Wednesday, March 28, 2007

The Coalition of the Misinformed for Mandatory Spay/Neuter Legislation

In Sacramento County, a "Coalition to Stop Animal Overpopulation” was formed in November 2004. (Please note the dates)
The list of members at the initial meeting included moneyed, non-local groups with affiliations to PeTA with agendas which are well known to be against any kind of human-animal bond.

Ingrid Newkirk, President PeTA
" the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship ­ enjoyment at a distance"

Check it out and you'll see that it is a "stitch up".

Wayne Pacelle, CEO of HSUS since June 2004 ~
"We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."

"If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don't want to see another dog or cat born."

The Coalition's list of members includes Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR), Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Animal Protection Institute (API), Sacramento Area Animal Coalition (SAAC), Sacramento City Animal Services, Sacramento Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (SPCA) and Sacramento County Animal Care and Regulation (AC&R). This "Coalition" then presented to both the County and City of Sacramento a model ordinance which they proposed "works toward ending the pet overpopulation problem and the corresponding euthanasia of adoptable animals in our shelters".

The Coalition chooses to criminalize all pet owners that will not do things exactly the way they mandate. As if that were not enough, they are widely promoting heresy regarding spay and neuter, in order to promote their goals. They choose to do this despite documented health risks and the fact that this type of legislation has does NOT WORK.

Wayne Pacelle, CEO of HSUS since June 2004
"We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States ... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state." -in Full Cry Magazine, October 1, 1990.
Amazingly, California Assemblymember Lloyd Levine is obtuse enough to call the statewide version of this anti-animal bill, "the California Healthy Pets Act (AB 1634)".

How does
  • the elimination of pets
  • the criminalization of pet owners
  • blanket enforcement of invasive surgery on baby animals
  • raising fees so that only puppy and kitten mills can afford to breed
lead to Healthy Pets?

Labels: , ,

Semavi Lady woofed at @ 3/28/2007 01:28:00 AM | Permanent link | (7) Comments

Anonymous Kelly Burch sent us a woof // March 31, 2007

Never mind that a million dogs a year, of which 260,000 are purebred, are destroyed by animal control agencies in this state. Per year... Disregard the cost of $250 Million, more than the state spend on children's books. Per year... Conveniently dismiss the breeder's exemption specified in this law.
If you are a cheat, a stonehearted person and willing to do anything to make a buck, you'll oppose the bill. If you are ethical, pay your taxes and care about the species we call canine: you'll support a law which will INCREASE the sales price of puppies by decreasing unwanted supply. It will improve quality by taking out the unknowledgeable 'backyard breeder' you love to blame ...but still sell your stud services to...
You'll oppose this law if you agree with killing more purebred dogs than are shown at all 25 of the largest AKC shows/events. Each year.
If you have a right to breed, and sold your dogs intact, you are remiss in your duty to address the problem these past 25 years while the situation spiraled into the killing machine it is today. A million dogs. Per year.

I'm Kelly Burch and I co-bred and showed the all time top Anatolian producer, champion and winner. You want to speak with me about the bill, you can phone me at 619.244.9946

AB 1634 is necessary because... we breed.   

Anonymous jan sent us a woof // April 01, 2007

Our (California) state legislature specializes in passing "feel good" legislation that makes a good sound bite, but represents no common sense. Unfortunately other states follow like sheep.   

Blogger Ron Southern sent us a woof // April 02, 2007

You keep finding these Coalitions of Evil! Jeez. Let's hunt animal-rights assholes until They're all dead.   

Blogger Semavi Lady sent us a woof // April 03, 2007

Hi Kelly,

Check out this quote and note the date...

"Our goal is to make [the public think of] breeding [dogs and cats] like drunk driving and smoking." -- Kim Sturla, former director of the Peninsula Humane Society and Western Director of Fund for Animals, stated during Kill the Crisis, not the Animals campaign and workshops, 1991"

Your comments-

1. Your rhetoric presents a straw man argument using sweeping generalizations to create polar populations in an attempt to frame the perceived problem as something that it is not. Since control issues in such legislation are misdirected, it has been proven time and time again that it does not work. The sources and same reasons for turnover are not abated.

2. Communities working together and providing diverse venues of education and reward has been proven to reach and inspire more people with positive impact on goals.

3. Unfortunately, the general representation of a shelter as the 'best' place to get a pet by many well-meaninged people has created double edge sword with regard to the revolving door of "disposable" pets by giving people who could try a little harder, an easy out. Furthermore, shelter workers do not always understand breed issues, nor give follow up support for placement problems. It's not called a revolving door for nothing.

3. Populations with greater levels of disposable income and higher prices for animals has not proven to be a solution that ensures responsible ownership nor has anything to do breeder knowledge about behavior, training, placement or genetics.

4. One needs to take the time to evaluate previous related legislation and scrutinize the data. Creating a 'solution' without evaluating the evidence and misrepresenting the problem is as effective as tilting at windmills.

5. Your argument also illustrates an alarming short sightedness regarding genetics, selection, testing, health, and growth patterns among other issues in our breed -- the Anatolian Shepherd Dog. A working knowledge of these issues will provide enlightenment as to why this is bad legislation for our breed.

But breed considerations aside, this legislation has little to do with Healthy Pets but is deliberately framed this way because social engineering paves the path toward accomplishing the goals of a different agenda.

What does work. Having programs and events that are _inclusive_ and encourage pet owners to get involved. People reach out to each other and educate more. Events open to the public such as pet walkathons, fun matches and agility dog events encourage more people to get involved with the dog community. These events could have raffles and inexpensive entry fees which could help generate funds for inexpensive spay and neuter.

The divide and conquer method only works toward the agenda stated in the first paragraph.   

Blogger Semavi Lady sent us a woof // April 04, 2007

Jan. Yep, the "sheeple" factor!

Critical thinking and data analysis to examine alleged correlation and causation are not strong points of many. People are often drawn by elements of shock value and easily swayed by emotive argument.

Thanks for visiting and commenting! Your blog is a refreshing read.


Ron. :) I'm still no closer to blogging about that three headed TP dispenser... LOL

More related to the blog topic, you might enjoy this site.

At the bottom of the 12 steps on each side, there is a given source and date. 1987 is the year the twelve step agenda was first published. I didn't take it seriously then.

The use of misleading or incomplete information to steer public opinion into accomplishing their goals is now well documented by the AR groups themselves ...and the media. (Pet dumpsters anyone?)   

Blogger Kandira sent us a woof // April 08, 2007

Well Gang here is the Wolf for your Woof. KELLY BURCH (Kelly Mcfadden) or he had many other names that he used in the years that I knew him.....He came thru a training class that I was one of the instructors of and now he is a trainer???? Kelly also has in the past years misrepresented him self in many ways, I have no clue what he trying to do and or achieve in this blog..but his two liner in regards to his handling of ASD and co-bred all time top, blog,blog.. is another misrepresentation of himself....THE ONLY TIME he even was with the ASD's was back in the early 90's and I know all about this person (imposter)! all of you out there beware of this person....he is the real WOLF IN SHEEPS CLOTHING!!! he is a real charmer and he probably needs attention, be carefull not to fall into his trap   

Blogger Semavi Lady sent us a woof // April 09, 2007

Candy, thanks for your comment. Anonymous comments on blogs can be attributed to anyone claiming to be anything. I allow anon comments since the majority are just fine.(and some are from my friends that don't have blogs)

Hope you and critters had a great Easter!   

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Justice? What a joke

From USA Today, an opinion piece by Jonathan Turley. (go see, good reading!)

We can find better ways to deal with runaway bushes, castaway pets, or even potty-mouth problems. Congress and the states should create independent commissions to review their laws in order to decriminalize negligent conduct, limiting criminal charges to true crimes and true criminals. In the end, a crime means nothing if anyone can be a criminal.
Better yet, how about some prevention? Let's have politicians and committees armed with the facts and capable of critical thinking and data analysis to prevent such intellectually vacuous legislation from taking hold in the first place.


