« Home | Spaying and Neutering & Early Spaying and Neuterin... » | You May Soon Have No Right to Behave Freely and Re... » | Label Hack for FTP Hosted Blogger Blogs » | Noses are for Hiding Treats! » | Coco - March 2007 » | PETA Kills Animals » | Poop pick up bags... at another level! » | Blogrolling » | Happy New Year! » | Don't be Scammed »

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 http://www.cahealthypets.com/

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.

Grrrr


UPDATE: Wed-21 March, 2007- Vera Edwards, CEO for Taxpayers for Responsible & Ethical Animal Treatment, (www.treatinfo.com) 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.
Sincerely,
Vera Edwards
Taxpayers for Responsible & Ethical Animal Treatment
www.treatinfo.com   

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
here.

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 http://www.saveourdogs.net/ 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
http://www.sheltertrak.com
and
http://www.dboneweb.com/animaltrunks/shelter08.php
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
fact.
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. http://www.photoshow.net/scripts_main/build/player.php?show=bJnVSMKmf

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".]]

Exactly.

[[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
http://www.sheltertrak.com
and
http://www.dboneweb.com/animaltrunks/shelter08.php]]

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 http://www.shelterwatch.com/. 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-
http://dboneweb.com/dbgallery/view_album.php?set_albumName=kcbreedcall

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
animals?]]

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. http://www.photoshow.net/scripts_main/build/player.php?show=bJnVSMKmf "

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. http://www.petpopulation.org/research.html

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 http://treatinfo.com/).

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.
   

Puppy Boone says: Let's chat!

<< Back to Main Blog