Obama's Dog

Nirvana • Mar 15, 2009 9:15 pm
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-lewis15-2009mar15,0,288756.story


By Judith Lewis
March 15, 2009
In the first two months of his administration, President Obama signed an economic stimulus package into law, lifted restrictions on foreign family-planning clinics and drew up a plan for pulling troops out of Iraq.

But he has left one early promise unfulfilled: He has not yet acquired a family dog.
Late last month, the Obamas seemed closer to their goal when Michelle Obama told People magazine that, after studying which breeds were least likely to trigger daughter Malia's allergies, the family had settled on a Portuguese water dog. But the statement was almost immediately modified: The first lady had spoken too soon. The quest for a White House canine continues.

So what's the problem? Why has a task as simple as getting a dog eluded the Obamas for so long? Perhaps the answer can be divined in Michelle Obama's interview: She said she wanted not just any Portuguese water dog but a rescued one. An adult with a good temperament. Perhaps even house-trained.

Certainly that should satisfy the activists agitating for the Obamas to adopt a stray. The rescue-only crowd insists that every dog purchased from a breeder is a death sentence for a stray. They make no distinction between responsible breeders who nurture sound-tempered dogs and puppy-mill operators who crowd breeding bitches so tightly into cages that they chew off each other's legs.

Rescuing a dog is indeed a noble gesture, even if there will never be enough humans to save every abandoned dog. But for the health of their daughter, the Obamas want a purebred dog. And last time I checked, Portuguese water dogs weren't turning up at the pound with any regularity.

Most of the purebred dogs that end up in shelters come by way of reckless backyard breeders or puppy mills, where dogs are routinely inbred, bred so narrowly for looks that they can't breathe properly, or bred with no thought for their health at all. Responsible breeders track their puppies assiduously and take them back if they don't work out. They don't put their dogs up for rescue, they "re-home" them.

If the Obamas find a Portuguese water dog in need of re-homing, good for them -- no doubt it will be theirs for the asking. But that dog won't qualify as a rescue. And it shouldn't have to.

For the record, I rescue dogs. I rescue, in fact, the kinds of dogs that end up in shelters in droves: Yippie, wild-eyed terriers and the much-maligned American Staffordshire (pit) bull terriers. I take them in, train them and keep them with me for longer than a decade; I work through their tendencies to bolt or their fears of men in baseball caps until they accept the compromises of life with humans. I am well set up for the task: My tolerant, dog-loving husband and I have no children; I love dogs that would drive sane women mad; and I have the tenacity to work with them.

But I also love purebred dogs and the whole notion that we humans have bred dogs for certain tasks. I love Newfoundlands that save drowning children, border collies that live to herd, brave terriers driven to hunt rats. And I despair that we may be heading into a world in which breeding dogs to do what dogs do -- work with, and beside, and indeed even for, human beings -- is considered, by some crooked measure, cruelty to animals.

There is something far worse than a family acquiring a dog from a conscientious breeder, and that's a family rescuing a dog that turns out to be fundamentally unstable or just plain unsuited to life with a family.

Childhood dogs shape attitudes toward animals for life; they can make kids lifelong advocates for animal welfare or create in them an ineluctable fear. A family that adopts a dog that incorrigibly nips children's hands, eats expensive furniture or lunges at other animals might at best end up investing in an expensive trainer. At worst, the dog ends up back in the shelter or on the street, leaving a family forever wary of canines.

In January, one month after the death of a beloved pit bull I rescued from the pound 13 years ago, I took in a 5-month old American Staffordshire named Tabitha. She is, from what we can tell, sane and hearty, a natural retriever, psychologically stable enough that neither ear-pulling nor toe-fondling nor the taunts of her Cairn terrier housemate, Thomas, faze her.

But Tabitha is still a puppy, and having lived with dogs -- seven in total -- nearly all my life, I know that puppies harbor secrets in their DNA. What we know about Tabitha is all good, but we could scribble it on a sheet of notebook paper. What we don't know could fill volumes.

We don't, for instance, know what her parents were like. We don't know if she harbors the gene for a debilitating neurological condition called ataxia that is common in her breed. Will she continue to put up with our ambushing cats? With the squeals of our friends' children? We think so, and we will work with her no matter what. If we had children to worry about, however, it might be different.

Symbolically, it would be nice if the Obamas could rescue a dog. But to insist that the only good dog is a rescued dog is to relegate our future with the canine species to random relationships in which humans are forced to settle for whatever renegade breeders produce and fail to care for.

And let it be said that the reason there exists such a thing as a Portuguese water dog at all, or any dog with a hypoallergenic coat and a game temperament, is not a happy accident but a triumph of the selective breeding humans have been practicing with canines for millenniums -- the very practice so many people who claim to care about dogs would prefer to see turned into a crime.

Judith Lewis is an environmental journalist and contributing editor to High Country News.
jinx • Mar 15, 2009 9:23 pm
Right on.
TGRR • Mar 15, 2009 9:24 pm
Oh, crap! IMPEACH NOW!
Undertoad • Mar 15, 2009 9:30 pm
Another Portuguese water dog, taking a job from an American water dog.
Shawnee123 • Mar 15, 2009 9:34 pm
This "issue" is a joke, right? Right?
classicman • Mar 15, 2009 9:44 pm
like I could give 1/2 a shit about him having a dog. I do think it would be nice if he rescued one instead of getting one from a breeder though. Its a great lesson as a parent and a great stance as a leader. Aside from that ... non-issue along the lines of anything that Paris Hilton, Britney or Lindsey is doing.
Shawnee123 • Mar 15, 2009 9:49 pm
Yeah, can we get a breakdown on all the dogs owned by every president and compare the breeds, prices, familiarity, compatibility with humans...or can we just say "who the fuck gives a shit?"

I need numbers.

omg...
wolf • Mar 15, 2009 10:38 pm
The last I heard, the dog had been selected from a breeder in Berks County who was instructed to train the dog and the Secret Service would be back for it in six months (This was from someone who claims to know the breeder).
ZenGum • Mar 15, 2009 10:48 pm
Was that someone you met through work? :tinfoil:
Mind you if the Secret Service "train" the dog, do you think that would include bomb detection and taking a bullet for the big guy?
wolf • Mar 16, 2009 12:33 am
ZenGum;545596 wrote:
Was that someone you met through work? :tinfoil:
Mind you if the Secret Service "train" the dog, do you think that would include bomb detection and taking a bullet for the big guy?


It was someone with keys.

Although I have every expectation that for security purposes dogs will be ordered and paid for from multiple breeders around the country.
Shawnee123 • Mar 16, 2009 8:24 am
If I were an editorial cartoonist, the logical cartoon would be "Obama's Dog Owes Back Taxes."
ZenGum • Mar 16, 2009 8:29 am
:lol2:
DanaC • Mar 16, 2009 8:36 am
I found that really interesting. I do think attitudes towards pedigree dogs have got a little imbalanced in recent years. That said there is a definate problem with some breed 'standards'. We really shouldn't be breeding dogs who are so specialised in nature that they can no longer breed or give birth without assistance, nor indeed should we be specialising to the point of severe genetic defects; but that's a relatively small part of the pedigree world.

I have always had pedigree dogs. We've taken in the odd rescue mutt too, but they've been accidental admissions to the family, rather than planned. We've been stung by a large puppy seller, a kennel of which we have since become suspicious and I personally am convinced buys from puppy farmers. The dog we got from them was a lovely little thing. But he was beset with health problems from the start. What we thought was a cute fat little belly was actually a distended swollen belly. We could practically have set up a bed in the vets for his first eighteen months.

These days I know what I am looking for and I know how to source a good breeder. I took a long train journey to get to Pilau's breeder. I met his parents (his dad looked exactly like Pil grew to look, and was nicknamed Dud the Stud) and his litter mates. I saw the pictures of his grandsire and granddam on the walls along with their ribbons and prizes. I spent time with the dogs, unhurried and saw where they slept.

It pisses me off when the animal rights peeps characterise our relationship with dogs as an equivalent to our relationship with any other domestic creature. It's different with dogs. It just is. They are intertwined through our lives and histories, our homes and memories, like no other creature. We've moulded them and been moulded by them.
classicman • Mar 16, 2009 8:40 am
ha ha ha @ s123
TheMercenary • Mar 16, 2009 11:04 am
Undertoad;545567 wrote:
Another Portuguese water dog, taking a job from an American water dog.
:lol2:
Glinda • Mar 16, 2009 11:24 am
Shawnee123;545577 wrote:
Yeah, can we get a breakdown on all the dogs owned by every president and compare the breeds, prices, familiarity, compatibility with humans...or can we just say "who the fuck gives a shit?"

I need numbers.

omg...


True, it is an arcane subject, but not entirely uninteresting. *Glinda whips out her favorite reference book "Facts About the Presidents"*

For example, did you know that:

At one time or another, the White House sheltered nearly everything that can walk, crawl, swim, or fly. Zebras, coyotes, badgers, guinea pigs, hyenas, alligators, lizards, snakes, turtles, tropical fish, and birds - not to mention innumerable horses and ponies, and of course cats and dogs - have shared the Executive Mansion and its manicured grounds.

Dolley Madison had a macaw, John Quincy Adams raised silkworms, Andrew Johnson kept white mice, and Theodore Roosevelt had a young lion and several bear cubs. During the Taft administration, a cow, Pauline Wayne, grazed on the White House lawn, which was periodically patrolled by Enoch Gander. McKinley kept a Mexican yellow parrot and briefly, roosters, to the consternation of the other White House residents.


:)
Nirvana • Mar 16, 2009 3:17 pm
classicman;545573 wrote:
like I could give 1/2 a shit about him having a dog. I do think it would be nice if he rescued one instead of getting one from a breeder though. Its a great lesson as a parent and a great stance as a leader. Aside from that ... non-issue along the lines of anything that Paris Hilton, Britney or Lindsey is doing.


Did you read the article CM? A rescue is a bad idea for a family pet. Usually rescue dogs have problems that go beyond an amateur's knowledge of care. A good breeder is always the best place to get a family pet. Knowing the difference between a good breeder and a back yard pet miller is what makes the difference. Anyone can call themselves a breeder but it takes more than putting a canine penis with another canine vagina.
classicman • Mar 16, 2009 3:51 pm
Yes I read the article. I have bought dogs from breeders and bred dogs as well. FWIW, Field trial champions, both beagles and retrievers. I believe that in most cases a rescued dog is fine. Nowadays that may be different. Its been a few years (coughdecadecough) since I've been involved. Aside from some very specific cases, I see no need to breed more animals that we already have too many of.
This includes cats :eek: (ducks and runs)
Nirvana • Mar 16, 2009 4:31 pm
I am not sure what you mean.Too many purebred dogs? Too many back yard bred dogs? Too many mutts? If there are too many how can commercial pet mills operate at a profit? Supply and demand works in that industry as well. Did you know it is illegal in MO. to photograph a dog auction? The laws in that state protect that industry. They have unions.
Most of the dogs one will see in a kill or regular shelter are mutts or dogs bred by un-knowledgeable back yard breeders that failed to neuter their family pet. Its very rare that you will see any purebred registered dogs bred by professionals in any shelters.
Animal rights activists want to control every aspect of animal ownership whether you just want a family pet or you want to breed birds.
Its is now illegal in California for chickens to be kept in confinement when they lay eggs. Next they will tell livestock producers how many animals they can have, what to feed them and then charge them $100 per animal just to have them. Say hello to $100 T-bones if you like to eat meat! $40 eggs, $200 hams etc.
Shawnee123 • Mar 16, 2009 4:36 pm
classicman;545826 wrote:
Yes I read the article. I have bought dogs from breeders and bred dogs as well. FWIW, Field trial champions, both beagles and retrievers. I believe that in most cases a rescued dog is fine. Nowadays that may be different. Its been a few years (coughdecadecough) since I've been involved. Aside from some very specific cases, I see no need to breed more animals that we already have too many of.
This includes cats :eek: (ducks and runs)



Who said there are too many ducks? :lol:

As far as chickens, I think we should tie them up by their wings and just let the eggs drop out of them! :eyebrow:
classicman • Mar 16, 2009 5:08 pm
Nirvana;545838 wrote:
I am not sure what you mean.Too many purebred dogs? Too many back yard bred dogs? Too many mutts? If there are too many how can commercial pet mills operate at a profit? Supply and demand works in that industry as well.