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 3/27/2007 10:37:00 PM | Permanent link | (0) Comments

Monday, March 26, 2007


Chick out the amazing Chook-a-pede.


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 3/26/2007 10:25:00 AM | Permanent link | (0) Comments

Friday, March 23, 2007

Is Your Dog Vegan?

Is your dog Vegan?

HSUS is anti pet:
  • "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP of Humane Society of the United States

  • "If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don't want to see another dog or cat born." Wayne Pacelle

  • "I don't have a hands-on fondness for animals. To this day I don't feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I'm kind to them, but there's no special bond between me and other animals." Wayne Pacelle

  • "The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration." Michael W. Fox, Scientific Director and former Vice President, The Humane Society of the United States

Above quotes are NOT from PeTA. They are from the HSUS, which has adopted the radical Vegan movement that is supported by terrorists.

The idea is that people should not eat meat, thus the keeping of cats and dogs clearly requires that they as carnivores MUST be eliminated because we need to feed MEAT to our pets. Antipet legislation is very real. It seems alarmist but that is because we have had our eyes closed for so long.

HSUS and PeTA are both organizations that do NOT support cancer or AIDs or any other research for us or our pets.
  • "To those people who say, My father is alive because of animal experimentation,' I say Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.' Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of trade off." Bill Maher, PETA celebrity spokesman

  • In 2005 HSUS Pacelle announced the formation of a new "Animal Protection Litigation Section" within HSUS, dedicated to "the process of researching, preparing, and prosecuting animal protection lawsuits in state and federal court".
We know what PeTA has recently done, using their legal clout.


See a running list of terrorist acts that these Animal Rights groups are supporting and help fund:

If you have read Reno's story (Carina's got the best collection of links on Reno Story), you may realize that this could happen to any of us directly or indirectly. If you are trying to help with rescue or are giving another pet a loving home, and are found to be over the pet 'limit', you will be informed that your personal property (the dogs/cats) will be forcibly removed from you. You could try to get a kennel license, but face it, your own neighbors are going to think the worst, that you are an animal collector, there will be poop and barks everywhere, and they will veto it.

If you are a breeder and place some dogs with great families who then find out they are forced to neuter their four old month pet or they need to get 'rid' of some of their pets because they adopted a cat -- or maybe some other family situation puts them over the limit -- They may need to send you YOUR puppy back, what happens next? What if that now puts YOU over the limit? Ex posto facto? Some of the limit laws do not grandfather the multi-pet owners in. What if they can't afford to move? What happens to their pets? Sorry the new ordinance means you have no rights. (although these laws are actually unconstitutional in many cases. There is legal precedence of this but it comes at great cost to those who may have their lives destroyed in the process!)

Breeders need to inform their puppy people to become aware of legislation in their areas.

There are other antiAnimal agendas happening all over the country right now. Several cities whose legislators who did not get enough feedback may have 'thought it was a good idea' have passed mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) laws.

California is being groomed to be the first state to pass mandatory spay and neuter. If you are aware, MSN has aready been accepted in regions of California. The impact of this 'surprising' success has provided powerful force of misinformation to spread the these laws statewide. Once California has it in place, other places will quickly follow.
  • "We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States ... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state. Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP Humane Society of the US (HSUS), formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Full Cry Magazine, October 1, 1990.
Anatolian Shepherd Dogs and other Livestock guardian dogs (LGDs) are considered a threat to wolf and wildlife populations -- and of course, they eat meat. You cannot explain your way out of this one to AR.

People still think, 'it can't happen here' and they do not write their legislators nor talk to their friends to spread the word. Los Angeles county is now in deep doodoo, other areas around the country are having serious problems and people like us do not have the finances and political clout of HSUS, PeTA and their peers. We are losing.


Check to see if forums are available to let you know what is going on at your state, go here:

If your state isn't listed, it may just mean that a specific forum for yours hasn't been started up. The main list IS nationwide, and may have postings relevant to your state. Read more here and look for info about the pet-law mailing list.

California voters must get involved now. The HSUS and PeTA have millions of dollars of our own pet loving money to use against us. As of now, the hearing to impose mandatory spay and neuter over the entire state will be in April. It will then be up to the Governor to veto or pass it.

More reading:
Animal Rights and White Elephants, What you Don't see about Dogs, Vegans, HSUS, AR, by Alice Nagy for TheDogPress: "The phrase Animal Rights furthers their goal. The word Vegan would be very scary for them to hear coming from 'Omnis'. The word Vegan tells the listener you will have to eat their way, if you allow them to make meat overly expensive until it disappears. You will have no pets because pets eat meat. Eventually everything and everyone will become Vegan. That is their agenda. The term is Vegan."

More quotes from Animal Rights extremist leaders."The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.

More on Reno's story: Ordinances, not all are listed for Reno's town of Holland, Wisconsin. And as of now, the minutes for the meeting where Reno was discussed (March 14, according to the news article) is not listed as of this posting.

Pet Limit laws are unconstitutional.

Labels: ,

Semavi Lady woofed at @ 3/23/2007 08:32:00 PM | Permanent link | (5) Comments

Blogger threecollie sent us a woof // March 24, 2007

This is a great post. Thanks for visiting my blog and leaving a contact.
I am hoping you don't mind if I link back to this post, as this is an outstanding explanation of what goes on with HSUS and PeTA. They are the sworn enemy of every true animal lover in the world.   

Blogger Semavi Lady sent us a woof // March 24, 2007

Threecollie, thanks for the link. Yes, let's get the word out!
Thank you!   

Blogger Carina sent us a woof // March 24, 2007

Great and scary stuff...I'm off to work now but will read more fully later tonight.
Your response to whatshername (Vera?) was wonderful...I was going to add to it but you pretty much said it all.
Several years ago I would have called people like you and 3collie and me alarmist and paranoid....but with the insiduous creeping of BSL, MSN and animal rights legislation, it's becoming very real. The ONLY reason I buy city licences for my dogs is on the offchance they're ever involved with any sort of bite incident I want as much power as possible to keep them safe and not killed. They are charming and well behaved but being Rottweilers they're automatically at fault...   

Anonymous jan sent us a woof // March 26, 2007

Excellent post. Good points and good evidence to back it up, I hope dog lovers will rise up and understand what is going on with organizations that purportedly represent animals.   

Anonymous Anonymous sent us a woof // April 11, 2007


As what i read on this posted article, i found out the informativeness of this
kind of topic. For that reason i opened up an idea and some knowledge in this
field. well, you made just did a great job..more power!

Lea Go
Dog Containment Systems   

Monday, March 19, 2007

AVMA - Neutered Small Breed Dogs and Vaccine Risk

Fascinating abstract from 2005 in a major veterinary medical journal - regarding vaccine associated adverse events (VAAEs) risk and its association with neutering.

The first issue having to do with neutering, other issues with repeated vaccination and the size of dog.

Apparently the American Veterinary Medical Association knows about this. I mean, good grief, it's in their journal.

AVMA - Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association - 227(7):1102 - Abstract

Some info from the abstract
  • Results—
    4,678 adverse events (38.2/10,000 dogs vaccinated) were associated with administration of 3,439,576 doses of vaccine to 1,226,159 dogs. The VAAE rate decreased significantly as body weight increased. Risk was 27% to 38% greater for neutered versus sexually intact dogs and 35% to 64% greater for dogs approximately 1 to 3 years old versus 2 to 9 months old. The risk of a VAAE significantly increased as the number of vaccine doses administered per office visit increased; each additional vaccine significantly increased risk of an adverse event by 27% in dogs ≤ 10 kg (22 lb) and 12% in dogs > 10 kg.
  • Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—
    Young adult small-breed neutered dogs that received multiple vaccines per office visit were at greatest risk of a VAAE within 72 hours after vaccination. These factors should be considered in risk assessment and risk communication with clients regarding vaccination. (J Am Vet Med Assoc 2005;227:1102–1108)

New vaccine protocols now call for fewer vaccines. I imagine the study above was part of the supportive information used to help create new vaccine protocols to reduce over vaccination. But what about the statistics behind the neutering aspect of this study? Or the size of the dog? (this just means that of the dogs that HAD reactions, there was a significant difference in the population distribution - all dogs are not the same!)

