California Pet-Fixing Bill

[Res Judicata]

[quote=Luvthempigs;306425The people who breed and dump animals at shelters all the time aren't going to care and they won't pay attention to the law anyway. What about feral animals? there are trap/neuter/release programs out there, but they can't get them all, and most of the kittens in shelters in California are from feral cats. This law won't change that.

Like others have said, the law isn't going to pay for itself, and the money that could be spent on it could better be spent on education, NOT on outlawing animals. Seriously, if this law did pass and was effective, where would people get their pet dogs and cats from? Have you thought about that?
[/quote]

You answered your own question here. First you say that some people breed and dump and will continue to do so despite the law, then ask where pets will come from. Obviously the shelters.

Laws are not perfect. Does this mean they're worthless? No. Every bit helps. You make it sound like police are going to go door to door asking for proof that a pet has been fixed. And obviously it's impossible to enforce it that way. It can be enforced when pets are adopted/purchased. Turn in proof that the dog has been fixed within x amount of time or face a fine. Maybe there does need to be exceptions for rescues and animals with health problems, but it's a step in the right direction. Somebody most likely will take it to court and challenge those issues there if needs be. That's how our system works.

We can't just complain that laws are unenforceable because they cover a broad area. How enforceable are speeding laws? People still speed despite the law. Cops can't be everywhere to stop every speeder out there. And when cops have radar set up somewhere isn't that taking a policeman away from more important duties, like enforcing laws against stealing or murder?

[Luvthempigs]

Originally Posted by Res Judicata

Laws are not perfect. Does this mean they're worthless? No. Every bit helps. You make it sound like police are going to go door to door asking for proof that a pet has been fixed. And obviously it's impossible to enforce it that way. It can be enforced when pets are adopted/purchased. Turn in proof that the dog has been fixed within x amount of time or face a fine. Maybe there does need to be exceptions for rescues and animals with health problems, but it's a step in the right direction. Somebody most likely will take it to court and challenge those issues there if needs be. That's how our system works.

Speeding laws are enforced.... I know I see lots of cops out on the road just watching for it. No, not everybody is caught, and not everybody will be.

Have you read the current draft of the law? Can you make sense of it? It's very poorly written and left open to interpretation in many areas. Anyway it's lost it's most important supporter, so let's hope it dies.

If people want to continue keeping cats and dogs in this state this law is not a step in the right direction, though I'm guessing you may be one of the sort who thinks that nobody should keep animals.

[Luvthempigs]

Just found a blog post on the subject.
Pet Connection Blog » California veterinary association pulls support for mandatory spay-neuter bill

[DaisyGP]

Originally Posted by envisionary333

Then why are there so many recurring physical ailments among German Shepherds and countless other purebred dogs? While the back yard breeders and mill breeders are absolutely to blame to some degree, don't most purebred dogs have a history of backyard breeding at some point in their genealogy? I'm sorry, but I feel that if the gene pool for German Shepherds and other breeds is so expansive, it would be relatively easy to eliminate the ailments that seem to plague the breed even now. Most purebreds, somewhere in their history, have had inbreeding and mill breeders affect them. In order to produce a dog breed and reinforce specific desired traits, many times a select few dogs are bred again and again to produce a limited gene pool of the traits that the breeders want.
I do not claim to be an expert on this subject, but I have done a fair bit of reading on dog breeds since my childhood because I've always been a dog enthusiast. This is the understanding I have culminated over this time. I would be happy to hear more information, though.