I believe I said "Aside from some very specific cases, I see no need to breed more animals that we already have too many of."

There are too many human keeping too many domesticated pets of all sorts of varieties. Many of the mutts that you speak of are potentially from careless owners who had to have a "status-filled" purebred animal. These are the owners who quite often improperly care for their pets and let them get out and breed. This is NO REFLECTION on the many breeders and others who care excellently for their pets and need purebreds to show or in trials. I know many of them and they are awesome people and pet owners.

I could list many examples of both, but will not bore the readers here who could care less.

As far as the commercial mills you mention, perhaps they wouldn't do so well if the demand for hose pets was decreased by people rescuing dogs instead. Many many dogs at shelters are from loving families who can no longer afford them and elderly who pass away.
sugarpop • Mar 16, 2009 6:03 pm
There are some great dogs at shelters, and some of those puppy mills where people breed purebreds are atrocious. I agree classic, there really are too many domesticated animals out there. So many are put to sleep every year, and some of those animals would make perfectly good family pets. I think a lot of it depends on the breed. Too many people see a movie or something with a dog they think is cute, so they buy one without doing any research if that breed is a good match for them. Then they end up in a shelter.

Nirvana, I'm curious, do you think the food industry should not be regulated? I for one am really glad to see more regulation happening, not only for health reasons, but for humane reasons as well. But on the health issue, apparently the cattle industry would kill cows that were so weak and sick they couldn't even stand, and put them out into the food supply. :greenface Obama has signed a law now to stop that. ugh. I certainly wouldn't want to eat any of that meat. It's one reason why I never eat read meat anymore, and eat very little meat period. It's sickening what goes on in some of those places.
Nirvana • Mar 16, 2009 7:12 pm
sugarpop;545857 wrote:
There are some great dogs at shelters, and some of those puppy mills where people breed purebreds are atrocious. I agree classic, there really are too many domesticated animals out there. So many are put to sleep every year, and some of those animals would make perfectly good family pets. I think a lot of it depends on the breed. Too many people see a movie or something with a dog they think is cute, so they buy one without doing any research if that breed is a good match for them. Then they end up in a shelter.

Nirvana, I'm curious, do you think the food industry should not be regulated? I for one am really glad to see more regulation happening, not only for health reasons, but for humane reasons as well. But on the health issue, apparently the cattle industry would kill cows that were so weak and sick they couldn't even stand, and put them out into the food supply. :greenface Obama has signed a law now to stop that. ugh. I certainly wouldn't want to eat any of that meat. It's one reason why I never eat read meat anymore, and eat very little meat period. It's sickening what goes on in some of those places.


There are some great dogs at shelters but lets not blame dog breeders for the dogs that are thrown away by others whether on purpose or thru a bad turn in life.

The food industry is heavily regulated, but having a tax on an animal because it farts is ridiculous. Saying Chickens cannot lay eggs unless you let them wander a pasture while doing it is ridiculous. Obama had nothing to do with the law that was passed in 2003 to stop the use of down cows in any human food product. The reason you saw that on TV after that year was because of a bad PROCESSOR not because of a bad livestock producer. Cows become down for many reasons one of the most common is that an older cow is trampled in the truck on the way to the packer. Most older dairy cows that can no longer produce milk are sold to McDonalds. Cows that cannot stand should not be in the food supply.
Nirvana • Mar 16, 2009 7:36 pm
This is not well known information but all of it is true.


http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/200810_CCF_7Things_HSUS.pdf



http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/200810_CCF_7Things_PETA.pdf

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/200810_CCF_7Things_PCRM.pdf

Don't give away your rights to own animals or eat what you want because you believe the propaganda spread by these organizations. You don't know what you've got til its gone!
jinx • Mar 16, 2009 9:06 pm
People that pay for the specific animal that they want for a pet rarely discard them. Breeders are not the problem, irresponsible people who don't spay/neuter their pets and don't value their pets (free things have little value to anyone) are the problem.
Redux • Mar 16, 2009 9:51 pm
Nirvana;545872 wrote:
This is not well known information but all of it is true.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/200810_CCF_7Things_HSUS.pdf


http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/200810_CCF_7Things_PETA.pdf

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/reference/docs/200810_CCF_7Things_PCRM.pdf

Not to defend, PETA, but in fact, very little on these Center for Consumer Freedom "fact sheets" are documented.

The CCF originally was funded by Phillip Morris to refute the scientific findings re: the harmful effects of smoking and the criticism of tobacco advertising.

Later, they expanded their funding sources to include the meat packing industry, alcohol trade organizations (to fight Mothers Against Drunk Driving), restaurants (to refute obesity studies related to fast food restaurants), and numerous right wing organizations.

My advice...dont believe everything you read by PETA OR about PETA and always consider the source.

The CCF, despite its name, is in many respects, an industry(ies) front group and hardly an unbiased source working solely in the consumers' best interest.
Nirvana • Mar 16, 2009 10:00 pm
Since when are livestock and animal breeders right wing organizations?
PETA is your enemy don't say you were not warned. ;)
HSUS is already in your own state's legislature. Ask anyone in Los Angeles where they have mandatory spay and neuter. WhoTH is the government to tell someone when to neuter a pet? I thought that was a veterinarian's job...:rolleyes: Who do you think ends up funding the policing of that program?That is just the beginning of unnecessary expensive legislation supported by the HSUS...
Redux • Mar 16, 2009 10:05 pm
Nirvana;545906 wrote:
Since when are livestock and animal breeders right wing organizations?
PETA is your enemy don't say you were not warned. ;)
HSUS is already in your own state's legislature. Ask anyone in Los Angeles where they have mandatory spay and neuter. WhoTH is the government to tell someone when to neuter a pet? I thought that was a veterinarian's job...:rolleyes: Who do you think ends up funding the policing of that program?That is just the beginning of unnecessary expensive legislation supported by the HSUS...


I said CCF's other funding sources were right wing organizations (like the Scaife Foundation)

Their primary funding sources are:
[INDENT]Tyson Food
Perdue Farms
Wendy's
Applebee's
Outback Steak House
Standard Meats
Armour-Swith Meats
National Restaurant Association
Distilled Spirits Council[/INDENT]
Which of these have the "consumer" interest, rather than industry interests, at heart?
Nirvana • Mar 16, 2009 10:10 pm
This is a link to pending legislation in the state of Maine where if you have 1 [ yes 1] intact female adult dog you are considered a breeding kennel. Of course they make exclusions for show kennels, hunting dogs etc except that any extra offspring cannot be sold so that would make someone worse than a pet miller they would be collectors because to breed you would have to keep everything you produce.:rolleyes:

2. License fees. The fee for a breeding kennel license is calculated by multiplying the number of adult female dogs and cats at the breeding kennel capable of breeding by $500.

I have a two lb Chihuahua technically under this law I would have to pay $150 for her because technically she is capable of producing offspring and because having one breedable female I am considered a kennel so I would then have to pay $500 but no one in their right mind would breed a 2 lb dog and most veterinarians would not perform surgery on a dog that small when it is not an emergency. These are crazy laws and the HSUS is rushing these things to every state in the union that will listen to their lobbyists.

This is the goal of PETA and the HSUS that no one can breed or own an animal and that the government will take away your rights to have pets of any kind..

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/externalsiteframe.asp?ID=280031924&LD=1053&Type=1&SessionID=8
Nirvana • Mar 16, 2009 10:19 pm
Laws won't stop with pet animals
A flood of animal-rights legislation throughout the United States is being
rammed in front of state and federal legislators, driven by organizations such
as the Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals.
Legislation in Illinois such as Senate Bill 139 bans tail-docking and
ear-cropping, and House Bill 198 is a heavy-handed dog breeder regulation bill.
Both are to be heard in committee this week in Springfield.
American Kennel Club legislative advisers say HB198 won't move but be put
forward as SB53 to be the vehicle for regulation of dog breeding.
If those bills pass, they will create requirements and regulations that
aren't based on proven animal husbandry practices, nor will they improve the
health and welfare of dogs in Illinois. They will impose breeding permits,
breeding bans and mandatory spaying or neutering of purebred dogs.
Numerical limits don't address the underlying issues of responsible
ownership and proper dog care, according to the AKC and advocates for laws that
protect the welfare of purebred dogs and don't restrict the rights of breeders and
owners who take their responsibilities seriously.
When legislators discuss laws against pet animals, they risk setting a
precedent that could eventually lead to removing farm animals, which would
threaten food-animal production.
Responsible people take animal husbandry seriously. Whether the animals are
pets, food animals, zoo animals, sporting animals or wildlife, the owners,
farmers, medical researchers, wildlife biologists and veterinarians are
interested in the best care for them.
A dairy farmer might not think the proposed draconian laws around dogs will
affect them, but it is the beginning of additional legislation already in
queue that's supported by the animal-rights activists.
A recent American Farm Bureau editorial by Chris Chinn described how newly
proposed legislation in Illinois would "ban egg-laying hen cages, sow stalls
and veal stalls."
Without much imagination, we can see the next step will be imposing more
oppressive laws until even pork producers quit because they can't fulfill the
requirements for care.
We all feel the fatigue of the legislative battles, but that too is a
strategy employed by animal rights and vegan activists, and it is an old reliable
one. Think of deer flies in summer. Deer flies are swinging hatchets aimed at
anyone with animals. Some farmers quit farming because they can't bear the
harassment and accusations.
We also need to draw the big picture for legislators so they understand the
precedent they're considering. Those proposed dog laws threaten the future of
pets (a primary goal of HSUS/PETA - change the culture so animals are not in
our lives in any way - "One generation and out," said Pacelle) but are also
doorways to removing animals used for food production in Illinois and Iowa.
With fewer than 2 million farmers in the country, under the best
circumstances you couldn't recruit new farmers fast enough to replace the loss and meet
the need. Consider the dramatic decline in the number of veterinarians. Read
the General Accounting Office report on the veterinarian shortage and the
risk it poses to public health at www.gao.gov/new.items/d09178.pdf.
Regarding economic interests, what is the tax base in Illinois, Indiana and
Ohio? Who is the constituency? What will be the new economic model in five
years anywhere in the United States?
Laws require enforcement. Enforcement requires resources on streets and in
courtrooms. That suggests the need for more animal rights law attorneys
cultivated by HSUS/PETA and rushing to build their law and political careers
exploiting animals.
People who typically aren't actively involved with animals also need to
understand how their tax money is used for this legislative activity. People such
as social workers and health care providers need to see where their
resources are being squandered by HSUS/PETA as they attempt to further destabilize
the economy at a cost to all of us.
Just this week I worked on grants to fund mental health services and support
for farmers, to support alcohol and drug abuse prevention, to help parents
learn to support good bone growth in their children, and to fund therapeutic
community programs to support veterans returning from war. That's from small
pots of money communities will use to take care of people - many without
access to affordable health care. Communities are writing grants to help support
law enforcement and trying to intervene to keep people out of overcrowded
prisons.
Meanwhile, legislators are spending my tax money to conjure laws that will
rip my dogs out of my arms to kill them. Oh, baby; it isn't gonna happen. This
is an outrage and people need to let their legislators know this isn't
acceptable.
If those laws go into place, the cost will be enormous to enforce.
Who will feed the world, especially in places where the climate is changing
in ways that make it more difficult to grow food already? I doubt we'll see a
big rush for urban residents to move back to farms even to grow spinach or
peanuts. And it isn't likely to happen within 10 years.
There needs to be a big push back. A shake-up once in a while can be
healthy, but this is mass destruction that is far beyond management of breeding
dogs, and it was never about animal welfare. It's about power and control, and in
this equation the real animal welfare advocates - us - have less and less of
either.
We are the genuine advocates for our animals' welfare, as Chinn wrote. This
is a fight for our civil rights, our property rights and our economic
stability. This story must be framed so our legislators see the precipice they hover
over.
Bobbie Kolehouse is a rural community health consultant who raises, shows
and trains her Cocker Spaniels for the field as a hobby in rural Wisconsin
Rapids.
Redux • Mar 16, 2009 10:20 pm
Nirvana;545909 wrote:
This is a link to pending legislation in the state of Maine where if you have 1 [ yes 1] intact female adult dog you are considered a breeding kennel. Of course they make exclusions for show kennels, hunting dogs etc except that any extra offspring cannot be sold so that would make someone worse than a pet miller they would be collectors because to breed you would have to keep everything you produce.:rolleyes:

2. License fees. The fee for a breeding kennel license is calculated by multiplying the number of adult female dogs and cats at the breeding kennel capable of breeding by $500.

I have a two lb Chihuahua technically under this law I would have to pay $150 for her because technically she is capable of producing offspring and because having one breedable female I am considered a kennel so I would then have to pay $500 but no one in their right mind would breed a 2 lb dog and most veterinarians would not perform surgery on a dog that small when it is not an emergency. These are crazy laws and the HSUS is rushing these things to every state in the union that will listen to their lobbyists.

This is the goal of PETA and the HSUS that no one can breed or own an animal and that the government will take away your rights to have pets of any kind..

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/externalsiteframe.asp?ID=280031924&LD=1053&Type=1&SessionID=8

Hey...I agree about the extremist position of PETA.....but I suspect PETA has less influence in state legislatures than industry lobbyists.

Has any state come anywhere close to taking away individual breeding rights or the right to own a pet....rather than addressing issues related to "puppy mills"?

In any case, my point was more to the credibility of the CCF as a "consumer" advocate. It is not.....it is an industry front group.
Nirvana • Mar 16, 2009 10:27 pm
Whether they are an advocate or not is a moot point when they are telling you the truth.

Los Angeles already has taken away your right to choose your own health care for your own dog. The link I posted for Maine is about to go before the legislature there if it passes that will effectively end dog /pet ownership in that state.
Redux • Mar 16, 2009 10:31 pm
Nirvana;545915 wrote:
Whether they are an advocate or not is a moot point when they are telling you the truth.

Los Angeles already has taken away your right to choose your own health care for your own dog. The link I posted for Maine is about to go before the legislature there if it passes that will effectively end dog /pet ownership in that state.


Telling the truth? Because they provided UNSOURCED allegations? Not one statement on those CCF "fact sheets" is footnoted with a source to document its accuracy.

And simply because a bill may be introduced is in no way indicative of likelihood of consideration by the legislature or even less indicative of likelihood of passage. Hell, just about any group can usually find one sympathetic legislator to introduce a bill on almost anything.
Nirvana • Mar 16, 2009 10:41 pm
It has already passed in Los Angeles, some of these animal bills were introduced in various states within a 3 week time frame.

http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/

Read their propaganda for yourself.
Redux • Mar 16, 2009 10:45 pm
Nirvana;545919 wrote:
It has already passed in Los Angeles, some of these animal bills were introduced in various states within a 3 week time frame.

http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/

Read their propaganda for yourself.


I'm all for "puppy mill" legislation or legislation banning "downed" animals in the food supply.
Nirvana • Mar 16, 2009 10:48 pm
HSUS Bludgeons Heartland Dog Owners

Legislation Up For Vote Now In Indiana & Oklahoma, Hearing In Illinois


by JOHN YATES

American Sporting Dog Alliance

http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

[email]asda@conline.net[/email]


This article is archived at: http://eaglerock814.proboards107.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=25


The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has launched a 34-state offensive against people who raise dogs, and the heat has been turned up to high in Indiana, Illinois and Oklahoma. In all three states, actions are scheduled for this week that may have a profound impact on everyone who loves purebred dogs


It is imperative for dog owners in all three states to take a stand now and play an active role in working to defeat this legislation.


HSUS claims the legislation is meant to regulate “puppy mills,” which is the derogatory term used by animal rights groups to describe commercial kennels.


In fact, however, all of this legislation actually is aimed at high quality avocational breeders of purebred dogs who are not involved in any way with the wholesale pet trade. The targeted breeders are the people who work the hardest and care the most about improving their chosen breed of dogs.


Action is scheduled this week on:


* An Indiana bill that will make anyone who sells even one litter of puppies a year into a pet dealer. This bill was snuck through committee with no notice given to dog owners, and has gone to the full House for a vote. Many serious hobby breeders also would be classed as commercial kennels for very intense regulation and a prohibition of outdoor housing that is dangerous for hunting and working dogs. Many rescue groups also would be destroyed.



* An Illinois bill snags up everyone who owns three intact breeding females under commercial kennel rules, and sets a 20-dog maximum on the number of sexually intact dogs that can be owned or possessed. Many trainers, handlers and serious hobby breeders would be harmed needlessly. We also urge dog owners to sign our online petition to stop this bill (see below).



* And an Oklahoma bill passed through committee by an 11-2 vote and is headed toward the full House for a vote. This legislation targets anyone who sells, offers to sell, gives away or adopts out 25 or more dogs or puppies a year, by subjecting them to truly totalitarian enforcement measures. Some rescue programs would be destroyed.



Each of these states will be profiled separately below.


The American Sporting Dog Alliance recently released reports that have covered HSUS initiatives this year in Maine, Pennsylvania, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Florida, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Illinois, Texas, Minnesota, California, Montana, Virginia, Colorado and Oregon. Updates and new reports will be released this week about legislation in California, Montana, Nebraska, Tennessee, Florida, Washington and Texas. HSUS-sanctioned legislation is expected soon in Ohio, North Carolina, Michigan, Arizona, New Mexico and Wisconsin.



HSUS is an extremist animal rights group with the long-range goal of eliminating all animal ownership in America. It recognizes the political impossibility of doing this immediately, and thus has adopted an incremental strategy of tightening the noose. Its strategy also is to develop and exploit sensational emotional issues, such as “puppy mills,” and then to extend the definition and impact far beyond the stated goals. HSUS, which has annual revenues in excess of $150 million and dozens of employees and professional lobbyists in many states, is the political arm for the animal rights movement. It does not operate a single animal shelter anywhere, despite its name.


HSUS has vowed to strike dog owners in 34 states early in 2009. Organizations that defend the rights of dog owners are, quite frankly, being overwhelmed by this concerted attack. HSUS learned a lesson last year, when dog owners were able to defeat them in almost every fight, because they were spread out over many months and allowed us to focus our limited resources. This year’s HSUS strategy is to attack everywhere at once, and use its army of highly paid employees and lobbyists to push through legislation quickly. It has the money, personnel and organization to wage this blitz attack, but dog owners simply lack the resources to effectively combat it. We have been placed totally on the defensive.


Thus, we are urging dog owners to get off of the sidelines and take a very active role. We also are urging you to support at least one organization that advocates for dog ownership rights with both donations and a sincere commitment of your time and talents.


We also urge dog owners to form alliances of mutual support with farm organizations, sportsmen’s groups, firearms rights advocates, landowners groups, and people who defend property rights. These diverse organizations fully understand the ramifications of the animal rights movement on American traditions and life.


Please follow this link to see detailed reports about the legislation in Indiana, Illinois and Oklahoma, and also to find information you will need to take constructive action and sign our online petition: http://eaglerock814.proboards107.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=25 .


Visit us on the Web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org, or contact us at [email]asda@conline.net[/email] .


PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
Redux • Mar 16, 2009 10:51 pm
My last point on this.

You complain about "propaganda" on one side and accept it as "factual" on the other side ("a 34-state offensive against people who raise dogs" or your "right to own a pet may be threatened" just might be a bit of an overstatement and mischaracterization.)

How about holding both sides more accountable for accurately describing their advocacy efforts?
Nirvana • Mar 16, 2009 11:02 pm
People parrot what they hear the most , you are a perfect example you are against puppy mills, what is a puppy mill to you? Someone who sells 5, 10, 25 puppies a year? Is one intact female dog a kennel?
These are stupid laws that will be enacted if all anyone does is say they are against things that are not really described properly in the proposed legislation. This is an attack on your basic right to own property and like it or not pets are your property they are not human beings.

I support the humane treatment for all dogs,[animals] education, voluntary spay/neuter for non-breeding animals, genetic research, and ethical breeding practices, including health screenings, which mean longer, happier, healthier lives for dogs.
I oppose the most radical portions of the agendas of groups such as HSUS and PETA. These agendas are not intended solely to promote the welfare of dogs, but seek to bestow on them rights, in some cases equivalent to those of human beings. They want to ban breeding of all domesticated animals, including purebred dogs.

In the future maybe no one will be allowed to own pets?
Redux • Mar 16, 2009 11:11 pm
Nirvana;545931 wrote:


I support the humane treatment for all dogs,[animals] education, voluntary spay/neuter for non-breeding animals, genetic research, and ethical breeding practices, including health screenings, which mean longer, happier, healthier lives for dogs.
I oppose the most radical portions of the agendas of groups such as HSUS and PETA. These agendas are not intended solely to promote the welfare of dogs, but seek to bestow on them rights, in some cases equivalent to those of human beings. They want to ban breeding of all domesticated animals, including purebred dogs.

I too oppose the most radical portions of PETA's agenda.

