A "huge propagandist group" sounds like labeling to me and I thought we were not supposed to be doing that. Groups of individuals, like individuals, are entitled to their opinions. I am not sure why supporters of the bill can hypothesize about how it is going to help cure overpopulation, but those who don't support it because of a fear of its ramifications or a belief that it will make things worse are being alarmist? I don't mean to be argumentative because I really believe there are two sides to this issue, and I can understand the motivations behind each side. I just happen to agree with one side and not the other, and took the time to explain why when asked.

Thank you, I'm really heartened by this entire post.

I don't know what the answer is regarding this bill or anything regarding possible solutions to what we all want an end to: those 3.7 million euthanized animals each year. People keep crying for more education and perhaps there is an answer in there - but I think we're educating in the wrong way. I almost think humans simply, on the most primal level, don't get animals. I'm reminded of my favorite quote by Milan Kundera:

"Mankind's true moral test, its fundamental test, consists of its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals. And in this respect mankind has suffered a fundamental debacle, a debacle so fundamental that all others stem from it."

I think until humans are educated to understand that quote above and believe it to their very core, animals will continue to suffer in ways that they shouldn't.

I'm not opposed to spay and neutering at all....BUT in all honesty with the manditory bills it's not going to solve the problem just like prohibition there will always be a way around anything. I love my animals and breed responsibly but there has to be a way to solve this problem. As the US gets bigger the animal population will grow as well....we can't stop growth unfortunately even within the animal kingdom. Education and more education is what it's gonna take not the government taking control. I abide by the laws for the most part (yes I speed against the law) but I pay for it. Unfortuately, we need to stop puppymills and byb's because I think that is the biggest problem we have if we want animals to stay safe and healthy. Unfortunately we can't stop people from turning their animals over to a shelter just like we can't stop moms or dads from turning their children over to CPS or adoption homes. There is just as many children in foster care as there are animals in shelters. I don't like to compare animals to children because I care for both and hate to see what happens to either when put in a bad situation....I also eat meat so am I to be flogged and whipped? NO but they are animals just the same. Find a way to stop puppymills and byb's and just maybe the over pet population will slow down....if the demand isn't there the supply wouldn't be there....Breed responsibly and spay and neuter pets and educate potiential pet owners and maybe something can be done. We won't all agree with each other it's the way of life unfortunately....
JMHO
And another thing if PETA had their way we wouldn't have pets or us meat eaters wouldn't be able to eat steak, pork ect....It really ticks me off when PETA makes themselves sound responsible but when they come to dog shows and turn dogs out of their protective crates to have the chance to get hurt then I have a problem....JMHO Agree or disagree but this is how I see it :)
This may be off topic alittle but all this legislation is getting out of hand and it's going to ruin all the nice healthy pets, pet owners are wanting and us responsible breeders are striving for....us small time breeders won't have the nice healthy pets you all want because I won't be able to afford over $100 to $500 for a breeding license for each breeding intact animal.....Just go look up the bill that was passed in Dallas, Texa because of the bill that was started in CA....it's going all over the US......that is why we are against it! I hope those that support these bills will be happy with less than healthy pets....Again JMHO.....

Donna Bird
Brooklynn's Yorkshire Terriers

PETA's stance on pets: About PETA >> FAQs >> Companion Animals

I'm not trying to argue :) But, in my opinion it's what they want you to believe but it's not what they practice but again that's how I interput their antics and tactics...What they write or have in writing is just that but what they do outside those words is unbelieveable....again just the way I see it :)

Donna Bird
Brooklynn's Yorkshire Terriers

I've seen dogs released from their crates at a dog show NOW if it were MY dog I'd be one pissed off owner......and I don't think I'd be the only one...I've seen it "personally" happen...in fact in Houston at Reliant it was done but the good thing the dog"s" were found and returned.

That's why I'm asking for people to read the bill for themselves and see what it says, don't take any special interest group word for it. I'm totally against any group, who believes the end justifies the means, but please don't let your beliefs about PETA, influence you on this bill. The bill would require neutering, and spaying of those dogs, and cats who have been picked up by the pound three times. Those dogs and cats are responsible for lots of unwanted pregnancies. Education is great, but some of the people involved in this just don't care enough to get educated. The whole point of my post is that there are too many special interest groups, who mislead the public, but just because you don't trust one group, please don't put all your faith in these "sporting dog" groups.

I think there is a big difference in referring to a group as propagandist as compared to labeling people as "animal rightists". I think we all know what those 2 words are generally meant to imply around here. I think me implying whatever its equivalent would be about those whom oppose the bill would be equally offensive (and not something I would ever do).

Personally, I think animal rightist should be considered a beautiful combo of words. Not every animal rightist needs to be thought of in the same way. I am not the same person as the person next to me.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one too, I think those that oppose the bill would certainly find being labeled a "propagandist group" and "alarmist" offensive.

I never labeled the entire group of people who oppose this bill as a propagandist group. Do not put words in my mouth.

