Last Chance to stop the Python and Boa Ban!

[ConcinusMan]

How much is it, if you don't pay at all?

Not sure I understand the question.

I beg to differ. It seems pretty damned messed up, considering that the dog is your property and very likely a beloved family member.

Not as messed up as you might think. Both the registered animal and the owner who cares to pay for such registration, benefits. So does the entire "humane" system. I guess it's something you would have to see in practice, for yourself. It's definitely NOT "messed up". I am not paying without a benefit. It is in my best interest, and in my dogs' best interest, and benefits pet animals in general. My younger brother just acquired an adorable 2 year old Chihuaha/Dachshund mix. That dog was saved from euthanasia. Sent from a very FULL Modesto, CA animal shelter to Portland OR, because portland had the room. All of this is funded by the "dog tax". That dog was saved, and my brother found an awesome pet. Just what he was looking for. The system isn't perfect, and it still depends on donations and public help. They get the help. They get donations. My brother gets a dog. A wonderful dog that otherwise would have been put to death.

We don't live in a third-world country here. We don't have starving cats and dogs running the streets. THAT would be "messed-up". You wouldn't have to worry about that where you live. Any dog/cat/ exotic reptile that finds himself abandoned late in the year will die from cold anyway.

[Stefan-A]

Not sure I understand the question.

Rhetorical question. Meant to imply that it still costs.

Not as messed up as you might think. Both the registered animal and the owner who cares to pay for such registration, benefits. So does the entire "humane" system. I guess it's something you would have to see in practice, for yourself. It's definitely NOT "messed up". I am not paying without a benefit. It is in my best interest, and in my dogs' best interest, and benefits pet animals in general.

Of course you benefit, if the system is intentionally built up so that you'll lose more by not paying. To make such a system and essentially take a family member hostage for ransom and mutilating it, IS messed up.

[infernalis]

To make such a system and essentially take a family member hostage for ransom and mutilating it, IS messed up.

Could not agree more.

If someone were to take one of my dogs and cut him/her up, we would be in court quick!

Cockapoo pups get hundreds of dollars each, I would sue for all lost income. and they produce decent size litters, that's over $1000 a year for every year I can breed them.

[WingedWolfPsion]

HSUS is on the warpath since it was infiltrated and taken over by PETA members. They're attacking not only the reptile industry AS A WHOLE, but also the livestock industry, and the pet industry in general.

Mandatory spay/neuter. Sound like a good idea? What if you are a breeder of purebred dogs, passionate about the breed and striving to improve it? Still sound fair to you? Yes, there are many dogs in shelters, and that is sad, but it is not the place of politicians to dictate that people must adopt shelter dogs and are not allowed to purchase purebred puppies. It is also not justifiable to charge people a big tax or license fee just so they can breed their dog and produce a litter of puppies. Many of the best breeders are small breeders who produce only one litter every year or two. They often do not even break even on their expenses. They cannot afford this type of license, and there is no reason they should have to.

Passionate lovers of purebred dogs who produce occasional litters of high quality puppies and place them into carefully selected homes are NOT responsible for the tons of mutts in shelters, so why on earth should they HAVE to pay for them? Just because they love dogs? I don't see the fairness in that.

HSUS is backing ALL of these bills that seek to place more limitations on animal ownership, and separate people and animals. You SHOULD be suspicious of ANYTHING that the HSUS supports at this point in time. They have declared outright war on the Reptile Nation, and if you own a garter snake, that means YOU.
THIS is the propaganda they are promoting:
http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affe...s_as_Pets.html

To find out more about HSUS's underhanded activities, go to www.humanewatch.org

And please--help Kill the Rule Change. It's bad for the snakes, for the owners, for the industry, and it sets a precedent that is bad news for ALL reptile owners.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

I usually stay out of things like this... BUT I am seeing talk of dogs on here and I feel way too strongly on this to keep my mouth shut.

Many of the best breeders are small breeders who produce only one litter every year or two. They often do not even break even on their expenses.

