HSUS/banning pet sales question -

[VeganSoprano]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Good question. The law is still relatively new (maybe 5 years) so I'm not sure there's been time to do and publish a study. NYC also ramped up a lot of other programs around the same time so I imagine it would be tough to isolate the effects of any single measure. Of course, that may be the point - a multifaceted approach to a multifaceted problem.

I'm not opposed to dog licensing where it exists and certainly recognize its original intent for rabies control purposes, though, I'm not crazy about the fees which basically amount to a "pet tax". I'm leery of any new licensing laws, though. I think they frequently amount to either pet taxes or an attempt to legislate "respect" for animals - which is something that can't be accomplished with this sort of legislation. I think it tends to offer a way for legislators to feel like they've done something when actually absolutely nothing has been accomplished.

 

[nyanko]

😕 Not sure why we would want to or how it's relevant. But anyway, I'm sure the day is not far off when pet owners can have their long-dead pets cloned.

Well because if the dogs are all spayed or neutered, who's going to breed when we change the laws? We would have to import them from other countries and we would lose the diversity present in the American lines.

Purebred animals, by definition, require a restricted gene pool, and most "responsible" breeders move to further reduce that pool by favoring some arbitrary AKC-required traits. So how can you fret about reducing the gene pool while at the same time supporting breeders who purposely restrict and reduce the gene pool?

I understand the population dynamics of breeds, thanks. I also know that responsible breeders take into account existing genetic diversity and health in their breeds when they consider bringing new lines into their programs. At least, anyone that I'd call responsible does. My definition of responsible breeder is someone who breeds to improve the breed in some way.

And the AKC doesn't set the standards. The breed clubs do. My personal opinion on sole reliance on conformation showing as it relates to "proving" a dog's worthiness for breeding is less than favorable, so you're preaching that one to the wrong choir. That said, MSN makes it so that irresponsible backyard breeders and puppy mill proprietors who make enough money off their puppy sales by skimping on proper functional and health testing and animal care to afford high licensing fees would be (even more overwhelmingly than they are now!) the ones purposely breeding dogs.

But the point is, it nudges society in the right direction.

IMO this is flawed thinking. I'm no "gubmint takin away my rights" Libertarian-conservative crazy, trust me. I really hate that being generally against legislating for the lowest common denominator lumps me into that group. However, I see a lot of major flaws in a lot of these laws in how they could possibly affect genetic diversity (which as you might be able to tell is a major interest of mine) and preservation of purebred dog functionality and responsible breeding. When your main counterarguments to legitimate points are "it won't be easy to enforce so people will fall through the cracks," "we can always reverse it later," and "it would be good with all these caveats and other things that are needed" it doesn't really tend to add much to your point of view.

 

[WhippetsRule]

😕 Not sure why we would want to or how it's relevant. But anyway, I'm sure the day is not far off when pet owners can have their long-dead pets cloned.

Actually, if the person seeking to clone their long-dead pet has sufficient $$ and some DNA, they could do it now.

Purebred animals, by definition, require a restricted gene pool, and most "responsible" breeders move to further reduce that pool by favoring some arbitrary AKC-required traits. So how can you fret about reducing the gene pool while at the same time supporting breeders who purposely restrict and reduce the gene pool?

Before you make this kind of statement, you need to better educate yourself regarding purebred animals, responsible breeding and breeders, and breed standards.

MSN isn't perfect or by any means the only solution -

Here you are correct...I would go so far as to say that MSN is not the solution period.

 

[lunajett]

Before you make this kind of statement, you need to better educate yourself regarding purebred animals, responsible breeding and breeders, and breed standards.

If there was a meaningful error in my statement, perhaps you can point it out? I am aware the breed clubs set the standards, not the AKC - I realize now I should have been more precise when wording that since we do love to correct each other here. I wrote "AKC" to keep it simple and because I figured most people, even on this forum, wouldn't know the difference - AKC is easily recognized and understood while "breed clubs" not so much. And in this context, it's a distinction without a difference. AKC-affiliated breed clubs wouldn't exist without the AKC, club standards are geared toward competing in AKC events and winning AKC recognition. But yes, I should have been more clear on that.