But without some government regulation, how do you guarantee humane treatment for all dogs (animals) or ethical breeding practices or not having down animals in the food supply or other abuses that have been widely documented?

Leave it to voluntary industry self-regulation? W/o some level of government oversight, when has industry acted in the best public interest and not their own self-interest?

In the future maybe no one will be allowed to own pets?

Sounds like your "parroting" propaganda.
Nirvana • Mar 16, 2009 11:20 pm
There is nothing wrong with government oversight, my concern is the wording of most of this legislation and the underhanded way it is being bulldozed thru some state legislatures. In Indiana this supposed animal cruelty bill was sandwiched in with stiffer penalties for rapists and convicted felons. WTF!!
Part of it was written if you had 5 dogs that would make you a kennel even if you never bred any of the dogs. No more pets, this is the eventual plan of animal rights activists and if you are not aware then your rights are being taken away and apathy reigns.
Redux • Mar 16, 2009 11:28 pm
Nirvana;545935 wrote:
There is nothing wrong with government oversight, my concern is the wording of most of this legislation and the underhanded way it is being bulldozed thru some state legislatures. In Indiana this supposed animal cruelty bill was sandwiched in with stiffer penalties for rapists and convicted felons. WTF!!
Part of it was written if you had 5 dogs that would make you a kennel even if you never bred any of the dogs. No more pets, this is the eventual plan of animal rights activists and if you are not aware then your rights are being taken away and apathy reigns.

I think you are "parroting" again.

Where is the evidence of the "underhanded way" these bills are being "bulldozed through state legislatures"....or the IN bill was "sandwiched in with stiffer penalties for rapists and convicted felons"?

Show me legislative reports, not propaganda from the breeding industry.
Nirvana • Mar 16, 2009 11:30 pm
Are you with the HSUS?
Redux • Mar 16, 2009 11:35 pm
Nope...and I'm not with ACORN either (for classic and merc).

I just dont like bullshit from either side of an issue.

If you can document the "underhanded way" these bills are being "bulldozed through state legislatures"....or the IN bill was "sandwiched in with stiffer penalties for rapists and convicted felons"...then I might have a different response.
Nirvana • Mar 16, 2009 11:36 pm
I can only find the amendments to this bill now not the bill in its original form.
Redux • Mar 16, 2009 11:40 pm
The IN bill makes a distinction between "pet dealers" (sells or offers for sale more than five dogs in one year) and "commercial dog breeder" (a person who maintains adult female dogs that produce ten or more litters in one twelve month period).....and regulates them differently.

So its false and misleading to suggest that a person selling five dogs a year will be treated the same as a kennel or commercial breeder. Thats the kind of propaganda I'm talking about.
Nirvana • Mar 16, 2009 11:44 pm
This is the bill in its amended form scroll down to see what else is involved in this bill. It is sandwiched in with sex offenders and parolee violators and all kinds of legislation. I don't write propaganda nor do I promote it. I do know what is happening in my state and a few others.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2009/HB/HB1468.1.html
Redux • Mar 16, 2009 11:49 pm
Nirvana;545943 wrote:
This is the bill in its amended form scroll down to see what else is involved in this bill. It is sandwiched in with sex offenders and parolee violators and all kinds of legislation. I don't write propaganda nor do I promote it. I do know what is happening in my state and a few others.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2009/HB/HB1468.1.html


It looks to me that the bill (the bold type) only refers to the animal provisions...and is incorporated into existing state code (not bold) that has other references.

SO its false to suggest the bill was "sandwiched in" with sex offenders and parolee violators, other than being in the same section of state code. Thats hardly the same as suggesting the bill was considered as part of some "underhanded" plan to have it considered with bills on sex offenders.
Nirvana • Mar 16, 2009 11:55 pm
HOUSE BILL No. 1468


A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning criminal law and procedure.

I am not sure you can read at this point Redux but anyone can go to that link and see the bill. I don't see my statement as false.
Redux • Mar 16, 2009 11:57 pm
Read the preface please:

Amendments: Whenever an existing statute (or a section of the Indiana Constitution) is being amended, the text of the existing provision will appear in this style type, additions will appear in this style type, and deletions will appear in this style type.
Additions: Whenever a new statutory provision is being enacted (or a new constitutional provision adopted), the text of the new provision will appear in this style type. Also, the word NEW will appear in that style type in the introductory clause of each SECTION that adds a new provision to the Indiana Code or the Indiana Constitution.

The section on sex offenders or parolees was existing provisions of the code.

The actual bill (or amendment to the state code) was those sections in bold type.

Only one sentence of the bill refers to "parolees may be prohibited from owning or training pets..." and included in that section of the code.

The rest of the bill is in an entirely different section of the state code.

You see how easy it is to make it propaganda and falsely suggest that the bill was somehow "sandwiched in" with a bill on sex offenders or parolees when that was not the case?

That statement is just as false and misleading as the statement suggesting that pet dealers would be regulated as kennels or commercial breeders.
Nirvana • Mar 17, 2009 12:08 am
Ah so that was my mistake. Here let me amend it; they included this bill sandwiched in the existing state code that refers to parolees and sex offenders. BTW have the last word I am sure you want it....;)
Redux • Mar 17, 2009 12:11 am
Nirvana;545949 wrote:
Ah so that was my mistake. Here let me amend it; they included this bill sandwiched in the existing state code that refers to parolees and sex offenders. BTW have the last word I am sure you want it....;)


Look at the code sections.

The bulk of the bill (with the exception of one sentence) is in an entirely different section and chapter of the state code (IC 15-21) from the parolees/sex offenders (IC 11-13)

There is no sandwich here :)
Nirvana • Mar 17, 2009 12:15 am
http://openlibrary.org/b/OL1753176M/hijacking-of-the-humane-movement
:)
Nirvana • Mar 17, 2009 12:16 am
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Animal_Interest_Alliance

:)
Redux • Mar 17, 2009 12:17 am
Propaganda to the left of us....propaganda to the right of us. :eek:

Thats all I'm suggesting.
Nirvana • Mar 17, 2009 12:23 am
Is it propaganda when Oprah adopts rescue dogs and they are disease ridden? Rescue does not = the best place to get a dog. [Point of thread]

http://www.peoplepets.com/news/pets-in-the-news/breaking-news-virus-kills-one-of-oprah-s-new-pups-and-threatens-another/1
Redux • Mar 17, 2009 12:26 am
Nirvana;545958 wrote:
Rescue does not = the best place to get a dog. [Point of thread]


On this, we agree!
classicman • Mar 17, 2009 12:30 am
lol.
xoxoxoBruce • Mar 17, 2009 1:55 am
The problem is not how many cats and dogs are euthanized, the problem is we don't eat them.
TheMercenary • Mar 17, 2009 7:01 am
Redux;545940 wrote:
Nope...and I'm not with ACORN either (for classic and merc).

You can't fool us. You are Bill Clinton aren't you.
TheMercenary • Mar 17, 2009 7:02 am
Nirvana, to all your posts in this thread:

:thumb:
Redux • Mar 17, 2009 8:36 am
TheMercenary;545996 wrote:
You can't fool us. You are Bill Clinton aren't you.


Nope. I inhaled.

And I still dont eat bullshit sandwiches like that suggested by Nirvana in the case of the IN law.

But when have you ever let the facts get in the way of a discussion.
Nirvana • Mar 17, 2009 9:51 am
Well Redux what part of that new proposed legislation do you feel is fair to a hobby breeder? The part where the sale of 5 dogs makes them a pet dealer? Large breed dogs frequently have double digit litters so effectively if some hobby breeders have one litter they are automatically a pet dealer? Everyone will have to get their pets from pet mills in the future because they are the only ones that will be able to afford to pay to have animals. Your rights are being taken away and you are looking in another direction. That is so high on the bullshit meter its off the chart!

The whole point is the proposed legislation is BS but you would rather dwell on an aspect that I got wrong. You said you are for ending pet mills and this legislation puts all hobby breeders out of business so you will have no choice if you want a pet but to get it at commercial breeding operations. Duplicity is your friend. :eyebrow:
Nirvana • Mar 17, 2009 10:09 am
This city council Manteca CA. is meeting today to propose the mandatory spaying and neutering of all dogs.

1. CC Waive the first reading by substitution of the title and introduce Ordinance No.
1434, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Manteca Amending
Sections 6.10.010 through 6.10.130 of Title 6 of the Manteca Municipal Code
Pertaining to the Spaying and Neutering of Dogs.

http://www.ci.manteca.ca.us/legis/agenda.pdf
Nirvana • Mar 17, 2009 10:31 am
Spay/Neuter is an important medical decision that should be made for each individual pet only after careful consultation with the pet's veterinarian, instead of mandated at a fixed age by the government.

Mandatory Spay/Neuter, when enacted in other locations including San Mateo County, California, and Santa Cruz County, California, and more recently the City of Los Angeles, California, has caused rates of animal shelter intakes, euthanasia rates, and animal control government costs to go up in relation to surrounding communities where Mandatory Spay/Neuter has not been enacted.

Mandatory Spay/Neuter, where enacted, has reduced compliance with pet licensing, and in certain area, has also reduced compliance with rabies vaccination requirements. Reduction in the percentage of pets vaccinated against rabies could have serious public health consequences.
classicman • Mar 17, 2009 11:03 am
Nirvana;546024 wrote:
Everyone will have to get their pets from pet mills in the future because they are the only ones that will be able to afford to pay to have animals.


Will the disparity in price be that much? I thought you said what the Why can't you pass the cost on to the consumer like every other business. Price was really not the issue when we were breeding, especially the Goldens. Isn't price in that market still a very low priority for the buyer?
classicman • Mar 17, 2009 11:06 am
Nirvana;546039 wrote:
Reduction in the percentage of pets vaccinated against rabies could have serious public health consequences.


So does overpopulation - they are trying to solve a problem (perceived or real) I don't know what a real solution is, but they are trying - I'll at least give them that.
Nirvana • Mar 17, 2009 11:13 am
So you would be ok with them [gov] coming over and putting a device on your car to limit your speed to 35 miles an hour? Maybe they will have one that makes it impossible for you to have water in your house any hotter than 55 degrees. The government is messing with your property, what you own, and if you give these rights away other rights will follow.
Nirvana • Mar 17, 2009 11:25 am
classicman;546040 wrote:
Will the disparity in price be that much? I thought you said what the Why can't you pass the cost on to the consumer like every other business. Price was really not the issue when we were breeding, especially the Goldens. Isn't price in that market still a very low priority for the buyer?



