It just happened and I am afraid it’s probably only the beginning :-(

[saltyfilmfolks]

My wife and I tried for over 6 months with 5 different places to adopt our last dog. Sadly it seems easier to adopt a child then a dog! Both my wife and I have stable careers, schedules, we own our home and were willing to allow a background check and home inspection for adoption as well as travel any distance and at any expense just to keep from "buying" a new addition. And all for not, because in the end we were not able to adopt.

Was that a gov run agency or a third party group?
We have a few of those around. Prettty over the top requirements for a mostly non regulated thing. Getting a dog.

Is that in California?

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

Surely something like this would have been far more appropriate to fix the actual issue?

Yup. That type of legislation would be considered on over reach by government in the American view. You see the back lash just here in this thread. They want to make us do what?!!! They'll take away out fish! And guns!

In my view , with all the data reviewed by legislators , the huge taxpayer expense no one considers as far as handling the glut of animals on the kill list and the far left and right demands that had to be considered, this is the only thing they could pass to to anything to stop the problem. It's terrible, not well done, only half addresses the issue kinda and is the only real progress that could be made on the issue due to political infighting , negotiating non related issues and general dysfunction. But we'll gladly complain about it cuz, Merica!

And oddly , you can actually still just legally go buy a full bred dog or animal legally. Or any dog.

And also why the "adoption" and rescue "requirements " are a scam. Becuse you can just go buy a dog. Becuse the stores don't really sell them them anymore anyway as we read above.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

Here's the law.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB4

 

[Rip Van Winkle]

Just another good example of the government becoming our mommies. If I want to buy a pure breed dog thats my business. If I want a shelter dog that too is my business. Get you grubby mitts out of my life government.

The way I see it is rights or basic accesses are being eroded.

 

[Reef Box]

Was that a gov run agency or a third party group?
We have a few of those around. Prettty over the top requirements for a mostly non regulated thing. Getting a dog.

Is that in California?

This is in CA. they were all rescues or privately run places (which may or may not have also been considered rescues) I will add that we were looking for a Female Rottweiler but we were willing to consider a mix depending on the specific dog. These were the places that actually had one available that we really liked. It was so ridiculous that my wife actually became angry that we couldn't find anywhere that would let us rescue. It really is no wonder these places are severely overcrowded

 

[MnFish1]

Yup. That type of legislation would be considered on over reach by government in the American view. You see the back lash just here in this thread. They want to make us do what?!!!

Thats not true. The UK legislation is similar to the law in my state. (Though it does not have the backbone rule - about feeding fish). All people breeding animals above a certain number of litters/year (2 or more) or households with more than a certain number of dogs are regulated by the state, inspected yearly, and can only sell in certain venues. Venues can only buy from approved sources. The backlash against the law had nothing to do with an 'American viewpoint' it was all about the silliness of the law and the ineffectiveness of the law. NO ONE on this debate discussion supports the business rights of 'puppy-mill' owners.

They'll take away out fish! And guns! In my view , with all the data reviewed by legislators , the huge taxpayer expense no one considers as far as handling the glut of animals on the kill list and the far left and right demands that had to be considered, this is the only thing they could pass to to anything to stop the problem. It's terrible, not well done, only half addresses the issue kinda and is the only real progress that could be made on the issue due to political infighting , negotiating non related issues and general dysfunction.

But you are defending the bill. I resent a little the tone that this has anything to do with the 'gun debate'. This was about criticizing a stupid law which is more about animal rights activism than fixing the problem it is trying to fix. It was also about how other 'stupid laws' could be made concerning our hobby.

But we'll gladly complain about it cuz, Merica!

If you are using 'Merica' which tends to be a derogatory term suggesting uneducated bible banging white people - as a way to suggest that the people that disagreed with you were somehow wrong, I disagree with you. Maybe 'Merica' now means people with common sense who know can recognize when politicians are pretending to do something good which may eventually harm others with no real benefit.

