in a DC court and by sworn affidavit or testimony
demonstrate that the seizure is necessary.
* Every section of the ordinance in which animal owners are referenced
is amended to insert the term “guardian.” Removing the classification of
dogs as property could open the door to a host of challenges. If people do not
own their dog, then what legal responsibility do they have to properly
protect and care for them? Use of the term “guardian” represents a first step
toward eliminating an individual’s right to own, breed and participate in events
with dogs.
* The ordinance establishes non-economic damages for “loss of society,
companionship, comfort, protection, love, affection, and services”,
subjecting veterinarians to new financial liability. The cost of veterinary services
must increase to cover costs of liability claims established by the proposed
amendments. 
----------

The article presents one reality, but what is being proposed legislatively is a totally different picture.

Debbie

[The Chipmunk's Mom]

It makes one wonder where all of this craziness is coming from. When they tried to pass laws in our County, the people went crazy and there were life threats, etc to the officials that proposed the bill. The bill was finally dropped all together. There is currrently no laws in our county for animals. Some of the laws were a good thing but most of them were not. Common sense is sadly lacking. We don't even have a county animal shelter here so if they picked up a stray where would they have put them.

[sutulu]

TGal: "Attack"? Nice try. Never seen mine attack anything other than food.....

Debbie: You and I will continue to disagree about this. We have exchanged posts before and I'm sure we will in the future.

I believe breeders will continue to breed and those with solid, respectable (a word no one likes to use), good programs will ask more for their dogs and I truly believe they will get it.

Yes, it will be harder to get a purebreed dog and more expensive, but I expect the show breeders and those who truly love the breed, will pay the "kennel" fees (fees to have unaltered dogs and multiple dogs) and continue the search for breeding the perfect Corgi, etc. And I believe they will pass this additional cost on to those who purchase their pups either for show/breeding stock, or for pet quality dogs.

Why do I think people will pay? Look at doggie day care. Who ever heard of this years ago? Pet friendy hotels and restaurants. Animal Planet - a network dedicated to animals. Cars designed with pets in mind. As the article that started this post describes, people are spending $$$$ on their pets. Maybe I am just a capitalist, but I don't see this ending.

One of the most criticized cities that have implemented strict regilations defines a dog at age 6 months or 9 months. I don't remember if it was Alberquerque or another city. So a breeder does not pay the licensing fee for the pups they are sending on to other homes - if they send them on by 6 or 9 months.

What will the legislation like Albequerque do? I hope it will shut down the bad backyard breeding programs, breeders who's dogs aren't particularly the best dogs health wise and temperament wise.

I hope Albuquerque's legislation will stop random breeding among dogs who's families don't spay/neuter, are not cared for and valuable member of their families as many of our are.

I hope it stops dogs getting in the hands of people who can't care for them as they should be, who will mistreat them, neglect them , etc. I hope that legislation will drop them numbers of rescues and ound dogs needing homes and those that will eventually be eurthanized.

I remember reading the Alberquerque legislation after reading a post stating how it will end pet ownership. I read it carefully. And frankly, in MY opinion (and I know people will disagree) I thought it had potential to have a positive impact. What I can't remember is the statistic about the number of dogs euthanized in Alberquerque. They compared the statistic to other cities including San Francisco and a few others. It was an outlandishly high numer of dogs that were euthanize each year.

Clearly this city needed to do something.

Again, this is juts my $.02.

[glencorgi]

I believe breeders will continue to breed and those with solid, respectable (a word no one likes to use), good programs will ask more for their dogs and I truly believe they will get it.

Breeding will be left in the hands of the very wealthy, commercial kennels (there will still be pet shop puppies), black market/underground breeders and those smuggled in from other countries. 90% or more of the corgis on this forum would not exist under your wishes for these type bills to work.

Yes, it will be harder to get a purebreed dog and more expensive, but I expect the show breeders and those who truly love the breed, will pay the "kennel" fees (fees to have unaltered dogs and multiple dogs) and continue the search for breeding the perfect Corgi, etc. And I believe they will pass this additional cost on to those who purchase their pups either for show/breeding stock, or for pet quality dogs.

There you would be wrong. Each time a new threat of legislation comes up, there is an ever growing number of show breeders who are contemplating getting out of breeding. This is the atmosphere on all the show lists I am on - breed specific and all-breed.

This is from a post I did to Corgi-L in 2005. It is about the same type legislation being seen now and it did not pass:

States also have Animal Welfare Acts and Departments of Agriculture under which commercial kennels are regulated. Let's look at what was proposed in Oklahoma February 2004. The name of the bill was "Dog and Cat Ownership Responsibility Act." (Hope you notice, they're trying to legislate to you how to be a responsible owner.) "For the purposes of this act, "Dog and Cat Ownership Responsibility"means responsible pet ownership by discouraging breeding, reducing pet over-population by encouraging spaying or neutering of pets, and ensuring
that each cat and dog born in the State of Oklahoma has a good and permanent home."

This is language directly quoted from the bill and the first thing on the list is to discourage breeding. Have we effected hobby/"legitimate" breeders yet? (For the record, nationally in the US, there is no pet overpopulation. Euthanasia figures have dropped and continue to do so. The number of truly adoptable dogs being euthanized continues to fall. Now, yes there are areas where there are surpluses of puppies and healthy, young dogs being euthanized. Likewise there areas of the country with shortages of these dogs. This has given rise to a new niche of brokering if you will, the shelter market. Dogs and puppies are collected from shelters where there are surpluses and taken to the shortage areas - just like those who deliver puppies for Hunte to the pet shops. And then there are the Satos being brought in.)

Still not convinced hobby/"legitimate" breeders won't be effected? Try this:
"A. It shall be unlawful for any person to own, harbor, or keep a female
dog or cat over the age of four (4) months or a male dog or cat over the
age of six (6) months within the State of Oklahoma who has not been
neutered, unless such person holds a license for breeding cats and dogs
issued by the State Department of Health."

That's right it would have been illegal to own a cat over four (4) months of age or a dog over six (6) months of age that was still intact unless you had a license.

Exempted from this would be:
"B. The following shall be exempt from the provisions of this act:
1. Domestic animals determined by a licensed veterinarian unsuited to
undergo surgical procedure; and
2. Animals under the care of governmental and animal control agencies,
501(c)(3) nonprofit animal rescue organizations, and humane societies for
the prevention of cruelty to animals as provided for in the Dog and Cat
Sterilization Act."

Yes, it would still be possible to own intact animals in OK and breed.
The license for breeding referred to in Section 3 of this act shall be
called the "Intact/Breeding/Sale License or Permit". There shall be
three (3) classes of licenses as described below:

1. "Intact license" means a license or permit authorizing the holder to
possess any dog or cat that has not been neutered or spayed. The cost
per animal shall be One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per year;

So someone with their first showdog, not necessarily interested in breeding or anything other than having a good time and playing with their dog in the conformation ring pays $100 a year to do so.

2. "Noncommercial breeders license" means a license or permit
authorizing the holder to possess a dog or cat which produces a single
litter, whether intentional or unintentional and has no more than three
(3) licensed animals per household per year. The cost per animal shall
be One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) per year; and

So let's say hypothetically Laurie has four intact animals in her home, she doesn't qualify under the "noncommercial breeders license." Not many hobby/"legitimate" breeders would. But let's say she would. So that's $300 a year for her three intact animals and another $100 for each litter. Now if she decides to run on any puppies beyond 6 months, there's another $100 per puppy. Add that cha - ching$$$ to what she has already outlined her expenses.

