the ANSWER

Hoarding is only one of the problems.

Our society has changed from one where the average person was free to let their dog have a litter of puppies, and where most people got their pet puppy from a mother dog who was a pet, to a society where dog breeding has largely become a business.

To keep it a business, people in the business often think they have to prevent the people who buy one of their puppies from becoming dog breeders.

There are 4 laws which I believe would fix a great many of the problems in dogs, or at least open the door for those problems to be fixed:

1) FED. End the loophole that allows dog raising to be an IRS tax shelter.

2) FED. End the USDA exemption for direct sales of puppies. Sell more than 25 dogs/cats in a year, and you need a USDA license NO EXCEPTIONS. Don’t blow it like last time by adding exemptions. If the USDA can’t do the inspections, then don’t bother. Talk about a conflict of interest!

3) Local. Set a maximum number on how many adult UNFIXED cats/dogs a person can own (include co-ownerships in the total).

If you can’t get a state law for a 12 dog/cat limit, go for a 50 dog/cat limit, but don’t do nothing.

If you can’t get a city or county law for 4 UNFIXED (not neutered/not spayed, ie fertile) dogs/cats, then go for 12 or 20, or 100, but set some limit.

4) Local. Set a maximum for the number of unfixed adult dogs/cats allowed to be kept on a property. This is also to keep dog breeder from cheating by saying “Yes I have 50 cats in my garage and 75 dog in my basement but I don’t legally own them, the cats are strays, and the dog belong to friends.

In short, taking the production of pets away from puppy mills, and hand it back to pet owners.

A good breeder, who doesn’t inbreed and who ships seamen or sends her female to be bred, and who only breeds her best dogs, is only breeding her best dogs. 4 top unfixed dogs make for a better kennel,

than 40 unfixed poor show dogs with few legit wins, who produce 100 puppies a year so that the dog breeder can sort through them searching for one who is showable.

Read Full Post »

No fight in house.

Let us give thanks to the California’s Legislators, the State Lawmakers, and the Governor.

Bill #318 has passed.

This law, if used right, will really help fight illegal dog fighting.

I wrote on this in an earlier post. It is a forfeiture law – get caught dogfighting on your property = you lose your property. Then the money goes to the doggie groups that helped.

Someone smart thought this one up. Governments have been trying to find a better way to get rid of dog fighting, this one might work. (I was, and still am, for legalizing casinos so that gamblers will have a better place to play – but writing in that they have to bar all animals from their property. Handicapped assistance dogs allowed where required to be allowed, of course.)

There are more problems with dog fighting than just the dog fights themselves. It has become organized crime. And as Vick found out, it has become a federal crime.

Once you learn how, playing cards is more fun anyway.
Bill #318:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_318&sess=CUR&house=B&author=calderon

Read Full Post »

Nava 241

We all have the right to vote the way we want. Even governors.

Still, I kind of liked Nava’s bill #241, which Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed. I have been following it for months.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_241&sess=CUR&house=B&author=nava

It deals, not only with population control in dogs & cats (many cats & dogs are ‘being put to sleep’ in California shelters), but also in helping damp down the monopolizing of dog breeding by a few big puppy mills, and the deterioration of breeds by incest from most of the puppies of the next generation all coming from a small group of over-bred dogs; ditto for show cats.

The fault is mine, and yours. A governor is just a person, he can’t be expected to know everything. He’s a governor, not a leader of any avant guard movement – he is hired to work for the whole state of California, and he rightly focused on broad issues like getting enough water for the state, and managing the state’s money problems.

The pet industry is a specialized study. It is unlikely that ANY of the governors or the legislators understand it – except in the sense that they understand profit, advertising, the ways businesses run, and consumer motivations.

But the details, the things that make producing dogs different from producing furniture, are not understood by most state legislators. And that is how it probably should be, their jobs require them to focus on big state issues.

Dogs are a city problem, dogs are a county problem. But lack of the right state laws, makes for the problems in the counties and cities. And helping the counties & cities do well IS a state problem.

We, who want to fix the problems in animal populations, need to get the public and the cities & counties to understand, not to expect state law makers to understand animal issues. But it nice when places like Virginia & Louisiana have state legislators that are ahead of the game.

But I don’t push for them to try too quickly. Look what happened last year.

California’s 1634 is, IMO, the worst piece of dog legislation ever proposed.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1634&sess=PREV&house=B&author=levine

It would have given “the bad guys” a functional monopoly in California.
It would not just of made things worse, it could have made them unfixable.

