ACOT Message Board

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:11 pm**

I'm posting this in the debate section since it involves political legislation.

OK HB 1332 Dog legislation[/color] This is really scary legislation - you would not even be able to drive through Oklahoma with your dog in the car..

It is with great sadness that I must report to you that Oklahoma HB 1332 passed
unanimously in committee.
Please, PLEASE help stop this bill from passing. If it does pass, there will be no more dog shows in OK. I cannot stress enough what a hideous bill this is.

Briefly this bill would do the following:

Prohibits an out of state breeder from transporting dogs into or through Oklahoma, which would effectively destroy dog shows, field trials and other canine events in the state. If a hobby breeder were to bring dogs to an Oklahoma event, the dogs could be confiscated and the owner would face heavy fines and penalties. (Section 2.13) (Section 3.B) (Section 3.L.1 and 2)

Gives any animal control officer, peace officer or animal cruelty investigator unrestricted access to a kennel owner's home, facilities, animals, records and property. The bill denies kennel owners constitutional right of protection from unreasonable searches and seizures, as no warrants are required. (Section 5.A)
Effectively prohibits any Oklahoma resident from buying a puppy or dog from another state, as the breeder would have to be licensed in Oklahoma. (without an OK quality assurance license, if an OK resident bought an animal outside of the state, they are breaking the law as records of purchase origin have to be with each and every animal)
and there’s more.

For full info, go to ADOA's site at --

http://www.adoa.org/index.php?option=co ... 8&Itemid=1
http://www.adoa.org/index.php?option=co ... 8&Itemid=1

This does not affect just breeders, but also rescues. It would shut down many rescue organizations and put a severe hardship on other state's rescues as they could no longer even transport a dog across Oklahoma!! The cost to implement and enforce this will be enough to break the state's budget, not to mention the impact that no more dog shows will have on some local economies. Please contact your state representatives and senators and ask them to oppose this bill!!!! Pretty please with a cherry on top!!!

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:59 pm**

I live in Missouri about an hour from Oklahoma. This certainly sounds like unreasonable legislation. How are they to know if you are transporting a breeder dog or your own pet?

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:51 pm**

What the heck are the legislators smoking in Oklahoma? :?This makes no sense.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:22 pm**

I'd have to listen to the other side of the argument before I made up my opinion. I don't know anything about the bill, but it sounds like the purpose might be to promote humane standards among breeders in OK. Again, I'know nothing about this legislation, but I would typically want to support a bill that would promote the humane treatment of animals.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:31 pm**

Exactly, Leslie.
I followed some of the links from the link posted. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that Oklahoma meets FDA standards for dog breeding. According to what I read, it is the only state that does not have breeding guidelines.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2009 7:55 pm**

I don't know the whole story, but it sounds to me like they are trying to prevent what is called "puppy mills" that use cruel and unethical means of breeding. Keep the female pregnant 24/7 without a break in between litters. As soon as she comes into heat again, she is impregnated again. Some of the puppies from these places have severe neurological damange, such as not being able to walk without falling over and other horrible things. I saw a program on TV about this one time. Also, a lot of breeding going on for dog fights. So sad. I hope the law is used to prevent cruelty to animals. Perpahs they don't plan on enforcing it for Dog Show purposes and other well intentioned dog activities. Maybe it's just so they can gain access to those who abuse the breeding industry. If you warn a sleeze bag breeder that you're coming to inspect, then they will clean up their act and hide evidence. If you just drop in unexpected, then maybe some of the bad guys will get caught. I too love dogs and all animals, so I hope all works out well for the folks in OK. I can certainly understand your concern about this law, but maybe you can do some more research and find out extactly what the true purpose is behind the law.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:15 pm**

Actually, the state of Oklahoma does not need to do a single thing to meed FDA standards. The USDA directly issues the kennel liscenses to the commercial kennels. Furthermore, if that is the case then why does the bill state that a liscense will NOT be granted to anyone who has or has ever had a USDA kennel liscense (Section 3.F.1)? That puts all the existing liscensed kennels out of business! What this bill calls for is much more extreme than what the USDA requires. It is also very vague in a lot of important areas - vague enough that requirements can be defined where nobody can meet them. There are many existing laws in Oklahoma with regards to animal cruelty that if enforced would shut down the "puppy mills."

This legislation is being pushed by the Humane Society of the United States. Once upon a time HSUS was a respectable organization. Unfortunetly it got taken over by the vegan and animal rights extremists who wish to end all animal ownership and consumption. This is an attempt to legislate dog breeders out of existance in the state and to stop out of state breeders from selling dogs there. It is being marketed that it is for the dogs benefit and to stop puppy mills, but it does much more and is total overkill. Why is there the need the trample on somebody's constitutional rights if it is so legit? How are they going to know if you are on vacation with your own dog or transporting a breeder's dog? Why are they so eager to automatically seize the dog when the documentation is not available? Why would out of state breeders or rescue organizations need an Okahoma liscense to just transport dogs across the state to another state? The answer is that they are not for the dogs; they are for getting rid of the dogs! This legislation is being pushed as for stopping puppy mills but in reality it is for stopping all breeding.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:23 pm**