Do you know of some way purebred animals are produced withOUT limiting the gene pool? I'm sure I took a different genetics class, but I thought that concept was pretty incontrovertible.

As far as "responsible breeding" goes, we're all going to have our own definition. IMO, responsible breeding requires looking beyond your own "favorite breed" and considering what is going on in the larger dog world. From that perspective and given the euthanasia of millions of homeless animals, my definition of "responsible breeding" is very narrow. I'm sure your definition is different, but neither one is objectively right or wrong.

 

[Angelus9]

black helicopters...black-booted thugs kicking in doors... Conspiracy theorists...the idiots out there....

Wow, lunajett, way to be insulting.

Nice try, but it won't work. You used a common tactic of ignoring legitimate reasons for opposing your point of view and trying to say that instead I'm seeing black helicopters and black-booted thugs. Leave emotion out of it.

I have worked on MSN locally and read a lot of the ordinances that have been passed. Everyone I've seens has numerous exceptions for "legitimate" breeders, medical reasons, etc.

Exceptions for "legitimate breeders"? Definition please. Legitimate means anyone who can afford to pay the big fees. IOW, puppy mills. Also, no exceptions for exempting military and police dogs. You haven't seen those. As you say, breeders "might have to register and pay a fee" - a very expensive, unreasonable fee. Medical reasons? Quote me that legislation, please. Haven't seen that one.

Responsible breeders I've heard from have supported this -

I don't believe this. I work with groups fighting anti-dog legislation and en masse the best breeders, who are already doing things right, do not support this type of legislation. It will require them to pay enormous fees and be inspected whenever the authorities feel like it, and S/N most of their dogs. Please list which responsible breeders support these laws.

btw, in VA (that I know of, and probably elsewhere too) PETA has volunteered to supply the inspectors. You name me ONE responsible breeder who supports that.

 

[Angelus9]

Everyone I've seens has numerous exceptions for "legitimate" breeders, medical reasons, etc. Any vet can cite a medical reason why S/N is not in the animal's interest,

About those medical exceptions. lunajett knows this, since s/he states that they've worked on MSN legislation. The recent Santa Barbara MSN legislation is typical: did you know that you must renew that medical exception EVERY YEAR? It's not lifetime, it's every year. More fees for the law-abiding.

There's also a lot of feeling in the dog community that veterinarians would rather collect the fees for S/N and therefore are not very likely to issue medical exemptions.

Vets who spoke for the Santa Barbara MSN said they themselves would not (although other vets would) charge a fee for issuing the medical exemption certificate every year. However, when questioned they said that yes, of course, the client would have to pay the regular office visit fee for each animal presented for such a certificate, whether it was granted or not.

So two sides to the veterinarian viewpoint, but either way, it's a moneymaker.

And no, a lot of good, responsible breeders give their own shots (except for rabies) and don't take all their dogs to the vet every year, so saying they could apply for the yearly medical exemption certificate at the annual vet visit doesn't work.

 

[Minnerbelle]

Forgetting the breeder issue for a second here...

I think one of the biggest issue with MSN when it comes to the non-breeder everyday pet owner, is that many people don't even understand the importance of s/n. A lot of people do it because their vets are *pushy* about it, and they get it done just because it gets annoying. Of the reasons why it's beneficial to have s/n, preventing overpopulation seems to be the one that really goes over people's heads. Even if they don't belong in the "want child to see miracle of birth" or "it's better to spay after 1 litter" camps, many people seem to be in the "i'm not planning to breed my dog anyway" mind frame.

I think a vast majority of shelters make sure animals that go through them are s/n. And reputable breeders generally find responsible homes for their animals, where their clients don't really add to the overpopulation issue much. That leaves puppy mill and backyard breeder acquired pets. The fact that people would go and get animals from these sources in itself kind of shows that they don't care or aren't aware of the pet overpopulation issue. And this makes up a significant portion of pet owners in this country.