It's interesting what responsible dog owners don't need to know about when politics promoting "Healthy Pets" is at the fore.

Check out the proposed legislation-
From California Healthy Pets Act website at

What the California Healthy Pets Act Would Do

The California Healthy Pets Act (AB 1634) would require the spaying and neutering of most cats and dogs by the time the pet is four months old. It is authored and was introduced by Assemblymember Lloyd Levine. Pet owners who have not spayed or neutered their pet would be cited and given time to spay or neuter their pets before a fine would be assessed.

Yes, we all want fewer unwanted pets to be killed. But those of us who ARE keeping our pets would like to give our HEALTHY PETS optimal chances to have healthy lives.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.


UPDATE: Wed-21 March, 2007- Vera Edwards, CEO for Taxpayers for Responsible & Ethical Animal Treatment, ( comments below. Toggle comments to see Vera's comment (to which I will respond when I can -ok, done, but am out of time to make it shorter ) -alternatively click here

Labels: ,

Semavi Lady woofed at @ 3/19/2007 05:30:00 AM | Permanent link | (6) Comments

Blogger Vera sent us a woof // March 20, 2007

As a supporter of animal rescue, I must disagree with the opinion that AB1634 will be ineffective in curbing the stem of animals contributing to our current crisis of pet over population. To date, the efforts made in educating the public on responsible pet ownership have failed to lead the people to "do the responsible thing" when given the option to do so.
We have spent an enormous amount of time trying to be "politically correct" by allowing pet owners the feedom of choice to spay and neuter. Sadly, many have failed miserably in their efforts. When do we as responsible pet owners begin to defend the rights of the animals who are losing their lives due to non-caring owners? How many who oppose mandatory spay and neuter walk their local shelters and see firsthand what this law is trying to prevent?
Our shelter's are not filled with responsibly bred AKC animals are they? It is the back yard breeders who are breeding for financial gain and the pet owners who simply don't care enough about the problem or their pets, therefore allow them to roam freely, that is contributing to the vast majority of the problems. When do we as responsible pet owners begin to hold them accountable for the problems that they are creating?
For every breeder that is voicing their opposition to this bill, I ask this? How many of them are visiting their local shelter every week and rescuing their breeds? How many of them have talked to animal control workers who are forced to euthanize these animals everyday and asked them for their opinions?
Wouldn't you agree that euthanizing healthy, adoptable animals is inhumane, when it is for no other reason than there simply are not enough homes available?
The argument that we simply cannot fund a law such as AB1634 has no basis. Currently in Kern County,taxpayers are spending 3.1 million dollars to virtually catch and kill the overflow of animals in our community and that amount is steadily rising each year. Shelter personnel are overwhelmed with just trying to keep up with the demands of the daily intake of animals coming into their shelter.
Common sense dictates that if you stem the flow of animals impounded, necessitating the overwhelming need for manpower and funds used to treat and house these animals, those same funds can and should be better spent in prevention. We all are dealing with the daily loss of lives now, so how would you suggest we as a community of animal advocates stop the slaughter of innocent lives today? Before anyone voices disapproval for a law that in effect is a huge start in controlling our pet overpopulation problem, consider that what has been claimed in regards to education, freedom of choice, property rights, etc, hasn't been proven effective. If anyone has a better solution that hasn't been tried yet that will impact the loss of life occurring today and everday, I sure would be interested in hearing it.
Vera Edwards
Taxpayers for Responsible & Ethical Animal Treatment   

Blogger Semavi Lady sent us a woof // March 21, 2007

Hi Vera,

I'm just about the worst typist and proofreader that blogs. ;) But
you said you be interested in what I have to say, so I've taken a bit of time to write and take you up on this. (probably just a one shot deal but lots of resource in the links)

You state that it is 'common sense' that "stemming the flow will cause the problem to abate". Certainly it is common sense that pulling out a thorn, removes the thorn. But on the matter of mandatory S/N to solve perceived problems... Not So. If you have evidence that it works, then show supportive statistics at your website. Such evidence may strengthen your argument. I went to your site and don't see materials other than a generalized "Appeal to emotion". If that isn't intended, maybe you can remedy that at your site.

Here is a simple fact. Many places that do not have forced S/N have actually already experienced a deficit of adoptable animals, so some controversial 'importing' has become necessary. Perhaps you know that but chose not to mention it? NAIA is one source for such info but there are other places.

The people that make up the population that we (may) mutually see as the cause of unwanted animals being available will still make bad or misinformed choices. Sometimes 'sheep happens'. People with pets that may have behavioral issues will continue to be a source of shelter pet statistics. Pet bans and limit laws, deaths in the family can all lead to the deaths of beautiful adoptable animals whose owners cannot afford to relocate.

Pets that are not neutered will come from other sources, legitimate and not. Sometimes illegal operations supply stolen puppies from other areas for resale. Go ahead, create an unintentional niche for this. Free breeding feral cats will continue to do their thing and probably already significantly outnumber purebred dogs (or just 'dogs') that end up in rescue. Your site doesn't specify.

Many purebred dog breeders spend a lot of time teaching owners the responsible ways to do things and this is why you don't see so many quality purebreds as a statistical euthanization problem. By lumping them with all others and making it more difficult to breed healthy animals, mandatory S/N dittoheads have overlooked the ONE group that has been successfully preventing problems and instead, are deliberately throwing them into the fire!

Since it is blatently obvious that genetics is not the strong point of many who like animals, they may not understand the need for responsible breeders to require that some of their placements keep puppies intact, at least until 2 years or more of age. These may never breed and be neutered sooner or later, but the more animals in the family that are evaluated -- the better the outcome for the health and longevity of the breed(s). It is called genetic diversity (having more to choose from) and selective breeding.

This is part of the reason that the very idea of "Healthy Pets" being associated with this bill is so disingenuous! It illustrates the lack of education and/or logic among emotive pet advocates and politicians.

Some previous outcomes of legislative issues have been studied (see "Population and Legislative Issues" here) as an example. A hard look at those statistics in your area can be informative.

Would actual statistics showing the absence of large numbers of euthanized, well-bred purebred animals hurt your argument?

Facts or Appeal to Emotion? The latter puts one on the same level as PeTA and HSUS which your site at least attempts to claim you are not. (I do agree with you regarding the lack of accuracy in the controversial temperament tests at some shelters)

Breeders that are an important resource do actually relocate to other counties and states when ordinances become unfriendly. Their dogs vote too! Their places may be filled in with less desireable animal producers. Does that help the problem? or hurt it?

You ask for suggestions toward your goal of fewer animals being euthanized. In order to get a feel for the issues in your area, I looked at your website and a map of your area (Kern County) and also checked to see what type of pets are listed for adoption right now at various county sites. Additionally, I looked to see what sort of animal measures there are in your county and will plainly state that without enforcement of current ones, it is foolhardy to add more. As mentioned, I also looked for studies and data, statistics and clear definitions of the specific types of animal turn ins, their sexes, ages, how many are already neutered, what reasons they end up at the shelters, but this information must either be something you have not researched or you have not put on your website.

Neutered animals do turn up at the shelters and neutering them again [grin] will not stop it. Creating a town full of "Stepford Pets" does not solve the "people problem". To solve a people problem you have to work WITH people.

In order to gain support and effective brainstorming for your problem areas, you will need to provide specific data on the types of animals and why the animals are in the shelter. Usually a shelter is not flooded with newborns and weaning age puppies. Animals that have somehow become a problem to their humans are the ones that end up on death row.
Your organization could make use of materials and services from NAIA, that could also be helpful. One of their handouts is

Some quick info regarding this from their website-

NAIA can help lawmakers ...
.. write fair and equitable laws that clearly define
dangerous dogs and nuisance behavior;
.. devise strategies for enforcement;
.. work with shelters to develop an accurate picture
of pet population dynamics, spay-neuter
efforts, and shelter euthanasias;
.. develop community advisory boards and coalitions
to help deal with animal issues;
.. draft animal cruelty laws that protect animals
without infringing on widely accepted and humane
animal husbandry practices; and
.. locate free educational materials that advance
humane animal care without promoting the extreme
animal rights agenda.

