too expensive to adopt an an wrote on May 14, 2007 10:16 PM:The cost to adopt an animal from the shelter is beyond the means of many families. Pets are becoming the novelty substitute for those that can afford them. The PETA group has pushed for laws that will severely decrease the number of available adoptable pets.

Bobbi wrote on May 15, 2007 3:11 AM:Breeder opposition to this has nothing to do with not wanting to pay taxes. Most breeders - especially the most responsible breeders - do not make a profit and are not businesses. You do not have to pay income tax if you do not make a profit. In fact, the IRS will not let you write off hobby losses and defines most dog breeders as a hobby based on objective criteria. You are ALREADY required to pay income tax if you make a profit, and you are already required to get a business license if you meet the criteria to be a business. Sales tax is paid by the BUYER, not the seller, and would not be an issue one way or the other for breeders. The main concern from responsible breeders (the ones who sign codes of ethics that require that pets are spay/neutered, and that take their dogs back for life - the ones that DON'T contribute to shelters) is that the law is very poorly written, and does not allow breeders to choose which dogs they can breed, unless they are a breeding business. They can breed dogs - they can't necessarily breed their best, healthiest dogs. Some types of dogs (herding dogs, livestock guarding dogs, rare breed dogs) have no exemptions at all. This bill will hurt the good breeders who are part of the solution, and reward the bad ones who are most of the problem.

If you aren't willing... wrote on May 15, 2007 8:52 AM:to make the financial committment to adopt a dog, you probably should own one anyway. Just as people who can't afford to care for kids should not have children, those who can't afford to properly care for a pet shouldn't have them either. Pet ownership is a responsibility, not a right.

marilyn wrote on May 15, 2007 9:04 AM:Choosing a small friendly non-neurotic dog is only possible by locating family-raised pets. Humane Society and fancy breeders too expensive for many. Tend to real problems, like the over-tall building in San Diego in a flight path.

Ron wrote on May 15, 2007 9:35 AM:Government wants to get into every nook and cranny of your life... it's time to stop the slide into unwanted and un-needed regulation and restrictions of your right to be left alone. They have become like an out of control Home Owners Association, where they can tell you what color paint, what kind of plants, and how often you will mow your own lawn. Otherwise, they fine you. Nice.

GREAT LAW wrote on May 15, 2007 9:52 AM:Most people don’t have a problem spending several hundred dollars on a cute puppy. Afer a year or so that puppy becomes a nuisance and will be dumped at the nearest shelter. Several times a year my neighbor puts a sigh in his yard, He is a "hobbie breeder". “PITBULL PUPPIES $300.00.” I know for a fact this low-life breeder DOES NOT PAY TAXES> This law does not say a breeder cannot continue to breed. This law would just provide a tool to go after irresponsible breeders like my neighbor.

One Eyed Jack wrote on May 15, 2007 10:48 AM:I happen to have a beloved one-eyed pure bred, physically deformed American Eskimo which is a walking example of why this spay/neuter law is so needed in CA. My Eskie was a part of a litter that was bred for sale. She found her way to my home via the shelter where the breeder dumped her at 4 weeks old knowing the other puppies in that litter would not command top dollar with the deformed, one eyed puppy in their midst. Thankfully, the shelter did not put my one eyed jack down because she made a wonderful mate for my other "perfect" Eskie and a perfect family pet. Breeders are unregulated, cast off at taxpayer expense the puppies who won't be profitable and overbreed those that are. Both my Eskies are spayed as has every dog I've ever owned because the guilt of having thought that just one puppy of any litter wound up dead in a shelter would be overwhelming. People who allow their pets to breed think only of the money they will make, not the life they subject the animal to.

caring person wrote on May 15, 2007 10:58 AM:To the people who are against this law: Are you saying it's ok to kill hundreds of thousands of animals because of overbreeding or do you have a different solution?

Nor wrote on May 15, 2007 11:15 AM:Government sometimes has to take control when irresponsibility runs rampant. I'd rather have them interfering with the reproductivity of dogs and cats then to truly "get into every nook and cranny of your life" such as this administration has done with just the Patriot Act alone.

Ronnie wrote on May 15, 2007 12:18 PM:I am in support of the California Healthy Pets Act, AB1634. It is time that people be held accountable for their exploitative actions. There is no harm in enforcing breeding regulations. The animals should not have to suffer as the result of greed and irresponsibility. The California taxpayers should not have to assume the moral and ethical burden of the irresponsible "hobbyists" (who actually run underground businesses) and the individual who wants to breed his pet without assuming the ethical, financial and social responsibilities of breeding a pet.

Mary wrote on May 15, 2007 1:19 PM:Oh dang, I thought this was a comment on humans and a good solution to global warming. "good for everyone"!