Now the more economical way to go perhaps would be this one, but then one comes under the stigma of being a commercial breeder, and we all know how "bad" they are :

3. "Commercial breeders license" means a license or permit authorizing
the holder to possess a dog or cat which has more than a single litter
per licensed animal per year. The cost per location shall be One
Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per year.

So those with twenty or fifty or a hundred breeding animals only pay $1000 annually. If anyone can explain to me how the hobby/"legitimate" breeder is not the target or going to be negatively effected or impacted by this kind of legislation, I'll be happy to listen.

Now, as far as "ensuring that each cat and dog born in the State of Oklahoma has a good and permanent home" we have these steps to make sure:

"C. All licensed breeders shall be required to provide to the buyer of
any dog or cat the following notice: "It is state law to have such dog
or cat neutered or spayed on or before age four (4) months for females
and six (6) months for males or the buyer must purchase an intact
license, noncommercial breeders license, or a commercial breeders license."

That's a real incentive to purchase a puppy or kitten isn't it?

And for those who might try to stay under the radar:

"D. Any person found guilty of violating any of the provisions of this
act shall be subject to a fine of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or six
(6) months in jail or both and litter/litters found in possession of such
person shall be forfeited to the appropriate animal control or law
enforcement language."
-------------

Okay, let's bring it home and personal - Sadie's litter on this forum, the one that has brought so many ooooooh's and aaaaaah's, under D. her owner would be subject to the $500 fine, six (6) months jail time or both and the litter would be taken by animal control.

The most economical way for a "respectable" breeder to go under this scenario would be the commercial kennel license. An average hobby/show breeder might have 2 intact males and say 5 intact bitches and a couple of puppies they're running on to show - so that's 9 intact animals = $900. In the mix maybe 2-3 ones they've finished, a couple they are actively showing and the puppies that are too young to have begun their careers yet. Under CA AB1634, anything over 4 months old has to have begun its show career (which under AKC can't begin until they are 6 months old) and everything else has to have been shown within the last two years to be eligible for an intact permit. Now among this mix of above dogs there is an excellent quality bitch that early during her show career had a traumatic event occur and she now refuses to show. Yet, she produces excellent puppies, has her ROM (register of merit) for producing excellent offspring that have titled in conformation, agility and herding - done by owners like you. Under the current wave of MSN, she would not be eligible for an intact permit and there goes any future potential Lulu's perhaps.

Back to the commercial kennel status, when this comes into play it usually requires building something that meets USDA requirements under the Animal Welfare Act. You're talking building, at minimum, a $100,000 kennel. But wait, zoning is residential and won't allow for a kennel permit, let alone this type of building. There will be no more puppies whelped in the bedroom or raised underfoot in the home.

Debbie - more in a part 2

[Fluffypants]

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means..." from Igino Montoya from one of my favorite movies The Princess Bride
Inconceivable!!!! :LAUGH:
Do NOT get me started on The Princess Bride - it's one of my favorite movies . . . and the first movie in my (now extensive) collection!

[glencorgi]

Why do I think people will pay? Look at doggie day care. Who ever heard of this years ago? Pet friendy hotels and restaurants. Animal Planet - a network dedicated to animals. Cars designed with pets in mind. As the article that started this post describes, people are spending $$$$ on their pets. Maybe I am just a capitalist, but I don't see this ending.

In some ways I see all of the above as contributing to the problems we're seeing with both pet ownership and legislation. Animal Planet has become one of the most successful brainwashing tools of the AR movement. I see it here and now. The success of the PetsMart "pet parent" commercials is reflected in so many posts. Our pets are no longer animals and the danger of keeping that fact as a conscious reality was pointed out in the article.

One of the most criticized cities that have implemented strict regilations defines a dog at age 6 months or 9 months. I don't remember if it was Alberquerque or another city. So a breeder does not pay the licensing fee for the pups they are sending on to other homes - if they send them on by 6 or 9 months.

Four months is now the current "magic number." It is very easy to be sitting on an extra 3 or 4 puppies one is running on to see how they are going to turn out whether for show or performance, so that adds up quickly. Timing for a new home is also crucial. Heather and Colin are waiting until school is out until Mac comes home. Hypothetically, in the meantime, Mac crosses the 4 month old threshold and his breeder, by law, should pay a $500 intact permit. When Heather and Colin come to pick him up, they get told; "There'll be an extra $500 to his price because of the intact permit I had to pay because you didn't take him earlier." ???? That's real good.

What will the legislation like Albequerque do? I hope it will shut down the bad backyard breeding programs, breeders who's dogs aren't particularly the best dogs health wise and temperament wise.

But it doesn't, everywhere MSN has been implemented it has been a failure.

I hope Albuquerque's legislation will stop random breeding among dogs who's families don't spay/neuter, are not cared for and valuable member of their families as many of our are.

I hope it stops dogs getting in the hands of people who can't care for them as they should be, who will mistreat them, neglect them , etc. I hope that legislation will drop them numbers of rescues and ound dogs needing homes and those that will eventually be eurthanized.

Your are getting into the syndrome of "only me and my three best friends should own pets or should I change that to be our pets guardians? San Mateo County, CA is the touted model for MSN. It is a dismal failure. Officially they have taken a neutral stance on AB1634, unofficially they oppose it. What happened in San Mateo was an increase in pet abandonment. San Mateo killed more animals in the unincorporated areas of the county where it was passed as compared to cities where the law wasn't passed. The same thing happened in Montgomery County, MD (which shortly after passing reversed theirs). Fort Wayne, Indiana has MSN and is still killing 3 out of 4 domestic animals. Long Beach, CA had a breeding ban for 30 years, but it far from being "no kill." Go to http://www.nokilladvocacy.org and read the article "The Dark Side of Mandatory Licensing and Neuter Law"

I remember reading the Alberquerque legislation after reading a post stating how it will end pet ownership. I read it carefully. And frankly, in MY opinion (and I know people will disagree) I thought it had potential to have a positive impact. What I can't remember is the statistic about the number of dogs euthanized in Alberquerque. They compared the statistic to other cities including San Francisco and a few others. It was an outlandishly high numer of dogs that were euthanize each year.

How you can support an ordinance wherein at some point in the day you are likely in violation of is beyond me. Tucker and Lulu run off lead at the lake for evening swims don't they? Hey, you are in violation - they aren't on 4 foot leads. Mac's little water ballet in the water dish, oops in violation there - fresh clear water has to be down at ALL times. I'm walking by your house and Tucker and Lulu decide to greet me in typical corgi fashion - barking hi and barking "Hey, Mom someone's on the sidewalk." I am intimidated and feel threatened. I call animal control - you get a warning and are instructed to put up appropriate fencing for potentially dangerous dogs. But wait, that type of fencing won't be approved by your home owners association. But IF you don't put it up, Tucker and Lulu can be confiscated.

Now let's talk about MSN at 4 months. There's enough cringes around that see the docking of Pembrokes as cruel and abusive, yet ovahysterectomies and castrations which are truly invasive surgeries - gung ho on those. There is a wide debate in the veterinary community - most general vets go along with speutering, but one doesn't see much on the negative effects. Incontinence in females, prone to certain forms of cancer. Pediactric speuters, loss of secondary sexual characteristics - males look more "bitchy", growth development issues, ....

Clearly this city needed to do something.

Gee perhaps, maybe, just possibly enforcing the statutes already on the books might have solved the problem? Where I live what is on the books will cover and address any problems. Our ACO's are doing their jobs, but there is no enforcement behind what they do. They need teeth behind them at the next level of enforcement and they don't have it. And our shelter is a mess, but it is "off limits" in the discussion we were having. That's a whole 'nother political can of worms and where as much of the problems we are seeing in our county lies as anything else.