Most hobby breeders do not breed to sell pets to the public. They breed to improve the breed and to enjoy their hobby of showing. If the consumer has a choice to buy cheap imitation products they will spend less money for inferior dogs. Hobby breeders would have to move to avoid mandatory spay and neuter laws that are popping up all over. Say you are buying a really good pedigreed female to start showing and breeding. In my breed that means $2500. On top of that the law in Maine will make it $650 per intact female who could even afford to have pets unless you spay them and you cannot show a neutered animal in conformation? None of the cost mentioned above include health care or feeding. What would the cost of a puppy be? Shall hobby breeders be like milk producers and sell always at a loss?
There will be people selling illegally because of these laws and people will find them and get their cheap poorly bred dogs from them. This is already happening.
Nirvana • Mar 17, 2009 11:31 am
I should preface that not every puppy in the litter will be show worthy that is where the pets produced by hobby breeders can be available to the public. Hobby breeders in Maine would have to "gift" their extra puppies or "collect and hoard" the extra puppies they are not allowed to sell without extensive fees and licensing.
DanaC • Mar 17, 2009 12:35 pm
Nirvana, I havent time to go searching through the links, but at what age is the spaying supposed to occur?
classicman • Mar 17, 2009 2:06 pm
Nirvana;546043 wrote:
So you would be ok with them [gov] coming over and putting a device on your car to limit your speed to 35 miles an hour? Maybe they will have one that makes it impossible for you to have water in your house any hotter than 55 degrees. The government is messing with your property, what you own, and if you give these rights away other rights will follow.

Don't get all bent at me I was just asking a question. How does this relate to my question?

Nirvana;546047 wrote:
If the consumer has a choice to buy cheap imitation products they will spend less money for inferior dogs.

Not always. IIRC I brought this up pages ago. The market for high end purebreds is changing. Perhaps I am incorrect here, but I look at these dogs similar to a Maserati or a Ferrari.

Nirvana;546047 wrote:
Say you are buying a really good pedigreed female to start showing and breeding. In my breed that means $2500. On top of that the law in Maine will make it $650 per intact female who could even afford to have pets unless you spay them and you cannot show a neutered animal in conformation?

Thats $650 per female breeding or female born? Which is it? What is the average litter size? If its 6 than the cost goes up about $110 per pup ... very nominal increase if $2500 per dog. Just trying to understand the numbers.

Nirvana;546047 wrote:
None of the cost mentioned above include health care or feeding. What would the cost of a puppy be?

Those are all constants costs and have no bearing here - you have to pay for all that either way.

Nirvana;546047 wrote:
There will be people selling illegally because of these laws and people will find them and get their cheap poorly bred dogs from them. This is already happening.

There will be more - I got that. Hard to calculate how many "more"
Nirvana • Mar 17, 2009 2:47 pm
Why is a fee necessary for a hobby breeder? Let say a kennel in Maine has 10 intact females that is $650 per female that you have to pay the local government to have these dogs on top of what you paid to buy the dogs. [$6500.00]What part of how can anyone afford that are you missing? Most breeders are not selling the higher end dogs they retain them for breeding they sell one or two show and breeding quality puppies and the rest are the pets, in my breed pets are $450 and up that come from champion pedigrees. I do not place pets with papers for breeding. Sometimes I neuter them before they leave.
You are incorrect about the dog"market" people are buying mutts, "designer mutts" which have the potential to have twice as many problems as purebreds because they carry the genes for different breeds. It is PC now to "rescue" which makes people feel all philanthropic until they get little foo foo home and he is a monster. Ask Ellen. ;)
I have never had more than 2-3 intact females at any given time thats just me, but I will speak up for those who have a right to keep as many as they can care for in a humane manner otherwise I and pet owners are next on the list. It will be illegal to own animals all because people do not understand what is going on in their own state legislature.

For Dana; spaying is to occur at 6 months. I have two very tiny Chihuahuas 2lbs and I guess if I lived in a mandatory spay neuter area I would have to move rather then see if a vet would kill these two while performing a spay.
Nirvana • Mar 17, 2009 2:56 pm
The government is trying to tell you what to do in your own home. Your civil rights are being taken away.
Nirvana • Mar 17, 2009 3:03 pm
CM I don't think you understand that hobby breeding is not a commercial venture it is a "hobby", that means its costs money to do it, breaking even is a dream! The cost of supplies, veterinary care, dog shows, traveling can never be paid for by selling puppies. Lumping hobby breeders in with commercial kennels is wrong and will be the demise of quality purebred dogs and pet owners.
classicman • Mar 17, 2009 3:09 pm
Nirvana;546113 wrote:
Why is a fee necessary for a hobby breeder? Let say a kennel in Maine has 10 intact females that is $650 per female that you have to pay the local government to have these dogs on top of what you paid to buy the dogs. [$6500.00]What part of how can anyone afford that are you missing?

WHETHER IT WAS PER MOTHER OR PER PUP. I GOT IT NOW - THANKS
Nirvana;546113 wrote:
Most breeders are not selling the higher end dogs they retain them for breeding they sell one or two show and breeding quality puppies and the rest are the pets, in my breed pets are $450 and up that come from champion pedigrees. I do not place pets with papers for breeding. Sometimes I neuter them before they leave.

You brought up the $2500 number. Now you say the number is $450. Which is it $450 or $2500. OR is that now the range. I thought that was exceptionally high, We sold ours for $700-$750. So you would compare your dogs to, say an Acura versus a Yugo?

It seems more like a seating license when people buy season tickets for their football team.
Nirvana;546113 wrote:
You are incorrect about the dog"market" people are buying mutts, "designer mutts" which have the potential to have twice as many problems as purebreds because they carry the genes for different breeds. It is PC now to "rescue" which makes people feel all philanthropic until they get little foo foo home and he is a monster. Ask Ellen. ;)

I have seen plenty of health problems with purebreds as well. Yes they are better, but by no means immune. I've also seen many issues with their intellect and attitude due to constant breeding within the same lineage.

Oh, and who the hell is Ellen?
Nirvana • Mar 17, 2009 3:25 pm
I bred the number one Chihuahua being shown in this country in 2000. She won Best In Show at an all breed event, 1 of only 5 long coats females in our breed to have ever won BIS and she won the breed at Westminster. I can ask what I want for puppies I just do not happen to breed very many, I place less than 3 puppies a year.. I would still only ask $450-$850 for pets.

The term "pet" means to a hobby breeder a dog that cannot be shown and should not be bred because it has a minor flaw such as dentition problem, shoulder placement, nose color etc.

From a good show breeder you can expect to pay $2500 for a show breeding dog. [ my breed]They will expect you to show them and just laying out the money will not guarantee you the dog they have a screening process and some will want to co own until the dog is a Champion..
Nirvana • Mar 17, 2009 3:26 pm
Ellen Degeneres and Oprah got bad deals when they bought dogs from rescue.
Undertoad • Mar 17, 2009 3:32 pm
Wow congrats Nirvana, that was a remarkable achievement by you!

A lot of people say they've spent time with a world-class bitch but you really have!
Nirvana • Mar 17, 2009 3:47 pm
Well thanks UT! I see a world class Bitch every time I look in the mirror ;)
classicman • Mar 17, 2009 3:55 pm
Nirvana;546122 wrote:
Ellen Degeneres and Oprah got bad deals when they bought dogs from rescue.


IMO - The dogs got a bad deal too.

Congrats on the championship.
Nirvana • Mar 17, 2009 7:39 pm
Thanks CM :) I am not a bragging type of person I only wanted to qualify my comments.

I dunno if the dogs got a bad deal, they had wealthy owners willing to give them everything, its not their fault the one died nor is their fault that the other dog was not a good match for the owner.
Just because someone calls themselves a dog rescue(r) doesn't mean they know what they are doing.
Shawnee123 • Mar 17, 2009 8:24 pm
Nirvana, I read that really small dogs are known to have complications while giving birth. There are numerous things that can go wrong, and often end in giving the mom a c-section. Do you think c-sections are less risky to a dog's health than the spay procedure?
Nirvana • Mar 17, 2009 9:35 pm
Since I have assisted in more than 50 [guess]of both surgeries I would say they have the same risks, the biggest being lack of skill on the part of the surgeon. The worst complication I have ever had was from a spay. The bitch almost died. I have never had a complication in a c section that ended in the death of the mother. [knock on wood] I have a very skilled veterinarian and my dogs are in their peak of health when they are bred.
sugarpop • Mar 18, 2009 1:04 am
Nirvana;545868 wrote:
There are some great dogs at shelters but lets not blame dog breeders for the dogs that are thrown away by others whether on purpose or thru a bad turn in life...


I didn't mean to imply breeders were responsible for irresponsible pet owners. I did mean to imply that not all breeders are good, and that there are too many animals being put down because of overbreeding, whether by breeders, or by people not spaying/neutering their animals and keeping them fenced in, or by people dumping animals they don't want. It just makes me very sad. If I had a lot of land and money, I would try to give some of them a place to live.
sugarpop • Mar 18, 2009 1:08 am
Nirvana;545909 wrote:
This is a link to pending legislation in the state of Maine where if you have 1 [ yes 1] intact female adult dog you are considered a breeding kennel. Of course they make exclusions for show kennels, hunting dogs etc except that any extra offspring cannot be sold so that would make someone worse than a pet miller they would be collectors because to breed you would have to keep everything you produce.:rolleyes:

2. License fees. The fee for a breeding kennel license is calculated by multiplying the number of adult female dogs and cats at the breeding kennel capable of breeding by $500.

I have a two lb Chihuahua technically under this law I would have to pay $150 for her because technically she is capable of producing offspring and because having one breedable female I am considered a kennel so I would then have to pay $500 but no one in their right mind would breed a 2 lb dog and most veterinarians would not perform surgery on a dog that small when it is not an emergency. These are crazy laws and the HSUS is rushing these things to every state in the union that will listen to their lobbyists.

This is the goal of PETA and the HSUS that no one can breed or own an animal and that the government will take away your rights to have pets of any kind..

http://janus.state.me.us/legis/LawMakerWeb/externalsiteframe.asp?ID=280031924&LD=1053&Type=1&SessionID=8


If you have an animal and you aren't planning on breeding it, why wouldn't you spay/neuter it?
sugarpop • Mar 18, 2009 1:14 am
Nirvana;545919 wrote:
It has already passed in Los Angeles, some of these animal bills were introduced in various states within a 3 week time frame.

http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/

Read their propaganda for yourself.


I support every single thing listed on that link. In California, the people get to vote on issues like this. I know, I lived there for 10 years, and I voted on the horse meat issue. California is a very pet-oriented state, and the people there will probably vote to protect animals.

In addition, the link you provided to the legislation, it seemed pretty reasonable to me.
ZenGum • Mar 18, 2009 1:15 am
So, ahh, did Obama get a dog yet?
sugarpop • Mar 18, 2009 1:25 am
Nirvana;546024 wrote:
Well Redux what part of that new proposed legislation do you feel is fair to a hobby breeder? The part where the sale of 5 dogs makes them a pet dealer? Large breed dogs frequently have double digit litters so effectively if some hobby breeders have one litter they are automatically a pet dealer? Everyone will have to get their pets from pet mills in the future because they are the only ones that will be able to afford to pay to have animals. Your rights are being taken away and you are looking in another direction. That is so high on the bullshit meter its off the chart!

The whole point is the proposed legislation is BS but you would rather dwell on an aspect that I got wrong. You said you are for ending pet mills and this legislation puts all hobby breeders out of business so you will have no choice if you want a pet but to get it at commercial breeding operations. Duplicity is your friend. :eyebrow:


What the hell is a "hobby" breeder? :eyebrow:
ZenGum • Mar 18, 2009 1:35 am
Where do you think hobby horses come from?
DanaC • Mar 18, 2009 4:22 am
sugarpop;546421 wrote:
If you have an animal and you aren't planning on breeding it, why wouldn't you spay/neuter it?


