California Pet-Fixing Bill

[envisionary333]

Critics howl over Calif. pet-fixing bill - Pet Health - MSNBC.com

What are your opinions on this subject?

[Susan9608]

I absolutely think it's a wonderful idea; it's just too bad "professional" breeders are exempt.

[envisionary333]

I couldn't agree more. Personally, I wouldn't be sad to see the world of animal showing completely eliminated as well. As much as they claim it is for the "betterment of the breed," it really comes down to prestige for the owner.

[PurplePoe]

"The measure — which would be the most sweeping statewide pet-sterilization law in the country — passed the Assembly by a single vote"

It's about time

"She said she fears the government will put itself in the position of deciding which dog breeds can reproduce and which cannot."

I don't think your little ankle-biter breeds need to worry about going "extinct." It might spell some trouble for your so-called "dangerous" breeds though, then again there's a fair share of them in the shelter/rescue system already.

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

Is this a joke? This is probably the weakest argument in the history of weak arguments. I'm sorry, who "responsibly" breeds mutts? No one! The only people who do are those who want to play as some sort of genetic Picasso and invent their own "breed" or "designer dog."

"Last year’s show drew 28,000 people and was credited with injecting $21.7 million into the local economy"

Yeah? That doesn't compare to the $2 BILLION (yes, with a B) spent by local governments to shelter and destroy unwanted "beloved mutts."

"Its 5,000 member clubs have organized a national letter-writing campaign, while the 122-year-old organization has formed its first ever political action committee to fight what it calls “anti-dog laws” in California and elsewhere."

AKC, you had plenty of time to step it up and be responsible. The touting of "for the purebred dog" is a slap in the face to the real lovers of the purebred dog. There is no ethical reason why many of your "responsible" breeders should make genetic messes of these animals and add to the plight of shelter dogs.

I want the bill to pass, but I think the lazy jerk from the Sierra foothills is right- it will be too hard to enforce (want some cheese with that whine?)

I, personally, am a fan of the purebred dog and mine have always come from the rescue system. I also know that there are responsible breeders out there who truly do what they do to better a breed and the AKC should not their minimize their efforts by protecting the scum who pump animals into the mills, newspapers, and petstores.

Poe

[envisionary333]

Originally Posted by PurplePoe

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

Is this a joke? This is probably the weakest argument in the history of weak arguments. I'm sorry, who "responsibly" breeds mutts? No one! The only people who do are those who want to play as some sort of genetic Picasso and invent their own "breed" or "designer dog."

While I agree with the majority of your post, I do have to dissent on this issue. I personally would rather see more "mutts" bred than purebred dogs. Most purebred strains end up with recurring genetic problems due to a long history of inbreeding- such as hip dysplasia in German Shepherds. The gene pool for purebreds is notoriously limited, and much of this has resulted from the strict standards for purebred dogs in the showing world. Mutts have more genetic variability, and therefor are less likely to exhibit the physical ailments that you see in most purebreds. I, for one, think it would be a terrible thing for there to be no more mutts.

When I was younger, I received a purebred German Shepherd puppy for my birthday. I was thrilled because I absolutely adore German Shepherds. The dog, named Sabre, cost $500 and was bred from champion show dogs. After having him for only a few weeks we learned that he had hip dysplasia to the point where he couldn't climb stairs. We also found that he had a serious overbite, as well as a number of physical defects. I was forced to rehome him because he simply couldn't manage the stairs in our three-story home.

The dog I have now is German Shepherd mix that I found as a stray running wild in the road. She is a glorious creature. She has strong hips without the dramatically sloped back that most German Shepherds have- and also suffer because of. She is intelligent, beautiful, well-behaved, and treasured in my life as a one-of-a-kind. I would never trade her in for a purebred.

Don't take this post the wrong way- I love all dogs, including purebreds. However, I think breeders need to take responsibility for the health of their dogs and the health of the breed as a whole, rather than just breeding for a specific color and body type. It is due to a long history of irresponsible breeding that purebred dogs are now laden with problems.

[Solebomber]

Originally Posted by envisionary333

The gene pool for purebreds is notoriously limited,
.

The Gene Pool for German Shepards is Far from limited, only in the Rare breeds is the gene pool limited - most common reoccuring genetic faults are proliferated by the back yard breeder or the Mill breeder who doesn't want to invest the time or money to find high quality well bred animals - thier just trying to turn a buck fast without concern for the quality of life of the resulting animals or the hearache of the future owners.
I don't see this bill as effective at all - just more goverment passing more laws to make the average citizen a criminal - not to mention the cost of attempting to enforce it would be phenominal.

[envisionary333]

Originally Posted by Solebomber

The Gene Pool for German Shepards is Far from limited, only in the Rare breeds is the gene pool limited - most common reoccuring genetic faults are proliferated by the back yard breeder or the Mill breeder who doesn't want to invest the time or money to find high quality well bred animals - thier just trying to turn a buck fast without concern for the quality of life of the resulting animals or the hearache of the future owners.

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.

[PurplePoe]

Yes, it's common knowledge that mutts have a larger gene pool. However, I was writing in regard to the article and the only people who purposely breed mutts are those who want to make those blasted "designer dogs" like schnoodles and puggles or those who want their kids to witness the "miracle of birth." Other mutts come from irresponsible owners and their accidental breedings, which is something that most rescues and this bill is trying to end. These breeders don't care anything about gene pools, and only care how cute the puppies will be.