I talked about one LINK behind a LINK that someone posted here - and if you clicked through to a certain page, where they list untrue facts and plenty of them - I define that page as propaganda and alarmist.

If an owner purposely lets their dog run, obviously the animal could easily go into the street. Most dogs don't understand that that isn't a good thing and they are wide open for being hit by a car. A toddler shouldn't be left outside by the road alone and animals shouldn't either. It just isn't safe. And if that happens, wouldn't it be considered neglect? Neglect is animal cruelty. So why should a person who neglects their animal like that be able to keep reclaiming it? The third strike is msn, so isn't that saying you must get your dog altered after three times because we know you are going to keep letting your dog loose? Why should they be allowed to continue to do that?

Now of course there are accidents and dog run out but it is probably easy to tell if it was done on purpose or not because there would be posters all over the neighborhood if they really cared about getting their dog back...

Well my post did not show up......

I happen to work in a shelter and forcing people to alter pets WILL NOT fix the problem!!! Those that are mistreating animals now are not going to follow this law. Millers will do what they have been doing, simply not providing any vet care to the animals they breed, there in the only people that will be affected are those that care for them properly! I do not agree with having a 4 month old yorkie (or other small breed) altered, it is dangerous. Those who allow "pets" to roam the streets and produce offspring freely will continue to do so. They simply deny ownership of the animal if anyone questions it. Those who adopt from shelter do so with the understanding that every animal is altered, I chose a different way. I do not allow my pets to roam, or come in contact with others for unwanted puppies!! Why should people who are responsible be the ones paying fines or being forced to do something they may not want to do?
As far as PETA, if they had it the way they want, none of us would have a purebred anything!! Current advertising is you just purchased a puppy from a breeder, here is the dog you just killed!!! They are also protesting at dog shows and AKC events. Now we are wrong because we wanted a certain type of pet and chose to get it?????

I did not mean to infer that you labeled "an entire group of people" anything so I am sorry if my post was confusing. I meant to point out that the group that created and supports the page you refered to would probably not appreciate being labeled as propagandists. They are no more "propagandists" than is the California Taxpayers for Safe and Healthy Pets group that was linked to earlier in this discussion (which I believe has also abandoned support for the bill which I find pretty darn funny).

How do you know that one group's facts are true and that the others' facts are not? Because of my job, I hear two sides to every story every single day. Both sides think they are correct and believe their facts are correct. It is human nature to think that the side you agree with knows the "truth" and the other side is making up phooey to support their position. I could easily say the same thing about groups like the NAIA (whose positions I generally support)-- that their facts are true facts and that organizations that support msn and permitting and licensing differentials (things I oppose) are using false information and exaggeration to convince people that these things are necessary. Personally I tend to believe that most of the facts concerning animal welfare issues probably fall somewhere inbetween where these different groups say they do.

I think this debate has disintegrated at this point so that we are not talking about AB 1634 anymore anyway. I think we can agree that everyone should actually read the law before making any decisions about whether to support it or fight it. I have my reasons for opposing it, you have your reasons for supporting it and others are free to decide for themselves.

Speaking for myself, I'm sure you are right that organization wouldn't appreciate being labeled as "propagandists", nevertheless, that site is the very definition of propaganda. Are there ANY animal rights organization they aren't vehemently against. I'd have to think long and hard to come up with one they didn't try to discredit and actually scare people with.

From the site:

The next time you think about making a donation to any of these organizations, you had better think long and hard about whether you really want your money being spent to take away your rights.
PETA
HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES
FARM SANCTUARY
FUND FOR ANIMALS
DORIS DAY ANIMAL LEAGUE
EARTH SAVE
GREENPEACE
PHYSICIANS FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE
ANIMAL LIBERATION FRONT (ALF)
FRIENDS OF ANIMALS
IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS

This isn't propaganda to you? I'd be curious to know if there are any animal rights organizations that you support. I think regardless of anyone's opinions of PETA we can all agree that protecting animals is a good thing, right? Can we agree that very good and much needed laws have been passed that concern animal welfare?

I'd also be curious how any of this has ANYTHING to do with the bill.

I agree:thumbup:

Only dogs that are picked up three times will be spayed or neutered. If they are spayed or neutered that can't get pregnant or get another pregnant so this does fix "part" of the problem. Neutered dogs are less likely to roam. In addition, dogs that are found twice by the pound are required to get a microchip so that as you say, many who deny ownership, won't be able to get away with that anymore. You say, "why should responsible people be forced to do something they may not want to do," this only applies to people who allow their dogs to run loose, would you call them responsible? It will have no effect on the average pet owner, except your yard will be kept free of stray dogs and cats eventually. It's too bad we need laws, and if everyone was responsible, educated, and honest, we wouldn't, but they aren't, and we do.

I'd also like to ask everyone who posted that education is the answer, not laws- Which organizations have worked harder than PETA to EDUCATE on this issue? Seriously, I would like to know so I can support them.