[FONT=Times New Roman]All dog breeds are the result of inbreeding. I’m not denying that. How closely they are inbred is a different story entirely. Without inbreeding (on a less extreme scale) we would never get the desirable characteristics to repeat over and over. No purebreds would exist. I’m not just talking about dogs. No purebred animal, that we have today, would exist. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]There is a lot the general public doesn’t understand about inbreeding and out crossing. Everyone is taught in their high school biology class that “inbreeding = bad” and “Out crossing = good”. That is not always the case. It is not that simple.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Inbreeding magnifies the good and bad genes. It is the breeder’s job to make sure they start out with dogs from clean lines; “healthy”. After they have produced the next generation, they sort out the pets from the show dogs by seeing which dogs don’t have the desirable traits; like temperament, structure, working ability, guarding ability, health, etc..) [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Most breeders practice line breeding, which is a more mild form of inbreeding. It involves breeding dogs from the same lines but not closely related. Example of those types of breeding would be: Grandfather to great-grand daughter, second cousin to second cousin. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Close forms of inbreeding are: mother-to-son, father-to-daughter, sister-to-brother. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]The most extreme forms of out crossing are when the parents are not related in anyway. That would be like breeding a donkey with a horse to create a mule. They are two different species. When that happens, you create hybrid vigor. But *only* when breeding two different species, not when breeding together to different dog breeds. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Going back to the inbreeding. When you breed less extreme versions of out crossing, like breeding together two different dog breeds, you double the gene pool. Now you have all these different combinations of ways those genes could pair up. Think of it like doing a million piece puzzles, and than suddenly doubling that. That puzzle (that was already very hard to begin with) just became impossible. This makes it twice as hard, on the part of the breeder, to determine all the millions, or billions, of different possible outcomes. How than, would a breeder be about to say that this mixed breed would not inherit all the faults of both breeds, or all the positives, or any where in between? They can’t. The pool is simply **way** too large to be able to tell what type of puppies will be produced. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]On the other hand, very close inbreeding magnifies the good and bad genes. Most breeders do not breed mother-to-son/father-to-daughter/brother-to-sister because the genes become too hard to deal with. It is almost certain you will end up with some very good and very bad genes. The risks are almost never worth the gamble. There are only a few very experienced breeders that own dogs with, very well documented pedigrees; going back hundreds of years, that can take such a risk. Knowing, almost for certain, that they will be magnifying the good genes and not that bad ones. Most average responsible breeders do not have the luxury of knowing their dog’s pedigrees back that far, unless their family has been doing it for hundreds of years (or something to that effect).[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]So now that you know why it is so hard for breeders to handle extreme out crossing and extreme inbreeding, it only makes sense that the safest, and most reliable, way to keep the good genes going and work bad genes out(or keep them from coming in) is to work with a middle of the road approach. That is line breeding. The dogs aren’t *soo* closely relates that you would need the go hundreds of generations back in order to tell if the offspring would turn out ok, and you also aren’t working with a impossibly huge gene pool (where the odds are billion-to-one you will get that you are aiming for). [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Responsible breeders, using line breeding, can manage their dogs’ gene pools without harming it, by pedigree research and genetic health testing. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman]Of course, almost no breeders take the measures to ensure good genetic health so than everyone complains that all purebreds are unhealthy and all mutts are healthy. Not the case[/FONT]

[seagirl96]

Daisygp that was very interesting. On a personal note, could you possibly use a larger font? I really want to read what you say but it's hard for me to see. Guess I need a bigger screen.

This line in the article made me laugh out loud:

And worse, they said, it could lead to the demise of the beloved mutt.

I don't think we're in any danger yet. I like the basic premise of the bill and what to encourage neutering as much as we can.

Luvthem pigs, I'm surprised by this remark:

I'm guessing you may be one of the sort who thinks that nobody should keep animals.

I think it's safe to say that everyone on this web site approves of keeping animals, it's just that most of us don't want to make more until we can care for all the ones we have.

[DaisyGP]