NormalNancy wrote on May 15, 2007 3:03 PM:I don't see a single statement in this commentary on "breeders" that can be supported by facts, data or reality. The reality is this ... when all the dogs in California are castrated and sterile, no one in CA will be able to breed any dog and that is precisely what the people who sponsor this bill want. When dog and cat breeders are no longer able to breed purebred pets in CA, the only dogs available to those who want to own pets will be the ones who are still finding their way into the shelters ... they'll leave the shelters for a nice tidy "adoption fee" no doubt, and when the street supply runs out, CA shelters will import "mutts" from China, or Mexico, or Puerto Rico and still charge a nice hefty adoption fee for the castrated animal. It is just that simple a matter of reproductive science ... if everything is castrated, nothing is having puppies or kittens ... Capice? If you want a purebred puppy or kitten, the only place to shop for one will be from one of those large commercial breeders that currently supply pet stores. And that market will dry up as soon as Animal Rights Radicals figure out a way to do it. Wise up CA - if there is a problem of pet overpopulation in CA (which may not be true) the only people this bill will affect are the people who are causing the pet over-population, and I can guarantee you it isn't the responsible purebreed hobby breeders who produce animals for the purpose of showing, training, or otherwise competing with them. There will be no readily available source for K-9 dogs, no seeing eye dogs, no service dogs, no herding or hunting dogs either, and that is a void that just thrills the hearts of the Animal Rights crowd. So Wise Up and Wake Up California ... if you value your right to own and live with a pet, ask your reps to vote this proposal down.

mary sue wrote on May 15, 2007 3:07 PM:so what happens to the puppies that are the offspring of an "illict" litter after this law takes effect ( if it ever does)? Are they confiscated by the state? Taken to a "puppy/kitten shelter with lots of other "illegals" and rasied by volunteeers who then take them and sell them at the shelter? Does the state get the money..?/ does the owner get a fine? Is their dog taken from them.. Is this 1984.. oh I forogot... this is California.. The newest in the NANNY states

Lisa wrote on May 15, 2007 3:10 PM:It's really a shame the number of people who have commented on this story who have NO idea what a hobby breeder is. It is a breeder who health tests all parent dogs prior to breeding them using veterinary specialists, ie. auscultations using a veterinary cardiologist, eye tests using veterinary opthalmologist, hip x-rays to check for hip displacia, BAER tests to check hearing. If they have a genetic problem, they are not bred. A hobby breeder is someone who raises their puppies in their home and socializes them with their family members and others. A hobby breeder is someone who shows their dog in dog shows to make sure it meets the breed standard. A hobby breeder is someone who makes sure their dog is eating quality dog food and has all recommended veterinary care. A hobby breeder is someone who doesn't use the "dog down the street" to father puppies. They search for the best dog out there and pay a substantial stud fee. A hobby breeder is usually thousands of dollars in the red due to their "business". They are not making money. They do this because they love the breed. A hobby breeder will take back any dog they sell FOR THE LIFE OF THE DOG. It will not end up in a shelter. Great Law, if you are buying $300 Pitbull puppies from your neighbor, the BACKYARD BREEDER, then you as a pet buyer are not being a responsible pet owner and searching for the best type of breeder out there. That breeder is the hobby breeder, otherwise known as a show/responsible/ethical/reputable breeder. This can be a bit confusing for John Q. Public who is just looking for a family pet but a good place to start is the AKC website. Each parent club is listed for every breed recognized. Those parent clubs can direct you to a good hobby breeder.

Doglover wrote on May 15, 2007 4:19 PM:To Bobbi: even those so-called "responsible" breeders who "take back their dogs for life" most certainly DO contribute to the shelter population. It's simple math - there are a finite number of adoptive homes. If your bred dogs fill up those spots, then there will be fewer homes for the shelter dogs; ergo, higher shelter populations and more euthanasia. And how do you know what your customers do with the dog they buy from you? Sure, maybe you'd be willing to take the dog back if they contacted you, but many people, down the road, won't bother contacting the breeder, they'll just dump the now-unwanted dog at the shelter. And how specifically is the law poorly written? It does allow breeders to buy permits for whatever dogs they want to breed - the law doesn't tell anybody WHICH dogs to buy permits for, that's for the breeders to decide. And if the law is so poorly written, why don't these breeder groups who purport to care so much for the animals work with the author to get reasonable amendments in? It has been modified since introduced to address many concerns, so why not be part of the solution rather than just opposing? Responsible, legit breeders who want to be part of the solution should be supportive of this law, as it will weed out much ot their "competition", the backyard, hobby breeders.

Doglover wrote on May 15, 2007 4:30 PM:Ron, c'mon, get real. This isn't about gov't intrusion, it is about what makes sense. By your logic, you should also be against building codes, speed limits, and all other laws. After all that is all gov't telling you how to live and interfering with your "right to be left alone." Sure, it would be nice if gov't did not need to butt in, but the fact is, people are often stupid and irresponsible (like those letting/encouraging their animals to breed). When that happens, it is gov'ts role and responsibility to step in and do what is in the common interest. Traffic laws may intrude on "personal rights", but they promote order and are in the best interests of society. Restricting animal breeding may limit some greedy people's livlihoods, but it is in the animal's and taxpayer's best interests overall. If all pet owners would be responsible, there would be no need for this law. Unfortunately, many people need to be forced to do the right thing. This law is a good thing and a great step toward addressing animal overpopulation.

Dot wrote on May 15, 2007 4:37 PM:From the time one chooses to breed their dog, a responsible breeder WILL NOT make any money, rather we will go very deeply into a hole. There are tests for the dam to make sure she is healthy, stud dog service fees, expenses for getting the dam to the stud, (these can be all the way from driving to the stud to flying the dam to the stud dog owner) health checks during pregnancy, health checks, shots and worming for the pups, food for the pups until they are in new homes, and hope to a higher power that nothing goes wrong and you need an emergency trip to the vet for mom or babies. Most breeders - especially the most responsible breeders - do not make a profit and are not businesses. The health decisions one makes for their pets should not be legislated by people who know nothing about veterinary medicine. There are many more vets AGAINST this bill than for it. Enforce the laws already on the books. Don't add more that cannot be enforced.

Doglover wrote on May 15, 2007 5:14 PM:NormalNancy, have you even read the law? There are specific exemptions for working/service dogs. The idea that there will be no K-9 or seeing-eye dogs is complete nonsense, another red herring tossed out by the breeders. Nobody is saying there will be NO breeding; that's what the permits are for. You want to breed and contribute to pet overpopulation? Fine, buy a permit and pay into the system for some of the costs you are adding to with your "hobby." Obviously, this law is not a perfect solution. It will be difficult to enforce - there is no way it will stop ALL breeding. It is simply a step in the right direction, to encourage people to be responsible and to begin to cut down on overpopulation and euthanasia. Ideally, we can also move toward shutting down the awful puppy mills in this country, and stopping importation of pets from other countries, but one thing at a time.

Doglover wrote on May 15, 2007 5:20 PM:So Lisa, look through today's NCT classifieds... you telling me all those hundreds of animals listed for sale by breeders have all those medical checks and certifications and shots? Riiiight. And even if they did, they are still contributing to the overpopulation and euthanasia. WHY would anybody be creating MORE animals when we are killing about 5,000,000 a year in this country?! It makes NO sense. If you're such a responsible breeder, you should be supporting this law. It can put the backyard breeders out of business and increase the demand for YOUR "product". And therefore maybe make it easier for you to make a buck, since boohoo poor you are not making a profit off of pimping out your animals.

Doglover wrote on May 15, 2007 5:30 PM:Dot, just what vets are against this bill? I work in veterinary medicine, and every vet I have talked to supports it. The CA Veterinary Medical Association supports it, along with the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights. Where are all these vets against it that you speak of?

Patricia wrote on May 15, 2007 6:17 PM:To ‘Doglover’: Despite considerable effort on the part of the California Farm Bureau, the American Border Collie Association and many individuals – I’m one -- AB 1634 has steadfastly refused to grant exemptions for California’s stockdogs. The bill's vegan authors, profiled in an Orange County paper this morning, must be delighted to know how much hardship AB 1634 will cause the state's ranchers and the state’s economy. And no, you can’t visit any shelter and expect to find a dog that will have the brains, the ‘biddability,’ the drive, the athleticism and above all the instincts to manage livestock. California has more sheep and cattle than most other states combined. A friend writes, 'We could not get the work done on the ranch without our stockdogs. We have a line that we have been breeding for many years and if this bill passes we will no longer be able to continue this line. They are registered but my husband's ranch dogs do not compete as he and they are too busy working.' Working-bred border collies, McCallums and McNabs help make procedures like worming and vaccinating far less stressful for the stock than they would be without a good dog. Livestock guardian dogs are a much more successful predator deterrent than traps and poison. AB 1634 requires that dogs be registered and shown in order to obtain an intact permit, but many of the best stockdogs are neither registered nor shown. This bill would eradicate California's great working stockdogs and livestock guardian dogs --- while allowing pet shops and puppy mills to flourish. I'm not a dog breeder --- I've adopted three dogs from the city pound. My holistic vet hates this bill. The local animal control officers hate it, and wonder where they'll find the time and money to enforce it. Prominent groups like Alley Cat Allies and Best Friends are opposed, and even BAD RAP, the pit bull rescue, has expressed reservations about AB 1634 and is lobbying for revisions, and a stockdog exemption. Amazing that in Europe, Norway's Welfare of Animals law and similar legislation in other countries prohibit spay/neuter without medical cause. AB 1634 is a terrible bill. Laws like it have resulted in fewer licenses issued and more dogs euthanized. It deserves a sound defeat.

dog friend wrote on May 15, 2007 6:28 PM:normal nancy Have you ever been to one of the hundreds of animal shelters in Ca? If there is no problem of pet overpopulation in CA, then why are we spending $250 million a year caring for and than killing more than 500,000 animals a year at the taxpayers expense? If the BREEDERS AREN’T CONTRIBUTING to the surplus of unwanted animals, then WHY ARE 30-40% of all ANIMALS IN OUR SHELTERS PURE BREED. Please be logical instead of greedy.

Bobbi wrote on May 16, 2007 4:21 AM:Doglover, the number of homes is not as simple as "a finite number of adoptive homes." People who are willing to wait a year or more on a waiting list for a specific breed, and to pay hundreds of dollars for it, really want that specific breed. If they can't buy it from a California breeder, they will buy it from out of state - or even out of country. A person wanting a Maltese is not going to adopt the unwanted pit bull in the shelter. They'll look til they find them. As for how I know what people do with dogs they get from me, I KEEP IN TOUCH WITH THEM. DUH. I get Christmas cards from dogs I placed 15 years ago (dogs I bred and rescues I placed alike.) I send my own yearly Christmas cards and follow up if I dont hear back.

Bobbi wrote on May 16, 2007 4:29 AM:Doglover asks, "if the law is so poorly written, why don't these breeder groups who purport to care so much for the animals work with the author to get reasonable amendments in?" Answer - we've tried. And tried. And tried. And tried. And tried. The authors will not agree to exemptions for herding dogs - the border collies and McNabs featured in books like Eminent Dogs, Dangerous Men. The authors will not agree to exemptions for livestock guarding dogs. The authors will not agree to reasonable exemptions for show dogs - the show dog exemption is totally unworkable. The authors will not agree to reasonable exemptions for rare breed and land race breed dogs. The only exemption is for COMMERCIAL DOG BUSINESSES, and Doglover, most of the best "code of ethics" breeders cannot qualify as businesses - NOT because they are illegal - they are not - but because their "business model" is not set up to make a profit. If you sell a car, you are not a car dealer - you have to sell a lot of cars. The same thing is true for dogs. With the best dog breeders - they don't sell a lot, so they don't meet the frequency or dollar thresholds. This bill is not going to weed out the "competition", it is going to weed out the best dog breeders and leave the backyard breeders and puppy mills virtually untouched. And we have pointed this out in literally thousands of calls and letters from all over the state and all over the country. We are talking to a stone wall, and the public is getting snowed.

Bobbi wrote on May 16, 2007 4:39 AM:GreatLaw writes, " Several times a year my neighbor puts a sigh in his yard, He is a "hobbie breeder". “PITBULL PUPPIES $300.00.” .... Greatlaw, that is not a hobby breeder. The breeders objecting to this law typically belong to codes with written codes of ethics, requiring 1. lifetime responsibility for the pups they breed, 2. appropriate health testing, 3. limiting the number of litters they breed. You don't see real hobby breeders selling their puppies from signs in their yard. They don't breed a lot, and they screen and educate buyers carefully. They take lifetime responsibility for their pups. Look at the web sites of AKC parent clubs for the codes of ethics these breeders have agreed to follow.

Bobbi wrote on May 16, 2007 4:49 AM:Dogfriend wrote, "If the BREEDERS AREN’T CONTRIBUTING to the surplus of unwanted animals, then WHY ARE 30-40% of all ANIMALS IN OUR SHELTERS PURE BREED." Because you need to understand the difference between "breeders" and "responsible breeders." The majority of purebreds in shelters are pit bulls - up to 75% of ALL dogs in some shelters - many bred to fight or "look cool". Those people are illegal now - dog fighting is a felony, for pete's sake - they are not licensing their dogs - how are you going to get them to get a breeder license? Of the rest, from firsthand experience (I have done rescue for many years) most I see come from pet shops and commercial breeders and non-US breeders including Mexico and Eastern Europe. Those breeders ARE NOT IN CALIFORNIA and are not affected by this law. The unwanted purebred dogs in shelters overwhelmingly do NOT come from local responsible breeders. This bill does not affect the most irresponsible breeders at all(the ones that fight their dogs and the ones that do not license), and it certainly does not affect the big breeding businesses out of state. It does hurt the breeders WHO ARE NOT BUSINESSES and are not required to get a business license under law. THERE ARE NO GOOD EXEMPTIONS YOU CAN COUNT ON FOR YOUR BEST DOGS UNLESS YOU ARE A BUSINESS - THE EXEMPTIONS ARE HORRIBLY WRITTEN AND ARBITRARY. This bill actually makes it harder for the responsible breeders than the irresponsible ones - who are illegal now and are going to see their "competition" go away.

dog friend wrote on May 16, 2007 11:02 AM: You said, "People who are willing to wait a year or more on a waiting list for a specific breed, and to pay hundreds of dollars for it, really want that specific breed. " DID YOU READ THE BILL?? It allows people in Calif. to continue to breed. Why would you need to go out of state? Please READ THE BILL! You just don't like the fact that you will have to BUY a breeders permit. TOO BAD! Your free ride must stop.

great law wrote on May 16, 2007 11:07 AM:Bobbie, Why are 30-40% of all animals in shelters PURE BREED?? This law is aimed at the irresponsible breeders. Nothing in the law prevents you from breeding. Have you ever read the bill?

Bobbi wrote on May 16, 2007 11:38 AM:Dog friend writes "DID YOU READ THE BILL?? It allows people in Calif. to continue to breed. Why would you need to go out of state?" There are two separate out of state issues. Most purebreds that wind up IN SHELTERS, other than the pit bulls and Rotties (who have separate issues) are bred by commercial breeders from out of state and out of country NOW. TODAY. Very very very few responsibly bred dogs wind up in shelters, and they are reclaimed if the breeder is notified. I have read the bill, obviously a lot more closely than you have. I don't care one whit about fees or permits, and I'm reasonably well off (not from dogs, from tech), so I can handle this better than most. I do care about the FACT that the best breeders, regardless of wealth, will not be able to breed well, if at all, if this passes. If I thought I could breed the way I need to breed to do right by my breed and my dogs, I'd pay any amount I could possibly afford. This is my hobby and my passion - my concerns have nothing to do with money. Paying any huge fee you all come up with still wouldn't save my breeding program from this law. There is no free ride now - except the one this poorly written bill gives to puppy mills and back yard breeders. Maybe you should try to understand how dog breeding actually works - especially the responsible side of it - before you start making silly accusations against the good guys. As to why good and well-informed people would buy out of state - the second out of state issue - it's because the educated owner who know the difference wants to buy from a good, ethical, responsible breeder who subscribes to a code of ethics. That's the same group of breeders you're driving out of California. If educated dog lovers can't get a responsibly bred dog from California, they'll go out of state.

Bobbi wrote on May 16, 2007 11:48 AM:Greatlaw writes "Bobbie, Why are 30-40% of all animals in shelters PURE BREED??" Actually, the HSUS estimate is 25% - go to their web site and check if you don't believe me. Specific shelters are higher, but others are lower. 25% is generally accepted as a reasonably accurate estimate. Most of these dogs are pit bulls. Some shelters have as much as 75% pit bulls!!!! And they are very difficult to get people to adopt. The issues around pit bull breeding are different from most dog breeding, and including fighting, drugs, and cultural issues. If you haven't read Merritt Clifton's discussion of pit bulls and their effect on euthanasia rates - and why mandatory s/n does not work - you should. There is a good discussion over at Best Friends web site, along with a good chat by Nathan Winograd, another person you should read. I've done rescue for years - most of the rest are from BYBs and commercial breeders. I almost never get in a responsibly bred dog, and when I do, the breeder typically sets land speed records coming to retrieve it and reimbursing me for my expenses. ... You also said, "This law is aimed at the irresponsible breeders." Well, guess what, your aim is off. You missed. You are right that the law does not prevent people from breeding. It does make it IMPOSSIBLE TO BREED WELL AND RESPONSIBLY. You can still breed badly, if you dont care WHICH two dogs you put together. The exemptions are irrational and would exclude many of the best and healthiest and most deserving dogs. As far as reading the law, not only have I read the law, I have read every version of it, the legislative analyses, the committee votes, and I've discussed it with lawyers. I understand that many folks for this bill do not know much about dog breeding, but the law is a DISASTER for responsible, code of ethics dog breeders - while actually advantaging BYBs and commercial breeders. Many of the reasons have been posted here, but I'll discuss it further if you want. I truly believe most people who support it do not realize how much it hurts the ability of good breeders to preserve their breeds.

NormalNancy wrote on May 16, 2007 12:01 PM:"Dog Lover said" "It can put the backyard breeders out of business and increase the demand for YOUR "product". And therefore maybe make it easier for you to make a buck, since boohoo poor you are not making a profit off of pimping out your animals. " You just don't want to get it do you Pal? You're obviously one of the Animal Rights toadies who thinks no one deserves to own an animal of any kind, let alone a pet ... What you intentionally ignore is that responsible hobby/show breeders don't want to make money "pimping" their dogs ... they breed the dogs for their own enjoyment as a family hobby and activity ... there IS NO MONEY in breeding and showing dogs. It is an expensive hobby, done for the love of the purebred dog, and you and all your Animal Rights Fanatic friends know that and are purposely misleading well meaning animal lovers into believing a bunch of baseless propaganda. You guys just want to get rid of animals any which way you can, including lying if you have to. If YOU can provide one documented piece of proof that puppies bred by purebred show fanciers contribute to the "overpopulation" at animal shelters I'll eat my hat. The first and most obvious fallacy in your argument is this ... how can you assume that the same person who wants to own a purebred dog from a show breeder will take a substitute puppy from a shelter ... they're getting no proof of heritage with that puppy, they're getting no documentation of health/genetic testing, no proof that the puppy was socialized from birth on, and absolutely no possibility of mentoring and guidance from the conscientious breeder who produced that puppy. They're also getting no chance to participate in a meaningful and enjoyable activity with their friends and families. By the same token, if you know anything at all about what it takes to produce an acceptable candidate for K9 or Sevice dog training you'd understand why your bogus attempt to erradicate the pet population doesn't provide for the continued production of suitable candidates for those programs. Come on, "Dog" ... just admit it - you don't like dogs and you don't want anyone to have the right to own them.

Doglover wrote on May 16, 2007 12:18 PM:To all the breeders trying to justify their hobby, I gotta ask - HOW CAN YOU JUSTIFY CREATING MORE DOGS WHEN WE ALREADY KILL MILLIONS OF HOMELESS ANIMALS IN THIS COUNTRY???!! That's the bottomline - it's not about your "business" or "hobby" or whatever you want to call it, and how difficult the law will make it for you. No, the law is not perfect - it will be hard to enforce, people will find loopholes, etc. But it is a step in the right direction. We are trying to stop the unnecessary killing of millions of animals. You can be part of that by helping to place/rescue/foster the homeless animals we already have in shelters, or you can be part of the problem by pumping more dogs into the market. As for those people waiting a year for a "purebred" Maltese, well, we as humane societies need to do a lot better job at educating the public to reduce the demand for "purebred" animals. This law only targets supply, and demand is definitely part of the problem as well. The average family does NOT need a "purebred" pet - they just want a good, friendly family animal. People get hung up on the "purebred" nonsense and the breeders capitalize on it. All the AKC "breed standards" are about appearance, and you breeders are out there running your amateur genetics experiments trying to meet this stupid arbitrary "breed standard" with no consideration of what actually makes a good pet for the average family. A good mutt may not look as pretty as your fancy Maltese, but I'd bet the temperment is 100% better and the mutt would make a much better family pet. If you really love dogs, as opposed to your breed standards and conformation trophys, then help save the animals we already have - even if they are not as precious as your Maltese. There is simply no need for you people to be breeding, so I'll save my sympathy and efforts for the animals sitting out there on death row.

Doglover wrote on May 16, 2007 12:53 PM:NormalNancy, you gotta be kidding me. You seriously think all us "toadies" are expending this time and effort because we want to get rid of animals? All we want to stop is the unnecessary killing and make sure that all the animals have a good home. Again, it's simple math - too many animals, not enough homes, so the surplus gets killed. Your customers who "wouldn't get a puppy from a shelter" need to be educated so they can see through YOUR lies and propaganda that "purebred" are the only worthy animals. The average family can be just as happy - even happier, I'd say - with a good hardy mutt from the shelter rather than your inbred and genetically-compromised "purebred". Of course, there needs to be good pre- and post-adoption counseling, assesments, medical checks, etc. - that goes without saying with ANY pet, and any good shelter will provide that. A "pedigree" is no gurantee that there will not be issues down the line. Again, the bill provides exemptions for K9/service dogs, so please stop repeating that lie. Look at your own words - you say "they breed the dogs for their own enjoyment as a family hobby and activity," "a meaningful and enjoyable activity with their friends and families." Hmmm, sounds like it's all about you, eh, Nancy? ... Where's the part where you look out for what's best for the dogs (ALL of them, not just your precious purebreds). Your breeding is NOT in the animals best interests - healthwise, they're better off being spayed/neutered. But as long as you have your "hobby" for your fun and enjoyment, who cares, right?

dog friend wrote on May 16, 2007 1:00 PM:bobby how will this bill make it IMPOSSIBLE TO BREED WELL AND RESPONSIBLY?? Why are breeders so greedy and selfish. THANK YOU DOG LOVER!!! YOU ARE RIGHT ON!

Bobbi wrote on May 16, 2007 1:24 PM:Doglover, if ALL the good breeders stop breeding, it will not save one dog in shelters. All it will do is eliminate the best deliberately bred dogs - while commercial and overseas breeders would leap to fill in the market. Notice that deliberately bred dogs includes working dogs, herding dogs, police dogs, and land race breeds that have existed for thousands of years - breeds that existed centuries before there was the concept of a breed standard. So your comment about AKC standards is totally spurious. These breeds and land races are part of our great human heritage and for you to try to destroy them - and that's what you're talking about, destroying these breeds entire genome, root and branch - is, in my personal opinion, horrendously selfish and destructive. People want a specific dog breed because the dog suits their lifestyle - and a dog well suited is more likely to stay in its home. We would all far better off combating the real problem - unplanned and unwanted litters. Look at the studies. There are more dogs from unplanned and unwanted litters than there are dogs euthanized. There is no logic to targeting the planned and wanted litters - eliminate the unplanned and unwanted, and we're at equilibrium. .... And, BTW, as I have repeatedly noted on this thread, I have spent decades helping rescue. .... Further, the good breeders are part of the solution, not part of the problem. We need to get to a place where all litters are planned and wanted, and where breeders are responsible. Eliminating responsible breeders just slows down the process.

bobbi wrote on May 16, 2007 1:30 PM:Dog friend, you wrote "how will this bill make it IMPOSSIBLE TO BREED WELL AND RESPONSIBLY??" Because it does not allow good breeders to pick the best, healthiest dogs to breed. It has poorly written and incoherent exemptions that will let people breed some dogs - but the biggest exemption is for commercial breeders, who get a free pass as long as they buy a permit. Hello, puppy mills, goodbye good breeders. The small, non-business breeder who is trying to preserve their breed will have their breeding program destroyed as their best dogs will often not qualify for the poorly written exemptions. ..... You also might want to get to know a few responsible breeders, who have been working for deceades to help rescue and to voluntarily limit their breeders. Good breeders are not greedy and selfish, and if you had a strong argument, you would not need to resort to name calling. This proposal will destroy - permanantly and irrevocably - an entire part of our human heritage that has taken thousands of years to develop. I can think of little more selfish and destructive than that. AND IT's NOT NECESSARY. Voluntary, low cost spay/neuter works many times better than mandatory s/n - and has been proven far more effective. Going with the less effective alternative, in a desire to "punish" people, is selfish.

mike wrote on May 16, 2007 4:57 PM:The exemptions are unworkable by any stretch of the imagination, as at 4 months it is impossible to tell which dogs are to be spared the knife. At 4 months it is impossible to tell which pups in a litter have the temperament and the aptitude to be a service, working, racing, show, police, or herding dog. The irresponsible breeders will ignore the law, and that problem will continue until enforcement is done properly. All this will do is make repsonsible breeders outlaw breeders. BTW, medical surgeries sould be determined case-by-case, not by a blanket law. That's just good medicine, no matter what the species, inlcuding people!

James wrote on May 16, 2007 8:31 PM:This report is totally wrong. Consentious breeders seek to improve their lines. They are involved in showing, training, and competing with their dogs. Their expenses far exceed any amount earned from a litter or two a year. Backyard breeders, puppy mills (who have licensses),irresponsible owners, and failure to enforce existing laws are the cause of problems! Statistics show shelter populations are steadily dropping due to EDUCATION. Early spay/neuter are being found related to incontinecy, vaginitis, cancer, and increased hip disease. Please get the facts!!

Dana wrote on May 21, 2007 3:28 PM:Similar laws have already been proven effective in Santa Cruz County and will help the state of California live up to its goal of not euthanizing adoptable animals. It will help responsible breeders who raise healthy, well cared for dogs and work to ensure that these puppies are placed with responsible owners by hindering the ability for backyard breeders who care more about money than sound temperaments and breed standards to sell more puppies and kittens. Ending the euthanasia of adoptable cats and dogs will be a much better use of taxpayer funds than the 250 million dollars spent annually to house and euthanize more than 400,000 animals in our local shelters. Everyone interested in animal welfare should spend more time volunteering at their local shelters or with rescue groups. Those opposing AB 1634 should spend a Friday or Saturday afternoon at the local shelter while they have to make room for the anticipated animal intake over the weekend.

RobertM wrote on May 22, 2007 12:26 PM:Why are we wasting so much money killing and disposing of unwanted dogs when there are so many commercial uses for them? Dogs produce fur and meat and can also be used in feeds for other animals, glue, and fertilizer. Leave it to the United States to squander such a valuable resource.

Vegetarian Dog Companion wrote on May 23, 2007 9:51 AM:Do you have a week to hear everything wrong with AB1634?! We who do not eat meat for over 22 years, & do cat rescue for SPCA & Rescue Dog Fostering for Pure Breed Clubs OPPOSE AB1634. We too are against animals suffering, being bred without concern to health or forever homes, and being euthanized when adoptable, but WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. Visit any shelter website, where are these pure bred dogs they claim are a tax burden? Why do shelters refuse to release dogs to pure bred rescues when we too spay & neuter? Because they benefit from having a pure bred dog among the dogs from irresponsible breeding. Irresponsible breeding will continue when responsible breeding is attacked. Why are there no exceptions for rare breeds or desirable mixes like Golden Doodles or Labradoodles? The proponents shake a dead kitten like it's 9/11 and start a war in our name. Unlike "P.E.T.A.", we opposed kill shelters. We believe animals are part of the family. It is mutually beneficial living with animals we love. We are for animal welfare. We dedicate our lives to animals by making sure we find jobs and living situations that make room for our pets. We eat out and vacation where we can bring our pets. We fight legislation that threatens to separate us from them. We live in the city named after the patron saint of animals! They are barking up the wrong tree, so we opposed AB1634. Matt San Francisco

Dee wrote on May 23, 2007 9:54 AM:That is an outright lie. The shelters are bringing in dogs from out of country, out of state. You must belong to PETA or H$U$. This bill will cause the extinction of all pets... especially our beloved mutts.

sharon k. wrote on Jun 5, 2007 6:44 AM:Very misinformed - clearly has no idea of what makes up the population of the shelters or how they got there. Irresponsible reporting. I just brought a dog in from Oregon and will likely adopt any further animals from other states since California just doesn't get it. The stupidity of the population in general continues to amaze me. We are moving back to the East coat where people (and legistators) think before they act.

Not Right wrote on Jun 9, 2007 9:36 AM:I for one do not believe in altering your pet. I would never make any animal just some toy for me to enjoy by altering them. Animal rights people aren't for the animals at all if they are for spay and neutering. And even though I am 100% against it (I am not an animal breeder) I will say that it should be the owners choice in whether they want to spay and neuter there pet or not and in no way should we be told that we have to do it. I for one will never buy an animal that has been spayed or neutered or is required to be and because of that more animals will not be adopted. We have no right to screw with nature by taking away an animals right to have sex. ...

MIKE THE CAT wrote on Jun 10, 2007 8:43 AM:TWO PAWS UP FOR THE NEW LAW. MIKE ...

Mike L. wrote on Jun 11, 2007 11:46 AM:For all those opposed to the law, I urge you to go to your city shelter and witness the euthanization of one of the 500,000 animals that will be killed this year. Or, go with a rescue group and experience the agonizing process of choosing one or two animals to save from tens and hundreds on "death row." Look a dog eye to eye before you turn you back on it, leaving it to certain death because it's taking space thats needed for the deluge of new animals dropped off daily. Do this, experience these things as I and others in animal rescue have, and then tell me you still oppose this law

Donna W wrote on Jun 20, 2007 1:57 PM:How anyone with half a brain could be in support of this bill is beyond me. The last thing I want is Petland or any of those Puppy mills in the midwest supplying pets to California. Feral cats have been tallied into the numbers by the "pro" group, as is roadkill picked up on the street. The irresponsible breeders will still breed. You will still have the majority of problems coming from inner city populations. This bill is flat out BAD. Oh and I have done dog and cat rescue for over 20 years. I promise the responsible breeders are not the problem.

lab lover wrote on Jul 2, 2007 6:30 PM:Low Cost or free spay/neuter clinics that go to neighborhoods with the most frequent animals ending up in shelters would be much more effective than a law that cannot be enforced. You cannot legislate behavior. Education is the best way to change bad behavior and impact the problem. How about limiting the marketplace for those litters that are produced to make money. Do not allow animals to be sold in shoppng center parking lots and along the road. Restrict advertising of litters in your local papers and on signs in neighborhoods. When there is no market for a product and there is no money to be made. Reputable breeders usually have waiting lists for their puppies, they normally do not advertise and most produced puppies do not stay in your state. Europeans look at pet ownership as a responsibility and do not neuter their animals. I have owned intact animals (sometimes both sexes at the same time) for over 30 years and have NEVER had an accidental breeding. Preventing unwanted puppies is an education issue. There are studies that indicate that sterilized animals have many more risks (bone cancer, incontinance, and structural problems, as examples) than intact animals and a current study (by a group of vets) reports that neutered animals are far more likely to bite. The falacy is that neutering will solve disposition issues but neutering will not change your pet. Those who support neutering cannot have it both ways. There is no medical reason to neuter. I am opposed to the bill. Instead of enlisting and capitalizing on the help of licensed clubs, rescue groups and those who are involved in the dog world in California, this bill has alienated those who are most willing to help. This bill proposes a solution that will not be successful. It is driven by individuals who do not believe that anyone should own any pets and who assume no pet owneris responsible.

voice of reason wrote on Apr 17, 2008 11:55 AM:So long as we live in a country where we kill over 4 million animals a year, most of whom are healthy and adoptable, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "RESPONSIBLE BREEDER." Period.

We should make a concerted effort to erase that nomenclature and replace it with the only 3 categories that truly exist: "acceptable" "unacceptable" and "puppy millers."

Cali dog owner wrote on May 16, 2008 3:12 PM:I have a problem with those who feel that pure breed is their only option. I understand why and when they are necessary, but as an everyday family pet, why are we being in some ways racist among dogs. I currently own a "pure breed" chocolate lab and were offered papers but denied them because they serve absolutely no purpose for us. And no we didn't pay anything for her. Our family had puppies and we would have been more than willing to pay for their costs that they paid to take care of the mother and puppies, but my point is, there are way too many dogs dieing because they don't come from a breeder with papers. Why are we saying this is ok? If we really do love animals and are not intending them to work then what is wrong with a loving dog that comes from a shelter. As long as there are irresponsible breeders who appeal to the selective dog owners, then we will have dogs dieing in shelters.