Okay, from me.... Raise money, raise money at events that increase responsible animal awareness and which also involve the people behind well bred pets!

Community involvement at the basic 'every man' human level can go a long way. I don't see that your county has such a thing going on - it's not mentioned on your site. Why not use your community resources to begin to organize these?

Fund raising at pet events such as a local dog fair and finding sponsors who will pay for booths for other such things as pet walkathons and adoption day can help make S/N more affordable for more. These events could also have support of volunteers, breed clubs and training clubs in the community who can bring their well behaved and trained pets, answer questions and give advice. People that show what well trained dogs can do does inspire people to learn more about their pets. Breed clubs usually have some people that are experienced with organizing such events and finding sponsors. Get them on your side. Nearly everyone LOVE these 'meet the breed' type events. I'm not involved with cats currently but I'm sure cat clubs will be happy to help as well. Very cute cat toys could be sold at the event. Information given regarding cat control and problems too.

Contact your local breed clubs and ask them to get involved, to bring brochures that help define responsible ownership and show how to choose a good breeder and a healthy pet.

Pet Fair would be excellent as community draws and will educate children. Events like puppy with the longest tail, dog/human pair in cutest costume, kids in different age groups doing simple obedience such as showing how they can take their dog through a figure eight and sits. How about kids showing what tricks their pets have learned? A $2 entry fee with proceeds going to S/N. Canine Good Citizenship tests, temperament tests and even a local agility club could bring obstacles and charge a small fee like $5, again raised for S/N. Members of the community can walk in with their pet dogs and try agility obstacles. Face painting raising fees for S/N... All of these could be events where mutts and purebreds of all types can come and see 'trade show' exhibits for training leashes, collars, litter boxes, containment systems like crates and kennels could raise money for S/N. Information about housebreaking and some helpful advisors present. This is a lot of rambling. People make it happen.

Draconian legislation does not.

One final thing (I think!) I need to mention this because at one point I was in the following population (and I still am somewhat due to specific registry issues in my breed). AKC, ADBA, ICA and UKC do not respresent the needs of all responsible pet owners. See for more information. The more support from the dog/cat fancy you gain, if your priority about responsible ownership and healthy pets and fewer animals destroyed, then work with the system, not against it.

Slapping at a mosquito is simple and reactive, but there is a Whole Earth approach that may yield more fruit in addressing the problem.

The more you know about dogs, the more complex this becomes.   

Blogger ZaltanaAnatolians sent us a woof // March 24, 2007

Janice, great post   

Blogger Vera Edwards sent us a woof // April 01, 2007

First and foremost, our site does "Appeal to emotion".
It IS very emotional when 500,000
animals in CA alone are being euthanized on an annual basis. TREAT was developed to help our local Kern County animals, therefore our data IS specific to our community.
If you are genuinely interested in shelter statistics, please go to
While not necessarily reflected in your post, the most "used" argument I have heard from breeders regarding any spay/neuter legislation is what it will cost them in regards to fee's should it become a law. As a breeder, why shouldn't they have to pay for the privilege of breeding their animals? That's
right, it IS a priveledge. Afterall we non breeders pay for it,don't we? I would much rather see my tax dollars spent on
prevention, than to have it used to kill these animals after the
When TREAT introduced our proposal to our local Board Of Supervisors, we had 4 AKC breeders approach us in regards to their "rights" as breeders. Funny thing is not one of them actually
read our proposal and readily admitted to that fact. They were
opposing something which they had never even seen. THAT is par for
the course when dealing with most breeders who object to any
legislation. Exemptions to this legislation have been made for responsible breeders, but most breeders choose to ignore that. Why?
Another argument that is widely used against legislation is that early age altering is detrimental to the health of the animal.
Frankly, so is death in a shelter at the end of a needle.
If you don't want to alter
your "young" animal for health reasons, get the support of your vet.
Provisions have been made for that too.
While alot of breeders are quick to defend "their" dogs, where are
they when their breeds are dying in shelters everyday? I simply cannot understand anyone who claims to support animals, yet won't support working towards stopping the slaughter of millions of animals every year. Yes, we can easily blame it on irresponsible
breeders, but where is the support from the "responsible breeders"
in this fight to end the killing. So quick to want to defend their
property rights and their freedom of choice, but
how dare anyone defend the rights of the animals who are dying
everyday. Many breeders state that they breed for the betterment of their breed, understandable and much needed, but in
that equation why is "their breed" that is in every shelter in this
country everyday, deserving of less than what they assume
their "quality" animals can provide?
Outside of the responsible breeders who do rescue as well,
I have yet to see any "real" involvement from the "fanciers" in regards to animals that end up in their local shelters. They are quick to say, we want to help, but what have they really done as a combined group to help against pet over population?

I am baffled by your argument:

Would actual statistics showing the absence of large numbers of euthanized, well-bred purebred animals hurt your argument?

To assume that healthy purebred animals are not being euthanized on a daily basis is ignorant. How can you safely assume that "healthy, genetically sound, responsibly bred" animals, won't end up in shelters or breed litters of their own that ultimately may end up in a shelter?
If I were a "responsible breeder"
I would welcome paying the additional fee's to breed my animals if that meant not having the backyard breeders to compete with, therefore allowing for better quality animals and more responsible owners looking to adopt them.

In regards to:
Here is a simple fact. Many places that do not have forced S/N have actually already experienced a deficit of adoptable animals, so some controversial 'importing' has become necessary.

While your statement may have some validity in "some" communities, it is indeed not the norm
and you know it. Millions of animals are dying in this country every year.

In regards to:
People with pets that may have behavioral issues will continue to be a source of shelter pet statistics. Pet bans and limit laws, deaths in the family can all lead to the deaths of beautiful adoptable animals whose owners cannot afford to relocate.

Again true, but don't you think that eliminating the
accidental and unwanted litters from entering the shelter system will in effect help our sheltering facilities better address the needs of already existing unwanted animals?

In response to:
Usually a shelter is not flooded with newborns and weaning age puppies. Animals that have somehow become a problem to their humans are the ones that end up on death row.

You are sadly mistaken here. We have had pups dropped off at our local shelter with their umbilical cords still attached.
Attached is a link that includes just a few of the many "litters" that enter into our sheltering facility on a daily basis.

It was done showing only our Kern County animals. But I can assure you that this is occurring in every community. This is what we are trying to prevent. You have you head in the sand if you think this isn't happening on a mass level across this nation.

I regards to:
To solve a people problem you have to work WITH people.

At the risk of repeating myself,
We HAVE been "educating" the public on responsible pet ownership for decades. We have been "politically correct" and have worked hard to
influence the public to spay and neuter when "given the personal
choice" to do so to prevent the unwanted and accidental litters. Yet millions of animals are STILL dying every year.

In response to:
Okay, from me.... Raise money, raise money at events that increase responsible animal awareness and which also involve the people behind well bred pets!
Community involvement at the basic 'every man' human level can go a long way. I don't see that your county has such a thing going on - it's not mentioned on your site. Why not use your community resources to begin to organize these?

We,have indeed tried to get the cooperation of our local people to get more involved. We do so without the cooperation of our local governement, who frankly could care less about our problem of pet over population. Sadly, not just here in Kern County, but many community leaders have not put these issues on the forefront of their "agenda"s, have they? TREAT was involved in a spay/neuter event in our community that altered over 100 animals. This event was put together by rescues and concerned citizens, without the involvement of our county officials. As a side note, I can say that breeders weren't lined up to participate either.
The public response was overwhelming.
Thousands of callers had to be put on a waiting list for future events. This is a service that the people want, but our local officials have been slow to react.
Changing the priorities of governement officials who are in a
position to create change has been the biggest hurdle.

