Connecting You to Your Community
Lodi, California •

Indexes


February 9th, 2010
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
ADVERTISEMENT

Proposed pet law would harm dog breeders and owners


Tuesday, April 3, 2007 6:43 AM PDT

Comments (120 comment(s))

Dog owners and fanciers have their hackles up and are prepared to bark loudly when the California Assembly Business and Professions committee meets April 10 to consider a controversial bill.

If passed, the bill will effectively fine, tax and punish lawabiding hobbyists who have done no wrong, and it will do nothing to alleviate the problem of dogs abandoned in shelters.

The so-called "California Healthy Pets Act," AB1634, has everything to do with the elimination of pets as we know them, and nothing to do with their health.

All of us are touched by the plight of animals abandoned in shelters. Those of us who are animal professionals would like to keep those dogs from ever getting there, but this bill is not the way to do that.

What AB1634 proposes is that the owner of every dog or cat in California be forced to surgically alter them by the age of four months.

They say that neutering your pet makes it healthier. Common sense says that surgical removal of healthy organs does no such thing. New studies show that pediatric spay/neuter places dogs at an unusually high risk for certain types of cancer and other ills, not to mention the risk of surgery itself.

Subjecting your dog to major surgery is a serious decision and one not without risks both medical and financial. But AB1634 wants to take that decision out of your hands and let the state make it for you.

At first blush, the well-meaning but uninformed person might think "this will save the poor little puppies and kitties in the pound."

And that's what animal rights activists (or anti-pet extremists, as I like to call them) would like you to believe. But their entire premise is based on falsehoods and skewed data and their true agenda is the elimination of pet ownership as we know it.

The vast majority of dogs in shelters are adult mixed breed dogs, not purebred puppies, but this law proposes to punish and take away the rights of breeders of various purebreds, as well as the popular mixes such as Labradoodles, for example. None of them will be allowed to remain intact or be bred, either.

The demand exists and people will get puppies when they want them, but if this law passes the only place to get a puppy will be from a commercial puppy mill or a smuggled import from Mexico or elsewhere. Legitimate California breeders will have been knocked out of the box, but "unintentional breeders" who allow their dogs to roam will be untouched.

The authors of the bill use misleading statistics and skewed data to make their argument. They count all species of animals brought to the shelter, including feral cats, which by definition don't belong to anyone. How is it that dog breeders are to be beat over the head with the numbers of feral cat population?

They count dogs which were voluntarily brought in by their owners for euthanasia, either due to behavioral problems, ill health or simply because they have become inconvenient. Or because its cheaper to dump them at the pound than take them to the vet.

Under AB1634, a list of "approved" registries and activities will be established. People who participate in these "may apply" for a costly permit to maintain their dogs intact. Take careful note of the phrase "may apply." This application process will have to be administered by employees. Who will need salaries. And benefits.

Is there money to pay for this when we have severe problems with our prisons and schools?

This little act will put the state in the position of "licensing" breeders and deciding which registries they approve.

Did you know that the AKC and UKC are only two of many dozens of legitimate registries for purebred dogs? Breeders of working dogs, such as police, search and rescue, guide dogs for the blind, working ranch dogs, stock dogs and hunting dogs of many kinds rarely, if ever, attend AKC dog shows, nor should they have to.

Dedicated hobby breeders are the backbone of purebred dogs. They are the ones who raise puppies in their homes with significant human contact, socialization and nurturing. They screen their buyers so that the puppies end up in lifetime appropriate homes, and they will gladly take back a puppy any time if it turns out to be inappropriate for the home.

Most of all, they have the space, the time and the expertise to devote to developing their dogs and they don't just "let her have a litter" and "get rid of the puppies." But it is precisely these breeders who will be punished, while the commercial level kennels of concrete and chain link, for-profit production of puppies will be given license to make more puppies that turn into unwanted dogs.

