Probably two of the most notable changes are that people can now have one litter before being forced to spay or neuter their pets, regardless of whether the animals are purebred or not, being bred for a purpose such as work or not, being shown or not; also, the required age for altering has been increased to six months.
Given that the majority of litters registered with the AKC are from “one time only” breeders who are not actually maintaining a breeding program or part of the dog fancy at all, and that puppy mills, pet stores, and commercial breeding operations have always been exempt from this legislation, it is increasingly clear that the only people who will be impacted by this bill if it becomes law are small-scale “hobby breeders.”
Who are the only breeders people should give their money to in the first place. But oh well..
Information on working terriers, dogs, natural history, hunting, and the environment, with occasional political commentary as I see fit. This web log is associated with the Terrierman.com web site.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
California's Pointy-Headed Legislators
Over at the Pet Connection blog, Gina writes about California's stupid-on-a-stick spay/neuter proposal, ie AB 1634:
5 comments:
All comments are moderated, and all zombies, trolls, time wasters, and anonymous cowards will be shot.
If you do not know what that means, click here and read the whole thing.
If you are commenting on a post, be sure to actually read the post.
New information, corrections, and well-researched arguments are always appreciated.
- The Management
Pleading ignorance of the full bill and its various forms, I must say that it makes zero sense to me to allow "One Free #@!%" before the animal is six months, as that would do nothing to help all of the "oops" litters that are the problem at hand.
ReplyDeleteBut 6 months makes no sense to me at all. How can any responsible breeder know if an animal is breed-worthy at 6 months. I can't even get a final hip score on my dogs until 2 years old, and many breeds don't even come into heat for the first time until a year old (or more), not that they should even be bred then anyway.
My favorite line has to be:
Page 9, Line 9:
(A) Offspring of the unaltered animal may not be sold and may be adopted without a fee only after they reach eight weeks of age.
WONDERFUL, let's put free puppies in the hands of people who would otherwise pass!
I don't believe in government price controls, but I think it's clear that having a high mandatory price floor would be much more effective than the notion of Price == Free.
... reading the bill...
Wow, Page 5, Section 2(a)... All you have to do is show your dog in a dog show once every 2 years to be exempt? More money for the AKC... or perhaps, since they lose money on shows, this will mean the financial ruin of the AKC as thousands of would-not-be Dog Fancy-ers become would-be Dog Fancy-ers.
2(b) is good too... I mean, how can any "hobby breeder" not meet this requirement: "The dog has earned, or if under three years old, is in the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other title from an approved registry or association.
I don't see that as an insurmountable obstacle by any means by anyone who is going to breed "for the breed."
Gosh, I hate California politics, hate AR groups, Vegans, and pretty much anything anti-Libertarian... but despite all the bad press, this bill doesn't sound so awful. Nor does it sound all that effective.
I'd LOVE to see them try and enforce this.
Actually, that was Christie, the other main Pet Connection blogger. :)
ReplyDeleteBut we've both been fighting this thing hard, because it doesn't address the real problems, and squeezes people who aren't causing the problems.
By the way ... we're both pretty liberal. So it ain't just "liberals caving to an AR agenda" as one of your other commentors claimed.
Clandauer - excellent point about the requirement to give away free puppies. That is absolutely one of the primary reasons for irresponsible ownership. God, what are these politicians stupid. Arghgggggggg!
ReplyDeleteGood to hear these views. I have a different take on the whole thing, tho on your side completely:
ReplyDeletehttp://dailyindependent.wordpress.com/2007/06/28/california-debate-to-sterilize-pets-the-truth-about-the-akc/
Clandaur wrote:
ReplyDelete"The dog has earned, or if under three years old, is in the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other title from an approved registry or association.
I don't see that as an insurmountable obstacle by any means by anyone who is going to breed "for the breed."
Clandaur --
Breed for WHAT breed?
"An approved registry or association" -- what is that?
Approved by whom? Judy Mancuso? The Royal Apostropher? Sandy Claus?
My dogs -- which happen to be "purebred" but not registered with AKC or UKC, and never will be -- could not qualify. Our small, nonprofit, member-owned, single-breed registry does not award "titles."
I had three nice families in California apply for pups from my current litter -- first litter I've bred in four years.
I had to turn them down.
That's three California stock farms who are going to have a hard time getting the dog they need, until it is impossible.