Lastly, it is apparent that you have your concerns and they differ from my own. But I am an animal rescuer and I see daily what many of you do not and yes, it gives me an entirely different perspective.
It is my duty to defend the rights of the animals. It is "their" right to live. It is "their" right to not be
born, if death in a shelter is their only outcome. It is "their"
right to not be abused and neglected and to live a life of
intolerable suffering. I have and will always fight for "them".
Vera Edwards   

Blogger Semavi Lady sent us a woof // April 06, 2007

[[First and foremost, our site does "Appeal to emotion".]]


[[It IS very emotional when 500,000 animals in CA alone are being euthanized on an annual basis. TREAT was developed to help our local Kern County animals, therefore our data IS specific to our community.]]

And once again... You do NOT have data. See below...

[[If you are genuinely interested in shelter statistics, please go to

First of all, I appreciate the shelter work you do. Now I have seen these statistics and quite frankly it is not YOUR data.

The OBJECTIVE of sheltertrak is not to prove or to document an "overpopulation" problem. There's not enough data there for that purpose. But that's what you are attempting to use it for.

Sheltertrak's purpose is to get shelters to be accountable for their decisions and policies. Sheltertrak's allied website is And the reasons the sites exist had initially to do Kern County's abuse of the law and its wholesale killing of animals. Site is now a interesting public source of information that still has to evaluated on different levels of merit and NOT to be taken out of context.

Other readers may not be aware. . . Laws were passed ten years ago which required shelters to neuter animals they adopted out and also to hold animals a minimum number of days. Captured animals that were disoriented, unsocial and frightened or aggressive in their first days, would not be destroyed before their owners had a chance to find them. Surprise! Kern employees chose to _kill_ them instead. -from Shelterwatch: "Between January of 2002 and August 31, 2004, [Kern County] Animal Control impounded more than 70,000 animals, and euthanized more than 75% of those animals."

These numbers do NOT support the concept of mandatory neutering of all pets. Not any more than it supports the idea that Kern county has always been doing all that can be done for the animals. There is not enough data for those conclusions.

In your original statement you wrote, "To date, the efforts made in educating the public on responsible pet ownership have failed to lead the people to "do the responsible thing" when given the option to do so."

"To date"... meaning from a given date (which is?), and NOW.
Okay, give me data. Did education begin in 2004? There is no date from which to observe that there wasn't improvement.

If you can substantiate your claims, put them on your website.

More quotes.....
I wrote: "Here is a simple fact. Many places that do not have forced S/N have actually already experienced a deficit of adoptable animals, so some controversial 'importing' has become necessary."
You wrote: "While your statement may have some validity in "some" communities, it is indeed not the norm and you know it."

Define norm? Here's a chart of data for the state of California. It seems to show that there is significant improvement for the animals since the 70's.

Let's recall, Kern County is still located in the State of California.

Wouldn't you say that the State has had a remarkable improvement on shelter stats over the past nearly forty years.

You made sweeping comments about purebreds and breeders, so I wrote: "Would actual statistics showing the absence of large numbers of euthanized, well-bred purebred animals hurt your argument?"
Your response to this was: "To assume that healthy purebred animals are not being euthanized on a daily basis is ignorant."

Frankly, that's not an answer to anything I said.
You did not respond with evidence regarding actual statistics of purebreds.

... o O (There seems to be a pattern here)

On the subject of breeds, I sometimes see examples of rescued pets which are misidentified by the shelter. An extrapolation from this is that dogs that get PTS may have been misidentified but now represent a breed in the euth stats.

From a site you referred to us form above, there were numerous examples from Kern County-

Anyway, if you have read AB 1634, you know it favors bulk commerce in pet animals, as California wants to protect its sources of taxable income. The legislation is prejudiced against the common people who raise puppies in their houses. The current wording guarantees that every pet will be neutered since there are no AKC or UKC shows where four month puppies can be exhibited, nor can they be champions at that age. Having the state mandate that owners participate in a Sport is questionable legislation at many levels.

[[While not necessarily reflected in your post, the most "used" argument I have heard from breeders regarding any spay/neuter legislation is what it will cost them in regards to fee's should it become a law. As a breeder,
why shouldn't they have to pay for the privilege of breeding their

You certainly feel comfortable speaking for everyone in Kern County and beyond and I don't know if you've ever walked the walk. This is apparently why you don't see the problems with any clarity.

But... the bill IS unconstitutional because it is using a sledge hammer effect to attempt to control an issue without sufficient evidence that it has reasonable prospects of success.

MSN does not work.

I wrote: "Usually a shelter is not flooded with newborns and weaning age puppies. Animals that have somehow become a problem to their humans are the ones that end up on death row."
You replied: "You are sadly mistaken here. We have had pups dropped off at our local shelter with their umbilical cords still attached. Attached is a link that includes just a few of the many "litters" that enter into our sheltering facility on a daily basis. "

Okay, no stats there either. The movie is touching, but it is not hard statistical evidence. Some of the same dogs are shown a few times. San Mateo liked using "shock value" PR to achieve their goals. No science, no math, no brains required. Just "Appeal to Emotion".


With over 95% of all pets in California never showing up in a shelter, a significant number, possibly 80% of them are seen by vets who reported these pets were already neutered.

Out of the probable 4% that do turn up in shelters, possibly a total of 2% of California pet animals are euthanized but there are a few shelters that are "no kill" and some that average kill rates well below 1/2.

Keeping those proportions in mind, possibly 2 percent of all California cats and dogs are killed in shelters, and you wrote this: "Another argument that is widely used against legislation is that early age altering is detrimental to the health of the animal. Frankly, so is death in a shelter at the end of a needle. "

It is interesting that you choose to place 2% population's "health" above the health of the remaining 98%. In other words, the greater good has lost its importance for you and MNS is your solution. Statistics are meaningless to you?
Redirected aggression?

Yes, my view is different than yours.

I do not support mandatory spay/neuter for these reasons. The rhetoric you use does not warrant a state mandated tyranny against pet owners. It is not a solution to a problem that has yet to tangibly defined for your purposes.

I am out of time for this comment. :D I see your arguments above unsubstantiated and the remaining material is primarily rhetoric that could go on forever.

Thanks for commenting on my blog.

I'll check your site from time to time to see if you have the statistical evidence to support your claims.

If AB 1634 should pass, you should be prepared for higher rates of euthanasia and a plan B.

I suggest that you take the time to actually study shelter data. You can go here to learn more.

Good luck.   

Blogger Semavi Lady sent us a woof // April 10, 2007

Vera Edwards has written this to share:

"I find it appalling that the "argument" of statistics is being used as if there are a percentage of animals dying that is "exceptable"."
I don't think anyone claimed it was acceptable. We are talking about government policy. Constitutional law has to do with creating policies that have reasonable chance for success.
Vera continues:

"Purebreds vs mixed breeds dying is apparently exceptable too? 500,000 state wide and millions upon millions more nationwide is exceptable numbers for you? You accuse me of avoiding "the true facts" yet breeders are avoiding facts of their own, aren't they? Not once have I had a breeder ever respondto questions regarding "their breed" dying in shelters everyday and what are they doing about that"most could care less and don't even visit their local shelters to get educated on the reality of just how many are dying. In effect most care only about what is occurring in their own "backyards"and care nothing about the "unknown" animals that don't belong to "them"or "theirs". I am different, I care about the lives of all animals, so yes I will always support what may help bring an end to the unnecessary destruction of animals.

I am also an idealist in a lot of things as well. But due to my background and responsbilities, I have had to be a realist and with strict protocols and documentation involving nearly every decision. A bureaucrat I am not, since life and health decisions require another level of perception.

Were I were advocating public policy, or policy to benefit tax payers, I would evaluate the evidence to see what the track record on various proposals might be, analyze why things worked or failed, and create policy that has a reasonable chance of success.

You write:
Will MSN help, I sure hope so, but the argument is that it won't, so let's not even try. That makes no sense to me.
"Hope so" ~~~~~~~` suggests that you need access to documentation.

