Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 1749233)

Yes, it will definately hurt the reputable breeders who only have a few litters per year. the ones that it wont hurt are the pet stores and the mills they buy from. It probabley wont even hurt the byb'rs who are in it for the $$$$$$$. Just the reputable show/exhibitor breeders that already put every dime into this breed or their breed of choice. I understand that we need to do something about the mills and byb'rs, but mandatory spay/nueter is not the answer. Do you know how many dogs will be brought to the pound or just left out in the desert if this goes into effect??? All, of course will not be adopted and be euthanized and the ones left in the desert will die a slow dehydrated death. And, where is the $$$$$$ for the new breeder fees going to go?? How many jillions of tax $$ are they going to need to enforce this? Sorry, My Fair Lacy, I cant agree with you on this one.

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 1749233)

Yes, it will definately hurt the reputable breeders who only have a few litters per year. the ones that it wont hurt are the pet stores and the mills they buy from. It probabley wont even hurt the byb'rs who are in it for the $$$$$$$. Just the reputable show/exhibitor breeders that already put every dime into this breed or their breed of choice. I understand that we need to do something about the mills and byb'rs, but mandatory spay/nueter is not the answer. Do you know how many dogs will be brought to the pound or just left out in the desert if this goes into effect??? All, of course will not be adopted and be euthanized and the ones left in the desert will die a slow dehydrated death. And, where is the $$$$$$ for the new breeder fees going to go?? How many jillions of tax $$ are they going to need to enforce this? Sorry, My Fair Lacy, I cant agree with you on this one.

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 1749467)

I think we should "volunteer" My Fair Lacy to do all the free spay/neuter clinics!!!!! LOL :) :)

Its a shame when big government always wants to ram things down your throat. The mills wont be effected as they are not in Az and the pet stores will keep selling with no problems as they already have business licenses. The Byb'rs make so much money that it wont hurt them in the pocketbook too bad but I bet they wont like inspections!!!

Originally Posted by yorkiekist (Post 1749499)

You go girl!! You will be one of the few women vets I like!!!!!!!!!!:)

Originally Posted by Yorkieluv (Post 1749508)

Wow :) I did not realize that 75% of vet students are women. That's great!

Originally Posted by Bravo916 (Post 1723780)

Here is the website for AB 1634, what they are calling the California Healthy Pets Act. AB 1634 Official Site - California Healthy Pets Act There is actually a link on that site where you can read the actual bill they are trying to pass.

In theory it sounds really good--like it would actually put a dent in pet overpopulation, stop byb'ing, close puppymills when it really only hurts the people who are in it for the betterment of dog breeds and the actual dog breeds themselves.

They claim to have provisions for working, show, police, and dog/cats unheatlhy enough to undergo the procedure but these provisions put a huge financial strain on the people who are doing right by animals.

Let me explain, here are two different examples of the provisions they allow for unaltered permits: titled dogs (or dogs under 3yrs who are working on their titles) and any individual with a business and resale license relating to the selling of animals. These people need to pay an annual fee (which I will discuss later) for an intact animal permit on each unaltered dog they have.

"(1) The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or her
business license and , federal
and state tax number tax identification number,
California seller's permit, as required by Section 6066 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code , or by other proof, as required by
the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency,
that he or she is doing business and , if licensing is
required, is licensed as a breeder at a location for which the
local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency has
issued a breeder license."

2) The owner's cat or dog is a valid breed that is
recognized by an approved belongs to a recognized
registry or association, and complies with at least one of the
following:
(A) His or her The cat or dog is
used to show or compete and has competed in at least one legitimate
show or sporting competition hosted by, or under the approval of, a
recognized registry or association within the last two years, or by
whatever proof is required by the local jurisdiction or its
authorized local animal control agency demonstrating that
the cat or dog is being trained to show or compete and is too young
to have yet competed.
(B) The cat or 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 a recognized registry or association.

The only people I know with business licenses and California sellers permits when it comes to selling dogs are puppymills. One lady came up to me at a show with my Yorkie and asked me if it was customary for breeders to charge her tax on a puppy--I advised her to run.

The intact permits they mention are clearly stated in the bill that the price will be determined by each county. In some areas with mandatory spay/neuter laws in effect, these can be as much as $500 a dog per year.

It seems highly unfair that people that are breeding for the betterment of the breed and people who own titled dogs who dont breed but arent in the position to make such an important decision to neuter, should be decreasing the California budget deficit.

If you have ever met a small time show breeder--they carefully plan each litter--the are meticulous with the health tests, cross all of their "T's" and dot all of their "i's"--they dont jump until all is perfect. Breeding is definitely not a source of income but more of a passion with the goal of creating a dog that will go Best In Show. We need more of these people in the world. Imposing these huge annual penalties only puts an even larger financial strain on them.

From my perspective, I own a titled Doberman and have never bred him nor do I plan on it in the future--however I am not ready to neuter him just yet. I also have a Yorkie, who's sire and dam are from impeccable bloodlines, who is working on his championship. I havent bred either of my dogs and I dont have plans to as of yet. However, in order for me to remain a law abiding citizen I must purchase 2 of these permits annually which turns my passion into a financial constraint.

Puppymills on the other hand, have that kind of revenue to purchase these permits. They mass produce with no regard to what ill effects it has on the breed. Their only concern is the bottom line. In reality, theses permits are actually a tax write-off because they are a business expense. And YES puppymills do pay taxes--just ask the IRS!

BYB's will just hide their dogs, who probably arent licensed to begin with, and it will be business as usual.

I know my argument isnt air-tight but I hope you get the general gist. Believe me I am all for getting rid of BYB's and puppymills--there is nothing in the world that urkes me more. I just think this isnt the right solution--it attacks the responsible pet owners not the people whom it was intended.

By saying no to this law we are asking them to sit back down and redraft it so that it sends its message to its intended target audience: puppymills and byb's that overpopulate shelters.

Sorry for the novel. (and I didnt even touch on LA's ludicrous issue of fixing dogs and cats at 4months of age...)

Best regards,