I'm coming from this as a breeder, rescuer, someone in the trenches of legislative battles and someone who has spent a good deal of time with those who successfully brainwashing an army of AR lite drones.

Debbie

[Fluffypants]

<---- trying very hard not to be insulted. +SAD+

[Dillydoodle]

IF i ever get to the point that i look at my dogs as JUST dogs, and not important family members and yes MY FURRY CHILDREN, Please SHOOT ME!

I dont want to be the person who looks at their dogs as a comodity, where beauty and perfection is what defines them... I dont want to lose a pet and be over it in 5 minutes becuase it is just a dog or just a cat, i want to love them deeply and wholey and share a special bond with them that only we have together... If that makes me a "PetsMart pet parent" then so be it.

<--- tried not to be offended, but it didn't work out for me

Emilie

[taflar]

I believe breeders will continue to breed and those with solid, respectable (a word no one likes to use), good programs will ask more for their dogs and I truly believe they will get it.

Yes, it will be harder to get a purebreed dog and more expensive, but I expect the show breeders and those who truly love the breed, will pay the "kennel" fees (fees to have unaltered dogs and multiple dogs) and continue the search for breeding the perfect Corgi, etc. And I believe they will pass this additional cost on to those who purchase their pups either for show/breeding stock, or for pet quality dogs.

I don't think so. I know I couldn't afford the fees some of the cities are charging. I'd have to alter mine in order to be able to keep them. I'd be out of breeding and showing. :(

It's the commercial breeders (often known as puppy mills) who have the money to pay these fees. It's not the average, reputable "show/hobby" breeder.

Why do I think people will pay? Look at doggie day care. Who ever heard of this years ago? Pet friendy hotels and restaurants. Animal Planet - a network dedicated to animals. Cars designed with pets in mind. As the article that started this post describes, people are spending $$$$ on their pets. Maybe I am just a capitalist, but I don't see this ending.

It's not the "show" people paying for doggie day care. We put our moeny in every day costs, food, vet care, etc. not in a luxury like day care.

And unfortunately these people who will spend money on day care, etc. don't see that the AR people are taking away their choices to do so. If the average pet owner doesn't wake up and start fighting the AR's and the prosposed laws they won't be owning a dog to put into day care.

Reread what Debbie wrote, she's right on the money on this one. We've got some big battles ahead of us if we even want to own pets.

Peggy

[taflar]

I dont want to be the person who looks at their dogs as a comodity, where beauty and perfection is what defines them... I dont want to lose a pet and be over it in 5 minutes becuase it is just a dog or just a cat, i want to love them deeply and wholey and share a special bond with them that only we have together... If that makes me a "PetsMart pet parent" then so be it.

Now, I don't think of my dogs as a commodity either, but they are still DOGS! Yes, furry members of my family. And I do not get over losing one in 5 minutes. Never have and never will.

Just because someone disagrees with the AR movement and wants to retain the right to "own" his/her dogs, doesn't mean we don't love them. And doesn't mean we don't think of them as family members.

However, in legal words and in the laws I want to be their owner. That way I can decide what's best for them and not worry about someone else being appointed their "guardian", and deciding their medical care etc.

This is not a black and white issue, there are lots of grey areas.

Peggy

[sutulu]

Peggy, your information as always is thorough. And I really do respect your opinion.

As much as my reasons for feeling some of the legislation has merit is based in emotion and therefore biased, I think a lot of your post is a bit biased also.

I think using Sadie's litter as an example was a bit over the top. I believe all Sadie's pups will be placed in homes at about 10 weeks or so. That's not 6 months or 9 months. Why would there be a fee to keep them intact for say 3-4 months until they go to their new homes? The intention, I believe, is to put them out to homes. And the original fine.... not sure where you got that.

And you mentioned the average hobby breeder having to pay $100 to hang on to a pup/keep them in tact to see if they perform in the show ring....

It costs almost $100 for an agility weekend. I've made the choice to participate in that sport so I have to suck it up. I'm guessing conformation folks are used to paying similar fees, add on another $100.

In a perfect world people would know how to care for animals and we wouldn't have shelters full of homeless animals, millions of pets being euthanized, and animals suffering the cruel abuse in homes who just don't know enough to cherish their pets for the short time they have them.

But unfortunately we have come to a poinbt where government feels it has to step in and protect both humans from animals and animals from humans. I don't believe at the heart of the legislation is making life miserable for breeders.

We have disagreed over this before and I am sure we will again.

Susan

[taflar]

Peggy, your information as always is thorough. And I really do respect your opinion.

It was Debbie that wrote the post you are responding to. However, I agree with her and yes, I think she and I are biased. We are in favor of choice, not mandatory spay netuer or mandatory whatever.

I think using Sadie's litter as an example was a bit over the top. I believe all Sadie's pups will be placed in homes at about 10 weeks or so.

She didn't say that Sadie's pups wouldn't be placed, it was just an example. Both Debbie and I have had puppies that didn't get placed by 10 weeks or 4 mos. It does happen.

That's not 6 months or 9 months. Why would there be a fee to keep them intact for say 3-4 months until they go to their new homes? The intention, I believe, is to put them out to homes. And the original fine.... not sure where you got that.

It's not that we think there should be a fine, but in some cities they are working on laws to fine someone for an accidental litter. And that doesn't matter if they are placed by 10 weeks or not, but if your dog gets bred and you don't have a breeding permit before it happens. Then they want to fine you. Since Sadies litter was accidental she could have been fined had she lived in NM or places who are implimenting that type of legislation.

It costs almost $100 for an agility weekend. I've made the choice to participate in that sport so I have to suck it up. I'm guessing conformation folks are used to paying similar fees, add on another $100.

But it's $100 per puppy. If someone were to run on two or three, and that's on top of the permits for intact dogs. At one time I had 8 intact females. I was not breeding all of them, and a couple I didn't intend to breed but they were being shown so were intact. Those types of choices would be impossible with the new laws being proposed.

They are assuming we ALL are irresponsible. And that's not true.

In a perfect world people would know how to care for animals and we wouldn't have shelters full of homeless animals, millions of pets being euthanized, and animals suffering the cruel abuse in homes who just don't know enough to cherish their pets for the short time they have them.

But it's not a perfect world. And all the shelters are not full. Some are importing dogs from Porteo Rico and Mexico and other places because they don't have enough dogs to adopt out.

Also, the dogs in the shelters are mostly there because someone decided they no longer wanted them. For a whole list of reasons. It's not over population it's lack of owner retention.

But unfortunately we have come to a poinbt where government feels it has to step in and protect both humans from animals and animals from humans. I don't believe at the heart of the legislation is making life miserable for breeders.

The government is being manipulated by the Animal Rights groups. And yes, their goal is to prevent any breeding. In fact their goal is to prevent animal ownership or use of any kind. No pets, no police dogs, no service dogs, no meat, no milk, no eggs, no fur, no animals except wild ones.

If they implement mandatory spay/neuter and all animals are spayed or neutered where are you going to get your next corgi?

We have disagreed over this before and I am sure we will again.

Apparently.

There are enough laws on the books now to cover abuse, neglect, etc. They don't need more. They just need to implement the ones they have. If they can't enforce them how are they going to enforce new ones?

Peggy

[MissGambler's+Mojo'sMommy]

<<<<<<<<< proud to be the Mommy to two fur girls (as well as the cats) and proud to be a PetSmart Parent(but I actually prefer Petco, is that okay?

(Seriously, we should all pay very close attention to legislation, and BEFORE it becomes a law.)

[Milosmom]

Wow, I admire your research and knowledge.