So here we go. MSN has been active around the country since the early nineties. I've put up some links from a wide variety of sources where lawyers, animal welfare and animal rights groups, statisticians, public workers have examined the impact of MSN upon such elements as euthanization statistics and fiscal impact (your specialty at

Here are links to useful data and studies regarding MSN. I had previously linked to them in other blog posts under the label, animal_control). You may be particularly interested in the file done by an animal rights group in the discussion of links.

The majority of this data did not come from "reputable breeders" but law workers, public policy quality assurance, from shelters and the like.

You wrote:
When "responsible breeders" as a combined group actually start making a genuine effort addressing the needs of the animals dying in shelters everday then I may "listen" to their arguments. But I find it hard to believe that any breeders (who visit the shelters and then must walk away from dying animals, who watched as terrified animals are led to the euthanasia room or worse actually watch them euthanized or talk to animal control workers who will tell them the reality of their lives everday) won't change their perspective. Is that an "appeal to emotion"? you bet it is. It is an emotional experience, I know, I've done it and it indeed changed me. We have a local breeder here who did it as well and she no longer breeds because of it. Walk both sides of the fence and then tell meyou feel the same. Vera Edwards
I can't speak for this group of 'responsible breeders' that you seem to know. But I can offer advice.

'Responsible breeders' who are anything but -- can be reported to their clubs for their lack of ethics. Document the evidence you have against these known breeders. Use photos, vet tests and other evidence as needed to substantiate your claims.

Once you have it all together, contact the club and get a copy of their by-laws and club constitution. Most breed clubs have a Board of Directors and Officers who are responsible for decisions that pertain to these by-laws & the club constitution. In that material, there will be sections where "Discipline" is discussed. The procedure to register your claim(s) can be found there. Because you are able to collect specific data against these specific breeders that you have clearly identified, you have a case and can possibly get their privileges removed.

UKC is a registry and it does permanently remove privileges from breeders who are unethical. Their policies can be seen here.
Breeders often directly register with the main registry (such as UKC) and may not be members of local clubs. However, there may be regional clubs in your local area, with which the breeders in question may be associated, and the local clubs do consist of concerned members who will be just as anxious as you to get these 'responsible breeders' disassociated from their group, if they could only identify them. And if they had the evidence needed.

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Spaying and Neutering & Early Spaying and Neutering

Is spaying and neutering being promoted as a replacement for training and responsibility?

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) on its website, says "Spaying or Neutering Is Good for You" (seriously, that's what it says! like adding food color to kibble to make it look pretty to the buyer!) and that "Spaying and neutering makes pets better, more affectionate companions.".

Better? Better than what?

"Stepford Wives Pets" anyone? Not Amused

This posting is primarily about dogs, not because I have a problem with cats, but some issues regarding dogs, especially large breed dogs like the Anatolian Shepherd Dog (my breed), are quite a bit different than issues with cats. Believe it or not, dogs can be plenty wonderful and affectionate without undergoing surgical sexual mutilation spay and neuter. The key is responsible care and training!

In a previous posting, I questioned the un/(no, scratch that) misinformed political support of mandatory early spay and neuter because it is clear that there are some serious unresolved issues which are not in the best interests of healthy animals. Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws are wrong. Responsible people should not be penalized for wanting to do what is best for their particular cases. And responsible breeders who look after their own should not be penalized for the behaviors of stupid owners who choose to get animals from commercial or random and irresponsible sources and then fail to train or contain these animals (both cats and dogs). When they just give up and turn them loose or drop them off at a shelter, why should other pet owners be penalized. Where is the logic in that? Just because people have pets, doesn't mean that it is their fault that other people are irresponsible. Is it your fault that drunks get on the road and kill people? Should you be penalized for using public or private transportation because of them? This is what is happening to responsible owners. They are being told that increased fees and penalties need to be charged to them because there are "so many animals being killed in the shelters".

Don't get me wrong. There IS good reason to spay and neuter, but EARLY spay and neuter is not always in the best interests of every single animal that would otherwise be responsibly kept from breeding anyway. There would also be a lot more support and compliance for existing regulations if they were fair. See: A Guide to Constructing Successful Pet Friendly Ordinances- A project of the National Animal Interest Alliance (which needs donations, please!)

So here are a collection of interesting, recent, information links, some with actual data, about the potential problems and considerations of spay/neuter (and early spay/neuter) which may help one make better informed decisions for our pets. When you vote, remember you are voting on behalf of your pets too! Remember too that many professionals including doctors and veterinarians do not keep informed on the important updates in their fields.


Some breed specific behavioral and physical data is presented here. Must see, lots of charts and photographs! This is what you're looking for. Information that is better researched and more up to date than the information found in most places.

Note - Alliance for Contraception in Cats and Dogs (ACC&D) is a nonprofit 501C(3) group involved in attempting to study, define and resolve some of the problems that currently exist internationally, regarding issues of animal population control. They need donations. See their FAQ.

At ACC&D's Third International Symposium, "Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Non-Surgical Contraceptive Methods for Pet Population Control" - November 9-12, 2006 - Alexandria, Virginia (from their website they state): "more than 120 representatives from universities, animal welfare organizations, foundations, companies, and government agencies from 11 countries gathered to share information and plan for the future".

Dogged Blog: It's Just That They LIE ABOUT IT by Christie Keith

Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete One Veterinarian's Opinion, at Canine sports - by Chris Zink, DVM, PhD, DACVP

Spay, Neuter, and Cancer: Revisiting an Old Trinity by Myrna Milani, DVM

Castration of Male Dogs, Spaying Female Dogs by Mary C. Wakeman, DVM (added 26 Mar 2007)

The Long-Term Health Effects of Spay / Neuter in Dogs by Laura J. Sanborn Was hosted at English Shepherd Club Registry site - moved to NAIA in April (added 27 Mar 2007)

Labels: ,

Semavi Lady woofed at @ 3/17/2007 01:57:00 PM | Permanent link | (4) Comments

Blogger yellowdog granny sent us a woof // March 18, 2007

came her via carina...and you are so right...I have owned pit bull dogs for over 35 years...they were well behaved, gentle, sweet, protective and the best dogs I have ever had...and I see what stupid people have done to ruin the opinion of pits...not all pits are killers or savage...I had a 120 lb pit named Nate..who would sit in your lap and lick you to death...barked like crazy if you were around his yard..but wouldn't even bite you if you got in the yard..he would heard you like cattle back to the gate, nuding and growling all the way..never for someone to tell me I had to neuter him because he was a pit really pissed me yah for you...and the dog on your side bar has the best sweetest face...   

Blogger Carina sent us a woof // March 19, 2007

Ahh....I hadn't seen Christie Kieth's bit before, that was also excellent! (And the comments on her blog are usually great reading too.)
I linked to you in my latest post. Good one.   

Blogger Semavi Lady sent us a woof // March 19, 2007

Carina, thanks for the comments and links.

I agree Yellowdog Granny that Pit Bulls (Rotties too) are getting a bum rap. Both are very popular dogs and irresponsible breeding and placement among other things are making it tough on the rest of the breed, and their responsible owners.

I have read and think that it is reasonable that Pit Bulls are actually more popular than the AKC labrador in terms of numbers living and bred annually. I'm not sure how the estimate was derived (various pit bull bulletin boards) since the majority are not registered (no official data) and many may not be purebred (not speaking of Staffie mixes but part boxer, part something else, etc). But the numbers of pits that get into trouble given the population density seems to be very low. It's just the unfortunate diverse owner profile in many cases. :(

The numbers AKC uses for its stats are based on the numbers registered. The 2006 stats have been published, dogreg_stats_2006 and the number of registrations/litter is 123,760 / 41,132 = 3.0 --- that is, only about three puppies per litter are registered based on the number of litters that are claimed. Furthermore of those small percentage of puppies per litter that ARE registered, according to stats calculated and published in DOG WORLD in the late 1980's only about 1% of those (registered) ever take part in AKC events.

Even tho owners may be given puppy slips, less than half of them ever pay AKC to register. This also doesn't account for purebred labs (or "almost" labs, sold as labs in the paper) which don't have registrations.

Carina spoke of AKC's attempts to generate more income by including mutts in some performance events. And these registration stats definitely suggest that the average owner *could* stand to benefit from the dog community and organized dog events to the benefit of our dog World.

All that is a way of saying that if more owners became involved and got a clue, maybe this threat of mandatory (and stoopid) legislation would not be so uncontrolled. :(

Yellowdog Granny, the Anatolian in my sidebar is Ruya. I had to make a label just for her! She's very popular with our visitors. And she LOVES getting up on the glider and cuddling & swinging with our guests! :)   

Blogger Joan Sinden sent us a woof // April 09, 2007

This is a very interesting topic, it plays into a lot of different ideas - it's been mentioned to me that mandatory spay and neutering is just a different form of BSL - you only mandatory spay and neuter the animals that you don't want to continue on - ie pit bulls, and then those breeds die. And then rescue people also can't understand what's wrong with mandatory spay and neuter because they see so much death everyday because of the "overpopulation problem" that seems so endemic in the dog world that is also so controversial in some dog circles. But then other people - like you - have a problem with mandatory spay and neuter because control is being taken away from you because your dog is your property and you want to have control over what happens to your dog, and so you should! It doesn't matter that 75-85% of the world isn't responsible about spaying and neutering their dog - and that's who legislation would be for - fighting legislation is for th 15-25% who ARE responsible.

I understand perfectly because I come from the viewpoint of vaccinations. In my city the city legislators are trying to tie being able to use proprosed dog parks to having your dog vaccinated and dewormed - and me and my dog friends are fighting vehemently against that because my dogs have never had worms and I am very anti-vaccination - and I have control over what goes in my dogs' bodies - but I still want them to be able to go to the dog parks! And it is the same thing with mandatory spay neuter.

So it's quite a dilly of a pickle. One that I don't imagine we'll ever stop fighting about. Not until they start breeding a sexless dog - and that'll be a whole new thing to start fighting about! haha!

Joan in Halifax   

Monday, March 12, 2007

You May Soon Have No Right to Behave Freely and Responsibly

I'm trying to reach as many responsible dog/pet owners in California that I personally know via email -- and have also decided to blog this.

This draconian legislation is actually targeted to eventually be Nationwide!

As you may be aware, some poorly designed legislation which does not address the real problem at all is going to be targeting all of us. (California AB 1634, intended to combat the overpopulation of stray pets)

The Sacramento Bee article is here
and copied below
I am uncertain if people without a 'Bee' account, will be able to see the article - so I am posting it here as Fair Use.

Government mandated compulsory spay/neuter is bad news. And as many of us know, HSUS, PeTA and other Animal Rights groups continue to advertise that spaying and neutering makes for healthy, well behaved pets. "Stepford Wives" anyone?! The disposable animals issues being shifted as financial burden to those of us that already account for what we breed and place is beyond badly designed. Lumping all breeds into 'safe to early neuter' category is also unwise. Not all breeds mature at the same rate as a cat does. Even nonbreeding (pet quality) female dogs that have undersized or recessed vulvas need time to reach maturity before they are spayed. In our large breed, sometimes spaying or neutering after the first year and later would be best advised to allow normal maturity for bone. Sex hormones in ALL animals are involved in many elements of their healthy maturity. Turning them all into androgynous neuters to satisfy political whim is just plain stupid.

Haven't we generally embraced the fact that fair treatment of animals is through the idea that a society's care of animals is the best measurement of our true moral character. Why then do the groups purporting to stand for animal welfare RIGHTS treat them as generic and disposable political commodities?

If you are raising slow maturing, promising young dogs to see how they will turn out, and responsibly choose only the best dogs with which to go forward -- you already know that OFA evaluation of hips cannot even happen until the dog is 2 years old. This legislation ensures we will have to jump through hoops, owe the state more fees and penalties just to allow our dogs to grow up normally.

There is not a lot of dog knowledge in this sweeping legislation that treats every breed as if it were the same as a cat.

Levine's suggestion that mixed breeding is a solution (to anything) goes to show how little he knows about genetics and the source of many irresponsibly bred dogs. Mixed Anatolian Shepherd Dogs are not going to do their jobs as well, will be more unpredictable and more difficult to screen for health issues because we will know even less about their scrambled genetics.

There is just so much that is wrong with this legislation that will not address the perceived problems.

It will make breeding unaffordable for many of us who already screen our own people, our breeding stock, educate those who inquire. We really should not be penalized for the mistakes of those who are ignorant enough to choose and casually dispose of factory bred, casually bred or random bred pets whose breeders do not stand behind them.

The answer to the disposable pet population is not this legislation.

Animal Rights people, PeTA and HSUS are anti breeder.

There are so many lumping generalities above that it is frightening.

The *deliberate* framing of this problem as a promotion and solution for "Healthy Pets" is grossly misleading and intended to draw kneejerk support from those who will support this law but are ignorant. PeTA and HSUS are associated with terrorist groups in our country. They are working to take away our right to be responsible for our own animals.



We have to fight this.
More info below-
Thanks for hearing me out.

----- Forwarded message from Vicky von Busse -----

From: "Vicky von Busse" <**null**>
Subject: [rawbreeder] Fw: Please Respond Today Re - CA Anti Pet
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:06:49 -0600

Permission to crosspost to encourage all those it could/will affect to write in because if it comes into effect here, it will be easier for other places to follow suit.


Hot off the Sacramento Bee's press - Monday morning, March 12, 2007

This article needs to have Letters to the Editor written immediately. I cannot write another one as they only allow one in a particular time frame. Google Sacramento Bee and follow the rules for letters. You are allowed 200 words and if you use the format they have, it counts the words as you type along.

But, send your letters to the Letters to the Editor - not to Jim Saunders - or to both if you want to.

Also, remember Jim Saunders, the author, is one of the "good guys" - do not demean him. He's trying to cover both sides.

Please act on this now. If you get your letters in today, they might appear by the weekend.

Diane Young McCormack
Dachshund Club of America
Canine Legislation Committee, co-chair


Legislation aims to sterilize pets

By Jim Sanders - Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 12:00 am PDT Monday, March 12, 2007
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A1

California lawmakers soon will consider adopting a massive birth control plan for dogs and cats that seeks to reduce the burden on animal shelters by sterilizing millions of family pets.

Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, through a program unprecedented in its size nationwide, hopes to curb the number of unwanted dogs and cats by making fewer capable of reproducing.

Levine's measure, Assembly Bill 1634, would require every dog and cat to be spayed or neutered except for breeding animals -- perhaps only purebreds --whose owners would pay for a city or county permit.

Levine, D-Van Nuys, said his goal is to crack down on irresponsible breeding practices that fill shelters each year with more than 550,000 dogs and cats, of which more than 300,000 are killed.

"If you agree that it's inhumane as a society to create disposable animals, animals that we know are just going to be dumped into shelters and ultimately euthanized, then we need to do something about it," he said.

Taxpayers are paying more than $250 million annually to house, care and euthanize sheltered dogs and cats, said Levine, citing figures provided by a coalition that includes shelter operators statewide.

"It's wrong to put all these animals in shelters and it's wrong to kill them," said Judie Mancuso, a coalition spokeswoman. "The only reason they were born is because of humans' negligence. ... They don't deserve to die because of it."

The coalition sponsoring AB 1634 includes the California Animal Control Directors' Association, the California Veterinary Medical Association and the State Humane Association of California.

But critics say AB 1634 would interfere with the rights of pet owners, be ignored by many of the worst offenders, be largely unenforceable, spark litigation if a young animal sensitive to anesthesia died in surgery and could pose a financial hardship to hobbyist breeders.

Glen Bui, of the American Canine Association, predicted the bill would exacerbate shelter problems because some pet owners would abandon their cats or dogs rather than pay to sterilize them.

"It's going to be a nightmare," he said.

Lesley Brabyn, a Mill Valley breeder of saluki dogs, said many hobbyists would quit because they could not afford permits. The breeders provide a valuable service, producing healthy animals, socializing them well, assisting buyers and often volunteering in rescue programs, she said.