AlwaysHappy wrote: I don't know the whole story, but it sounds to me like they are trying to prevent what is called "puppy mills" that use cruel and unethical means of breeding. Keep the female pregnant 24/7 without a break in between litters. As soon as she comes into heat again, she is impregnated again. Some of the puppies from these places have severe neurological damange, such as not being able to walk without falling over and other horrible things. I saw a program on TV about this one time. Also, a lot of breeding going on for dog fights. So sad. I hope the law is used to prevent cruelty to animals. Perpahs they don't plan on enforcing it for Dog Show purposes and other well intentioned dog activities. Maybe it's just so they can gain access to those who abuse the breeding industry. If you warn a sleeze bag breeder that you're coming to inspect, then they will clean up their act and hide evidence. If you just drop in unexpected, then maybe some of the bad guys will get caught. I too love dogs and all animals, so I hope all works out well for the folks in OK. I can certainly understand your concern about this law, but maybe you can do some more research and find out extactly what the true purpose is behind the law.

Actually, you cannot keep a female dog pregnant 24/7. They only cycle every 6 months, sometimes longer. Yes, puppy mills are terrible and need to be stopped, but this is not the way to do it!! I have done the research and I do know what the true purpose is. This is not the first time that this type of legislation has been introduced in a state legislature or local council. Maybe they don't intend to enforce it with regards to dog shows, but with the minimum fine of $2500 they could descend upon a dog show and make big $$$!!! Sure would be a tempting way to try and balance the state budget. And since they would also sieze your dog, I wouldn't risk going to a dog show in Oklahoma (and yes, I have gone there for dog shows before). If they don't intend to enforce it, why are they putting it in the law in the first place? This is the typical anti dog legislation being marketed and promoted as for the benefit of the dogs and to stop puppy mills.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:46 pm**

AnnOminous wrote: This legislation is being pushed as for stopping puppy mills but in reality it is for stopping all breeding.

I actually hold what some people would consider an extremist opinion on the issue of animal bredding. I don't think stopping all breeding would be such a bad thing. As everyone knows, way too many dogs and cats are being put to sleep in shelters because there aren't enough people to adopt them. Maybe we should focus on getting those animals homes and spaying and neutering animals before we focus on breeding more dogs and cats.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:47 pm**

Here is the AKC's position on this bill:

From: AKC's Government Relations Department <mba@...>
To: Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 2:04:03 PM
Subject: URGENT: Oklahoma Measure Would Restrict Movement of Breeders and Allow
for Unreasonable Search and S

URGENT: Oklahoma Measure Would Restrict Movement of Breeders and Allow for Unreasonable Search and Seizure

The AKC is extremely concerned about provisions in Oklahoma House Bill 1332, as written, and urges all Oklahoma dog fanciers, owners and breeders to contact their representatives to express their concerns.

The AKC promotes responsible dog ownership, responsible breeding practices, enforcement of cruelty laws, reasonable inspection programs and nuisance regulations. However, HB 1332 does not improve the welfare of animals and would punish fanciers, breeders and responsible owners who participate in dog sports and/or breed in Oklahoma.

The AKC is disappointed that although the bill's sponsor agreed to address concerns about this measure voiced by the AKC and its federation prior to bringing the measure to the floor, these discussions have not yet taken place.

Provisions of HB 1332 would:
* Duplicate existing federal laws and also require that anyone who is a breeder, person, firm, corporation or other association that qualifies and is certified as a breeder, dealer, animal rescue, out-of-state dealer/breeder,
shelter, or retail pet store that sells, gives away, or transfers a cumulative total of 25 or more animals of any age in any one (1) calendar be subject to licensure and inspections that mirror USDA standards. This includes all animal
rescue organizations that utilize foster homes if they transfer more than 25 animals per calendar year, but excludes all shelters.

* Stipulate that out of state breeders cannot transport animals in Oklahoma without a state license. Although substitute bill provisions allow for the exclusion of those who participate in dog shows and field trials, it does not
cover those who travel into Oklahoma for other dog-related events such as training sessions, matches, hunting activities and public education events that are not classified as a dog show or field event.

* Require the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture to develop and implement regulations pertaining to this bill, but does not guarantee public input or representation from stakeholders. Experts and responsible breeders should be
consulted in the development and implementation of such regulations.

* Provide for warrantless search and seizure by poorly-defined enforcement personnel. The measure states, "Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry personnel and agents shall have the right to enter the premises of an individual or facility and conduct inspections." The bill language does not define an "individual". This appears to leave the door open for those that do not qualify to be subjected to unwarranted searches and seizures. The legislation should state specifically that inspections/searches pertain to only those that are applicants and/or licensees.

* Provide no element for public education or consumer protection and attaches all the responsibility to breeders. It provides no incentives for those who follow ethical guidelines established by parent breed clubs, or obtain health
and genetic testing to ensure consumers have healthy quality family pets. Responsible breeders follow ethics guidelines and existing federal laws. Rather than to bring substandard kennels up to par, HB 1332 will cause them to hide from regulators, making identification and enforcement nearly impossible. HB 1332 continues to impose punitive measures that duplicate federal efforts.

This bill will have a negative impact on responsible breeders with valid USDA licenses, those that visit Oklahoma for recreation and legitimate organizations that provide a valuable rescue services to animals.

The AKC and its federation encourage animal advocates to look for solutions to community pet issues. However, HB 1332 as amended cannot solve the issues of producing healthy pets for consumers and eliminating substandard breeding practices.