Because there are medical arguments against it. There are also 'moral' arguments against it. There is also the feeling of discomfort at ripping away the dog's reproductive organs.

Personally I wish we'd had Pilau done. I was persuaded out of it by my then partner and my brother. My Brother has absolutely insisted that his bitch, Amber, stays intact.

Spaying and neutering isn't the only way to prevent unwanted canine pregnancy...you can, y'know, not let your dog roam?

I asked earlier about the age at which the legislation mentioned, expects dogs to be neutered or spayed. I asked because there is a cultural divide between Americasn vets and British vets as to when the appropriate age wold be. As far as I know, American vets go a little earlier than British vets.
classicman • Mar 18, 2009 9:49 am
DanaC;546441 wrote:
I was persuaded out of it by my then partner and my brother.


You dated your brother???
Nirvana • Mar 18, 2009 10:54 am
sugarpop;546421 wrote:
If you have an animal and you aren't planning on breeding it, why wouldn't you spay/neuter it?


You seem to lack reading skills SP

I have a two lb Chihuahua technically under this law I would have to pay $150 for her because technically she is capable of producing offspring and because having one breedable female I am considered a kennel so I would then have to pay $500 but no one in their right mind would breed a 2 lb dog and most veterinarians would not perform surgery on a dog that small when it is not an emergency.


Spay/Neuter is an important medical decision that should be made for each individual pet only after careful consultation with the pet's veterinarian, instead of mandated at a fixed age by the government.
glatt • Mar 18, 2009 11:00 am
2 lb dogs are sterile? I honestly don't know.
Nirvana • Mar 18, 2009 11:06 am
sugarpop;546423 wrote:
I support every single thing listed on that link. In California, the people get to vote on issues like this. I know, I lived there for 10 years, and I voted on the horse meat issue. California is a very pet-oriented state, and the people there will probably vote to protect animals.

In addition, the link you provided to the legislation, it seemed pretty reasonable to me.


The people in Los Angeles did not vote on that issue their representatives did and I think you will see a change in representatives because of their actions.

How are animals being protected when neutering is mandatory? Many of the people that have lower incomes will be dumping their animals because they cannot afford the procedures or the fines for not having the neutering done. This will cost the city of Los Angeles more money and more dogs will be euthanized. I am sure when the tax rates go up to cover the cost of that fiasco some of the people are not going to think it was reasonable.
Nirvana • Mar 18, 2009 11:08 am
glatt;546489 wrote:
2 lb dogs are sterile? I honestly don't know.

No they are too small for surgery to be done safely. So I have a choice maybe a dead dog or a live intact dog. Guess I choose live intact dog. :)
Nirvana • Mar 18, 2009 11:42 am
Nirvana;546495 wrote:
No they are too small for surgery to be done safely. So I have a choice maybe a dead dog or a live intact dog. Guess I choose live intact dog. :)


I do not have this choice or the right if I lived in Los Angeles. Many other people with other problems that cannot put their pet thru a surgery in Los Angeles do not have the right to choose. Your rights are being taken away little by little.
Shawnee123 • Mar 18, 2009 12:03 pm
From an animal rights perspective, and no I'm not PETA, it seems to me to be cruel to have designer dogs beget designer dogs that are ill-equipped for a birthing process, knowing full well surgery is probably doing to have to be done. You say spaying is more dangerous...I don't think that makes sense.

However, the initial point of this thread, if I understood correctly, was that people who think they are "rescuing" dogs may be getting a dog that isn't A-Number One Top of the Chop Dog, and isn't that too up to the family and the vet? Somehow, they have failed miserably in doing good?

For instance, you imply that they may have been abused, and inclined to meanness. What about an entire breed in which everything I read about it is their poor temperment, that is borne to that specific breed?

Many of us will love our critters, flaws and all, just as we love our flawed humans.
classicman • Mar 18, 2009 1:29 pm
Amen.
Nirvana • Mar 18, 2009 8:41 pm
Shawnee123;546514 wrote:
From an animal rights perspective, and no I'm not PETA, it seems to me to be cruel to have designer dogs beget designer dogs that are ill-equipped for a birthing process, knowing full well surgery is probably doing to have to be done. You say spaying is more dangerous...I don't think that makes sense.

However, the initial point of this thread, if I understood correctly, was that people who think they are "rescuing" dogs may be getting a dog that isn't A-Number One Top of the Chop Dog, and isn't that too up to the family and the vet? Somehow, they have failed miserably in doing good?

For instance, you imply that they may have been abused, and inclined to meanness. What about an entire breed in which everything I read about it is their poor temperment, that is borne to that specific breed?

Many of us will love our critters, flaws and all, just as we love our flawed humans.


Well you cannot believe everything you read , experience outweighs speculation. A designer dog is the cross breeding of two different breeds to get a "special dog" a designer created mutt, so I am not sure what you mean by your statement on designer dogs.

Rescued dogs generally come from pet mills that went under or were raided for abusive care. These are dogs that have lived their entire life as breeding machines usually in confinement. A situation that I believe is not good for raising dogs. Some are permanently damaged mentally from that type of situation. Rarer breeds like the Portuguese Water Dogs are not going to be in rescue situations because they are not an easy breed to get or any easy breed to market by commercial pet millers. I never said they were inclined towards meanness some are just cage crazy or so shy if you pick them up they crap down the front of your shirt. Not really a dog suited for a family with children. {some rescue dogs}

People trained in animal husbandry learn selective breeding. Ethical breeders would select against traits that they find undesirable. I prefer free whelping dogs but sometimes that doesn't happen. That's why you prepare in the beginning by finding the best veterinary care available to you. I have cows and one would not expect that they would need a c section but every once in awhile that baby is not coming out. :) Rather than have the mother and the baby die by the miracle of modern veterinary medicine c sections are available.

What makes the surgery dangerous is the anesthetic and dogs die every day from dental cleanings, shall we not clean teeth?
Nirvana • Mar 18, 2009 9:38 pm
This thread is not about dogs that are well bred its about dogs that are raised correctly in an environment where the breeder has taken the time to socialize them so they are suitable as a family pet. There is a critical time period in a puppy's life where this has to take place [4-12 weeks] and commercial kennels are only interested in weaning puppies and getting them out the door. Their human contact is limited. That does not mean they have to have 30 champions in their pedigree or have a pedigree at all to achieve this...I am not a dog snob I have had my fair share of JSU's and I love them just as much as my purebred dogs. :)
Nirvana • Mar 18, 2009 10:11 pm
In Defense of Animals is seeking a donation of $1 with every purchase made on eBay.

Most people would probably react that this "a great way to help animals and they've made it so easy I'll do it."

The vast majority of donors would not realize this is a hard-core animal rights organization (on par with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and they would send that buck without checking what it was really going to be used for.

From http://www.idausa.org/

"It is the policy of In Defense of Animals to no longer use language that accepts the current concept of animals as property, commodities and/or things. Rather than refer to ourselves or others as "owners" of animals we share our
lives with, we now refer to ourselves and others as "guardians" of our animal friends and to animals as "he" or "she" rather than "it."

The president of "In Defense of Animals," Dr. Elliott Katz, said in 1997: " It is time we demand an end to the misguided and abusive concept of animal ownership. The first step on this long, but just, road would be ending the concept of pet ownership."

Please let your friends and family know In Defense of Animals is an anti-pet organization. If they want to help animals, they can make a donation to a local no-kill shelter, to breed rescue, or to an organization fighting for pet owners' rights. Give them the name of a group you support, or help them find one worthy of their contribution. If you or a family member are eBay enthusiasts, you could counter the IDA campaign by keeping track of your purchases (or sales) and donating a small percentage of your monthly total to an organization that actually does something FOR pets and our right to have them.
classicman • Mar 18, 2009 11:20 pm
Lemme think this thru a sec.
Currently animals are YOUR property. YOU are upset that because of this the gov't is proposing to tax you or whatever as a breeder. This organization is promoting an end to animal ownership. The gov't won't be able to tax you since you no longer legally own them.
Why aren't you supporting this?
TGRR • Mar 18, 2009 11:26 pm
sugarpop;546423 wrote:
I support every single thing listed on that link. In California, the people get to vote on issues like this. I know, I lived there for 10 years, and I voted on the horse meat issue. California is a very pet-oriented state, and the people there will probably vote to protect animals.

In addition, the link you provided to the legislation, it seemed pretty reasonable to me.


What's wrong with horse meat? It's pretty tasty, and leaner than beef.
Nirvana • Mar 19, 2009 12:02 am
classicman;546740 wrote:
Lemme think this thru a sec.
Currently animals are YOUR property. YOU are upset that because of this the gov't is proposing to tax you or whatever as a breeder. This organization is promoting an end to animal ownership. The gov't won't be able to tax you since you no longer legally own them.
Why aren't you supporting this?


None of this legislation in my state directly affects me I don't breed enough dogs. The whole point is that a minority with money wants a meatless, pet less society and people like you are going to bend over and grab your ankles while they are doing it. ;)
classicman • Mar 19, 2009 12:07 am
Oh thanks for the insult - I appreciate that.
Nirvana • Mar 19, 2009 12:29 am
Well you are welcome since you were insulting my intelligence throughout the entire thread I thought it was the least I could do! :)
Redux • Mar 19, 2009 12:49 am
I appreciate and support the work of organizations like ASPCA and HSUS. Although I cant document it, I suspect both organizations have widespread support in most communities.

PETA, on the other hand, is in a different class.

But so are those on the other side of the animal rights debate who misrepresent state laws as scare tactics, quote the CCF as a source of factual information rather than the industry front group propaganda machine that it is, and espouse rhetoric about the coming meatless, pet less society.

IMO, neither extremist should be taken seriously.
Nirvana • Mar 19, 2009 12:59 am
What does the HSUS do actually besides spend their millions of dollars on lobbying for legislation that is directed at people that own animals? They own no animal shelters. They do not rescue dogs . Just what is their agenda?
Lobbying and trying to pass laws that violate the civil rights of others..

You don't want to breed animals? Don't breed them! You don't want to eat animals? Don't eat them! Just as I respect your right to have those views kindly give me the same right to breed animals and eat meat if I want to. This is the USA and 1984 is just a piece of literature... so far...
Redux • Mar 19, 2009 1:02 am
Nirvana;546764 wrote:
Just as I respect your right to have those views kindly give me the same right to breed animals and eat meat if I want to. This is the USA and 1984 is just a piece of literature... so far...


I respect your right to breed animals and eat meat.

I dont respect the propaganda you have espoused throughout this thread.....as a I noted - misrepresenting state laws, citing the CCF as a source of factual information, etc.