"It's going to leave puppy mills to supply purebred dogs to the public," she said of AB 1634. "And it's going to open the market for smugglers."

Vickie Cleary, an Antelope resident and hobbyist whose Scottish terriers occasionally have a litter of puppies, said the bill is "one step closer to bureaucracy and government controlling our human rights."

Levine's bill, expected to be debated at a public hearing next month, would require that dogs and cats more than 4 months old be spayed or neutered.

The legislation provides exceptions for breeding animals that have permits, and for guide dogs, service dogs, signal dogs, police dogs or animals excused by a letter from a veterinarian because of illness, age or poor health.

Levine's bill would not spark a door-to-door search for violators. But when a roaming dog or cat is impounded, animal control officers could issue a citation requiring the owner to spay or neuter the animal within 30 days -- or face a $500 fine, Levine said.

Revenue would be used for outreach efforts and for programs that spay or neuter animals at little or no charge.

AB 1634 is meant to crack down on mongrel cats and dogs, which shelter officials claim make up about 70 percent of their population.

The bill, as currently written, allows cities and counties to issue breeding permits and set fees only for purebred animals. But Levine said he is considering amendments to allow issuance of some permits to mixed-breed owners.

Levine concedes that a program that embraces only breeding among purebred dogs and cats could perpetuate genetic deficiencies.

Citing one example, Levine said Dalmatians often are deaf. Mixed breeding, by expanding the gene pool, could reduce the likelihood of impairment.

"I think the world would be better off if we had mixed breeds or evolution," he said. "But I'm not going to win that fight. So what I'm trying to do is figure out how we address overpopulation in the shelters."

Pedestrians interviewed randomly Thursday in downtown Sacramento had mixed feelings.

Mary Powell, 72, likes the idea because "some of the cats are a nuisance."

But James Hunger, 74, said "the poor people who own these animals, they can't afford that."

"I think it's over the top," said Greg Taggart, 51, of Citrus Heights. But, "there are some people who own cats and dogs that ought to be spayed or neutered."

Prices vary for the surgery. A sampling of three Sacramento-area veterinarians found a low of $55 for a male cat and a high of $165 for a female dog over 50 pounds.

Each of the past 10 years, more than a half-million dogs and cats were handled by shelters statewide -- with a high of 862,652 in 1998, according to state statistics, which are considered low because not every agency reports each year.

California keeps no statistics on the number or percentage of pets that are spayed or neutered. State law requires the procedure for any dogs or cats adopted from an animal shelter, but not for pets recovered after impoundment.

"I don't believe you can legitimately argue that (overpopulation) is not a problem and should be ignored," said Levine, who does not currently own a cat or a dog.

But critics note that while California's population has risen in the past decade, the animal shelter population has fallen. Cats, not dogs, make up a disproportionate share of unwanted pets: 70 percent of sheltered cats were killed last year, compared with 40 percent of dogs, state statistics show.

Patti Strand, national director of the National Animal Interest Alliance, said AB 1634 would do little or nothing to reduce feral cat populations.

"They're wandering on their own, they have no owners," she said. "Who are you going to charge?"

About the writer:
a.. The Bee's Jim Sanders can be reached at (916) 326-5538 or

----- End forwarded message -----


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 3/12/2007 02:43:00 PM | Permanent link | (4) Comments

Blogger carina sent us a woof // March 17, 2007

YAY for you! I agree 100%, as do most educated pet owners. I hadn't even thought of the point that it may result in increased animals dumped in shelters because people don't want to pay the fees.
When I got Cooper (from a very knowlegable and wel respected Rottie person) she advised me to wait until 14 months minimum before neutering because of the greatly increased risk of osteo from early neutering. My contract did call for neutering by 24 months, though.
Love your Stepford Wife comment.
Is it OK to link to this? I was going to blog it (actually I did, last year but it needs to be said again) and you have done a great job.
You've probably seen this:   

Blogger Semavi Lady sent us a woof // March 17, 2007

Thanks Carina, and links would be fine anyway. Yes, the canine athlete link is a good one. I have several more and should put the links up today!

Yay for Cooper. And he is a magnificent boy!   

Blogger jill bryant sent us a woof // March 22, 2007

I have started learning so much more about some of the problems with early spaying and neutering by trading email with a knowledgeable person in Europe where they do not do this as prevalently as we do. I now realize I'm lucky I found my pup when she was about one year because I probably would've sent her to be spayed much younger and had all kinds of trouble as a result...   

Blogger Semavi Lady sent us a woof // March 22, 2007

Jill, thanks for your comment. I like your blog! Congratulations on Honey's CGC!

I love your profile response to the random question:
Q- Try writing your name with your other hand. Where was that person raised?

A-On the Yucatan Peninsula by missionaries.

That's a good one! :D   

Friday, March 09, 2007

Label Hack for FTP Hosted Blogger Blogs

I'm slowly getting back into the swing of blog things and taking a look at what new Blogger tweaks and developments are available for Blogger Blogs such as mine hosted on private domains. Different tools (widgets) are available to those not using their own domain -- keeping their blog hosted on the Blogger or Google domain gives those advantages.

I like being able to label postings into different categories so one can click on a label such as 'Kids' and see all other postings related to kids on my blog. However FTP sites are not able to use the automated label widgets which are available to non-FTP blogs. Coding gurus have come up with various hacks (which depending on the hosting site) can be used to get certain approximating effects.

Yay! So after wading around in the Blogger help group for a bit, I found a link to an AJAX based javascript code for my current label sidebar (see shell pink LABEL box at left). The hosting site of the script is cute fashion blog at The script itself is quite nice for my purposes right now. :D

Link to the Hack
The Label Hack for FTP Blogs


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 3/09/2007 03:15:00 PM | Permanent link | (0) Comments

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Noses are for Hiding Treats!

Above is a picture from January. Shows how monochromatic Coco looks now. Eyes, nose, eyerims, mask, ears... :)

She's a very cerebral girl in the way she figures things out sometimes.

On a daily basis, sometimes I hand out small rawhide twistie sticks. She'll come get one and then disappear. Everyone else gets their handout and then suddenly she reappears. She'll have dirt smudged on her nose, like above. I sometimes hand her another rawhide twisty then follow her or watch where she goes.

She'll go to another area of the property and carefully put her prize down and nose some grass over it, straw, weeds and dirt -- to hide it from the others. Then she'll come back to me with her dirt smudged nose and give me another inquisitive look. :) If no more treats are forthcoming, she'll head back to one she just 'hid', grab it and chew it up.

Labels: ,

Semavi Lady woofed at @ 3/07/2007 10:43:00 PM | Permanent link | (2) Comments

Blogger ZaltanaAnatolians sent us a woof // March 18, 2007

Cute picture, her coloring is so different. Isn't in interesting that dogs use their paws to dig a hole, but they use their nose to shovel dirt on something they want to hide.   

Blogger Semavi Lady sent us a woof // March 19, 2007

Come to think of it, I hadn't given much thought about that before! Paws for digging and noses for covering. That's definitely the pattern Coco has with the twisties.

Come to think of it, I've seen my dogs use their noses to push soft things like pillows and blankets away so they can grab a treat or some item they want that gets buried under those. I guess that's sort of like digging. Close up work I guess. And I've seen them use their paws to drag things closer to them or push or bat things (playfully) away, sometimes into holes.

I think they do alternate, but maybe habits are formed based on the substrate and item. Softer things get the nose treatment. :)

Good food for thought. I'll pay attention to that more often.   

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Coco - March 2007

Here's a picture from March 2, 2007 of our rough coated, liver colored Anatolian female, Coco. She is nearly 5 months old in the picture.

Labels: ,

Semavi Lady woofed at @ 3/03/2007 11:45:00 AM | Permanent link | (1) Comments

Blogger ZaltanaAnatolians sent us a woof // March 04, 2007

Ahw, she is just too cute with that hair on the ears going in all directions, 5 months already, don't those pups just always grow up too fast