Originally Posted by DaisyGP

[FONT=Arial Black]All dog breeds are the result of inbreeding. I’m not denying that. How closely they are inbred is a different story entirely. Without inbreeding (on a less extreme scale) we would never get the desirable characteristics to repeat over and over. No purebreds would exist. I’m not just talking about dogs. No purebred animal, that we have today, would exist. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black]There is a lot the general public doesn’t understand about inbreeding and out crossing. Everyone is taught in their high school biology class that “inbreeding = bad” and “Out crossing = good”. That is not always the case. It is not that simple.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black]Inbreeding magnifies the good and bad genes. It is the breeder’s job to make sure they start out with dogs from clean lines; “healthy”. After they have produced the next generation, they sort out the pets from the show dogs by seeing which dogs don’t have the desirable traits; like temperament, structure, working ability, guarding ability, health, etc..) [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black]Most breeders practice line breeding, which is a more mild form of inbreeding. It involves breeding dogs from the same lines but not closely related. Example of those types of breeding would be: Grandfather to great-grand daughter, second cousin to second cousin. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black]Close forms of inbreeding are: mother-to-son, father-to-daughter, sister-to-brother. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black]The most extreme forms of out crossing are when the parents are not related in anyway. That would be like breeding a donkey with a horse to create a mule. They are two different species. When that happens, you create hybrid vigor. But *only* when breeding two different species, not when breeding together to different dog breeds. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black]Going back to the inbreeding. When you breed less extreme versions of out crossing, like breeding together two different dog breeds, you double the gene pool. Now you have all these different combinations of ways those genes could pair up. Think of it like doing a million piece puzzles, and than suddenly doubling that. That puzzle (that was already very hard to begin with) just became impossible. This makes it twice as hard, on the part of the breeder, to determine all the millions, or billions, of different possible outcomes. How than, would a breeder be about to say that this mixed breed would not inherit all the faults of both breeds, or all the positives, or any where in between? They can’t. The pool is simply **way** too large to be able to tell what type of puppies will be produced. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black]On the other hand, very close inbreeding magnifies the good and bad genes. Most breeders do not breed mother-to-son/father-to-daughter/brother-to-sister because the genes become too hard to deal with. It is almost certain you will end up with some very good and very bad genes. The risks are almost never worth the gamble. There are only a few very experienced breeders that own dogs with, very well documented pedigrees; going back hundreds of years, that can take such a risk. Knowing, almost for certain, that they will be magnifying the good genes and not that bad ones. Most average responsible breeders do not have the luxury of knowing their dog’s pedigrees back that far, unless their family has been doing it for hundreds of years (or something to that effect).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black]So now that you know why it is so hard for breeders to handle extreme out crossing and extreme inbreeding, it only makes sense that the safest, and most reliable, way to keep the good genes going and work bad genes out(or keep them from coming in) is to work with a middle of the road approach. That is line breeding. The dogs aren’t *soo* closely relates that you would need the go hundreds of generations back in order to tell if the offspring would turn out ok, and you also aren’t working with a impossibly huge gene pool (where the odds are billion-to-one you will get that you are aiming for). [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black]Responsible breeders, using line breeding, can manage their dogs’ gene pools without harming it, by pedigree research and genetic health testing. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial Black]Of course, almost no breeders take the measures to ensure good genetic health so than everyone complains that all purebreds are unhealthy and all mutts are healthy. Not the case[/FONT]

[envisionary333]

I appreciate your post very much, DaisyGP, but I also had a hard time reading it the first time because of the font size. I'm finding the second post to be hard to read as well because of the bold/italics. Can you use just plain text next time? (Please don't take this the wrong way! I just think it would be easier to decipher the words)

[DaisyGP]

[FONT=Arial]All dog breeds are the result of inbreeding. I’m not denying that. How closely they are inbred is a different story entirely. Without inbreeding (on a less extreme scale) we would never get the desirable characteristics to repeat over and over. No purebreds would exist. I’m not just talking about dogs. No purebred animal, that we have today, would exist. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]There is a lot the general public doesn’t understand about inbreeding and out crossing. Everyone is taught in their high school biology class that “inbreeding = bad” and “Out crossing = good”. That is not always the case. It is not that simple.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Inbreeding magnifies the good and bad genes. It is the breeder’s job to make sure they start out with dogs from clean lines; “healthy”. After they have produced the next generation, they sort out the pets from the show dogs by seeing which dogs don’t have the desirable traits; like temperament, structure, working ability, guarding ability, health, etc..) [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Most breeders practice line breeding, which is a more mild form of inbreeding. It involves breeding dogs from the same lines but not closely related. Example of those types of breeding would be: Grandfather to great-grand daughter, second cousin to second cousin. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Close forms of inbreeding are: mother-to-son, father-to-daughter, sister-to-brother. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]The most extreme forms of out crossing are when the parents are not related in anyway. That would be like breeding a donkey with a horse to create a mule. They are two different species. When that happens, you create hybrid vigor. But *only* when breeding two different species, not when breeding together to different dog breeds. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Going back to the inbreeding. When you breed less extreme versions of out crossing, like breeding together two different dog breeds, you double the gene pool. Now you have all these different combinations of ways those genes could pair up. Think of it like doing a million piece puzzles, and than suddenly doubling that. That puzzle (that was already very hard to begin with) just became impossible. This makes it twice as hard, on the part of the breeder, to determine all the millions, or billions, of different possible outcomes. How than, would a breeder be about to say that this mixed breed would not inherit all the faults of both breeds, or all the positives, or any where in between? They can’t. The pool is simply **way** too large to be able to tell what type of puppies will be produced. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]On the other hand, very close inbreeding magnifies the good and bad genes. Most breeders do not breed mother-to-son/father-to-daughter/brother-to-sister because the genes become too hard to deal with. It is almost certain you will end up with some very good and very bad genes. The risks are almost never worth the gamble. There are only a few very experienced breeders that own dogs with, very well documented pedigrees; going back hundreds of years, that can take such a risk. Knowing, almost for certain, that they will be magnifying the good genes and not that bad ones. Most average responsible breeders do not have the luxury of knowing their dog’s pedigrees back that far, unless their family has been doing it for hundreds of years (or something to that effect).[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]So now that you know why it is so hard for breeders to handle extreme out crossing and extreme inbreeding, it only makes sense that the safest, and most reliable, way to keep the good genes going and work bad genes out(or keep them from coming in) is to work with a middle of the road approach. That is line breeding. The dogs aren’t *soo* closely relates that you would need the go hundreds of generations back in order to tell if the offspring would turn out ok, and you also aren’t working with a impossibly huge gene pool (where the odds are billion-to-one you will get that you are aiming for). [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial]Responsible breeders, using line breeding, can manage their dogs’ gene pools without harming it, by pedigree research and genetic health testing. [/FONT]

[envisionary333]

Thank you, that's much easier. I appreciate your post. Clearly I was wrong in my logic and I am glad to have been corrected!

[DaisyGP]

Sorry about the font, by the way.

[kavykrazy]

Wouldn't the money be better spent in setting up some sort of funds to offer FREE spay/nueter to eligible owners. This would hopefully encourage spaying/nuetering. It would also lower costs of shelter animals if they were all eligible to be fixed for free. I went to one shelter where the adoption fee was based on the spaying fee for the animal plus a standard adoption fee. This put the cost for large dogs way up since the spay fee was so high for them.

[Solebomber]

Originally Posted by kavykrazy

Wouldn't the money be better spent in setting up some sort of funds to offer FREE spay/nueter to eligible owners. This would hopefully encourage spaying/nuetering. It would also lower costs of shelter animals if they were all eligible to be fixed for free. I went to one shelter where the adoption fee was based on the spaying fee for the animal plus a standard adoption fee. This put the cost for large dogs way up since the spay fee was so high for them.

Wow thats a Novel Idea - Brilliant, imagine taking the cost of spay and nueter out of the equation - let the state put the $$ wasted on enforcement and passing laws etc etc into a fund to pay for A state Spay and Nueter program. Where anyone who lives inside Cali could get thier animals fixed for free. I bet that would go farther than creating more goverment and laws.

[DocDolittle]

While the idea does seem like a good one, I can't help but wonder how much good it would do. Most of the people I know who have intact dogs are because they think it's cruel to perform the surgery, or think that their dog will feel less masculine without his 'parts'. Although the free spaying and neutering for shelters is a grand idea.

[seagirl96]

Good idea cavycrazy and free spay/neuter at shelters might be the way to apply it most effectively Docdolittle. Isn't it funny about how sqeamish some men get about neutering male dogs. Spaying a female is more invasive and more dangerous for the dog, yet people don't seem to get squeamish about that.