And oddly , you can actually still just legally go buy a full bred dog or animal legally. Or any dog

Not from a pet store.

And also why the "adoption" and rescue "requirements " are a scam. Becuse you can just go buy a dog. Becuse the stores don't really sell them them anymore anyway as we read above.

As I and some have suggested, it seems the purpose of the law is to limit pet stores and pure-bred dog breeders. That is a standing goal of PETA and other organizations. I dont know if you read the Link I posted above concerning PETA's position paper on aquariums. One interesting sentence - if you have no fish, you should not buy an aquarium - it is immoral to keep fish in a tank. If you have fish you should maintain them until they die and then give up your hobby. PETA suggest that There are several TV screen savers to view aquarium scenes (This is PETA's suggestion for the reefing hobby).

 

[Heath Biggers]

All you folks, in California that support this ban, get ready for them to come after all those fragile exotic corals in your tank. Don't they belong on a reef, not a cruel glass box. That is what will be said. get ready for it.

 

[MnFish1]

My wife and I spent almost a year trying to rescue a dog. It was an unpleasant experience. Everyone had forms, interviews, lectures. We now have two very happy dogs we bought from a reputable breeder. I will never deal with the sanctimonious pet rescue crowd again.

If you want fewer strays, these reputable pet stores were your best friends. I totally agree with the quotes post. Owner responsibility is the real issue. California putting them out of business is not going to have the desired effect.

Part of the reason rescues do this is to ensure that people know what they are getting into when they take a 'rescue animal' - which has a history of some kind of behavioral issue, trauma, aggressiveness, etc. They want the animals to go to a good home - rather then be turned back to another shelter or put down because the new owners were not aware of the potential issues. I dont know why it would take a year. This is certainly one of the reasons that there is an oversupply of 'problem dogs' (because dogs with significant problems are not 'put down', but instead rescued. Unless those animals are placed in perfect homes, they are likely to injure someone or end up being put down anyway because of their behavior issues. Of course there are exceptions to every rule.

Yea. Rescue is prettty trendy. It attracts all kinds. The aspca and Gov run shelters is much easier with less preaching, and now you can go to any pet store here to get a rescue animal.

The problem is that 'pet stores' are probably not the best place to keep 'rescue animals' which often have special needs. If rescue facilities (as mentioned above) take too much time screening people to take these animals, pet stores may very well not do a good enough job. If you think that in reality, pet shops will be taking in rescue animals and selling them, I would bet you are incorrect (unless they are buying them from an illegal 'rescue' (puppy mill masquerading as a rescue). If you think there is a big market (i.e. people going out to pet stores looking for rescue dogs) I dont think that exists (those people would go to the rescues themselves).

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

The way I see it is rights or basic accesses are being eroded.

At a point though, it does become a health and safety issue and a financial issue for the public. So what would be the solution?
That's the core of if my interests really.
If as the studies showed, one of the Problembs is too many animals as shelters and rescues is costing to much to support a no kill policy, what would be the solution?
Add funding to shelters and reinstate more kill policies?

 

[Tahoe61]

Some posters need to take a step back from the political content please.


* Be mindful of yourself and others.

 

[MnFish1]

All you folks, in California that support this ban, get ready for them to come after all those fragile exotic corals in your tank. Don't they belong on a reef, not a cruel glass box. That is what will be said. get ready for it.

The law that CA has put into place has been put into place in numerous other municipalities (CA is just the first statewide ban). Often it is in response to animal activists in a smaller area trying to shut down a pet store that is selling puppies (picketing, etc). There are also campaigns by animal rights groups that use this bill as a template law (animallaw.com - look under 'model laws') which is being advocated to many cities/locations. Those that think its 'paranoid' to think the the next steps is more regulation for fish I believe are naive. Google animal rights position on aquariums/fish keeping. it was an eye opener.

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

This is PETA's suggestion for the reefing hobby).