What You Can Do:

* Contact your representative in the Oklahoma General Assembly and ask him or
her to oppose HB 1332. To find out who represents you in the Oklahoma State
Legislature select the address tab found at this link.
http://www.okhouse.gov/Members/MemberListing.aspx

* For a sample letter to personalize, please see attached document.

* For more information and tips on contacting your representative, please view
the following AKC publications:

Disagree Diplomatically, (http://www.akc.org/pdfs/GILEG2.pdf )
Make Your Contact Count (http://www.akc.org/pdfs/GILEG3.pdf ) ,
Preparing For Action (http://www.akc.org/pdfs/GILEG3.pdf )

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:02 pm**

Leslie I agree that your view is extremist. All of my cats and dogs are spayed and neutured, this is something we always do and all of our furbabies - with the exception of my very first pet when I was first married - have come from shelters or have been abandoned on our land up here in Hooterville.

However, there are always going to be those who appreciate and want pure bred dogs, cats and horses. It's been that way as far back in history as we have had a written language.

What is needed is a harmonious balance between those of us who want less breeding and those who do it for less than reputable purposes and puppy mills.

From a political standpoint this is bad legislation regardless of which side you're on because of the wording. It will be challenged in court either way.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:04 pm**

lilkoala3 wrote:
AnnOminous wrote: This legislation is being pushed as for stopping puppy mills but in reality it is for stopping all breeding.
I actually hold a very extremist opinion on the issue of animal bredding. I don't think stopping all breeding would be such a bad thing. As everyone knows, way too many dogs and cats are being put to sleep in shelters because there aren't enough people to adopt them. Maybe we should focus on getting those animals homes and spaying and neutering animals before we focus on breeding more dogs and cats.

I have to disagree. First of all, with your statement that "way too many dogs and cats are being put to sleep in shelters because there aren't enough people to adopt them." The majority of cats that are put down are feral cats that are too wild to be adopted. This also holds for a good many dogs. In many areas of the US, the demand for dogs to adopt from shelters is larger than the supply of dogs on hand. Many shelters in Southern California and the southwest have brought in stray dogs captured from the streets of Mexico to be adopted. In fact, Caesar Milano, The Dog Whisperer, has a foundation that has paid for over 500 Mexican stray dogs to be brought into this country and adopted. In the Northeast US, stray dogs are being brought in from Puerto Rico. If the US is going to have to adopt the world's stray dogs, it will never end. Why these people can't use that money to bring in dogs from states with overcrowded shelters like North Carolina is something I don't understand!

More and more people are spaying their dogs and cats. Euthanasia rates are only 10% nowadays of what they were 20 years ago. The big exception is the places that have passed mandatory spay/neuter legislation. For example, four months after the passing of the Los Angeles mandatory spay/neuter legislation their euthanasia rate had quadrupled, their shelters were overflowing and their animal control was bankrupt. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/20 ... e-animal20

Dogs and cats do not come from the cabbage patch, not even those in shelters. All dogs are bred by either somebody or God. If breeding by people is forced to stop until all the shelter dogs are adopted, then basically in 7 years there will be no more dogs left in the country to be bred. Yes, it will happen that quick. Since strays from the rest of the world continue to be brought into US shelters to be adopted, the goal of all shelter dogs being adopted will never be met. The purebred dog will be extinct. Your choice of what kind of dog you will be allowed to own is taken away from you. If you are even lucky enough to be allowed to have a dog, it will be a stray from some third world county.

I don't like dogs being killed in shelters. But stopping all dog breeding is NOT the way to stop shelter euthanasia. It is only the way to make the domestic dog in general and specifically the pure bred dog extinct!!

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:54 pm**

Ann said: I have to disagree.  First of all, with your statement that "way too
many dogs and cats are being put to sleep in shelters because there aren't
enough people to adopt them." The majority of cats that are put down
are feral cats that are too wild to be adopted. This also holds for a
good many dogs.

Leslie argues: This is from Wikipedia:“According to the American Humane Association, an
estimated 9.6 million animals are euthanized in the United States every year. Out of
1,000 shelters responding to a survey, 2.7 million of 5.3 million animals or
64% were euthanized. 56% of dogs and 71% of cats that enter shelters were
euthanized. 15% of dogs and 2% of cats were reunited with their owners; 25% of
dogs and 24% of cats were adopted.”

I don’t think anyone would debate that that’s a huge number of animals being
killed.

Now, even if your assertion that “a majority” of cats that are put down are
feral is true (Do you have any data for this?), based on the data above, that
still means that there are a lot of non-feral cats being killed also! In other words, I argue that shelters kill an
extremely large number of adoptable animals.

Ann said: In many areas of the US, the demand for dogs to adopt
from shelters is larger than the supply of dogs on hand.

Leslie argues: Do you have data on
this? I don’t, but I would assume that
this is an extremely rare case. How
about we ask the women on this board:
Have you ever walked into a shelter and been told that there aren’t any
dogs for you to adopt? I’ve walked into
a number of adoption drives at Petcos in many areas of the country, such as
Philly, Texas, and California, and they’ve all been packed with
kitties and doggies looking for good homes.

