[ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: Look at it from another angle.
- From: Peggy <pmick12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: ELG440@xxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:34:50 -0400
This is a good read about how and why California is getting to be a
scarier and scarier state to live in. However, if this legislation
passes it will not be confined to California for long. People can run,
but there will be nowhere to hide for long.
Peggy
http://sandiegodog.wordpress.com/2007/04/05/owning-the-dog-or-your-choice-in-california/
The California Legislature, specifically the Assembly, is poised to
snatch from California citizens the right to own the dog of their
choice. The measure is AB1634 which is to be heard by the Business and
Professions Committee on May 10, in Sacramento. If the bill gets out of
this committee, it will have passed another hurdle toward complete
passage, and the loss of all California citizens to own the dog of their
choice.
This bill, AB1634, would mandate the spaying /neutering of all dogs over
the age of 4 months-that’s it. Period.
To appease certain groups, such as the folks who occasionally breed a
litter of hopeful show dogs and who compete in dog shows, and who belong
to dog clubs, the bill makes a provision for licensing intact dogs - for
a fee decided by their local community. There is also a litter breeding
fee described. The intact license fee would only apply to dogs
registered to an “approved registry” (also decided at a local level) and
who had competed in at least one competition sanctioned by that registry
in the past year. There is no provision made for the progeny of that dog
to be licensed as intact. So the competition stops with that dog.
Apparently all the subsequent offspring must be spayed or neutered,
leaving the owner with nothing to compete in future shows.
Dog shows are important. Independent judges give their opinions on the
quality of each dog by giving them scoring placements in shows. The
winners are considered to be breeding material by the embodiment of the
official standard for their breed. The losers are not so considered, and
are rarely bred by the owners. This is what keep Labradors looking and
acting like Labradors and is so for each and every breed.
Dog shows are important for other reasons, one being economical. A dog
show with around 1,000 entries brings about $750,000 dollars daily to
the community in which it is held. Some dog shows have about 5,000
entries, which may bring in close to $4 million a day. The communities
whioch host these shows work very hard to keep the shows in place for
the benefit of the community. An example of this is the community of
Brawley, CA. which lost the Imperial Valley Kennel Club show a few years
ago due to an inadequate show site. Several of the community service
clubs which catered breakfast and other services at the show lost most
of their annual budgets. And the surrounding communities of El Centro
and Holtville lost heavily on the motel occupancy as well as the motels
in Brawley.
Altogether the economy of dog shows goes quite far. A retired
veterinarian from the University of Michigan is deeply researching the
annual expenditure regarding dog shows in that state. When I talked with
him in early March, he had practically concluded verified figures of
close to $4 billion . California has more dog shows than Michigan,more
miles to travel to them and more people to go to them. I can easliy
imagine that a greater amount than $4 Billion is spent on this practical
sport in California.
Now, how will this bill affect the casual dog owner? First, the
competitive dog owner only breeds about 8 to 10% of the pups born in the
state, if national statistics hold true. The pet stores and the breeding
farms that service them may provide 12-14% of the puppies bought in the
state. The rest are provided by amateurs commonly called “back-yard
breeders” by the other breeders. These folks may produce one or more
litters in a lifetime. These litters are produced for a variety of
reasons-from acquainting children with mammalian reproduction and birth,
to adding a few dollars to the family income. Usually, quality of pet
does not enter into the process. But this class of breeder does create
about 74-80% of all puppies sold in the country and probably in
California, too.
The problem with this law and the “back-yard breeder” is enforcement.
How does one get such a law enforced without; 1. spying on folks, 2.
neighbor turning in neighbor, 3. hiring a gang of enforcers to trample
neighborhoods seeking intact dogs, 4. brandishing government power, 5.
making criminals out of the people who A. own a 7 year old intact female
who has never had pups but would cost around $600.00 to spay now, B. own
a 12 year old male who has never jumped a fence and bred any other dog
but would cost $200.00 to neuter now, C. the owner of a young show dog
who is too young to enter in any proper event due to health risks and
rules, but is now 4 months old. The examples could go on and on. This is
a bad law. It is too vague, it is too controlling, it is too demanding ,
and it is too unconstitutional.
Some facts about why this law has been proposed: 1. About the late
sixties and early seventies there was a huge increase in the popularity
of owning purebred dogs. Many people actively bred all the market would
buy. 2. Many people acquired these dogs without due consideration for
the consequences to themselves and the dog. 3. this was a time of
radical changes in our society, with the end of the vietnam conflict and
the economic movement of people around the country. 3. These facts and
the availability of dogs generally led to the devaluation of the pets,
which caused an oversupply of animals in local shelters nationwide. That
was then, but the workers at the shelters have never forgotten it. It
was a bad time for them, and everybody else, too.
