Turkish Dogs - particularly Anatolian Shepherd Dogs

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.   

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.   

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

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.   

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?)   

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 producer.....blog, 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   

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!   

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.   

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

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...   

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.   

Greetings,

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!

sincerely,
Lea Go
Dog Containment Systems   

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   

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.   

Janice, great post   

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 bre