A law that mandates something that most people don't even believe in (or are actively against it) is not something that we can expect to help too much IMO. Something like mandatory rabies vaccination seems to work in general, because most people understand the importance of keeping rabies in check AND because the consequences are pretty clear. For MSN, I can't think of enough incentives to make people actually go through with it. If anything, I think it'll make people less likely to take their pets to the vet on a regular basis because they don't want the "you know it's illegal to keep your animal intact" talk.

Since it's not enforceable in a mass scale anyway, and the most important part of it is that it gives animal control and humane societies leverage in individual cases... I think it might be better to make it so that anyone who's been in trouble with a/c (convicted of cruelty/neglect, animal ended up in shelter) has their animal s/n. Of course once in a while, a breeder might lose their animal... so if they really want their animal back intact, they can pay a hefty fee. In this case, we're only penalizing breeders that have done something wrong (gotten their intact animal roaming the streets).

As much as I absolutely detest the status quo as it is now... I don't think I can support putting money/resources on a law that I don't think will be effective, when that money can be used more wisely elsewhere.

 

[Angelus9]

A law that mandates something that most people don't even believe in (or are actively against it)

Don't you think this has changed enormously in the past 10 years or so?

I agree that the vets are pushing it (and agree with them), but don't you think that there's been a big shift? Seems to me, going by friends, acquaintances, neighbors, and co-workers (in non-animal related jobs), that it's now routine to get your pet fixed. Females most definitely, if for no other reason than to avoid the mess of their heat seasons, but even for males, the male view of "take off his balls? No way!" is disappearing more and more each year.

 

[Minnerbelle]

Don't you think this has changed enormously in the past 10 years or so?

I agree that the vets are pushing it (and agree with them), but don't you think that there's been a big shift? Seems to me, going by friends, acquaintances, neighbors, and co-workers (in non-animal related jobs), that it's now routine to get your pet fixed. Females most definitely, if for no other reason than to avoid the mess of their heat seasons, but even for males, the male view of "take off his balls? No way!" is disappearing more and more each year.

I agree there's been a big shift in 'normal responsible' pet owners. The type of people who go in for wellness visits every year. These people already get their pets s/n without the need of a law, and MSN wouldn't be necessary if what you say is true for the population at large. But there's a vast sea of people who would NEVER pay for a dental, and barely go in to get the necessary rabies (or not even). There are a bunch of people who would never even go to the vets. Maybe a low cost vaccine clinic if opportunity presents a chance... but that's about it. And then there are the well-meaning but ignorant and stupid people who just don't get it.

The law is supposed to curb pet overpopulation (i.e. shelter euthanasia). As a tech, I did health checks for incoming animals at a decent sized shelter and a big part of that is checking for spay scars/testicles. I may have come across an already spayed or neutered animal maybe 5-10% of the time at best. Not sure about the exact numbers, but it was a very rare occurance. So to say the least, of the people who are responsible for contributing to the pet overpopulation... most do NOT s/n their pets. There may be a huge proportion of the population who do s/n their pets like they should, but those people aren't the ones who are contributing to the problem, and won't be affected much by the law anyway. Sorry if it made it seem like I thought the entire pet owning world was like that.

edit: and the shelter i worked at was in the bay area, where a good portion of the population are some of the best pet owners in the world.

 

[nyanko]

Do you know of some way purebred animals are produced withOUT limiting the gene pool? I'm sure I took a different genetics class, but I thought that concept was pretty incontrovertible.

As a sort of side-note to the following, many cat breeds actually have allowable outcross breeds and types, as do a lot of livestock breeds and such. Often we talk here about "animals" as if it all are the same, but they're not.

That said, the extent of genetic diversity in any closed breeding population is by and large (except for mutations and parentage errors that persisted) fixed in the population and consists of a pool of alleles from the founder animals. So at the time of creation of a breed with a closed studbook, you are limiting the genes present in the population to those present in the founders. What I'm talking about is maintenance of a higher proportion of those founder alleles within the population.

A person who's interested in staying within the standard and working towards their own ideal for the breed could attempt to select the least consanguineous animal with the attributes that they want when choosing an animal to pair with one of his or her own line. You can often further genetically stratify breeds by lines, locations and purpose - breeding across these stratifications couldn't hurt, no?