Those are extremeists. Sadly with way to much clout imo. So We do have a common ground there.

Not from a pet store.

I actually go to pet stores and here it's actually been yeas since I've seen a dog there. Becuse the popular consent here is to rescue or buy from legitimate breeders.
You should know, we had a number of years not long ago where several chain stores popped up state wide that offered dogs. They were closed becuse of public outcry becuse they were using puppy mills for their supply line. It's the only way a store can keep up with demand. Real breeders didn't want to supply them. They care about their animals and didn't like that they'd be sold in strip malls. You'd really have to sell a lot of dogs to make that a sustainable buisness model.
IMO. This type of livestock can't be sold that way.

As far as Merica , it's a fun play on a stereo type to add humor , inapologise if it was offensive.
It points to the mentality , not race, that many feel here that we can do what we want regardless of the sociopolitical and fincal impact to the community.

A large population leads to a lot of trash and waste, and live animals were becoming part of that waste.

This lame piece of legislation is the only thing they could all agree on to to help curb that problem imo.

PETA reportedly had the same problem , they collected animals and suddenly had a huge financial problem keeping them.

 

[Yuki Rihwa]

No surprise if they taking next step to aquarium fish keeping hobby, it's none related to California Law but there are few countries in South America already BANNED the fish exporting out of their countries. There is an Organization (I forgot their name) of animal/fish right that succeeded to make Walmart stop selling GSP (Green spotted Puffer) fish in their store. Also, Petco in my area already stop selling marine fish, they're closed down the marine fish section, and same thing happen for Petsmart.

 

[MnFish1]

At a point though, it does become a health and safety issue and a financial issue for the public. So what would be the solution?
That's the core of if my interests really.
If as the studies showed, one of the Problembs is too many animals as shelters and rescues is costing to much to support a no kill policy, what would be the solution?
Add funding to shelters and reinstate more kill policies?

IHMO:

1. License all people that sell dogs. Breeders/pet stores/etc. Be certain people holding licenses meet any standards the state decides is prudent (this will take care of puppy mills)Part of the law should ensure that secondary sellers of dogs (pet stores, etc) are only taking stock from approved sources (licensed - within that state) and that THEY are also caring for the animals they are selling.
2. Decide whether it really makes sense that 'every dog' be rescued (ill/aggressive/etc) or whether euthanasia is a better long-term solution.
3. Make owning a dog a 'responsitibility'. Animal sellers should not just sell a puppy to anyone that has the dollar amount they are asking. Make sure people buying an animal have the means to purchase it and care for it (including the veterinary costs). Make sure that people buying an animal have it spayed/neutered UNLESS they meet certain criteria (the state can decide) that will allow them to breed the dog. (These standards are used by most breeders when they have puppies already - to ensure good homes and irresponsible breeding).

 

[flsalty]

Petcos and Petsmarts haven't been selling dogs and cats for years around here. I believe they quit because they were hounded by animal rights activists. I worked for a large independent pet store <mumble><mumble> years ago. We were very picky about where we got our puppies and kittens from.

This law really makes no sense. It only hurts legitimate pet store owners. The rest will just use a workaround. Puppy mills aren't touched at all.

This is what happens when people let their emotions run wild. We should be more like Vulcans

Just wait until people break into your house and steal your corals so they can throw them back into the ocean ;Hilarious

 

[saltyfilmfolks]

IHMO:

1. License all people that sell dogs. Breeders/pet stores/etc. Be certain people holding licenses meet any standards the state decides is prudent (this will take care of puppy mills)Part of the law should ensure that secondary sellers of dogs (pet stores, etc) are only taking stock from approved sources (licensed - within that state) and that THEY are also caring for the animals they are selling.
2. Decide whether it really makes sense that 'every dog' be rescued (ill/aggressive/etc) or whether euthanasia is a better long-term solution.
3. Make owning a dog a 'responsitibility'. Animal sellers should not just sell a puppy to anyone that has the dollar amount they are asking. Make sure people buying an animal have the means to purchase it and care for it (including the veterinary costs). Make sure that people buying an animal have it spayed/neutered UNLESS they meet certain criteria (the state can decide) that will allow them to breed the dog. (These standards are used by most breeders when they have puppies already - to ensure good homes and irresponsible breeding).