Anne said: Many shelters in Southern California and the
southwest have brought in stray dogs captured from the streets of Mexico to be
adopted.  In fact, Caesar Milano, The Dog Whisperer, has a
foundation that has paid for over 500 Mexican stray dogs to be brought into
this country and adopted. In the Northeast US, stray dogs are being
brought in from Puerto Rico.  If the
US
is going to have to adopt the world's stray dogs, it will never end. Why
these people can't use that money to bring in dogs from states with overcrowded
shelters like North Carolina
is something I don't understand!

Leslie argues: Well, 500 dogs isn’t going to make the problem that much worse when you look at the
millions we’re killing. Do you have data on how many dogs are brought into the U.S. from other countries? I doubt it’s a large number. Either way, it makes no difference to my argument.

Ann said: More and more people are spaying their dogs and cats. Euthanasia rates are only 10% nowadays
of what they were 20 years ago.

Leslie argues: I believe this statistic to be irrelevant. I don’t care that we’re
putting fewer animals to sleep. I care that we are STILL putting a large number of animals to sleep.

Ann said: The big exception is the places that have passed mandatory spay/neuter
legislation. For example, four months after the passing of
the Los Angeles
mandatory spay/neuter legislation their euthanasia rate had quadrupled, their
shelters were overflowing and their animal control was
bankrupt.   http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/20 ... e-animal20

Leslie argues: I don’t understand your point. Are you saying
concluding that mandatory spay/neuter legislation somehow has something to do
with the euthanasia rate increasing in these areas? If that is indeed what you are arguing, you
should understand the golden rule for social science research: Correlation does
not equal causation. In other words,
just because two changes occur in the environment simultaneously, does not mean
that they are in any way related.
Logically speaking, it is HIGHLY unlikely that euthanasia rates would
increase as a result of mediatory spaying and neutering. Do you have any speculation as to why this
would happen?   There is something called
a history effect in science that I will further explain if need be, but I’m
kind of getting sick of typing already.
Let me know if you want me to explain.

Ann said: If breeding by people is forced to stop until all the shelter
dogs are adopted, then basically in 7 years there will be no more dogs left in
the country to be bred. Yes, it will happen that quick.

Leslie: How do you know? Can you provide us with data?

Anne said: Since strays from the rest of the world continue to be brought into US shelters to be
adopted, the goal of all shelter dogs being adopted will never be met.

Leslie argues: I doubt that the number of dogs being brought
into the US is substantial, but even if it is, your statement directly contradicts your
previous statement. You seem to be
saying both that there are too many dogs to adopt because of those coming from
outside countries AND that we will somehow run out of dogs IF they are all
adopted.

Ann says: The purebred dog will be extinct. Your
choice of what kind of dog you will be allowed to own is taken away from
you. If you are even lucky enough to be allowed to have a dog, it will be
a stray from some third world county.

Leslie says: I have
no problem with this whatsoever. To be
honest, I’ve always seen animal breeding as modern-day puppy eugenics where we
engineer animals to look a certain way.
I have met many an adopted mutt, and they may not look “cute,” but they
are great companions. I guess I could
understand a person choosing a dog based on their breed, but it seems to me
that this concern should come second to the welfare of dogs in general. This part is strictly my opinion, based on how
I’ve been raised, my time spent working for animal shelters, and my morals and
values. I’m not arguing facts with this
one point, I’m arguing my view.

And I don’t understand your concern about strays from
third world countries. I’ve traveled to
many a third world country, and there were so many animals roaming around
half-starved that were still the sweetest creatures you would ever meet. Do you
think animals from the U.S.
are somehow better than animals from third world countries?

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:02 pm**

I should also note that in my search for statistics on animal euthanasia, I've found that the data I provided above on the number of animals being killed seems conservative.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:09 pm**

Themom wrote:However, there are always going to be those who appreciate and want pure bred dogs, cats and horses. It's been that way as far back in history as we have had a written language.

I always find myself disconcerted with arguments like this. You see, women were denied rights (and some would say still are) since we had written language also. Slavery was around for quite awhile also. Just because we have been doing something for a long time doesn't make it logical, morally correct, good, acceptable, etc... And no one can see into the future. I'm sure Mr. 1850 Slaveholder was saying, "There are always going to be those people that need to be forced into working for white people because white people are better. Plus, people have had slaves since the beginning of history!"

Now, I'm sure you're going to say that comparing slavery to animal breeding is like comparing apples and oranges. Sure, I would say slavery is MUCH worse than animal breeding, but I used it as a good example to show that we should continuously question our own behavior, morals, values, and beliefs.

Posted: **Tue Feb 17, 2009 10:59 pm**

Actually Leslie, where to begin.....

First of all, the number euthanized each year used to 20 million. The American Humane Association is another one of the animal rights groups that wish to see an end to keeping pets and eating or wearing animal products. Their statistics are not reliable. In all honesty, there are no reliable euthanasia rates available from anyone because the record keeping is not uniform.

The data on the feral cats comes from the Cat Fanciers of America. I can't say offhand where they got it from, but according to what data is available, it is very rare for a CFA registered purebred to wind up in a shelter. They are a very small part of the cat population.

As far as the data on the empty shelters, yes, there is documentation on it available on many of the anti-legislation sites. And yes, strays are being brought in from other countries at a large enough rate to make a difference. Caesar is just a drop in the bucket. There have even been a few rabies scares from these foreign dogs.