During this time a couple of organizations made great headway. These are
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and HSUS (Humane
Society of the United States). These are animal rights organizations, a
opposed to the animal welfare organizations caring for the animals and
trying to place them in caring homes. Lately these animal rights
organizations have become very political, with HSUS spending
considerably more during the last national election that the NRA
(NAtional Rifle Association). PETA and HSUS are charitable
organizations, meaning that you can deduct contributions to the from
your taxes-and they do not pay taxes on the money you donate - just like
a church that you give money. For more on these organizations you can
access the opposing website www.activistcash.com and read a really goo
book account The Hijacking of the Humane movement available through
www.amazon.com (The book is out of print, but they probably have used
copies)
Since that awful period of time when the shelters were bursting at the
seams and the workers spent most of their time killing healthy animals
to make room for more the American response has come into full bloom.
Many dog clubs (for those purebred dog folks who show dogs) started
their own rescue organization-primarily for dogs of their chosen breed,
but many of those members have now personally adopted mixed breed dogs
which share their homes with the purebreds. Many independent rescue
organizations have also come into being. And communities have advertized
the plight of dogs everywhere. This has resulted in actual shortages of
dogs in some shelters. WHAT! shouldn’t shelters be generally devoid of
poor canine inmates looking for caring homes? Ideally, yes. But let us
not forget that the shelters are in the adopt-a-dog business just as
much as a pet shop and even more so than the occasional purebred breeder
that just wants to have the best winner in the dog show. Now what?
Some American shelters have even resorted to importing dogs from
shelters with “surpluses”. Some have even imported dogs from American
Samoa, Guam, Taiwan China, Hawaiin Islands (and this is an American
state) and resorted to smuggling dogs in from Mexico. All this is
documented and traceable.
In the meantime, those shelter people are still screaming about shelter
overpopulation and the need to control breeding. At a recent meeting on
the subject in Phoenix , Arizona, the figure of 50,000 animals annually
going through the shelters at both Animal Care and Control (government)
and Arizona Humane (Private, charitable, actual humane association as
opposed to PETA and HSUS). Then a civilian participant questioned a
previous meeting just 8 years prior where the figures given were 98,000.
This illustrated almost 50% reduction of numbers in merely 8 years. ACC
and Arizona Humane had little to say following that, but the civilian
invitees said,”Looks like we are doing something right, so why not keep
doing it?” ACC said,”No, we need more laws.”
This Arizona example actually typifies a national trend. Shelter
populations have been falling steadily at an annual rate of 5% to 11%,
depending on circumstances in each community. It is not the need to
reduce shelter populations that drives laws like the proposed AB1634.
Shelter populations are reducing and it is the volunteer work of the
rescue organizations that is doing it, not laws. In addition, the
population has educated itself regarding pet ownership, and fewer people
are acquiring pets in a turbulent employment situation, or in cases
where thay may not be able to keep it for it’s entire natural life.
However, remember I said that those two organizations had grown a lot?
Well, between them they took in over $350 million of your dollars in tax
free mode last year. And one of them outspent the NRA, remember? It is
these organizations that really push these laws of dominance over
households in California and elsewhere. Sixty-seven percent of American
households have pets. Most have dog and cat pets. It is these household
that are the targets of these organizations.
How will your household feel, if this law is passed? How will you be
affected? You have a couple of sources of information. Those will lead
you to others. But study quickly, as this thing is rolling right along.
Will you let it roll over you?
ELG440@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
>In a message dated 6/17/07 9:29:14 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
>jkerner@xxxxxxxxx writes:
>As dog breeders and exhibitors in the Sport of Pure Bred Dogs we are, as
>most of us have already noticed, under severe and constant attack by others
>who
>would deprive us of the freedom to pursue our interest by passing still more
>laws which certainly seek to prohibit and penalize us.
>
>
>
>For some reason, this morning I was thinking, (shut up Paul) of a weird
>thought. I recognize the problem of all those poor animals in shelters
>needing
>rescue. If you have ever gone to a dog shelter, it will tear out your heart
>to
>see those poor animals, cowering in fear, or just waiting to be killed, and
>put to rest. The pain they must suffer, and the fear they go through is so
>unfair to them, it is we who have caused it. Maybe not you and me, but
>certainly people who either cannot or will not care for them.
>
>Here is the thought, and it is a terrible idea.
>
>What if the AKC were to shut down, (as some want) and dog breeding as a
>sport were wiped off the earth?
>
>People would still want pets. Dogs and cats would still be enjoyed by the
>millions of compassionate humans who understand the touch and heart of an
>animal in their lives. All of them would come from those who now end up in the
>
>shelters, and the great loss of pure bred dogs would be filled by the lost and
>
>abandoned animals that everyone seems to think is such a problem.
>
>I have often suggested that people rescue a German shepherd from the
>shelter, rather than buy a puppy for $800.00. I know many who love their
>household
>animal, without reservation or papers. Is this a solution?
>
>Just a question. I am not giving you my answer yet, but before we keep on
>blasting those who complain about us breeding litters after litters, we
>should
>ask ourselves as to what degree we are at fault? Were we to no longer
>breed, where would the pets come from?
>
>
>Evan (http://www.asgardgsd.com/)
>Asgard German Shepherds
>http://www.asgardgsd.com/
>Where Type Movement and Temperament come together
>
>
>
>************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
>
>
>============================================================================
>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
>============================================================================
>
>
>
>
============================================================================
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:
