PETA and the California "Healthy Pets Act"

[firecat]

Periodically, I receive a recorded phone message from PETA (People for the "Ethical" Treatment of Animals...I won't dignify their site by linking to it). I have no idea where they got my phone number; maybe they phone everyone. I usually hang up as soon as I know who it is, but today the machine picked it up

Comments

[basketcaselady]

All of the pets I ever owned where of mixed breed. We got them for an animal shelter, or they were given to us. I'm talking about all the dogs or cats I've had my entire life.

As I understand what you've written, no animals except those listed would be allowed to breed. Yes I agree there are too many good dogs and cats that are put to death. But if systematically only purebred animals are allowed to breed, then there will be only purebred pets...expensive purebreds. And this will be at a cost that most families cannot afford.

If that had happened 50 years ago, I would've never experienced the joys of being owned by a dog or a cat. Neither would my husband or my children. That would be sad.

Definitely something needs to be done, but this proposed solution will only benefit those that breed animals, thus driving the costs up eventually by supply and demand.

Both of my cats were born feral. I don't think I would have wanted to deny life to them.

[firecat]

And this will be at a cost that most families cannot afford.

That too. Although given how difficult it would be to actually enforce this law, it probably won't come to that for a long time.

[mjlayman]

Two of mine are from a breeder. One was born with bad brain chemistry -- anxiety disorder & compulsive disorder -- and the breeder was going to kill her so the vet asked me to take her. The other was the fifth cat in a household and the first cat literally tried to kill him and the vet's meds didn't work, so she asked me to take him, with PTSD, too.

I wouldn't normally get cats from a breeder, but in this case, they were both going to die otherwise. Giorgio was fixed by his first owners; I had Spirit fixed as soon as possible.

My third cat showed up at the front door howling at 4am Thanksgiving 2001. I told him he had the wrong door, but when he continued for the next couple of days, I checked, and his former owners had moved somewhere they couldn't have cats and just left him.

[firecat]

It's great that you took in some animals that would otherwise not have been able to find good homes, wherever you got them from.

Some of the people who lived in the house I now own left cats behind when they moved out. I found homes for them. Then one of them had the gall to come over and ask for her cat back.

[stonebender]

Given the results of many "licensed" breeders, I'm not all that supportive of "purebred" dogs in general. Anyway, I'm under the impression that fixing an animal before six months is a really bad idea for the health of the dog.

I wonder is why they make an exception for service animals? All service dogs as far as I know get spayed or neutered at six months.

[firecat]

I think allowing only purebred dogs to be bred will be harmful to the animals, yes. I saw some other sites that mentioned early spaying can be bad for a dog's health.

The service dog section was added when the bill was revised. I know that some service dogs are not purebred, e.g., hearing dogs are often not purebred, and I can see why some organizations might want to breed dogs for service. But I don't know why individuals who use service dogs also got an exception.

[stonebender]

The service dog section was added when the bill was revised. I know that some service dogs are not purebred, e.g., hearing dogs are often not purebred, and I can see why some organizations might want to breed dogs for service. But I don't know why individuals who use service dogs also got an exception.

I haven't really been keeping up but I know some dogs trained to help wheelchairs users aren't all purebred (or at least weren't years ago) I specifically remember some Golden retrievers crossed with labradors. I guess they have to get their breeding stock somewhere, but at least in the program that I'm familiar with, there were dogs for breeding and dogs that were trained as service animals. No dogs were used for working that were still intact. The dogs kept for breeding aren't considered service dogs as far as I know. It's an odd revision to the law. I think I'll go investigate

[saluqi]

Given the results of many "licensed" breeders

What results do you mean?

[firecat]

I get tired of CA trying to pass laws 'for people's own good'. You can't legislate intelligence no matter how much you try.

YES, very well said.

PHS in San Mateo will spay your cat for $50; that's not cheap, but I gather it's less than most vets charge.

http://peninsulahumanesociety.org/services/clinic.html

[innerdoggie]

I'm with you -- there needs to be support for low-cost spaying/neutering of pets, and some license fees for keeping an intact pet you intend to breed. I don't think the license should be restricted to pure breeds for all the reasons you cite.

[firecat]

I hope that the California legislature sees reason.

sorry, this got kindof long

[saluqi]

We have a similar law here, although ours is not quite as tight as what is being proposed for you

Re: sorry, this got kindof long

[firecat]

In my territory, unless you have a "permit to keep an entire animal" your animal must be speutered. The permits cost $265. If you are a member of a registered canine association, they cost $55.

Now that seems reasonable -- assuming that a "registered canine association" doesn't mean "an association that only recognizes purebred dogs."

Thanks for the inside info about the breeding of purebreds.