As far as the shelter and euthanasia rates going up after mandatory spay/neuter is passed, this is most definitely cause and effect. It has happened in every single city that has enacted such legislation. That is not coincidence. The forclosure crisis started in Los Angeles a good year before their ordinance was passed. Even with the dogs turned in or abandoned due to forclosure Los Angles' shelter rates had dropped in the previous year. These laws aren't that new. They had been passed in other cities long before the mortgage crisis even started. One city even repealed their law because it cost them so much. The reason is that there are a lot of people who don't love their dog as much as the stereotype says they do. Most people when told to pay $500 say "take my dog" instead.

As far as 7 years of a breeding ban stopping all breeding forever, here is why: there is limit as to how long a female dog can be bred. They do go through a form of menopause at around 8 years old. If you stop all breeding, then there are not any new puppies being born. After 7 years all you have are senior dogs. While the males could still do it, you do not have any females that are young enough to have puppies. Yes, there would probably be some illegally bred dogs, but that would not be a large enough population for genetic vitality, especially since there probably has not been any screening for heriditary diseases done with the illegal breedings. It's simple. You don't breed at all, you go extinct. Since just about every single shelter spay/neuters all dogs before they leave, yes, we will eventually run out of dogs.

Purebred dog breeding is not "modern-day puppy eugenics". It's "old fashioned been going on for centuries" eugenics. Modern-day eugenics is actually old fashioned animal breeding applied to humans. It doesn't work. Humans don't breed, we procreate. There is way more to purebred dog breeding than just looks. There is personality, working ability and most importantly health. In most breeds "the look" is because of the desired working ability. Yes, there are plenty of mutts who make wonderful pets. That is due to the wonderful nature of dogs in general. Unfortunetly, groups such as HSUS and PeTA do not see the wonderfullness of having a pet dog. They want it to end, and they exploit people's concern for animal welfare to acheive this.

Posted: **Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:19 am**

Wow you ladies have done your research. I don't know that much about the laws or how they work, but I'm for the dogs and I love them, as well as all animals. I do feel that if someone wants a pure bread dog, then they should be able to have one if obtained from a humane breeder. I do know that each breed has it's own unique personality traits, which gives the owner some insight as to what dog will be best for them and their life style. We have a little rat terrier, who is the light of our life. When we got her, we knew how big she would grow and knew some of her traits we could expect. Although I do love all dogs even if they are not pure bread. A younger couple might enjoy the overbounding energy of a Blue Healer or a Border Collie. We are an older couple, so our little terrier fits us just perfect. We wanted a little house dog and she likes to curl up on the couch as close to one of us as she can get. At night she likes to crawl up under the bed covers all the way down at the foot of the bed. She's my spoiled baby.

Posted: **Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:27 am**

Ann said: Actually Leslie, where to begin.....

Leslie says: I think it’s better to debate points one at a
time, so if you can, I think it would be less confusing if you stated my
argument and then contested it afterward.

Ann said: First of all, the number euthanized each year used to 20
million.

Leslie says: I still don’t see your point, as I mentioned
above. Although the number has indeed
decreased (I haven’t seen data, but this makes complete sense to me), the
number of animals killed is still a large amount. If you don’t like the Humane Association, you
can go to other websites.

Ann said: The American Humane Association is another one of the animal rights groups that
wish to see an end to keeping pets and eating or wearing animal products.
Their statistics are not reliable. In all honesty, there are no reliable
euthanasia rates available from anyone because the record keeping is not
uniform.

Leslie says: First of all, I have looked at the American
Humane Society, and there doesn’t seem to be anything about a position against
keeping animals as pets. Here is a link to their position statements. http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/ ... tatements/.
Also, I don’t see anything about them being against wearing animal products.
However, being against wearing furs and leather is a pretty mainstream
view in America. I don’t think I’ve ever met a person that
owned furs! Maybe leather, but most people argue that animals are killed for meat anyway so it’s acceptable.

Ann said: The data on the feral cats comes from the Cat Fanciers of
America. I can't say offhand where they got it from, but according to
what data is available, it is very rare for a CFA registered purebred to wind
up in a shelter. They are a very small part of the cat population.

Leslie says: I’m confused. Are you defining “feral cats”
as those that are not CFA registered? Because that isn’t the definition of “feral.” Just because a cat is not CFA does not make
it unadoptable or “feral.”

Ann says: As far as the data on the empty shelters, yes, there is documentation
on it available on many of the anti-legislation sites. And yes, strays
are being brought in from other countries at a large enough rate to make a
difference. Caesar is just a drop in the bucket. There have even
been a few rabies scares from these foreign dogs.

Leslie says: I find it contradictory that you take issue with my Humane Society data but you site
anti-legislation sites as a source of your information. Are you saying that anti-legislation sites do
not have a political bias? It’s a tautology. Anti-legislation sites, by definition, have
an agenda.

Anne said: As far as the shelter and euthanasia rates going up after mandatory
spay/neuter is passed, this is most definitely cause and effect. It has
happened in every single city that has enacted such legislation. That is
not coincidence. The forclosure crisis started in Los Angeles a good year before their
ordinance was passed. Even with the dogs turned in or abandoned due to
forclosure Los Angles' shelter rates had dropped in the previous year.
These laws aren't that new. They had been passed in other cities long
before the mortgage crisis even started. One city even repealed their law
because it cost them so much. The reason is that there are a lot of
people who don't love their dog as much as the stereotype says they do.
Most people when told to pay $500 say "take my dog" instead.