PETA Media Center > Print Ads > Companion Animals

That's a whole lot of education and that is just the print ads. Unfortunately we still have a problem

I support no organizations that support MSN, licensing differential or breeder permits. Period. If they are for those things, even if I were to agree with them on other issues, they will not have my support. It is simplistic I admit, but having been involved in fighting such things at the local level, it is a line I have drawn. On a personal level my position has caused me to stop supporting one local humane society in favor of another local humane society that does not support such legislation. Still helping homeless animals, but doing it for an organization who does not think that an unenforceable law(and our local animal control superintendent admits the proposed legislation was not enforceable) was the answer.

Speaking of propaganda, and I think PETA's position as to companion animals was posted earlier but not its position as to PUREBRED companion animals, how is this for propaganda: PETA Media Center > Factsheets > The AKC and Dog Breeders: Partners in Crime

And no, I am not saying that all people who support AB 1634 are PETA members or supporters so please don't think that is my point. I am saying that just as you might consider one group's position to be phooey, so I might think the same of another.

Yes I did read the single quote that always gets posted on every thread that mentions PETA. If you must agree with an organization 100% before supporting them then I understand you wouldn't support PETA. I agree that it is a very simplistic view, one I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable with, but we all have to make decisions on what feels right to us.

My point still stands that the attempt to educate has been made on a very large scale and has not solved the problem

Whether you like PETA or not, you have to admit that they have lost a lot of credibility with the average person. Many people seem to think any bill PETA endorses isn't a good one, and automatically look at it with distrust. This is a huge problem, and one PETA members should keep in mind. I'm don't know whether or not PETA endorses the bill, but that doesn't seem to be relevant. However, PETA's notoriety seems to be a major obstacle in getting any good animal legislation passed.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

And PETA's stance on breeding is not that propangandist - I can think of plenty of breeders with whom I disagree - they're called Puppy Mills.

Because I breed dogs and own purebred dogs that were purchased from a breeder I just have a hard time being referred to a "partner in crime," being accused of perpetuating genetic diseases and stomaching comments like "(a)s long as there are dogs dying in shelters, there is no such thing as a responsible breeder." Those things are in the PETA link I shared a few posts previously.

BUT back on topic, I am not aware of PETA being referred to as a supporter of AB 1634, at least not according to AB 1634 Official Site - California Healthy Pets Act although you have to ask them to supply the entire list of supporters for you if you want it, they just have miniturized photocopies on the site.

I understand the intent of the bill...but I really doubt much will be accomplished. It's a very irresponsible pet owner who would allow one to roam freely enough to be caught 3 times. Would an irresponsible owner even claim the animal?

In my 27 years of owning pets of my own...only one has ever gone to "prison". The fact I paid his "bail" to retrieve him flabbergasted the worker at animal control so obviously some pet owners chose to reliquish the animal rather than paying a fine.

Another question...how exactly will they determine the animal is on it's third strike? Dog mug sheets? Paw prints? You've been here before bud.

PS My dogs want you to know...it was a CAT that went to prison.

They require on their 2nd offence that they be microchiped so I quess thats how theyd know

But there is the loophole...irresponsible owners are not going to claim the animal.

Those aren't wild dogs at our shelters...they belonged to SOMEONE. No one has claimed them.

Someone's claiming them now, they just want to up the fines, and penalties. If a dog isn't claimed after so long, he is free to be adopted, and I think they may spay and neuter them than, but I'm not sure. I know all the dogs we adopted from the pound in California, were already neutered.

A long long time ago, I live in Del Rio Texas, they had parking meters, and you had to put in a dime for 15 minutes, the meters only went up to 45 minutes, and you would have occasionally leave the stores and check the meter. One time, I didn't get back in time, and the meter expired, and there was a ticket on my window. I thought my husband would kill me if he found out I got a ticket. I opened the ticket to learn the fine for an expired meter was 25 cents. That's right, it was unbelievable, and I thought all this time, I've been filling the meters, and I could have ignored them, and only had to pay twenty-five cents to park all day. However, next time, I couldn't just ignore the meter, it was the law, and so I stupidly obeyed the law, but I had mixed feelings about it. My point is that the penalty has to be high enough or some people will choose to ignore the law, the law is already in place, but the penalties for ignoring it aren't high enough. It seems like we would be stopping some of the pregnancies that are truly unplanned, and often result in very unadoptable dogs.

I realize this bill is not mandatory neutering...but should I include the word...yet?

I have issues with any legislation which dictates whose dog must be neutered...even in this instance...but only because of where it may lead.

Couldn't you make the same argument about anything, dog licensing for example? However, I do agree with you, we do need to be watchful, on what laws concerning animals are being passed. I just think not passing any because it might lead to laws you don't agree with, is really harmful. If the problem is unwanted pregnancies, unwanted puppies, unwanted dogs, how would you propose we reduce this?

IT is not just for dogs running at large..It is even if you have a neighbor that calls animal control to complain and someone comes out to your home from Animal Control and you are sited then that is an offense...