I know Pennsylvania is working on putting a stop to puppy mills and that is not a bad thing. The sad truth is, no matter what law is put into place, puppy mills will never be stopped: not as long as people want something for nothing. All they want is a "purebred" ______(fill in the blank)...but they don't want to pay the prices one pays for a well bred quality...pet or show dog, cat, etc.
It's the "fast food consumerism" mentality: I want it cheap, fast, and if possible: to look good.

So puppy mills will go underground or find some loop hole to weasel through. Somehow I get the feeling that the rest of us who do follow the rules and obey laws will end up getting screwed.

I do know this: you can't legislate responsibility, morality and ethics. I don't want the government to do me any favors, because that means I lose and it will cost me even more money!

I read the article about pet ownership too. Some people go way over the top with their dog or cat, but it is a free country, and it is okay to do that. I'm always about finding a happy medium and wanting balance. Milo is spoiled to some degree, I love him dearly. I never forget though that he is a dog and needs to be a dog.

That is my $.02....but thanks for the interesting post, It has made me more interested in reading up on the legislation that the crooks...er sorry did I spell that out loud? ...politicians are cooking up! ( I really have a mistrust of anyone in politics) We all need to be educated!

[taflar]

I know Pennsylvania is working on putting a stop to puppy mills and that is not a bad thing. The sad truth is, no matter what law is put into place, puppy mills will never be stopped: not as long as people want something for nothing. All they want is a "purebred" ______(fill in the blank)...but they don't want to pay the prices one pays for a well bred quality...pet or show dog, cat, etc.

The problem is that often the price of a puppy in a pet store is often the same or more than a reputable breeder would charge. Now those that sell directly to the public, yeah, sometimes they're cheapr. No health tests, and out the door as soon as possible.

So puppy mills will go underground or find some loop hole to weasel through. Somehow I get the feeling that the rest of us who do follow the rules and obey laws will end up getting screwed.

You're right about those of us to try to obey the laws are the ones that will get screwed. However, puppy mills won't have to go underground. The commerical breeders seem to have the money to pay the fees and somehow manage to get the exemptions. It's the hobby breeders that get lumped into the "commerical breeder" status that gets hurt. And it's the hobby breeders who are the reputable breeders.

I do know this: you can't legislate responsibility, morality and ethics.

Oh, I agree there!!!!! :)

I read the article about pet ownership too. Some people go way over the top with their dog or cat, but it is a free country, and it is okay to do that.

I agree there too. What I want left in place is the choice to spoil your dog or breed your dog. The choice for each of us to decide what's best for our own pets.

Peggy

[MVons]

Good news (at least IMO) the CA AB 1634 attacks law enforcement having K-9's. I was thrilled to read law enforcement being against the bill. I am angry that it is the democrats for the bill and republicans against. We don't have a democrat to call about it...the area I live in.

What will happen in my community is that licenses will be eventually be made in the black market. Problem with that is people won't get the rabies vaccination. I know Los Angeles has the 4 month rule and I'm not about to question my county. I want a male puppy to develop like a male with a chest and 4 months is too early IMO.

By the way the puppy mill/pet store charges MORE than the breeders here! The convenience and the "get it now" prevails for the buyers to buy from a store rather than wait for a breeder.

I always wanted to ask legislator if they insist on neuter for an animal when will they insist on it for humans as our overpopulation is the real problem of global warming.

Merrie

[glencorgi]

<<<<<<<<< proud to be the Mommy to two fur girls (as well as the cats) and proud to be a PetSmart Parent(but I actually prefer Petco, is that okay?

Petco gives heavily to PETA and HSUS charities and other animal rights agenda charities. I believe they have come out in support of the bill in California as a good thing. So if you want to spend your money at a store that in turn gives it to agendas trying to end pet ownership, have at it. PetsMart does support some of the AR charities as well, but not to degree Petco does. The "pet parent" campaign is cutesie and warm fuzzy, but the subliminal nuance there implying guardian language is okay, I rarely shop at either one and there are many who all out boycott both stores due to their alignment with AR groups.

(Seriously, we should all pay very close attention to legislation, and BEFORE it becomes a law.)

AMEN!

Debbie

[glencorgi]

Good news (at least IMO) the CA AB 1634 attacks law enforcement having K-9's. I was thrilled to read law enforcement being against the bill. I am angry that it is the democrats for the bill and republicans against. We don't have a democrat to call about it...the area I live in.

Well call your Republican rep and THANK them for being against it. That goes a long way and does as much good in this fight as calling and voicing you opposition to someone who is for it. I don't know why you are surprised the Dems are for it, Levine introduced it and is pushing it down everyone's throat. Generally these type legislations are introduced by Democrats, with the exception of PAWS which helped cause Rick Santorum to lose his seat. Louisville, KY's legislation - the vote split right down party lines with the Dems turning it into law.

The law enforcement officials have been a huge asset to the fight against AB 1634. Bill Hembly (sp?) and his newly formed PetPac have done excellent work and they need all the help and support they can get.

What will happen in my community is that licenses will be eventually be made in the black market. Problem with that is people won't get the rabies vaccination. I know Los Angeles has the 4 month rule and I'm not about to question my county. I want a male puppy to develop like a male with a chest and 4 months is too early IMO.

I'm leaving the above so it can be re-read for the real life ramifications that will follow should it pass.

By the way the puppy mill/pet store charges MORE than the breeders here! The convenience and the "get it now" prevails for the buyers to buy from a store rather than wait for a breeder.

Very true.

I always wanted to ask legislator if they insist on neuter for an animal when will they insist on it for humans as our overpopulation is the real problem of global warming.

"If you haven't given voluntary human extinction much thought before, the idea of a world with no people in it may sound strange. But if you give it a chance, I think you might agree that the extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species ... Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental." Les U. Knight (pseudonym) 1991

A better question to ask is if the legislator would like his/her child or grandchild to experience the bond, love and relationship of having a pet and if so, where will that generation of pets come from?

Debbie

[The Chipmunk's Mom]

I am a firm believer in neuter and spay. I also believe in respect given to all breeders and pet owners who do it correctly and take good care of their pets no matter how extreme some people think we are. I don't believe in putting people in categories or stereotyping. I think we should all remember that each of us on this board is a petowner and very caring for our pets. If they were bought on petfinder, puppyfind, pet stores or through a "champion" breeder or maybe a rescue, found out in a field, etc. these dogs are all unique and greatly loved and when posting to a thread we should all keep that in mind and try not to hurt someone's feelings or inadvertently talk down to them. All dogs as well as people have flaws but it doesn't make us or our dogs less because of it. It is like our children, they all have flaws also and the majority of us at least in the USA do not have blue blood either.

[glencorgi]

I'm sorry if anyone felt insulted, that was not my intent at all. I'm guilty of buying into the "furkid" kitch as well. How many times have you seen me refer to myself as "Auntie Debbiemom"? I'm guilty of having bought a Bobo. My dogs eat better than I do. I have wept unconsolably upon hearing of the passing of corgis that lived with me for only a short time but took that much of my heart with them when they left. I have a box of tutus, bandanas, ruffles and even jams and a halter top with sunglasses to match and yes, I do dress my corgis in them. They have Christmas stockings. But they are still dogs, my dogs and I am their owner; not a pet parent as that leads to guardianship language and IF Emelie wants to continue to be able to address Gus' illness in the ways she deems appropriate and responsible, then she doesn't want guardian as legal language either. They are not a commoditity or status symbol (a la` the Japanese target market for the dog friendly vehicle). From a breeder's standpoint, yes I want beautiful conformationally correct, sound, wonderful temperament corgis, but that doesn't mean there isn't room in my heart and I don't love my little house elf Foxanne (not a corgi). Each and everyone of my foster dogs is BEAUTIFUL, no matter how moth eaten they may look from hot spots or demodectic mange or if they have bleeding sores or how obese - they are ALL beautiful. Not everyone of my own dogs had "correct" beginnings, but you best not dare try to wrench them away from me. They are my property and in order to return them to what they are meant to be, they need to maintain that legal status. They are also dogs, animals and with that comes an element of nature and nature is one thing we can neither 100% fully control or predict. To lose that out of our consciousness is a disservice to our dogs and can potentially set them up in harm's way. That is what I mean by never losing sight of the fact they are dogs. It is our responsibility to protect them.