Leslie says: First, even if there is a direct causal link, your argument is one against mandatory
spaying/neutering laws, NOT against the prohibition of breeding, so I would
argue somewhat irrelevant to the debate.
Furthermore, I would argue that if the price of fixing dogs were
reduced, you would not have seen the trend.
Hence, you’re argument, if valid, would be against high-priced spaying
and neutering rather than the legislation itself. My argument still stands. Second, often, when people see 2 variables
vary together, they say, “X caused Y!”
But that is not necessarily the case.
There could be external variables (also called 3rd variables)
in the environment that could have caused the relationship to be observed. To give a silly example, perhaps the price of
dog food increased to 30 bucks a bag.
People then started giving up their dogs to be euthanized because they
could not afford it. And this increase
in dog food prices occurred at the same time as the legislation. In this example, it was the dog food that
caused the increase in euthanasia, not the legislation.

Ann said: If you stop all breeding, then there are not any new puppies being
born. After 7 years all you have are senior dogs. While the males
could still do it, you do not have any females that are young enough to have
puppies. Yes, there would probably be some illegally bred dogs, but that
would not be a large enough population for genetic vitality, especially since
there probably has not been any screening for heriditary diseases done with the
illegal breedings. It's simple. You don't breed at all, you go
extinct. Since just about every single shelter spay/neuters all dogs
before they leave, yes, we will eventually run out of dogs.

Leslie says: First of
all, your assumption is that the US would somehow “run out” of dogs if we forbid for-profit breeding. There
will always be plenty of dogs on the street and irresponsible people that don’t
fix there dogs for this to ever happen. You seem to assume that professional breeding is the only way for dogs
to reproduce. Anyone that has ever had a litter of puppies at home knows that this is not the case. Also, you say that dogs will go “extinct.” Sure, certain breeds may go away for good,
but the dog species will not!

Ann said: Purebred dog breeding is not "modern-day puppy
eugenics". It's "old fashioned been going on for
centuries" eugenics.

Leslie said: See my
comment on themom’s comment. Just
because we do something for centuries is no reason to continue doing it.

Ann said: There is
way more to purebred dog breeding than just looks. There is personality,
working ability and most importantly health. In most breeds "the
look" is because of the desired working ability.

Leslie said: I always
think it’s strange when people say they breed dogs for “working ability.” How many people choose a dog based on “working
ability?” I don’t want a hunting dog or a dog to find truffles in dirt for me – I want a pet. And that’s what most people want. Also, many pure-bred animals have health issues directly related to how they’ve been bred to look. For instance, I know that Boston terriers have trouble breathing
because they have been bred so that they have a squished nose. And I know lots of breeds, like cavaliers,
have health problems specific to the breed that would probably go away if they
were bred with other breeds. In general,
mixed breed dogs live longer and are healthier than pure bred dogs. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_pure_bred_ ... etter_pets

Posted: **Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:02 am**

lilkoala3 wrote:

Ann said: Actually Leslie, where to begin.....

Leslie says: I think it’s better to debate points one at a
time, so if you can, I think it would be less confusing if you stated my
argument and then contested it afterward.

Ann now says: Actually, I find all the crap that showed up at the beginning of your post confusing and a good reason not to do it this way. Furthermore, doing it this way is overloading the system and slowing it down. It can't keep up with my typing - and I'm not a fast typist either, nor a good one, so please excuse all the typos because Leslie wants it this way.

Ann said: First of all, the number euthanized each year used to 20
million.

Leslie says: I still don’t see your point, as I mentioned
above. Although the number has indeed
decreased (I haven’t seen data, but this makes complete sense to me), the
number of animals killed is still a large amount. If you don’t like the Humane Association, you
can go to other websites.

Ann noiw says: the point is that the number is radically going down. Slowly but surely people are spaying/neutering their pets and accidental litters are not happening anywhere near as often. What has been done is working. It is just taking time. It needs more time, which the animal rights radicals do not want to give it. TSince what they really want is to end all pet and service animals, theyprey on peoples emotions about the dogs and cats that are being killed and hide their true motive.

Ann said: The
American Humane Association is another one of the animal rights groups that
wish to see an end to keeping pets and eating or wearing animal products.
Their statistics are not reliable. In all honesty, there are no reliable
euthanasia rates available from anyone because the record keeping is not
uniform.

Leslie says: First of all, I have looked at the American
Humane Society, and there doesn’t seem to be anything about a position against
keeping animals as pets. Here is a link
to their position statements. http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/ ... tatements/.
Also, I don’t see anything about them
being against wearing animal products.
However, being against wearing furs and leather is a pretty mainstream
view in America. I don’t think I’ve ever met a person that
owned furs! Maybe leather, but most
people argue that animals are killed for meat anyway so it’s acceptable

Ann now says: The American Humane Society is actively supporting mandatory spay/neuter laws, which is why I consider them to be an animal rights group. They are totally incorrect in their statement that reseacrch shows no long term adverse effects from early spay/neuter. Three very common problems from prepubresenct spay/neuter which they advocate are (1) bone cancer (2) incontinece and (3) agression.