I agree.

Apparently that sort of common sense approach would not pass legislation.

 

[Brew12]

I think this law is a watered down version of a law meant to be effective. I don't see it as being a slippery slope issue or even a political issue. I believe all it will accomplish is making it so people feel better about having passed a law they think will protect abused animals.

The situation with stray pets is something that we should all be willing to work together on, regardless of political affiliation. This isn't a big government/small government issue. This isn't a freedom issue. At some point, this is an issue about trying to do the right thing.

I'm a Chicago native who is now living in a rural area in Alabama. I've seen this issue at the big city level and rural area and the problems are very similar. We have no pet stores within 100 miles that sell dogs or cats. Our city (around 55k residence) has a shelter that puts down an average of 150 pets a month. The next largest shelter was a country shelter that ended up shutting down. It wasn't because they couldn't afford it, they couldn't find anyone to work there anymore. They were putting down so many animals every day that they couldn't keep staff or volunteers. To make it worse, some people were busted because they were "rescuing" dogs from that shelter and using them as "bait" dogs to teach their pit bulls how to fight. You don't even want to think about how many strays meet that end.

I can't help but agree that the CA law wouldn't make a difference out here by us. Individuals can only do so much. My wife and I adopted 2 puppies from a kill shelter 8 years ago and they are both fantastic. But think about this. If we could get families to keep 2 adopted animals and they live an average of 12 years, our city of 55k would need 21k families participating to stop killing at the shelters. That would be almost 100% participation and it isn't going to happen. This means that we either accept this many animals being killed every year or the government is going to have to step in and try to pass laws to help.

I don't have the answer on how to fix this but I won't put anyone down for trying. I would suggest we start by trying to communicate with each other better and build off of positives instead of trying to tear down each others ideas and each other in the process.

#soapbox

Don't worry. I'm starting a an acro mill.

You evil, evil man. I bet you are going to grow them and then use bone cutters or ban saws to cut them into tiny pieces and glue them to plugs designed to be put in a rack where they will lose all freedom of movement!

There was an impact on our hobby here too, it caused a bit of a catch 22 situation

I saw another unintended consequence of this law in the news recently. If I remember correctly, she had a pet that needed emergency care. She skipped work for a few days to take care of the pet. I believe she was suing her employer for paid time off (but may have been fired and was suing to get hired back) because she would have been in violation of this law had she allowed her dog to suffer by not taking the time off.

 

[MnFish1]

Some posters need to take a step back from the political content please.

I have a question - since you are a moderator I hope you will answer, though I can see why you might not. In situations like this - (even if I'm an offender because I said 'animal rights activists' (which some may construe as political)), it would be helpful to know what you consider to be 'political content'. It is somewhat unclear the content that you had a problem with. That leaves the user with a question - was it me - or the one that said California should drop off the ocean or the one that brought up the gun debate, etc, etc etc. (I personally haven't seen any content I would consider 'political') but I may have missed some.

 

[samnaz]

My wife and I tried for over 6 months with 5 different places to adopt our last dog. Sadly it seems easier to adopt a child then a dog! Both my wife and I have stable careers, schedules, we own our home and were willing to allow a background check and home inspection for adoption as well as travel any distance and at any expense just to keep from "buying" a new addition. And all for not, because in the end we were not able to adopt.

I'm curious... Why weren't you able to adopt? Do you own a dog that isn't neutered/fixed?

 

[Tahoe61]

Simple, when content using political buzz words and phrases to exaggerate a point, never ever ever ends well for the thread.