As far as "responsible breeding" goes, we're all going to have our own definition. IMO, responsible breeding requires looking beyond your own "favorite breed" and considering what is going on in the larger dog world. From that perspective and given the euthanasia of millions of homeless animals, my definition of "responsible breeding" is very narrow. I'm sure your definition is different, but neither one is objectively right or wrong.

The people who I would call responsible dog breeders are breeding to some purpose. Euthanasia of homeless dogs has little to do with them, because generally speaking, their animals are going to people who need or want some specific attribute found in their breed or type of choice. I'm talking about people who responsibly breed dogs used for herding, guarding livestock, hunting, legitimate protection work, police and military work, guide dog work, pulling, etc. Yes, not all of their dogs go to homes intended for these working purposes. The fact is, even when you are breeding for a purpose like that, some dogs will come up that are not suited for it for whatever reason, and must be homed as pets (often already altered, with a limited registration). Such is the nature of breeding for behavioral traits in particular.

The question whose answer we seem to diverge on then is: are these non-performance pet dogs in the litters of performance breeders displacing shelter animals to an appreciable degree such that it outweighs the benefit of producing the performance dogs? IMO, they fill a niche that is not likely to be filled by shelter animals to the vast majority of people.

 

[Minnerbelle]

The question whose answer we seem to diverge on then is: are these non-performance pet dogs in the litters of performance breeders displacing shelter animals to an appreciable degree such that it outweighs the benefit of producing the performance dogs? IMO, they fill a niche that is not likely to be filled by shelter animals to the vast majority of people.

👍 I agree with you. As much as I would LOVE for everyone to exclusively get their pets from shelters, I don't think that's always the wisest or most feasible choice for every family for whatever reason. People who buy these spill over puppies from breeders are generally not the ones who abandon them either so I really don't have a beef with them.

 

[Trilt]

Not trying to be too much of a devil's advocate, but is breeding to attain a very good pet animal really that bad? As much as I love my shelter mutt (and of course, he is the very best dog in the world,) you really don't have knowledge of shelter animals' temperament, health history, etc. A dog bred purely for good temperament, tameness and health (silver fox style) would be a really awesome pet.

 

[nyanko]

Not trying to be too much of a devil's advocate, but is breeding to attain a very good pet animal really that bad? As much as I love my shelter mutt (and of course, he is the very best dog in the world,) you really don't have knowledge of shelter animals' temperament, health history, etc. A dog bred purely for good temperament, tameness and health (silver fox style) would be a really awesome pet.

The Russian silver fox experiment was studying domestication and is not really relevant here. Dogs are already domesticated, much moreso than the most tame of the silver foxes. It was easy to segregate out wild foxes based on their fear/aggression responses to humans and make lines based on that. There is no point in breeding to attain "a very good pet dog," because everyone's criteria for what is important in a pet is different.

Besides, isn't that what the toy breeds are bred for, essentially?

 

[HopefulAg]

I don't think you could ban pet sales any how. If they did, you'd have a lot of "Buy this pencil and receive a free puppy!" sales going on.

 

[lunajett]

Wow, lunajett, way to be insulting.

Nice try, but it won't work. You used a common tactic of ignoring legitimate reasons for opposing your point of view and trying to say that instead I'm seeing black helicopters and black-booted thugs. Leave emotion out of it.



Exceptions for "legitimate breeders"? Definition please. Legitimate means anyone who can afford to pay the big fees. IOW, puppy mills. Also, no exceptions for exempting military and police dogs. You haven't seen those. As you say, breeders "might have to register and pay a fee" - a very expensive, unreasonable fee. Medical reasons? Quote me that legislation, please. Haven't seen that one.



I don't believe this. I work with groups fighting anti-dog legislation and en masse the best breeders, who are already doing things right, do not support this type of legislation. It will require them to pay enormous fees and be inspected whenever the authorities feel like it, and S/N most of their dogs. Please list which responsible breeders support these laws.

btw, in VA (that I know of, and probably elsewhere too) PETA has volunteered to supply the inspectors. You name me ONE responsible breeder who supports that.

Angelus, you're right, I shouldn't have mocked you. It was uncalled for and cheapened my position, and I do apologize. I let myself get caught up in the emotion of an issue I feel passionately about, and got snarky with you.

Here's what got me. Your position here, and correct me if I'm wrong, basically boils down to "MSN (along with some other evil legislation) is part of a master plan to ban all pet ownership, and you are naive (that was your insult, BTW) if you don't believe this." That reminded me of some of the outrageous deceptions put out during the healthcare debate. Like there was a provision to allow doctors to be paid to discuss end of life choices with their patients, IF the patient requested it. This got twisted into "DEATH PANELS!!! Beauracrats will pull the plug on granny!!!" Take what is a good thing - maybe not perfect, but certainly with good intentions - and dramatically misrepresent it to build support for your own position.

From what I saw, you did not really provide any proof that MSN = no pet ownership. You disagree with it, you don't support organizations that are pushing MSN, and you see it as essentially evil. That's your choice based on your perspective, but I can look at the same thing and see it very differently. I've never said MSN is perfect or the only solution, but I think I have said several times it is (at least IMO) moving us in the right direction and one possible part of a multi-faceted approach to reduce euthanasia. You disagree, that's fine, but I still say you're making a real stretch to link it to "end of pet ownership." If you have proof of it, other than your suspicions and dot-connecting, I'd be eager to see it. But I doubt either one of us will convince the other.

There are many "types" of MSN depending on the locality; it can be tailored to whatever works in a community. Probably the whole "MSN" label itself doesn't help the cause and should be dropped. People here have already named a lot of good alternative/accompanying legislation that might go over better in many areas.

From the ordinances I saw, "legitimate breeders" is defined pretty much as you said: one who will pay the permit fees. I don't like that either, and I would make it much more restrictive, but I didn't write the laws and would never get elected to office, so whatever. You see the fees as "big expensive, and unreasonable," while I'd like to see them even higher. Yeah, maybe puppymills will be the only ones able to easily pay them, but the puppymill issue is being addressed in many areas through separate legislation. I don't see puppymills as a reason to abandon reasonable MSN.

Here's a link to sample ordinances in CA:
http://www.helpinganimals.com/res_lawspayord.asp

I didn't read through them all, but note the exceptions under LA City and Laguna Beach for service animals, medical reasons, etc. From Laguna: "(c) The owner or custodian of a cat or dog that is unable to be spayed or neutered without a high likelihood of suffering serious bodily harm or death due to age, infirmity or particular health risks, must obtain written confirmation of that fact from a California licensed veterinarian." Basically, get a note from your vet, you're exempt.

I don't have the names of breeders who supported the attempted state law in CA, AB 1634. It was a couple years ago and I remember this being a big issue at several conferences I went to, where some breeders were supporting it. I agree most probably would not.

 

[lunajett]

AsThe people who I would call responsible dog breeders are breeding to some purpose. Euthanasia of homeless dogs has little to do with them, because generally speaking, their animals are going to people who need or want some specific attribute found in their breed or type of choice. I'm talking about people who responsibly breed dogs used for herding, guarding livestock, hunting, legitimate protection work, police and military work, guide dog work, pulling, etc.

🙂 Nyanko, I'm actually glad I didn't put you on ignore yet because for once I think we totally agree on something. The cases you cite are among the very few where I would support breeding.

The question whose answer we seem to diverge on then is: are these non-performance pet dogs in the litters of performance breeders displacing shelter animals to an appreciable degree such that it outweighs the benefit of producing the performance dogs? IMO, they fill a niche that is not likely to be filled by shelter animals to the vast majority of people

I'd agree mostly with this, too, but I think the numbers here are so small as to be pretty irrelevant to the euthanasia/overpopulation debate. You're talking about dogs who are bred for a specific legit purpose and "don't make the cut" so end up as family pets. I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the "responsible breeders" who breed labs, aussies, GSD, whatever, for family pets. I'd venture that about 95% of your average families don't "need" a purebred whatever, they just need a "good family dog" - which I don't think appears anywhere in breed club standards. Maybe the people really like the look of labs or GSDs or whichever, so they have a preference, and the breeders are more than happy to fill that demand. When the reality is that for most of those families, there are about 10 lab mutts or GSD mutts at the local shelters and rescues who could be be perfect for them, but won't come with papers. Many people here see that kind of breeding as fine and responsible, but I don't see how anybody can call it that when we are killing so many millions of homeless animals.

 

[Trilt]

The Russian silver fox experiment was studying domestication and is not really relevant here. Dogs are already domesticated, much moreso than the most tame of the silver foxes. It was easy to segregate out wild foxes based on their fear/aggression responses to humans and make lines based on that. There is no point in breeding to attain "a very good pet dog," because everyone's criteria for what is important in a pet is different.

Besides, isn't that what the toy breeds are bred for, essentially?

Obviously I don't mean the exact same set of procedures - but breeding more exclusively for temperament as opposed to a physical set of features. And my whole point was that I don't really see breeding to attain a certain "purpose" such as police work as being far different from attaining the "purpose" of being a very good (and healthy) companion animal.

And that may be a basis of toy breeds, but definitely not what has occurred - I don't think any other group has more extreme physical attributes.

 

[bunnity]

Just going to comment that when getting a predictable personality in a dog, there are competing factors. The things affecting a dog's personality will be:

-Breed genetics
-Individual genetics (not all labs like to retrieve, not all chows are aloof...)
-Environment

If you buy a purebred puppy, you control the breed genetics, since you know it's a purebred and you can research the parents and bloodlines. You also control the environment to a large degree since you are getting the puppy at a young age. However, you do not know much about the dog's temperament as an individual, because it's a puppy still and hasn't developed its personality.

By contrast if you adopt an adult dog in a shelter you don't have as much control over breed genetics because you don't know the parents and don't necessarily know what breed(s) the dog is. You also have less control over the environment because you haven't had the dog during its socialization period. BUT you get a much better idea of that particular dog's behavior as an adult - energy level, attitude toward other dogs, prey drive, etc.

To use my favorite breed as an example, APBT's tend to be dog aggressive / dog reactive. If you buy a puppy, you can control some things - you can socialize the dog with other dogs, make sure it has no experiences of being attacked, etc. But there are people that do everything right and end up with a dog-aggressive dog, because it's in that individual dog's genes and you can't do a whole lot with that.

By contrast, if you adopt an adult dog you can't control everything that has already happened to it, but a dog that's dog-friendly at 3 years old has a much higher chance of staying that way than a 3 month old puppy.

 

[VeganSoprano]

I think another point is that we have a *pet* overpopulation crisis. We do not have a nationwide shortage of working dogs. If it ever starts to look like we're headed for that sort of problem, then we need to do something about it. We can't fail to address a crisis because of a problem it *might* create at some point in the distant future. Imagine if medicine were practiced that way - "yes, I know Fluffy is diabetic and insulin is required to treat that but we can't do that because we might accidentally overdose him and he might go into hypoglycemic shock", or "yup, Fido has hemorrhagic gastroenteritis and really needs IV fluids but we can't because it might send him into heart failure". Of course none of us would think this was reasonable! And while shelter euthanasia still kills more dogs and cats than any disease, we must be just as aggressive and accepting of risk in addressing the overpopulation crisis as we are in treating and preventing disease. Now, just like in medicine, this doesn't mean uncritical support of everything that is put forth as a possible solution. But it does mean accepting some risk because the cost of doing nothing is unacceptable.

 

[Minnerbelle]

I don't think you could ban pet sales any how. If they did, you'd have a lot of "Buy this pencil and receive a free puppy!" sales going on.

it's funny you bring this up, as this is how a lot of humane societies have puppy auctions! I've known places where it was illegal to have an auction of cute puppies, so instead they put fendi scarves on the puppies and made it an auction for the scarves. if they win the auction for the scarf, they also get first dibs on the puppy's adoption. i found it kind of weird to see a mutt puppy go for thousands of dollars.

 

[david594]

They gave up on the regulation:

http://www.oregonlive.com/pets/index.ssf/2010/07/san_francisco_drops_plan_to_ou.html