As much as my reasons for feeling some of the legislation has merit is based in emotion and therefore biased, I think a lot of your post is a bit biased also.

They gotcha! Emotion is what the AR political machine banks on swaying legislators along with John and Susie Q Public to their side. I provided analysis of what the legal language means and its ramifications. Bias? Yes I am totally and unabashedly anti-AR. Of course having spent many months week in and week out with them on our shelter board, attending this new legislation meeting, having a friend and her Cardigans threatened with harm by them, having had a few try fishing expeditions with me and actually being in their presence with they've said death to all breeders; might explain my bias. I've dealt with them one on one and they've made their intentions perfectly clear.

I think using Sadie's litter as an example was a bit over the top. I believe all Sadie's pups will be placed in homes at about 10 weeks or so. That's not 6 months or 9 months. Why would there be a fee to keep them intact for say 3-4 months until they go to their new homes? The intention, I believe, is to put them out to homes. And the original fine.... not sure where you got that.

I used Sadie's litter in the context of legislation proposed in 2004 in Oklahoma. That was the language of the bill. For Leslie, it is Leslie isn't it?, to have owned Sadie intact she would have had to have a license which the fee was $100.

"A. It shall be unlawful for any person to own, harbor, or keep a female
dog or cat over the age of four (4) months or a male dog or cat over the
age of six (6) months within the State of Oklahoma who has not been
neutered, unless such person holds a license for breeding cats and dogs
issued by the State Department of Health."

The fees and fines were in section D.
"D. Any person found guilty of violating any of the provisions of this
act shall be subject to a fine of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or six
(6) months in jail or both and litter/litters found in possession of such
person shall be forfeited to the appropriate animal control or law
enforcement language."

What I did was merely put Sadie's surprise litter in the context of this legislation that was proposed.

And you mentioned the average hobby breeder having to pay $100 to hang on to a pup/keep them in tact to see if they perform in the show ring....

It costs almost $100 for an agility weekend. I've made the choice to participate in that sport so I have to suck it up. I'm guessing conformation folks are used to paying similar fees, add on another $100.

2007 has brought us even more draconian fees than the example from 2004. Under the bill now in CA, there is no way to have a next generation of show puppies to run on. For an intact license permit, a puppy has to have been shown by the time it is four months old. Police dogs, service dogs, working dogs - ALL had to be in the process of doing what they would be doing as adults for an intact permit to be granted.

In a perfect world people would know how to care for animals and we wouldn't have shelters full of homeless animals, millions of pets being euthanized, and animals suffering the cruel abuse in homes who just don't know enough to cherish their pets for the short time they have them.

As Peggy pointed out that is an owner retention and pet abandonment problem often caused by legislation itself. A locality imposes pet limits of 2 pets, what happens to the extras someone might have?

Debbie

[MissGambler's+Mojo'sMommy]

GLENCORGI: You may be aware of this, but the law in CA stems from the success in Santa Cruz County, where forced sterilization has been the law for 12 years. They greatly reduced the number of pets in their shelters, and that seemed to make everyone happy so CA took that info and ran with it. SCC still has far fewer animals than surrounding counties, I know this because the county where my husband works is a neighboring county. Shelters in CA are huge, to say the least, and have way too many pets to properly tend to them. The same can be said for the shelters out here. The main one here recently expanded, became a no-kill shelter, then just a few months ago Parvo swept through the faciltiy and they had to destroy over 1000 animals. Some people had adopted sick animals and they also died. They are now under new management and are a kill facility. Clearly, something has to be done, granted the measures in the laws being proposed seem extreme, but there is a problem. As for me boycotting the chains, I am known to be that type of person if I am aware of a situation, and now I am aware, so thank you. Also, I will not apologize for loving my two as if they were my kids, because they are, and I want to always be the one to make decisions for them, so I get your point, and I know that you are not trying to offend.

PS: MGM is quite intelligent, she just hides it well.

[glencorgi]

GLENCORGI: You may be aware of this, but the law in CA stems from the success in Santa Cruz County, where forced sterilization has been the law for 12 years.

Between 1995 and 2002 Santa Cruz saw a 46% drop in euthanasias after this law was passed. Comparitively statewide CA saw a 65% drop for the same time period. Counties adjacent to Santa Cruz did even better with Santa Clara County showed a 93% drop. San Francisco became No-Kill which means no adoptable animal was killed. If Santa Cruz is a success, our dogs can't afford any more such successes. http://saveourdogs.net/ab1634.html Likewise, in spite of using Santa Cruz as the poster child, AB 1634 is significantly different.

Debbie

[glencorgi]

But unfortunately we have come to a poinbt where government feels it has to step in and protect both humans from animals and animals from humans.

No we haven't. More often than not there are enough laws on the books, IF enforced, to address any issue or problem that might arise. My county certainly has enough and we aren't even allowed, at this point, to look at where there may be real issues - the management of the shelter.

Let me explain how this works. A group of AR types get together and make up a problem. They take it to a legislator and say - there's this problem and we need to do something about it, "there ought to be a law." The legislator believes he/she is listening to their constituents and forms a commission or coalition or committee to study the "problem." On the committee studying the "problem" are those who made up the problem in the first place. There are plenty of models and templates provided by HSUS and PETA and they choose the flavor of the month and it gets made into a bill to go through the legislature. The elected representatives have no knowledge or experience in the matter, let alone really know what they are sponsoring - aids do most of that work and yes there are staffers with AR agendas out there. I know because I've made the phone calls to my representatives and talked to them as have others.

Another way legislation comes about is after the fact of an incident. About 10 years ago a young elementary age girl was mauled and killed by 4 or 5 dogs in the county north of us. These were larger Heinz 57 mutts. So as a knee-jerk reaction my county decided "there ought to be a law" and tried to introduce breed specific legislation against Rotties, Pits and a few other breeds. Now of the dogs in question, only one had any remote type features that could have resembled anything bully. (Remember above where I said - make up a problem?) There had been no incidents in my county, none of the targeted breeds were a part of the horrendous attack, in fact there was NO specific breed in any of the dogs involved, yet there "needed to be a law against the targeted breeds." It didn't pass either.

I can go on.

I don't believe at the heart of the legislation is making life miserable for breeders.

You must have missed the first line of the OK proposed bill - to discourage breeding. And why is it that those who will feel the brunt of legislation are breeders?

Debbie

[MVons]

I love this forum because of the varying views and that even though I may feel the odd man out approving of kill shelters, I don't feel belittled by my view, and I thank you.

A couple who were like parents to me in my early 20's, grew up on a farm and when there were too many cats, they disposed of the old or young barn cats. They weren't domesticated, loved pets, but animals like the coyote. I worked in a shelter in Michigan one summer and saw the litter of puppies that were from a brother and sister and realized how cruel the owner was to let them live. They were killed when the Vet came in. One was blind, two could not stand but stumbled around. When I put Pepper down, yes she might have been able to live another week, but what a poor quality of life - peeing in her crate, whimpering in the evenings because of finally showing her pain. No I wasn't going to drug her up, fill her with fluids to delay the inevitable for a week for my problem of dealing with her loss. I gave her the gift of dying with dignity. Something that we can only give our animals. But I fully understand the person who does delay the inevitable.