Ann said: The data on the feral cats comes from the Cat Fanciers of
America. I can't say offhand where they got it from, but according to
what data is available, it is very rare for a CFA registered purebred to wind
up in a shelter. They are a very small part of the cat population.

Leslie says: I’m
confused. Are you defining “feral cats”
as those that are not CFA registered?
Because that isn’t the definition of “feral.” Just because a cat is not CFA does not make
it unadoptable or “feral.”

No, I'm not saying that at all. There are a whold lot of cats that are not feral and are not CFA registered. What I am saying is that CFA registered pure bred cats are a small minority of the cat population.

Ann says: As far as the data on the empty shelters, yes, there is documentation
on it available on many of the anti-legislation sites. And yes, strays
are being brought in from other countries at a large enough rate to make a
difference. Caesar is just a drop in the bucket. There have even
been a few rabies scares from these foreign dogs.

Leslie says: I find
it contradictory that you take issue with my Humane Society data but you site
anti-legislation sites as a source of your information. Are you saying that anti-legislation sites do
not have a political bias? It’s a tautology. Anti-legislation sites, by definition, have
an agenda.

Euthanasia rates are public information filed with the county clerk's office in most places. The anti-legislation sites are merely reporting that data. You can call the county clerk's office and get the data yourself. In fact, why don't you call and get the euthanasia rates for the one single shelter that PeTA runs with all the billions of dollars that they take in in donations.? It has a 90% eithanasia rate!! go see the webiste www.petakillsanimals.com I would tell you to go get the numbers for HSUS's shelter(s), but they don't have a single shelter at all!!!

Anne said: As far as the shelter and euthanasia rates going up after mandatory
spay/neuter is passed, this is most definitely cause and effect. It has
happened in every single city that has enacted such legislation. That is
not coincidence. The forclosure crisis started in Los Angeles a good year before their
ordinance was passed. Even with the dogs turned in or abandoned due to
forclosure Los Angles' shelter rates had dropped in the previous year.
These laws aren't that new. They had been passed in other cities long
before the mortgage crisis even started. One city even repealed their law
because it cost them so much. The reason is that there are a lot of
people who don't love their dog as much as the stereotype says they do.
Most people when told to pay $500 say "take my dog" instead.

Leslie says: First,
even if there is a direct causal link, your argument is one against mandatory
spaying/neutering laws, NOT against the prohibition of breeding, so I would
argue somewhat irrelevant to the debate.
Furthermore, I would argue that if the price of fixing dogs were
reduced, you would not have seen the trend.
Hence, you’re argument, if valid, would be against high-priced spaying
and neutering rather than the legislation itself. My argument still stands. Second, often, when people see 2 variables
vary together, they say, “X caused Y!”
But that is not necessarily the case.
There could be external variables (also called 3rd variables)
in the environment that could have caused the relationship to be observed. To give a silly example, perhaps the price of
dog food increased to 30 bucks a bag.
People then started giving up their dogs to be euthanized because they
could not afford it. And this increase
in dog food prices occurred at the same time as the legislation. In this example, it was the dog food that
caused the increase in euthanasia, not the legislation.

Ann now says: You are ignring the facts to suit yourself. The only thing that did changein the enviroment was the legislations. Even hen the forclosures started happening the numbers were still going down. Yes, the phigh price of the surgery in LA is a factor.l People can't afford to pay for the suregery and the $500 fine, so they turn in their dog. People are never given the option to have their dog fixed for free and given back to them.

Ann said: If you stop all breeding, then there are not any new puppies being
born. After 7 years all you have are senior dogs. While the males
could still do it, you do not have any females that are young enough to have
puppies. Yes, there would probably be some illegally bred dogs, but that
would not be a large enough population for genetic vitality, especially since
there probably has not been any screening for heriditary diseases done with the
illegal breedings. It's simple. You don't breed at all, you go
extinct. Since just about every single shelter spay/neuters all dogs
before they leave, yes, we will eventually run out of dogs.

Leslie says: First of
all, your assumption is that the US would somehow “run out” of dogs
if we forbid for-profit breeding. There
will always be plenty of dogs on the street and irresponsible people that don’t
fix there dogs for this to ever happen.
You seem to assume that professional breeding is the only way for dogs
to reproduce. Anyone that has ever had a
litter of puppies at home knows that this is not the case. Also, you say that dogs will go “extinct.” Sure, certain breeds may go away for good,
but the dog species will not!

Ann now says: So you are basically admitting that banning breeding will not stop the irresponsible breeders or the accidental breedings or sferal dogs breeding . That means dogs will still be in shelters. Ands since feral dogs do not make any better house pets than feral cats, dogs will still be euthanized in shelters. Therefore this legislation is doomed to fail by your own admission. It only punishes the responsible pure bred dog breeders.

Ann said: Purebred dog breeding is not "modern-day puppy
eugenics". It's "old fashioned been going on for
centuries" eugenics.

Leslie said: See my
comment on themom’s comment. Just
because we do something for centuries is no reason to continue doing it.

Ann now says: and just because we do something for centuries is not a reason to stoip it either. Killing people has been considered wwrong for at least 3 thousand years since the Old Testamet with "Though shall not kill" was written. Should that way of thinking be stopped?