Dont most state and local humane dociety's own shelters and rescue dogs? I know the Washington DC Humane Society does.
Nirvana • Mar 19, 2009 1:07 am
No one that supports the animals rights extremist group known as the HSUS respects the rights of others. Since you have not proven that any of the facts that the CCF has written are wrong through any supporting facts other than meat producers being their largest contributors I suggest it is you that lacks credibility. Show me what HSUS is doing besides lobbying for legislation that violates the civil rights of animal owners. Show me the animal shelters they have. Show the animals they are helping.
Dog RESCUE is entirely different than an animal shelter. Rescues are usually breed specific.
Redux • Mar 19, 2009 1:10 am
Nirvana;546766 wrote:
No one that supports the animals rights extremist group known as the HSUS respects the rights of others. Since you have not proven that any of the facts that the CCF has written are wrong through any supporting facts other than meat producers being their largest contributors I suggest it is you that lacks credibility. Show me what HSUS is doing besides lobbying for legislation that violates the civil rights of animal owners. Show me the animal shelters they have. Show the animals they are helping


Look, you can believe the CCF even though it does not document any of its allegations. That is your right. But until it provides sources for the numerous charges on its "fact sheets," I dont give it much credibility and will treat it as an industry front group and not a consumer advocate...and that is my right.

As to the HSUS....dont most state and local humane societies own shelters and rescue dogs? I know the Washington DC Humane Society does and it is widely supported in the city and not just by "a minority with money who want a meatless, pet less sociey."
Nirvana • Mar 19, 2009 1:19 am
Humane Society of the United States... Catchy name they have huh? Makes you think they are the ones in charge of your Humane Society. Well they have nothing to do with any humane societies except that is in their name. Ask your shelter.The HSUS is not affiliated with any local shelters. They have nothing to do with your local shelter
I wonder why HSUS with all their money does not sue CCF for libel? Because you can't really do that when its the truth.
Nirvana • Mar 19, 2009 1:23 am
Local Humane Societies are wonderful community assets. The HSUS is an animal rights extremist group.
Redux • Mar 19, 2009 1:27 am
Nirvana;546768 wrote:
Humane Society of the United States... Catchy name they have huh? Makes you think they are the ones in charge of your Humane Society. Well they have nothing to do with any humane societies except that is in their name. Ask your shelter.The HSUS is not affiliated with any local shelters. They have nothing to do with your local shelter
I wonder why HSUS with all their money does not sue CCF for libel? Because you can't really do that when its the truth.


The HSUS is like many national organizations, where comparable local organizations are independent but informally connected. The national provides advocacy, training, education, resources, standards, etc. (How Is The HSUS Affiliated With My Local Humane Society?)

LOL on your insistence on the truthfulness of the CCF. The fact is that you cannot document any of their charges.

IMO, you are just as much of an extremist as PETA.

You spread bullshit about state laws and fear mongering about a coming "meatless and pet less" society.

That's why I dont either you or PETA very seriously.
Nirvana • Mar 19, 2009 1:35 am
Your, hmmm shall we say naivete is what organizations like the HSUS count on to collect their money. They had nothing to do with your shelter or how its run or any other shelter in the United States. They are not affiliated in any manner nor are they connected. All you or anyone else has to do is ask their local Humane Society. The HSUS merely collects money so they can lobby for legislation that violates the rights of people that own animals.. They are an animal rights extremist organization.
Your insistence that the CCF is lying is charming. ;)
Redux • Mar 19, 2009 1:35 am
And now I might contribute $1 to In Defense of Animals with my next purchase on eBay.

Thanks for the tip!
Nirvana • Mar 19, 2009 1:36 am
Think of me as chicken little if you like but you will never see that the sky is falling if you are so intent on grabbing your ankles.
classicman • Mar 19, 2009 1:47 am
Nirvana;545811 wrote:
Did you read the article CM?
Usually rescue dogs have problems that go beyond an amateur's knowledge of care.

Yes I read the OPINION piece you quoted. So what? Because you repeatedly quoted it doesn't mean that her opinion is any more valid than yours, mine or anyone elses.
And again, I wholeheartedly disagree with the author that "rescue dogs usually have problems...." The problems just make good press. You NEVER hear of the hundreds of thousands that go to good homes without problems, just loving families.

Nirvana;546761 wrote:
Well you are welcome since you were insulting my intelligence throughout the entire thread I thought it was the least I could do! :)

I never insulted your intelligence. I questioned some of your opinions. I voiced my opinions which differed. Isn't that what this is all about? Yet because I disagreed, I insulted you?

Nirvana;546764 wrote:
What does the HSUS do actually besides spend their millions of dollars on lobbying for legislation that is directed at people that own animals?

I would certainly hope that they would direct their efforts at people with animals.
In 2008, they only spent $40,000. They haven't spent more than $200,000 since 2004.

Nirvana;546764 wrote:
Just what is their agenda?
Lobbying and trying to pass laws that violate the civil rights of others..

try this
or this
Redux • Mar 19, 2009 1:53 am
classicman;546778 wrote:


Image


Uh, no I don't think so - try this


Thanks for the link on HSUS lobbying expenditures.

It looks to me like they spend far more each year on providing free veterinary care in rural communities than they do on lobbying.
[INDENT]Each year HSVMA-RAVS provides over $1 million in free veterinary services to upwards of 7,000 animals, all at no cost to the clients or communities we serve. In addition the program provides valuable training and experience for hundreds of future veterinary professionals that goes far beyond anything they could learn in a classroom alone.

http://ruralareavet.org/
[/INDENT]
classicman • Mar 19, 2009 1:56 am
Nirvana, I certainly respect your opinion, it simply differs from mine. I like you and I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
xoxoxoBruce • Mar 19, 2009 2:51 am
HSUS
Despite the words “humane society” on its letterhead, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And despite the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.
HSUS is big, rich, and powerful, a “humane society” in name only. And while most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn’t operate a single one anywhere.

DanaC • Mar 19, 2009 5:17 am
So, is spaying and neutering at a particular age mandatory in some states?
Redux • Mar 19, 2009 7:10 am
xoxoxoBruce;546791 wrote:
HSUS

According to HSUS 2007 IRS filing, the organization gave $millions in grants to many local humane societies.

To give your link a little more perspective...

ActivistCash.com was created by the Center for Consumer Freedom that I referenced earlier in response to nirvanna citing it as a "factual" source even though it provides no primary source information or footnotes to verify its claims or charges (as most credilbe organzations would include as a standard practice).

It purports to be a consumer advocate organization but IMO, the evidence is rather compelling that it is a front group for the meat/poultry industry, restaurant industry, alcohol and tobacco interests, ...

Here is more on CCF and Activist.Com:
http://www.consumerdeception.com/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_Consumer_Freedom
http://www.bermanexposed.org/
http://www.cspinet.org/new/200302201.html
kerosene • Mar 19, 2009 9:18 am
I know we are talking about dogs, here, but I think it is appropriate.
[youtube]dR_LHlFwlhk&hl=en&fs[/youtube]
xoxoxoBruce • Mar 19, 2009 12:15 pm
Redux;546803 wrote:
.

To give your link a little more perspective...



"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."
So that's not true because it was said by Hermann Goering. :rolleyes:
sugarpop • Mar 19, 2009 6:14 pm
DanaC;546441 wrote:
Because there are medical arguments against it. There are also 'moral' arguments against it. There is also the feeling of discomfort at ripping away the dog's reproductive organs.

Personally I wish we'd had Pilau done. I was persuaded out of it by my then partner and my brother. My Brother has absolutely insisted that his bitch, Amber, stays intact.

Spaying and neutering isn't the only way to prevent unwanted canine pregnancy...you can, y'know, not let your dog roam?

I asked earlier about the age at which the legislation mentioned, expects dogs to be neutered or spayed. I asked because there is a cultural divide between Americasn vets and British vets as to when the appropriate age wold be. As far as I know, American vets go a little earlier than British vets.


Well, I mostly have cats, and with cats, I think the issue is different. For one thing, neutering a cat when it's young will (usually) keep it from spraying all over the house, and keep it from fighting as much. For another, if you have a cat that goes outside, they won't just stay inside the fence, so they will most likely reproduce.

And isn't it similar to what people get when they're "neutered?" Why it would be ripping away at their reproductive organs? It's surgery. They are under anesthesia. And I've always heard they were healthier if they were "fixed." I didn't realize there health reason to NOT have them fixed.
sugarpop • Mar 19, 2009 6:23 pm
Nirvana;546486 wrote:
You seem to lack reading skills SP

Quote:
I have a two lb Chihuahua technically under this law I would have to pay $150 for her because technically she is capable of producing offspring and because having one breedable female I am considered a kennel so I would then have to pay $500 but no one in their right mind would breed a 2 lb dog and most veterinarians would not perform surgery on a dog that small when it is not an emergency.
Spay/Neuter is an important medical decision that should be made for each individual pet only after careful consultation with the pet's veterinarian, instead of mandated at a fixed age by the government.

Spay/Neuter is an important medical decision that should be made for each individual pet only after careful consultation with the pet's veterinarian, instead of mandated at a fixed age by the government.


Why is dangerous to spay/neuter a small dog? I've never heard that, and how would it be any different than a 6-9 month old kitten?

It would seem the law may be going too far, but in MOST cases, I think people should spay/neuter their pets if they aren't going to breed them. That is just my opinion.
sugarpop • Mar 19, 2009 6:28 pm
Nirvana;546494 wrote:
The people in Los Angeles did not vote on that issue their representatives did and I think you will see a change in representatives because of their actions.


Excuse me, I was LIVING THERE when it was on the ballot the first time. I VOTED ON IT.

How are animals being protected when neutering is mandatory? Many of the people that have lower incomes will be dumping their animals because they cannot afford the procedures or the fines for not having the neutering done. This will cost the city of Los Angeles more money and more dogs will be euthanized. I am sure when the tax rates go up to cover the cost of that fiasco some of the people are not going to think it was reasonable.


They are just trying to cut down on the feral population and the ENORMOUS number of animals being put to sleep every year. It seems to me that you are being kinda irrational about this issue.

How will cost the city more money? If they cut down on the stray popultion, it would save them money. For lower income people, there are organizations they help pay for the services. That doesn't cost the city, they are charities.
Nirvana • Mar 19, 2009 6:54 pm
sugarpop;546996 wrote:
Excuse me, I was LIVING THERE when it was on the ballot the first time. I VOTED ON IT.


The only way you personally voted, was for who you elected to the city council. Oh wait are you on the city council?? Its ok to have an opinion but don't make stuff up.

http://laanimalservices.blogspot.com/2008/02/la-council-passes-spay-neuter-measure.html

This measure will only increase shelter killing because those that cannot afford to have their pets neutered will be dumping them to avoid the fines.
sugarpop • Mar 19, 2009 7:28 pm
Please do your homework. In California, they put things on the ballot and allow people to vote on them.

http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/archives/id/13616/

Two propositions about animal rights will appear on the ballot in November, thanks to the initiative of grassroots organizations in California.

Over 700,000 citizens signed petitions for both measures so that voters will decide whether Propositions 4 and 6 will become California law.

Proposition 4 prohibits the use of a "padded steel-jawed leg hold trap" when catching fur-bearing or non-game mammals for commercial or recreational use. It also prohibits the use of two specific poisons...

Proposition 6
makes the possession, transfer, or receipt of horses for slaughter for human consumption a felony...
sugarpop • Mar 19, 2009 7:29 pm
I think I know what I've voted for... :rolleyes:
TGRR • Mar 19, 2009 7:53 pm
sugarpop;547034 wrote:


Proposition 6
makes the possession, transfer, or receipt of horses for slaughter for human consumption a felony...