I am not a vegetarian and very liberal views on abortion and I think that also gives me the liberal views on kill shelters.

Would I consider adopting a rescue - yes, but I will admit after taking care of Pepper night and day, I would not willingly take on a sick pet. I know my physical limitations and emotional limits to say no. Would I take a mix breed, I'd prefer not because there are some characteristics that don't fit into my family. But most importantly, I know I am a focused person who can only happily have one pet. Once again the wonderfulness of this forum. I am exposed to people who thrive on multiple pets and we don't put other's views down. Instead by expressing our views, it opens all of us up to differing points of view and allows tolerance. We can understand someone and still not share the point of view.

The laws forcing spaying at 4 months only affect the law abiding people. They strive to reduce animals at shelters. Well did they ever think part of the problem is the extremely low amount of rentals that allow pets? It has only been in the past 5 years that mobile home parks were required to allow pets. Then you have the senior assisted living that are at a crawl pace to allow pets. All factors or reasons need to be addressed because shelters are not overflowing with puppies. And what about cats? They still don't license cats and allow a neighborhood to be over-run with them. I like birds is my problem with cats allowed outdoors.

Curious Miss Gambler's mommy, does Santa Cruz have a low gang problem? Thus they don't have the fighting dog ring problem?

Merrie

[taflar]

I always wanted to ask legislator if they insist on neuter for an animal when will they insist on it for humans as our overpopulation is the real problem of global warming.

And what I want to know, is with all the problems this country has to address, terriorism, gas prices, immigration, etc. WHY do they have time to even worry about if someone should be allowed to breed their dogs?

Seems they should have bigger problems to think about.

JMO.
Peggy

[taflar]

I am a firm believer in neuter and spay.

I am too but not with the word "mandatory" attached to it. People should still have the option.

I place all my pet puppies with a spay/neuter contract. I believe we should be very picky about what dogs (and cats) are bred and have a reason for doing so.

I also believe in respect given to all breeders and pet owners who do it correctly and take good care of their pets no matter how extreme some people think we are.

I don't know that I can include "all" breeders. Some don't care about their dogs well being. Commerical breeders (aka puppy millers) are breeders too and I don't have respect for them.

If they were bought on petfinder, puppyfind, pet stores or through a "champion" breeder or maybe a rescue, found out in a field, etc. these dogs are all unique and greatly loved and when posting to a thread we should all keep that in mind and try not to hurt someone's feelings or inadvertently talk down to them.

I don't have a problem with the dogs or their owners. It's their breeders I might have a problem with.

I firmly believe that everyone should think their dog is the "best" no matter where they got the dog. Simply because it's their dog!

I do believe that when you know better you should do better. Meaning if you've learned that a pet store is not the place to get a dog you don't go there a second time.

And just a side note, hobby breeder, or show breeder would be a better term than "champion" breeder. None of us who consider ourselves reputable breeders think of ourselves or our peers as "champion" breeders. This is a term usually used by someone trying to sound respectable but has a way to go yet. (Meaning they show some and maybe have one champion or bought a dog with champions in the pedigree but the parents aren't champions themselves. Things like that. Again, my opinion.)

All dogs as well as people have flaws but it doesn't make us or our dogs less because of it. It is like our children, they all have flaws also and the majority of us at least in the USA do not have blue blood either.

I don't think any of us are saying that.

Peggy

[taflar]

I'm sorry if anyone felt insulted, that was not my intent at all. I'm guilty of buying into the "furkid" kitch as well. How many times have you seen me refer to myself as "Auntie Debbiemom"? I'm guilty of having bought a Bobo. My dogs eat better than I do. I have wept unconsolably upon hearing of the passing of corgis that lived with me for only a short time but took that much of my heart with them when they left. I have a box of tutus, bandanas, ruffles and even jams and a halter top with sunglasses to match and yes, I do dress my corgis in them. They have Christmas stockings. But they are still dogs, my dogs and I am their owner; not a pet parent as that leads to guardianship language and IF Emelie wants to continue to be able to address Gus' illness in the ways she deems appropriate and responsible, then she doesn't want guardian as legal language either. They are not a commoditity or status symbol (a la` the Japanese target market for the dog friendly vehicle). From a breeder's standpoint, yes I want beautiful conformationally correct, sound, wonderful temperament corgis, but that doesn't mean there isn't room in my heart and I don't love my little house elf Foxanne (not a corgi). Each and everyone of my foster dogs is BEAUTIFUL, no matter how moth eaten they may look from hot spots or demodectic mange or if they have bleeding sores or how obese - they are ALL beautiful. Not everyone of my own dogs had "correct" beginnings, but you best not dare try to wrench them away from me. They are my property and in order to return them to what they are meant to be, they need to maintain that legal status. They are also dogs, animals and with that comes an element of nature and nature is one thing we can neither 100% fully control or predict. To lose that out of our consciousness is a disservice to our dogs and can potentially set them up in harm's way. That is what I mean by never losing sight of the fact they are dogs. It is our responsibility to protect them.

I totally agree with Debbie on the above and the rest of the post that went along with this quote.

I too have called my dogs kids or children. And yes, they have bandanas and a few hats and dresses. And yes, I love them all. But they are still dogs and I am their owner, legally. In my heart they are family members.

Not much I can add. Amen Debbie!

Peggy

[The Chipmunk's Mom]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Chipmunk's Mom
I am a firm believer in neuter and spay.

I am too but not with the word "mandatory" attached to it. People should still have the option.

I place all my pet puppies with a spay/neuter contract. I believe we should be very picky about what dogs (and cats) are bred and have a reason for doing so.

Doesn't that mean mandatory if they buy a puppy from you?

Quote:
I also believe in respect given to all breeders and pet owners who do it correctly and take good care of their pets no matter how extreme some people think we are.

I don't know that I can include "all" breeders. Some don't care about their dogs well being. Commerical breeders (aka puppy millers) are breeders too and I don't have respect for them.

Did you read the complete sentence???? it read who do it correctly and take good care of their pets.

Quote:
If they were bought on petfinder, puppyfind, pet stores or through a "champion" breeder or maybe a rescue, found out in a field, etc. these dogs are all unique and greatly loved and when posting to a thread we should all keep that in mind and try not to hurt someone's feelings or inadvertently talk down to them.

I don't have a problem with the dogs or their owners. It's their breeders I might have a problem with.

There are good and bad breeders everywhere including hobby breeders.

I firmly believe that everyone should think their dog is the "best" no matter where they got the dog. Simply because it's their dog!

I agree but when you keep hearing that it is wrong to buy a dog from a petstore or backyard breeder, you begin to wonder what some people think.

I do believe that when you know better you should do better. Meaning if you've learned that a pet store is not the place to get a dog you don't go there a second time.

I have not read or learned anything that has taught me not to go to a backyard breeder for a puppy.

And just a side note, hobby breeder, or show breeder would be a better term than "champion" breeder. None of us who consider ourselves reputable breeders think of ourselves or our peers as "champion" breeders. This is a term usually used by someone trying to sound respectable but has a way to go yet. (Meaning they show some and maybe have one champion or bought a dog with champions in the pedigree but the parents aren't champions themselves. Things like that. Again, my opinion.)

I used the term champion breeder as that is the impression that has come across from some of the hobby breeders that I have had contact with.