How do you un-spay a dog? After you have forced someone to have their male dog castrated, how do you say: “Oops!”, we were on the wrong side, the dogs we let go un-neutered are the very ones who most need to be castrated, but we shouldn’t have made you get your dog castrated.

1634 would have caused un-fixable problems.
And it is likely that the problems would have remained un-fixable (in California) on a macro level as well.

The adding of revenue to a side that really needs an up-date but is spending it’s efforts in resisting updating, not in implementing change, would have effected the whole US.

This is why working on a local level is so important.

The problem is the national dog clubs zoom over to local governments and lean on them, trying to indoctrinate them with their propaganda.

In this case, the truth is spoken by a few voices, some soft like mine, some loud enough to be heard world wide, like Jemima Harrison’s Pedigree Dogs Exposed (on youtube in 6 parts, but you have to be over 18 to see the first part).

Terrierman speaks the truth about dog shows groups very clearly:
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/search?q=AKC

Read the above link by Terrierman – he has told the simple & obvious truth – and with good photos too. If you read the whole thing it’s like a free-to-read book. If your computer wont display that whole subject in one gulp, go to the site it’self (why should I write on subject someone else has already done so well on?) Type into the Search: AKC
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/

PS to Govenor Schwarzenegger: normal people don’t keep over 50 cats and dogs in their house, neither do responsible breeders.

You may make a copy of this post, and do anything that you want with your copy – provided that your stay within the laws of where you are at.

This post is gifted into public domain.
Permission to cross-post.
Please crosspost.

Read Full Post »

TODAY dog fighting ruling.

Read Full Post »

Today on the Supreme Court.

Today is a very important day on the Supreme Court of the USA.

Today , the court will decide if putting dog fighting videos on YouTube should be illegal –
okay, it’s a bit more involved than that, but that is the point that is most abuzz on the doggie Internet.

My take on it? First, my quick browse on it (I am NOT, repeat not, a lawyer) says that the current law only applies to a narrow ban, and only if there is some commercial aspect, but that all could change today, TODAY!, depending on the Supreme Court’s ruling.

I am all for getting dog fighting videos off the Internet, and stomping to death little animals video too, but I am also all together completely for free speech.

The Constitution of the United States, said Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of the Press (newspapers) – it didn’t mention the web.

Why do we follow the Constitution? Because the writers were Great Thinkers, not lured away by commerce or money; they were free thinkers not divided by religious viewpoints, not bound by history, but educated by history.

They wrote a great plan, for a great nation. We know that what they wrote works because here the USA is, a great powerful nation, and one of the free countries.

The Early Leaders of the USA, wrote a plan, a system of government that is still the best plan we have, and they wrote into it checks and balances because they knew that future generations would be filled with the same kinds of people that caused problems back then -selfish, greedy, power hungry, control freaks, and dangerous criminals of all types.

But they couldn’t have written about the Internet because they didn’t have it.

Some people on the web (of what I have read: most of those posting about it) are much alarmed that saying that dog fighting videos can’t be on the web, will ruin free speech.

But dog fighting is illegal – a felony in all 50 states.

There is what is called “an accessory after the fact” as well as “an accessory before the fact” – basically you might not have been the big boss, but you were part of the gang; you might not have been the worst dude there, but you been bad; you might not be the whole jacket, but you are the brassy buttons on it – or more exactly – you failed to rat on who did the crime.

Didn’t know that there was a law that says you have to rat on people?
I don’t know the exact wording, but I am told that there is.

So making a dog fighting video, or having a dog fighting video, seems to me to be against the law – unless you have reported the dog fight to the police. But I’m NOT a lawyer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/opinion/06tue2.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-turley5-2009oct05,0,2865401.story

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_646550.html

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hrs_8csElBknniLX6saFhRg8IZuQD9B5EON80

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1005/p02s01-usju.html

Read Full Post »

Forfeit your House!

There are other laws up for the Governor’s signature.

Another from Nava, which would up penalties for dog fighters – I guess it’ll get signed.

There is another bill, this one by Calderon, SB 318, which has one of the groups I read posting a lot.

It proposes that if you host illegal dogs fights on your property, then the government can take your property. There have been forfeiture laws like this before, for various crimes, but this one is for dog fighting.

Its key, is that it gives the money from the forfeitures, to humane or rescue groups, motivating those more in the know, to help solve the problem.

It could get rid of a lot of the dog fights. This law has real potential.

This is a real tide-turning bill, and it has passed the Senate and the Assembly of California, it only awaits the signature of Governor Arnold Schwarzneggar.

Why didn’t anyone think of this before?