This is correct and this is the ONLY situation where dogs should be bred. If you are going to breed dogs, it should be only to keep the breed going strong. If you are a breeder of purebreds, it's different. You should not be forced to adopt dogs from shelters... BUT.... puppy mills, designer dogs and people breeding two dogs together just because they are cute and they want puppies, that needs to stop. It's adding to the problem and there's NOTHING beneficial about it. Breeders do not make a dime on their animals and if they do, they are cutting corners somehow. Designer dogs are where they take two breeds of dog, slap them together and make some puppies, and combine their two names together to make a cute new name. Puggles, Jugs, Cockapoos, Bichonpoos, are just a few. These are NOT breeds... these are mutts. They are not purebred in anyway, and while they are adorable, the problem lies in where they come from. Animals should never be considered a source of income... ever. And yes, if your dog is NOT a purebred animal that is in a breeding program it should be fixed. We don't need to keep making mutts voluntarily... Strays and escapees do enough of that on their own. If your dog gets out and goes on a little adventure and comes home pregnant, or having gotten another dog pregnant...That's one more addition to an already immense problem. The best dog I own is a mutt but I'll be damned if I'd allow more of him to be made!

Working at PSP has inergrated me very deeply into the whole dog thing, and I feel very strongly about "designer dogs" and people who make puppies seeing it as a source of income. There is this guy who keeps coming into our store. He has a pitbull, it's ears have been chopped off completely, "the breeder did that" he says. He keeps putting up a sign... PUTBULL 4 STUD.... basically, he wants money to get other peoples dogs pregnant to make more useless puppies....no purebreeding, no standards, just using his dog's sperm as a source of income. Oh and he wants the pick of the litter, to sell. I remove this sign time after time once he leaves.

[WingedWolfPsion]

Animals should never be considered a source of income... ever.

Wait, what? And why?
I'm a professional reptile breeder. They are my primary source of income. This is a business for me, and I'm proud of the way I run it, and the way I care for my animals.

I cannot think of a single reason why animals should not be considered a source of income. That's really an incredibly general statement. Do you hate farmers, or something?

I have an issue with people who abuse and neglect animals. I don't have an issue with people who make money by breeding animals, and I don't see why anyone else should.

Your hatred of designer dogs is also without explanation. Someone who wants a puggle doesn't want a pug or a poodle, or the random dog from the shelter. They want a puggle, so why shouldn't they be allowed to buy one?
Most dog breeds started out when someone bred several different breeds together to come up with something new that was more suited to their purposes or more appealing to them. That process has not stopped, new breeds are still being created.
The person selling puggle puppies is not to blame for the shelters being full of unwanted dogs. The dogs THEY produce are wanted--if they weren't, they couldn't sell them.
One dog is not exactly like every other dog. You can't just remove all the puggles, and expect the people who wanted them to go pick up a shelter mutt. It doesn't work that way.

The truth is, there will always be stray dogs and cats, because these animals evolved to live in human environments. We made them into pets and we care for them, but at their most fundamental level, they are species that evolved to scavenge from us. It never ceases to amaze me how folks can proclaim that strays will die horrible deaths from disease if they aren't found, and then turn around and state that those strays are breeding and producing more animals that will succumb to the same fate.

You know, a sustained breeding population in MOST species indicates that they are getting what they need to survive. Feral dogs and cats don't have lives that are significantly worse than those of other wild animals. We just don't think about it that way very often.

It's not really good for us to have packs of feral dogs roaming around, or feral cats all over, because they pose a danger to us--either direct or through disease. But as far as the animals are concerned? They're doing what they evolved to do. They're surviving on our garbage and the rodents we attract...and they're thriving, in urban and suburban environments. An increasing or stable population = success.

Because of this, there will ALWAYS be 'unwanted dogs and cats' in the shelters. There will always be rats and pigeons and squirrels and raccoons and sparrows and starlings all over the place in the US, too. The idea that every cat or dog should have a home with a person is simply outside the bounds of reality. It's a shame that so many have to be euthanized, yes--but attacking professional breeders as if THEY caused it to happen is ridiculous. If everyone stopped deliberately breeding dogs and cats tomorrow, there would still be more of them than people could keep, and that would never change. It's not a tragedy, it's what these animals evolved to be. We did not deliberately create the domestic dog--it evolved to live in the environments we create around us. Considering it to be any different from a deer or a pigeon is just hypocritical.

So tell me...why exactly is it wrong to breed animals for income?

[ConcinusMan]

Yeah, can't say I agree with that statement. I think what she might have meant is that it's not right to view them ONLY as a source of income. They must also be viewed as living things with feelings and treated humanely and with respect.

