[ SHOWGSD-L ] DPCA's Letter of Opposition to AB 1634
- From: Stormy435@xxxxxxx
- To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 12:25:00 EDT
(JAKC, The Cat Fanciers, NAIA, other breed clubs wrote letters. Regional (B
(JClubs did, I did, as an arm of the GSDCA and the California Federation of
Dog (B
(JClubs, but .....GSDCA??? We're a little late here, but it would be nice to
be (B
(Jable to post the official GSDCA letter of Opposition to CA dog legislation
(B
(Jlists.(B
(J DPCA's Letter of Opposition to AB 1634(B
(JHere is the text of the DPCA opposition letter:(B
(JRe: AB 1634 "The California Healthy Pets Act", Revised Draft(B
(J3/27/07 -(B
(JStatement in Opposition(B
(JThe Doberman Pincher Club of America (DPCA) is the only Doberman(B
(JPinscher club recognized by the American Kennel Club. As a result,(B
(Jwe are the parent club for the breed to the AKC. The DPCA is the(B
(Jonly parent club to the AKC of which I am aware that is organized as(B
(Ja charitable organization under Internal Revenue Code $B".!x(J
501(c)(3).(B
(JOur three charitable purposes are (1)humane rescue; (2) medical and(B
(Jhealth research for our breed; and (3) public education about our(B
(Jbreed and responsible dog ownership.(B
(JWe request inclusion of the DPCA in the list of opposition to AB(B
(J1634 in the bill analysis.(B
(JThe approach taken in AB 1634, notwithstanding the assurances by the(B
(Jproponents to the contrary, places blame for shelter relinquishments(B
(Jin California on responsible and committed dog breeders and owners.(B
(JIn point of fact, purebred dog breeders have nothing about which to(B
(Jfeel defensive.(B
(JPurebred dog breeders provide an intrinsically significant positive(B
(Jeffect on society in the United States. The assertion that purebred(B
(Jdog breeders are not affected by AB 1634 because a license will be(B
(Javailable where previously a right existed is pure sophistry. No(B
(Jrational person would argue that a right is the equivalent of a(B
(Jlicense from the state, the purpose of which is to be able to take(B
(Jit away.(B
(JData from the California Department of Health Services, Veterinary(B
(JPublic Health Section shows that intake and euthanasia rates for(B
(Jdogs in California have been falling steadily for decades.(B
(JEuthanasia rates of dogs are down 59% since 1995, and a whopping 86%(B
(Jfrom the mid 1970s. 800,000 dogs were relinquished to shelters in(B
(J1974. 300,000 dogs were relinquished to shelters in 2004.(B
(JStudies show that 24% of dogs relinquished by owners were(B
(Jrelinquished for the express purpose of being euthanized. As one(B
(Jstudy, Understanding Animal Companion Surplus in the United States(B
(Jto Animal Shelters for Euthanasia, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare(B
(JScience, concluded:(B
(JOur findings lead us to conclude that a sizable number of animals(B
(Jare relinquished to shelters because of disease, old age, or serious(B
(Jbehavior problems. Such animals should be excluded from(B
(Jconsideration as contributing to the definition and epidemiology of(B
(Jpet surplus in the United States.(B
(JSubtracting 24% as being owner-requested euthanasia (72,000 dogs)(B
(Jfrom the 300,000 dogs relinquished brings us to a figure of 228,000(B
(Jtarget dogs of the proposal.(B
(JThe study Characteristics of Shelter-Relinquishe The study Character(B
(JOwners Compared with Animals and Their Owners in the US Pet-Owning(B
(JHouseholds, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, found that(B
(J24.2% of dogs and puppies were purebred. 70% were certainly mixed(B
(Jbreeds. It must be assumed that the vast majority of mutts are not(B
(Jintentionally bred. Owners of these dogs are not a rational target(B
(Jof the proposal, because the proposal is to target "backyard(B
(Jbreeders" who want to make money by breeding purebred dogs of an(B
(Jinferior quality to show breeders who produce dogs to better the(B
(Jquality of their breed in general, their breeding line and stock in(B
(Jparticular, and who engage in respected scientific animal husbandry(B
(Jpractices, as well as ensure that they have continuing contact with(B
(Jtheir puppy buyers not only to educate them, but also to take(B
(Jresponsibility for the puppies that they produce from cradle to the(B
(Jgrave, even after the puppy is sold.(B
(JReducing the 228,000 target dogs by the 70% who are of mixed breeds(B
(Jnot intentionally bred (159,600) brings us down to 68,400 dogs as(B
(Jthe target of the proposal.(B
(JThe same study showed that 42.1% of dogs relinquished were already(B
(Jaltered. Thus, these dogs would not be a target of the breeding(B
(Jlicense proposal. 42.1% of the 68,400 target dogs brings us down to(B
(Ja new target of 39,604 target dogs of the proposal.(B
(JWere there actual overpopulation, we would expect to see two(B
(Jindices. First, packs of dogs roaming our streets, as we saw in the(B
(Jlate 1800s to the early 1900s. Second, huge numbers of whole litters(B
(Jof puppies being brought in to shelters, with these litters(B
(Joverwhelming the number of adults relinquished in the shelters.(B
(JThese studies do not bear these indices and out. 55.4% of dogs(B
(Jrelinquished were over one year of age. Subtracting that number from(B
(Jthe target of 39,604 dogs, the target of the proposal has shrunk to(B
(J19,325 dogs.(B
(JAB 1634 should be entirely scrapped in favor of a different approach(B
(Jthat does not attempt to fund all low-cost spay/neutering on the(B
(Jbacks of those of us who are responsible dog breeders and owners,(B
(Jbut instead attempts to reward responsible dog ownership and provide(B
(Jfinancial incentives for others to become so responsible. This(B
(Japproach, which brings responsible dog breeders and owners into the(B
(Jsolution to reducing shelter relinquishments is far superior, as a(B
(Jmatter of public policy, than the compulsive, simplistic approach(B
(Jadvocated by the proponents of AB 1634.(B
(JSuch an alternative approach exists, in the form of the Model Animal(B
(JControl Act of the National Animal Interest Alliance. A link to a(B
(Jdiscussion on the NAIA website about the model act follows:(B
(Jhttp://www.naiaonlihttp://www.nahttp://www.naiaohttp:(B
(JThe DPCA recommends that you scrap the misguided, compulsory effort(B
(Jset out in AB 1634, and take your time to craft a bill that will(B
(Jreward responsibility and provide incentives for others to become(B
(Jresponsible. Such a cooperative effort can do much more than target(B
(J6% of the dogs relinquished in shelters in California, as the(B
(Jstudies show AB 1634 would target, at best.(B
(JJeffrey P. Helsdon(B
(JDelegate to the American Kennel Club Doberman Pinscher Club of(B
(JAmerica(B
(J**************************************(B
(J See what's free at http://www.aol.com.(B
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2007. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
- » [ SHOWGSD-L ] DPCA's Letter of Opposition to AB 1634