Quote:
All dogs as well as people have flaws but it doesn't make us or our dogs less because of it. It is like our children, they all have flaws also and the majority of us at least in the USA do not have blue blood either.

I don't think any of us are saying that.

No not directly but sometimes the implication is there.

[MissGambler's+Mojo'sMommy]

MVONS: Santa Cruz is surrounded by communities that have a large gang population, but for the most part, Santa Cruz itself is a beach community, a minor resort area, so less of a gang problem. As for the entire county, well, it's a mix. Here in Vegas, that is a huge part of the problem. Right now Pits are just exploding, to the point that you can't go to any grocery store without there being someone selling pits out of the back of a truck(no exaggeration here, fact, and I've been approached more than once, then called Metro and Animal Control). They are also being so poorly and quickly bred now that a there is an explosion of deformed puppies being found. The other part of the problem is that this is an extremely mobile population, 3000 move here every month, and some leave, with or without their pets.

As for the success, there has been a drastic reduction of animals turned into and picked up by the shelters, that's the news that I was reporting. Was not going by the destroying stat. Santa Cruz county has a drastically reduced number of unwanted animals, especially compared to Santa Clara, a county I am very familiar with and have helped support their shelters. Santa Clara's humane society is like a warehouse, it's endless and just boggles the mind. I have always been amazed that anyone is even capable of choosing a pet there. Santa Cruz has not had this problem since they enacted the law.

I am not arguing with you Glencorgi, I never would, your expertise far surpasses mine and I have always respected knowledge that others have that I don't. I also agree with you for the most part. We should all pay close attention to this legislation because it's coming to your neighborhood next.

[taflar]

Doesn't that mean mandatory if they buy a puppy from you?

Yes, but before they buy it it's MY puppy so I get to set the rules. They don't have to buy a puppy from me. I ask, or require if you prefer that pets be spayed/neutered as a way to protect future generations. To stop dogs with faults I consider to not be ones I want passed on from being bred.

I disagree with the government telling an owner they have to spay or neuter or what medical care is best for their dog. It should be left in the hands of owners and breeders.

I also believe in respect given to all breeders and pet owners who do it correctly and take good care of their pets no matter how extreme some people think we are.

I don't know that I can include "all" breeders. Some don't care about their dogs well being. Commerical breeders (aka puppy millers) are breeders too and I don't have respect for them.

Did you read the complete sentence???? it read who do it correctly and take good care of their pets.

I didn't connect the "who do it correctly...." with the breeders part but with the owners part. Sorry.

There are good and bad breeders everywhere including hobby breeders.

I can't disagree there. It's that way in every field.

I firmly believe that everyone should think their dog is the "best" no matter where they got the dog. Simply because it's their dog!

I agree but when you keep hearing that it is wrong to buy a dog from a petstore or backyard breeder, you begin to wonder what some people think.

Well, we don't mean it that way. We disagree with the source but not with your dog. The reason we disagree with the source is that pet stores are stocked from commerical breeders (puppy mills) and back yard breeders don't do any health screening. Nor do byb's choose a stud for his assets other than he's a color they like, he's available, or he's the same breed as their female.

I have not read or learned anything that has taught me not to go to a backyard breeder for a puppy.

I know it's been discussed.

I used the term champion breeder as that is the impression that has come across from some of the hobby breeders that I have had contact with.

I've not heard people refer to themselves as "champion breeders" other than the context I mentioned. I'm not sure who you've been talking to or how you got that impression. Yes, they may say they've bred champions, but they are hobby or show breeders. And yes, show breeders are VERY proud of their champions. Especially if they've bred and shown them themselves.

All dogs as well as people have flaws but it doesn't make us or our dogs less because of it. It is like our children, they all have flaws also and the majority of us at least in the USA do not have blue blood either.

I don't think any of us are saying that.

No not directly but sometimes the implication is there.

I think you're reading things in that I know I didn't ever intend to be there.

Peggy

[The Chipmunk's Mom]

Peggy

I have read the posts on the whys in not buying your puppy from a backyard breeder and I still don't agree with it. Some backyard breeders don't do what they should do to breed a healthy, within standard puppy but there are other backyard breeders that do. It's the same with hobby breeders. Both breed dogs sometimes that should not have been bred and both come out with flawed puppies. That is all I am trying to say. It just seems to me that people come down really hard on the backyard breeders when everyone has to start out somewhere. Mistakes are made by everyone. I also believe there are alot of people on this forum that have purchased there pups from backyard breeders and their pups are fine. I think very highly of the breeder that I got Chip & Dale from. She has alot of the qualities I like in a person and when I hear backyard breeders being put down, I think of her. She loves her dogs and takes excellent care of them. I probably shouldn't take the comments personally but I just get tired of hearing how great it is to buy a puppy from a hobby breeder but do not buy from anyone else. I think that is a very biased opinion to try to force onto people. Therefore, in my humble opinion, I don't think you have to have CH on a pedigree to have a great or healthy dog. There are dogs that come from champions that are unhealthy too. Now I don't believe in these puppy mills and that is another discussion but to me there is nothing wrong with buying your pup from a backyard breeder as long as you have done your homework and are satisfied with the findings. I have been on two forums in a little over a year and to be perfectly honest with you, I am completely turned off to ever search out a hobby breeder to buy a puppy from.

[MVons]

Bonnie it seems be a difference of terminology. To me a backyard breeder, doesn't necessarily choose the mom and dad, doesn't take the time to make sure the grandparents are the same and that there wasn't problems in the offsprings and want nothing to do with their puppies once placed. But some backyard breeders are in essence are beginner hobby breeders who are taking seriously the standards and striving for a physical quality and temperament.

When at 6 months Pepper showed the turned out paw, we immediately called the breeder. This was her first litter and the mom was obedience champion not confirmation. The dad was a star. The mom didn't have another litter. We didn't mind the physical problem because the temperament was outstanding in that litter. At least that is what we told ourselves because we loved Pepper. The first breeder could be called a backyard because she only bred to have a dog to show but did the proper research for the background of the dogs.

But this go round I am thrilled with the solid legs and body of the mom which should produce as stronger body than Pepper had. It is interesting to compare the first breeder to this hobby breeder we are getting ours from now. I like the motivation of quality in the breed that the hobby breeder has.

I know your perspective is different because of your breeder. But my perspective currently is of our school principal who got a male and female labs and had a litter. The female personality should not have been bred, but the principal bought them as puppies to breed later. In other words no other choices of parents which is the type of backyard breeder I don't like and are far too common. I want them to consciously choose when they are adults, whether breeding the two would be wise. The principal sold her pups very cheap and she is the example I think of when we put down backyard breeders.

Yes, there are good and bad in each definition of a breeder. That is why I've read to interview a breeder. For me it was the internet. I'll never forget the photo of a corgi alone in a kennel outside in the winter - a breeder I wouldn't consider at all. After that I just relied on the referral of Pepper's Dad's breeder because at the time I didn't feel comfortable interviewing.

Merrie

[CorgiMum]

Quite a few different thoughts are running around in my head reading this thread.

This is the first one.

Cool2bCorgi Forums Terms of Use:

Advertisements to sell puppies or dogs are not permitted and we do not encourage casual breeding.

[The Chipmunk's Mom]

Barbara:

I apologize if you thought I was promoting a breeder, which I was not. I was simply stating my point of view.

[Dillydoodle]

i dont think you need to appologize, there were no names mentioned, so that is not promotion in my humble opinion, that was saying you like your breeder, nothing wrong with that.

Emilie

[CorgiMum]

Barbara:

I apologize if you thought I was promoting a breeder, which I was not. I was simply stating my point of view.