[Stefan-A]

I have an issue with people who abuse and neglect animals. I don't have an issue with people who make money by breeding animals, and I don't see why anyone else should.

I guess it's the notion that breeding for money leads to two things:

1. Neglect or abuse, usually through less than optimal living conditions and overbreeding individual animals. Think: Puppy mills. Naturally, that's not what has to happen and it does not mean that people who don't breed animals for money don't abuse and neglect their animals.

2. Selling to just anybody. The larger the quantities, the bigger the need to "unload". Doesn't mean that occasional breeder don't do this, either.

I'm inclined to agree with you on the "designer dog" issue. I am however going to take it a few steps futher and say that the I find the whole idea of purebred dogs both sad and hilarious. When people brag about having a purebred or prize-winning whatever, I really just want to tell them: "No, you have a disfigured, inbred wolf." This can be applied to designer dogs as well. In some cases, the same principle applies to snakes and other reptiles.

[ConcinusMan]

Wow. We really got off topic on this one. But, let me continue. You know how most people wish puppies would stay that cute forever? I saw some dogs that do!

They were Pomeranian X long hair chihuahua. Man! they were the cutest dang thing I've ever seen!

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

I've already said quite enough and I really don't feel the need to elaborate any further. You took one single quote from my entire post and get all up in arms about it. You took it a bit too literal. But I stated my opinion and it's not going to change.... And actually I DO have a problem with the way a lot of farm livestock are raised. But this is a garter snake forum. And I'm on my lunchbreak.... And so I'll leave it at that. I am entitled to my opinion as much as you are yours.

Wait, what? And why?
I'm a professional reptile breeder. They are my primary source of income. This is a business for me, and I'm proud of the way I run it, and the way I care for my animals.

I cannot think of a single reason why animals should not be considered a source of income. That's really an incredibly general statement. Do you hate farmers, or something?

I have an issue with people who abuse and neglect animals. I don't have an issue with people who make money by breeding animals, and I don't see why anyone else should.

Your hatred of designer dogs is also without explanation. Someone who wants a puggle doesn't want a pug or a poodle, or the random dog from the shelter. They want a puggle, so why shouldn't they be allowed to buy one?
Most dog breeds started out when someone bred several different breeds together to come up with something new that was more suited to their purposes or more appealing to them. That process has not stopped, new breeds are still being created.
The person selling puggle puppies is not to blame for the shelters being full of unwanted dogs. The dogs THEY produce are wanted--if they weren't, they couldn't sell them.
One dog is not exactly like every other dog. You can't just remove all the puggles, and expect the people who wanted them to go pick up a shelter mutt. It doesn't work that way.

The truth is, there will always be stray dogs and cats, because these animals evolved to live in human environments. We made them into pets and we care for them, but at their most fundamental level, they are species that evolved to scavenge from us. It never ceases to amaze me how folks can proclaim that strays will die horrible deaths from disease if they aren't found, and then turn around and state that those strays are breeding and producing more animals that will succumb to the same fate.

You know, a sustained breeding population in MOST species indicates that they are getting what they need to survive. Feral dogs and cats don't have lives that are significantly worse than those of other wild animals. We just don't think about it that way very often.

It's not really good for us to have packs of feral dogs roaming around, or feral cats all over, because they pose a danger to us--either direct or through disease. But as far as the animals are concerned? They're doing what they evolved to do. They're surviving on our garbage and the rodents we attract...and they're thriving, in urban and suburban environments. An increasing or stable population = success.

Because of this, there will ALWAYS be 'unwanted dogs and cats' in the shelters. There will always be rats and pigeons and squirrels and raccoons and sparrows and starlings all over the place in the US, too. The idea that every cat or dog should have a home with a person is simply outside the bounds of reality. It's a shame that so many have to be euthanized, yes--but attacking professional breeders as if THEY caused it to happen is ridiculous. If everyone stopped deliberately breeding dogs and cats tomorrow, there would still be more of them than people could keep, and that would never change. It's not a tragedy, it's what these animals evolved to be. We did not deliberately create the domestic dog--it evolved to live in the environments we create around us. Considering it to be any different from a deer or a pigeon is just hypocritical.

So tell me...why exactly is it wrong to breed animals for income?