Why?
Nirvana • Mar 19, 2009 8:31 pm
So that people could dump their horses all over the state when they can longer afford to feed them. Thats happening now all over the country because there is really no other recourse.

Oh I see you voted in 1998 on the spay and neuter ordinance the City of Los Angeles passed in February 2009, whatever SP:rolleyes:
sugarpop • Mar 19, 2009 10:18 pm
Nirvana;547065 wrote:
So that people could dump their horses all over the state when they can longer afford to feed them. Thats happening now all over the country because there is really no other recourse.

Oh I see you voted in 1998 on the spay and neuter ordinance the City of Los Angeles passed in February 2009, whatever SP:rolleyes:


I SAID I voted on the HORSE MEAT issue. YOU don't read well.
sugarpop • Mar 19, 2009 10:28 pm
TGRR;547044 wrote:
Why?


Well, back when the ammendment was on the ballot, apparently more than a few people got really upset when they found out their pet horses, which they had sold, were being transported into other states and ground up as meat for consumption. Most people who keep horses as pets would never consider selling them for this purpose. They thought they were going to loving families. So, it caused an uproar. there were people buying the horses under the pretense that they were going to keep them as pets. And then, there's this... ...It said that horses are killed in cruel and unusual ways when they are slated as food, because euthanasia ruins the meat of the animals...
Nirvana • Mar 19, 2009 10:42 pm
sugarpop;547097 wrote:
I SAID I voted on the HORSE MEAT issue. YOU don't read well.


SP since you cannot even seem to read what you write yourself let me refresh your short term memory......
"Please do your homework. In California, they put things on the ballot and allow people to vote on them."

My comment before your comment above was about the spay and neuter, and you implied that the spay neuter was put on a ballot that everyone could vote upon. Why don't you stay out of conversations that seem to confuse you into writing butt covering tripe.
sugarpop • Mar 19, 2009 10:46 pm
sugarpop;546423 wrote:
I support every single thing listed on that link. In California, the people get to vote on issues like this. I know, I lived there for 10 years, and I voted on the horse meat issue. California is a very pet-oriented state, and the people there will probably vote to protect animals.

In addition, the link you provided to the legislation, it seemed pretty reasonable to me.
sugarpop • Mar 19, 2009 10:48 pm
I never said I voted on ANYTHING other than the horse meat. I said I supported the things in the link you posted, and went on to explain how things are done in California, where THE PEOPLE vote on issues like that, because they are put on a ballot.
Nirvana • Mar 19, 2009 10:48 pm
sugarpop;546996 wrote:
Excuse me, I was LIVING THERE when it was on the ballot the first time. I VOTED ON IT.



Just for fun SP :rolleyes: again no you did not vote on it the city council of Los Angeles voted on it.
sugarpop • Mar 19, 2009 10:49 pm
Nirvana;547114 wrote:
[QUOTE=sugarpop;546996]Excuse me, I was LIVING THERE when it was on the ballot the first time. I VOTED ON IT.


Just for fun SP :rolleyes: again no you did not vote on it the city council of Los Angeles voted on it.


I was talking about the HORSE MEAT. My god you are dense.
Nirvana • Mar 19, 2009 10:54 pm
I see you are still having trouble : no one was talking about horse meat you answered my quote here about spay and neuter

Originally Posted by Nirvana View Post
The people in Los Angeles did not vote on that issue their representatives did and I think you will see a change in representatives because of their actions.

you said

Excuse me, I was LIVING THERE when it was on the ballot the first time. I VOTED ON IT.

Well no you did not
sugarpop • Mar 19, 2009 11:05 pm
Nirvana;547118 wrote:
I see you are still having trouble : no one was talking about horse meat you answered my quote here about spay and neuter

Originally Posted by Nirvana View Post
The people in Los Angeles did not vote on that issue their representatives did and I think you will see a change in representatives because of their actions.

you said

Well no you did not


You posted a link, THIS LINK, http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/
I went and looked at the link. Horse meat was one of the issues in the link. I was explaining that in California, the people get to vote on things like that, and used the example of the horse meat issue as one that I had voted on. You assumed I was referring to something else, but I never, once, mentioned spay and neuter in my post.
Nirvana • Mar 19, 2009 11:28 pm
I did not assume anything, you quoted my post on a spay and neuter vote, pretending you had voted on that subject. But you have fun shuffling off to Buffalo ;)
sugarpop • Mar 19, 2009 11:30 pm
Nirvana;547134 wrote:
I did not assume anything, you quoted my post on a spay and neuter vote, pretending you had voted on that subject. But you have fun shuffling off to Buffalo ;)


NO I DIDN"T. I SAID I VOTED ON THE HORSE MEAT ISSUE.

Please, post the comment where I said I voted on a spay and neuter program. I fucking dare you. You can't, because I NEVER SAID THAT.
Nirvana • Mar 19, 2009 11:39 pm
sugarpop;547135 wrote:
NO I DIDN"T. I SAID I VOTED ON THE HORSE MEAT ISSUE.

Please, post the comment where I said I voted on a spay and neuter program. I fucking dare you. You can't, because I NEVER SAID THAT.


You dare me? Do you double DOG dare me? :apaw:
sugarpop • Mar 19, 2009 11:40 pm
Nope. You know what, I'm done. You win, OK? there. happy?
TGRR • Mar 20, 2009 12:51 am
WILL SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHAT'S WRONG WITH HORSE MEAT?
TGRR • Mar 20, 2009 12:52 am
sugarpop;547102 wrote:
Well, back when the ammendment was on the ballot, apparently more than a few people got really upset when they found out their pet horses, which they had sold, were being transported into other states and ground up as meat for consumption. Most people who keep horses as pets would never consider selling them for this purpose. They thought they were going to loving families. So, it caused an uproar. there were people buying the horses under the pretense that they were going to keep them as pets. And then, there's this... ...It said that horses are killed in cruel and unusual ways when they are slated as food, because euthanasia ruins the meat of the animals...


No it doesn't. You run an electrode up their arse and *zap*. So long, Black Beauty.
sugarpop • Mar 20, 2009 4:22 pm
TGRR;547160 wrote:
No it doesn't. You run an electrode up their arse and *zap*. So long, Black Beauty.


I was quoting that last part. I don't know how they are killed. I was just reiterating my rememberance of why some people wanted that issue on the ballot (it was over 10 years ago). I think people don't want to eat any kind of meat that they consider pets. Since a lot of people keep horses as pets in this country, eating horsemeat is horrific to them, like eating cats or dogs. I certainly wouldn't want to eat it, but I rarely eat any kind of meat anyway.
classicman • Mar 20, 2009 5:50 pm
sugarpop;547501 wrote:
but I rarely eat any kind of meat anyway.

Taken out of context that could be a bad thing.
Nirvana • Mar 21, 2009 1:15 am
Look documentation :eek: ;)

An Introduction To
The Animal Rights Agenda

HSUS and PETA masquerade as organizations concerned with the welfare of animals, but in fact their agendas are to eliminate all relationships between humans and animals. They use the terms "animal rights" and "animal welfare" interchangeably to promote their radical objectives.

PETA, in 2007, euthanized 97% of the animals they claimed they were "rescuing" from legitimate animal shelters. They did so in order to "liberate" them from "enslavement" they would be subjected to if they were taken in by humans who value the companionship of animals as pets.

HSUS does not operate a single animal shelter. None. Local humane societies are not funded by HSUS. Very little of the money given to this group has been used for the welfare of animals. Millions of dollars donated to H$U$ for the care of animals that could not be taken to safety with their families following Hurricane Katrina were diverted to its lobbying activities, and this is the subject of current investigations.

H$U$ spends tens of millions of dollars annually promoting the notion that there is a huge population of companion animals roaming unchecked in virtually every city and township and rural county in the nation, and uses this myth as justification for seeking the passage of laws to restrict animal ownership. They state that some 3 million dogs and cats are euthanized each year by animal shelters because "homes can't be found for them" due to the fact that many people who want a pet choose to buy a dog or cat of a particular breed (or age or sex or size or temperament). They fail to mention that the euthanization statistics include feral cats, ill and/or aged animals brought to shelters by owners who have decided a humane death is the last kindness they can give a beloved pet, and dogs surrendered to shelters specifically because of temperament issues that make them unsuitable as family pets. If it were true that all of these 3 million animals could have been appropriately re-homed if people did not buy puppies and kittens from people who breed them, there would be no need for animal shelters to import puppies from other countries to satisfy the demand for "adoptable" animals.

If PETA and H$U$ were truly concerned with actual animal welfare issues, they would be urging budget increases for the agencies charged with enforcing existing animal cruelty laws. There ARE abused and neglected animals, and those who mistreat animals are in violation of regulatory laws that are already on the books in every state. Rather than encouraging that these laws be effectively enforced, they seek to have laws enacted that severely restrict, and will eventually end, ownership of all animal species. This is NOT an "animal welfare" goal, and only a tiny fragment of the vast amounts donated to PETA and H$U$ in the name of "animal welfare" is used to improve the well-being of domestic animals.

The vast majority of the money given to these groups by well-meaning animal lovers is used for political action, including lobbying for anti-animal ownership laws and campaign contributions to candidates who support their agendas.

From Wayne Pacelle (President) The HSUS
“We would be foolish and silly not to unite with people in the public health sector, the environmental community, [and] unions, to try to challenge corporate agriculture.” (Animal Rights Convention, July 1, 2002)

“Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting.” (Bozeman (MT) Daily Chronicle, October 8, 1991)

When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born.” (quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993).

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." (Animal People, May, 1993)


PETA, Ingrid Newkirk (President)
“There’s no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They’re all animals.” (Washingtonian magazine, August 1, 1986)

“Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.” (Harper's, August 1, 1988)

“The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats........If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.” (May 1, 1993)

“There is no hidden agenda…Our goal is total animal liberation.” (Animal Rights Convention, June 30, 2002)

"[A]s the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship--enjoyment at a distance." ("Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Rights", Harper's, August 1988).


Other leaders in the Animal Rights movement
"My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." JP Goodwin, employed at the Humane Society of the US, formerly at Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade

"Our goal is to make [the public think of] breeding [dogs and cats] like drunk driving and smoking." Kim Sturla, former director of the Peninsula Humane Society and Western Director of Fund for Animals, stated during “Kill the Crisis, not the Animals” campaign and workshops 1991

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it." "The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 1982)96.
TGRR • Mar 21, 2009 1:55 am
sugarpop;547501 wrote:
I was quoting that last part. I don't know how they are killed. I was just reiterating my rememberance of why some people wanted that issue on the ballot (it was over 10 years ago). I think people don't want to eat any kind of meat that they consider pets. Since a lot of people keep horses as pets in this country, eating horsemeat is horrific to them, like eating cats or dogs. I certainly wouldn't want to eat it, but I rarely eat any kind of meat anyway.


Sentimentality has its place.
sugarpop • Mar 23, 2009 9:27 pm
classicman;547602 wrote:
Taken out of context that could be a bad thing.


Well, since you got mad when I joked about stuff like that before, I will refrain from some smartass remark this time. :D