I'm sorry to hear about that German Shepherd pup. However, in my personal experience, although mixed breeds are touted as being the healthier option, every mixed breed my family has ever kept has had its fair share of health issues (joint issues, eye problems, digestive issues). It all depends on what ended up being dominant on that dog's genetic lottery ticket. Every kind of dog, not just purebreds, has had its fair share of irresponsible breeding and genetic mishaps in their geneology. Even "mutts" are starting to suffer more genetically speaking; where do you think the concept of a "designer dog" came from? It was because of the mills and backyard breeders. What is interesting to note is that although every dog has the potential of having health issues, the more popular breeds (like German Shepherds and Labs) seem to have a higher rate than the less popular breeds. Breeds like otterhounds and Canaan dogs have the smaller "gene pool" than the more popular breeds, yet the puppies produced are usually healthy. In my opinion, it's not because fewer dogs are being produced- it is because their breeders are fiercely trying to protect the quality of the breed.

In the past all a breeder had to go on was how the dog looked and its movement, but now the responsible breeders, who are in the minority, will utilize the genetic/medical testing that is now available to them in order to maintain quality breeding animals. Although I do agree with you that the history of the conformation show does have something to do with the genetics of purebreds now, many breeders are currently striving to produce dogs that will be competitive in the performance arenas (like agility, rally, and herding) and a dog with HD or other ailment would not be able to perform their job well.

The reason why these ailments are not being eliminated is because of the irresponsible breeders/owners who let their animals reproduce. For example, they don't want to spend the money for the OFA (in the case of hip dysplasia) and risk having to lose a "credible" breeding animal in order to ensure that their litters will have healthy hips. They just want to breed their cute dogs to make cute puppies and to sell them for a ridiculous amount of money.

Wow, that's quite a bit of writing. I don't want anyone to misinterpret this post as being pro-breeding, I'm all about getting dogs from rescue and the Cali bill. This was just a response to a couple of things I saw in some of the posts above.

Poe

[heatherbunnie]

I hope that more states follow suit with this, its a great idea.

“The more animals neutered and spayed, the fewer animals born, the fewer animals coming into our shelters, and fewer animals are euthanized,” said Pat Claerbout, president of the California Animal Control Directors Association.

Enough said. Less animals suffering, sounds good to me. As for the "professional" breeders: they should find a job where they're not exploiting animals. Bettering the breed? Bettering the amount of money they have is probably more like it.

[PurplePoe]

Actually, there's a saying among some of the more responsible dog breeders: If you're breeding and making money, you're doing it wrong.

However, yes, the "professional" breeders that were mentioned in the article need to move on to something else.

Poe

[Luvthempigs]

The latest draft of this bill says that no adoption fees can be charged for dogs and cats....

Oh, and the "professional breeders" are the only people exempted by the bill. They have a business liscense so they are fine.

It's a bad bill all around. There are other ways to deal with the problem other than to make people criminals.

[envisionary333]

PurplePoe- Thanks for the your response. I suppose my hypothesis of the healthier mixed breeds came from the assumption that two parents of the same breed, with the same physical ailments, are more likely to pass them on genetically speaking because the two similar gene pools reinforce and exaggerate whatever problems already exist. I can see how first-generation mixed breeds might be as prone to problems as a purebred, but if careful introduction of new breeds were implemented, I think we could see more healthy dogs in the long run due to richer, more varied genetics. Sometimes I wonder that too much emphasis is put on the breed as a whole rather than the dog as an individual. Anyway, I'm sure a lot of this is just speculation... I do find the topic very interesting.

[PurplePoe]

Genetics is really interesting; it always was one of my favorite courses. I agree, varied genetics can be a good thing as long as the reproducing animals are of good quality, which is a heck of a lot easier now that access to animals in other countries is simpler than ever.

On an unrelated note, a couple of you had mentioned that this bill will make citizens criminals. How so? I haven't seen the draft to this bill and I'm just going by what I read in the original article.

Poe

[Mommy Of One]

As much as we would all like this to happen, I doubt it will.
What will all the pet stores do? Protest!
What will all the breeders do? Protest!
Ofcourse there is going to be A LOT to fight with this and I really don't believe that the congress will follow through with this seeing it is going to be so much of a hassle. We are kind of not so sure about spaying my two pound Maltese but only because of her size and if there's any risks... We are going to discuss this with her vet July 6th when she gets the last of her shots.

[crazywiggy]

I think an idea like this could work really well, but I think they would need to be careful.

What would be best, in my opinion, would be to bring in some form of dog breeder licence, like the driving theory test. Wannabe breeders should have to sit an exam that covers all aspects of breeding, from care of dogs generally, to hereditary problems, complications with pregnancy and birth, how to raise a litter (including socialisation etc). They should have to get a high score (e.g. at least 80%) to pass. If they get that the authorities should then meet them and check their premises to see where the dogs are going to live, to make sure they will be kept in great conditions, preferably in the home as part of the family. Only then should they get a licence to breed. Anyone not licenced should have to neuter their animals.

I would also like to see a law stating that all dogs must be tested clear of hereditary diseases, and have low hip scores etc, and take a temperament/training test before being allowed to be bred from. This way we could virtually eradicate loads of health and behaviour problems.

I also think breeders should be limited to only 2 litters per year.

If they could bring in these rules they could reduce the number of dogs bred, wipe out pupy farms, and improve the health and temperament of dogs. Well, I can dream....

[Alusdra]

I think it's a great idea, but I doubt it will work unless they really go hardcore on it. Right now my state can't even enforce licensing dogs so how do they figure they are going to get this to pass I have no idea. In theory, though, I love it. Even if there are no more mutts bred in Cali... there's still the rest of the country. Even if there are no more bred in America there's still the rest of the world. On the other hand, it's another law restricting pet owners in Cali. They don't allow my parrot's species there for no good reason, for example, nor do they allow ferrets. On the other hand, it would set a good precedent for similar laws getting passed in other states leading to real progress with cont