No need to apologize Bonnie, I did not think that you were promoting a particular breeder.

[taflar]

I have read the posts on the whys in not buying your puppy from a backyard breeder and I still don't agree with it. Some backyard breeders don't do what they should do to breed a healthy, within standard puppy but there are other backyard breeders that do.

If they do the things we expect of a reputable breeder then they are not a byb.

It's the same with hobby breeders. Both breed dogs sometimes that should not have been bred and both come out with flawed puppies.

Ok, first off breeders, no matter what the classification are not gods. There are going to be flaws. All dogs have faults, meaning things that are not correct according to the standard. That's the way it is. None of us is ever going to be able to breed a "perfect" dog according to the standard.

The differece is in the trying. A reputable breeder (hobby breeder, show breeder) does the health tests. They try to find the best dog to breed their dog to, not who's available. They ASK the potential new owners questions, and try to match the puppy to the home, not just can you pay the price.

Here is a good page on the different breeders:
http://www.angelfire.com/wa2/cpwcc/FindingaPup.htm

And from the AKC
http://www.akc.org/press_center/facts_stats.cfm?page=responsible_breeder
http://www.akc.org/breeders/resp_breeding/Articles/breeder.cfm?SEARCH_BUTTON.X=0\&SEARCH_BUTTON.Y=0

If you can find a byb that is doing health screening, knows and understands the standard (and is trying to breed to it), finds the best stud to compliment her female, screens buyers (asks questions, matches homes), socializes the puppies, keeps puppies till at least 8 weeks (prefrebly 12), uses the limited registration, then by all means buy a puppy from them. And the only question I'd have is why aren't they showing thier dogs?

That is all I am trying to say. It just seems to me that people come down really hard on the backyard breeders when everyone has to start out somewhere.

The problem is they aren't "starting somewhere", they don't have any idea that there's somewhere to go. A breeder starting somewhere works to improve. Doesn't breed the same dogs a second time if you get a serious fault the first time. A breeder starting somewhere has a mentor and is wanting and willing to learn.

Mistakes are made by everyone. I also believe there are alot of people on this forum that have purchased there pups from backyard breeders and their pups are fine..

I agree everyone makes mistakes. I have too.

And yes, "most" dogs are fine. But why breed just to have puppies? Why not try to improve each generation and try to eliminate faults?

I think that is a very biased opinion to try to force onto people..

Yes, it is a biased opinion, and I am not forcing it on anyone. I am stating my views.

Now there are three people on this forum who are very shortly getting puppies from reputable breeders. Look at what they're getting, they are in contact with the breeders. have pictures to post, they are getting puppies with health tested parents, breeders who will stand behind those puppies and help them and answer questions. The puppies are well socialized, and in at least two of the cases is or will be crate trained. Puppies are coming with toys that will have familar smells. Some of the differences are in very subtle details and extras.

Therefore, in my humble opinion, I don't think you have to have CH on a pedigree to have a great or healthy dog..

No where did I say only Champion dogs should be bred. Depends on WHY the dog isn't a ch. And also I belive I've also said not every CH. should be bred either.

There are dogs that come from champions that are unhealthy too..

Sure there are. You can still get dysplastic puppies from OFA cleared parents. But the chances are less. The reason you can get faults still is that some things are polygenetic, meaning from many genes. However, most things take two genes and when you get two of the same, well.... Also, most "faults" are recessive. So if you breed to a dog that doesn't have the fault your chance of getting the same fault is less. Not non existant since they might carry a recessive gene for it.

Which is why reputable breeders research pedigrees and talk to other breeders. To see what a dog is passing on.

I have been on two forums in a little over a year and to be perfectly honest with you, I am completely turned off to ever search out a hobby breeder to buy a puppy from .

I am sorry to hear that, as I'm sure there are reputable breeders (hobby/show) that you would find just fine and suitable to your wants and needs.

Peggy

[Jespah]

I think for some of us following this thread there has been some confusion as to what is meant by the terms backyard breeders, hobby breeders and show breeders. Thanks Peggy for posting those links to explain them further. Barbara also found this one which helped me understand what was being talked about. These are not terms we use here in Canada, so the distiction wasn't clear to me.

http://www.dogplay.com/Breeding/dogbreeders.html

[taflar]

I think for some of us following this thread there has been some confusion as to what is meant by the terms backyard breeders, hobby breeders and show breeders. Thanks Peggy for posting those links to explain them further. Barbara also found this one which helped me understand what was being talked about. These are not terms we use here in Canada, so the distiction wasn't clear to me.

http://www.dogplay.com/Breeding/dogbreeders.html

Thank you for that site. It does help explain things.

I forget that maybe other places don't use the same terms. If anyone ever isn't clear about a term I'm using or my meaning, please ask me. You are free to do so privately if you'd like. My email address is in my sig file.

Peggy

[Jespah]

I think it's good to ask questions or for definitions here in the forums, if people are comfortable doing so. Then if anyone else has misunderstood something, they may be enlightened as well. Thanks for offering your email as well though.

[CorgiMum]

Barbara also found this one which helped me understand what was being talked about. These are not terms we use here in Canada, so the distiction wasn't clear to me.

http://www.dogplay.com/Breeding/dogbreeders.html

I am not familiar with the term Hobby Breeder either, that is why I Googled, and that is how I found that link.

These are the terms that we are familair with up here.

#1. We have here dogs that are CKC, AKC or other recognized organizations.

#2.Or dogs that are from a BYB.

#3.Or DOG forbid from a Puppy Mill.

[taflar]

I think it's good to ask questions or for definitions here in the forums, if people are comfortable doing so. Then if anyone else has misunderstood something, they may be enlightened as well. Thanks for offering your email as well though.

Just in case someone wasn't comfortable asking on the forum. :)

Peggy

[The Chipmunk's Mom]

That is a great website Barbara thanks for posting it. Although I didn't think any of the descriptions were very flattering. I liked the responsible breeder description the best from what I read. I did agree with their definitions and they were similiar to my opinions. There were more listed then what we normally hear but all in all it was very educational and well worth a more thorough read.

[MVons]

I was at a PTA luncheon and asked the Principal if she was going to breed her labs again. She said no, she only did it to CALM her female down!!! I asked which one is fixed now and she said neither and her husband said the male was trying last night!!! She said she kept one puppy from the litter who had all the bad traits from each parent. One person asked why, and I couldn't help but to chime in "because she couldn't subject someone to a dog with those traits". Then someone said, but she is cute.

This shows me how important forums are to squelch out the misnomers that a litter will calm your dog down - at what an expense - bad personality puppies.

I did all I could to bite my tongue. Unfortunately it was the case of a person in power that I could not explain my opinions too. Not with having a middle schooler.

Merrie

[corgimom]

I was at a PTA luncheon and asked the Principal if she was going to breed her labs again. She said no, she only did it to CALM her female down!!! I asked which one is fixed now and she said neither and her husband said the male was trying last night!!! She said she kept one puppy from the litter who had all the bad traits from each parent. One person asked why, and I couldn't help but to chime in "because she couldn't subject someone to a dog with those traits". Then someone said, but she is cute.

This shows me how important forums are to squelch out the misnomers that a litter will calm your dog down - at what an expense - bad personality puppies.

I did all I could to bite my tongue. Unfortunately it was the case of a person in power that I could not explain my opinions too. Not with having a middle schooler. Merrie

Merrie,

I have a sister in law who believes breeding calms the dog down also. Her last pet was a Cocker Spaniel which she bred and is now deceased due to old age. She currently has a very hyper Boxer who she plans to breed the end of this summer for the very first time.+SAD+