This solves a big problem. How to motive groups to go after dog fighters, so the government doesn’t have to. It gives the money from the forfeiture to dog rescue groups who helped.

There is nothing mamly-pambly about this bill. This bill is heroic.

This bill moves and shakes. This is the kind of bill, I’d of expected if a guy had 4 balls instead of two. And it’s smart – it brings national groups like HSUS into play to do the work.

Ya know, in time, this could get really interesting.

Click the blue post title to link to the bill.

Also:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/10/houston-man-forfeits-more-than-1000-rescued-animals-.html

This link is to the case of Joselito Rivera Boado who had over 1,000 animals, mostly birds, at his house in Houston Texas. He is said to have been selling them at swap meets. the punchline here, is that he forfeited his home, to pay for the cost of the rescue. He has 30 days to become homeless.

Remember when Michael Vick payed for the care of his pit bulls? How much? Looks like a lot of bull-headed people are going to start following in his footsteps, not just to the jail, but to the withdrawl counter at the bank.

Read Full Post »

Nava AB241

I’m hoping Governor Schwarzenegger signs AB241,

It just isn’t right that the same dog breeder who has 20 unfixed dogs, makes the people who buy her puppies sign a spay/ neuter contract.

Why should 97 people never have a litter of puppies, just so 3 people’s dogs can have 100 litters?

Don’t believe that rubbish that show dog breeders say about show dogs being “better”.

Show dogs are better at winning dog shows. But most people want a pet dog.

If you are looking for a PET dog, don’t believe that rubbish that hunting dog breeders say about field bred hunting dogs being “better” – field bred hunting dogs are better at hunting, not necessarily at dog shows or as pets.

Pet dog puppies should come from inside of homes, raised with a family.

How could a person with 80 dogs that live in a concrete & chain link kennel, even know if those dogs could be housebroke if they were in a house, or if those dogs would have been good with kids, if they had been raised with kids?

The law is very generous, limiting people to “only” 50 adult dogs and cats, who are are unfixed.

You can still have more than 50 dogs and cats, but only 50 of them can be unfixed (unspayed/ un-neutered).

And the law only counts the adult dogs & cats.

And it only applies to those who use dogs for breeding or sell of puppies as pets.

And it exempts rescues.
To read it, click the blue POST title.

There’s nothing angelic about showing dogs, it just another hobby like bowling, except that bowling balls aren’t bought as pets, and don’t suffer if you neglect them.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/political_dog_law/message/34

Read Full Post »

Who Can Have a Pregnant Pet?

First: Showdogs do NOT merit an exemption to mandatory spay and neutering, nor any other law.

Because: a) WHAT IS THE BREEDING GOAL OF SHOWDOG BREEDERS?

Is a dog who wins a ribbon at a dog show, a better pet, better worker, or just better at dog shows?

The stated breeding goal of showdog breeders, interviewed both at show grounds, and in private, is to produce more showdogs, to breed more puppies who will win showdog ribbons, or to produce a line of dogs that are better winners at dog shows.

I have heard a few showdog breeders state the classic “I breed to improve the breed.” I am wary when different individuals, from different places, across years of time, quote me the exact same answer. I am even more wary when I ask them what that means and then I watch them falter for an answer that they can’t seem to be able to think of. When I ask showdog breeders, who are at dog shows, what is being improved the answer boils down to: the ability of their line of dogs to win better at dog shows.

I guess that’s self evident enough. If you choose breeding stock because they win at dog shows, you are aiming to produce dogs that are good at dog shows. The bottom line here is that show dogs are an end in themselves.

b) HOW WOULD YOU KNOW WHICH DOG WON THE RIBBON?

A dog who wins a championship without ever leaving home, by having a ringer enter the show under the newer dog’s name, is a champion is name only, he will not suddenly start producing puppies better at anything, just because his name now has a degree dishonestly added to it. In America, show dogs do NOT have to be microchipped nor tattooed. It is a honor system. An honor system with cheating might be better called a dis-honor system. You can’t really believe that you can just trust people not to cheat.

3) ARE DOG SHOWS USEFUL TO US, THAT WE ARE WILLING TO LET THEIR BREEDING BE A TAX SHELTER THAT ENABLES PEOPLE TO BUY RVs AND WRITE OFF TRAVEL EXPENSES?

Dog breeding is a known and used tax shelter. Much revenue is lost this way through the buying of big RVs, gasoline, and travel expenses. You can breed dogs fine without showing them.

Permission to cross-post.
This post is in public domain.
Please cross-post to help educate people.

Read Full Post »