Ann said: There is
way more to purebred dog breeding than just looks. There is personality,
working ability and most importantly health. In most breeds "the
look" is because of the desired working ability.

Leslie said: I always
think it’s strange when people say they breed dogs for “working ability.” How many people choose a dog based on “working
ability?” I don’t want a hunting dog or
a dog to find truffles in dirt for me – I want a pet. And that’s what most people want. Also, many pure-bred animals have health
issues directly related to how they’ve been bred to look. For instance, I know that Boston terriers have trouble breathing
because they have been bred so that they have a squished nose. And I know lots of breeds, like cavaliers,
have health problems specific to the breed that would probably go away if they
were bred with other breeds. In general,
mixed breed dogs live longer and are healthier than pure bred dogs. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_pure_bred_ ... etter_pets

Ann now says: Quite a good bit of the breeding of pure bred dogs is to be p[ets and for qulities that make them good pets. It is totally false to say that mixed breed dogs live longer and are healthioer than pure breds. That is a myth that keeps on gettingspread. The sad fact is that you see the purebred in the vet's office because its owner is usually more willing to spend money on prolonging its life. I have some other data on this that I will post in another post because quite frankly I find this way of doing things toatlly crappy

Posted: **Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:06 am**

Thank you Libbye Miller DVM for stating:

"Adorable mixed breeds" get cancer, epilepsy, allergies, heart
disease, and orthopedic problems just like purebreds. I see it every
day in my veterinary practice but mixed breed dogs aren't tracked
like the purebreds so they have a reputation as "healthier" that is
actually undeserved in many cases."

It is so sad that a lot of folks, including young veterinarians these
days, buy into the "hybrid vigor" baloney. The vet schools have been
infiltrated by the Animal Rights Extremists, who are teaching them
this junk science in order to push their agenda.

All animals have a certain amount of genetic load, which is to say
there is absolutely no animal without some genetic problem of some
sort of another. Know anyone who wears glasses? Has allergies?
Thyroid problems? Weak knees? Flat feet? A skin condition? Arthritis?
A gap between their front teeth? These are all genetic imperfections.

No human is genetically "clean." Neither is any individual of any
species on earth. So this idea that dogs should not be bred because
they might have a genetic problem, and that breeders are
somehow "evil" for breeding them, is ridiculous. Every single
individual of every single species has at least a few genetic
conditions.

To use PeTA's logic, all breeding of all kinds (including having
human babies) should halt immediately. And to be honest, Ingrid
Newkirk (the woman who founded PeTA) does believe exactly that. She
thinks that humans should become extinct, along with dogs, cats,
etc. This ridiculous scenario is precisely what she would like to
see happen.

So folks, if that is what you want...if you agree with Ingrid
Newkirk's whacky views, send your hard earned money to PeTA. They
will help to ensure you are not able to own a dog or cat or hamster
or any other pet in the future. They will see to it that you can't
eat meat or fish or eggs or any type of animal-based nutrition. They
will work to shut down places like Sea World, the zoos, etc. so you
cannot observe the many wonderful animals on the Earth. Eventually,
once they accomplish these things, they may turn their efforts to
making it illegal for humans to procreate. If you don't agree with
their extremist views, wise up and start supporting those who truly
do love, care for and enjoy interaction with other species here on
our little blue planet.

The fanciers of the breeds, those you see exhibiting their dogs at
Westminster and other dog shows, work very hard to eliminate serious
genetic conditions. They screen their breeding stock with every
available test. They research pedigrees before breeding into other
lines, to check for similar clearances in those animals. They
contribute money to research organizations to further the work being
done to track down genetic problems. They contribute blood, cell
samples, etc. from their own animals to help with DNA and genome
studies. They have made great progress so far, and they continue to
work hard at it.

Are there unethical breeders? Certainly, there are. Just as in any
group of humans, you will find the good and the bad. United States VP
Elect Joe Biden, for example, managed to find a not so good one when
he got his new German Shepherd puppy. I don't know who did his
research for him, but they obviously didn't do their homework if
they were looking for a responsible breeder. Joe has the right to
get his dog from whomever he wishes, but if he was trying to set an
example of purchasing from a responsible hobby breeder he went off
the track this time. That's too bad, but it was his choice.

Unfortunately, breeders like that may be a lot easier to find because
of their high volume and high profile. If you are looking for a nice
family pet from a breeder who will be there for you forever, you need
to do due diligence. You won't get that from a pet store. You won't
get that from the guy selling dogs out of his pickup truck in the
WalMart parking lot. You won't get that support from a high-volume
breeder, either. Yes, it takes a little more time and effort to find
someone who really cares and does all the work to breed the
healthiest, happiest puppies possible and then stands behind those
puppies.

This is a living being that will be part of your family, hopefully,
for many years. Isn't it worth a bit of effort to find a breeder who
will be there for you and that puppy forever?

And guess what? Shows like Westminster are a very valuable resource
for finding breeders who do care and who use the best possible
practices, as well as for learning more about the various breeds.

Bravo to USA Network for broadcasting the Westminster Kennel Club
show all these years. May they enjoy continued success through the
ongoing inclusion of such programs. I will be eagerly watching this
year's show!"

ACOT Message Board

If you live in OK and love dogs.....

If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....

Re: If you live in OK and love dogs.....