Should you spay or neuter your pet? In many cases, yes. Most pet dogs, purebred or not, are not of a quality to be bred. More importantly, most owners are not equipped to act as proper breeders, which entails more than putting two animals together and producing puppies.

If you don't have the time, resources, expertise or means to maintain a proper breeding program and carefully place all the puppies in lifetime homes, then absolutely you should refrain from breeding your pet. Preventing reproduction is a simple matter of confining and managing your pet, in other words, being a responsible owner. Dogs do not get randomly "pollinated" if you let them outside. They can't breed if you don't let them.

That should be a decision made by you and your veterinarian, not the state.

The law is unenforceable. Can you imagine a squad of police going door-to-door or stopping people in parks demanding presentation of a certificate of neuter? Or ask to inspect their dog's genitalia? Silly, isn't it? But how else would this be done?

If we make veterinarians report their clients with intact animals, people will simply stop going to the vet. They won't get the vaccinations they need, they won't take their dogs in when they are a little sick, because they don't want to be "reported to the system."

A much better way to deal with the problem of "disposable animals" in our society is the same thing that works in good dog training: Positive reinforcement. Instead of shoving drastic measures down our throats and punishing people who have done nothing wrong, what about making the fixing of your pet tax deductible?

What we need is education, not legislation. Inform adults so they understand that acquiring a dog should not be an impulse decision. It requires a commitment of time, space, attention, exercise, training and finances.

Teach kids in schools that dogs are not disposable toys, but are living creatures with lifetime needs.

If you wish to voice your opinion as to the taking of yet another civil liberty, please fax the Committee Consultant, Tracy Rhine, at (916) 319-3306.

Julia Priest is a professional trainer and freelance writer in Acampo. For more information visit http://www.saveourdogs.net or e-mail k9julie@earthlink.net.

Reader Feedback

Ivan Dixon wrote on Apr 15, 2007 9:29 PM:

" That Hitler, he was a real animal lover. That was why he was a life long vegetarian. "

Report Abuse

C wrote on Apr 14, 2007 11:00 AM:

" As I read all the anti-breeder sentiments I'm reminded of what Hitler said about a lie. Say it loud enough, long enough and with conviction and people will start to believe it. Its the credo of the animal rights movement. People need to realize the biggest problem is not that there are too many dogs and cats being born but the reasons they're surrendered. THAT is the core problem that needs to be addressed. Don't fall for animal rights propoganda. They are systematically working to destroy our breeds. "

Report Abuse

Leonard wrote on Apr 14, 2007 10:18 AM:

" Mary: Give me a break. If you don't like the Freedoms our Constitution guarantees, move somewhere else. I hear the Taliban has outlawed abortion in the parts of Pakistan that they control. Perhaps you would be happier living there. God Bless America! "

Report Abuse

Mary wrote on Apr 14, 2007 12:13 AM:

" The CA GOVT. wants more control over our lives! If this passes, our living children will be next! CA thinks its OK to kill our human babies by abortion but not OK to euthanize animals. They say there are too many. The facts are that euthanasia is on the decline in all CA shelters. CA is tapping into the dog business for extra income. The dog breeders make a profit even if they are responsible and the GOVT. wants a piece of the pie under the guise of CA Healthy Pets Act. "

Report Abuse

Lisa S wrote on Apr 13, 2007 9:58 AM:

" Amber, I was also at Tuesday's hearing. What's ironic is you as an animal control worker are supporting a bill that supports licensed breeders. Licensed breeders in most counties MUST house their dogs in a SEPARATE, concrete-floor building. Do you know what a "licensed breeder" is? It's something I refer to as a puppy mill. BTW, I agree with you about "designer dogs" ie) labradoodles. These dogs are marketed to people interested in the latest trend and are more apt to dump their dog when the "trend" is no longer popular. "

Report Abuse

Josh wrote on Apr 12, 2007 1:11 PM:

" What about the health benefits from keeping the dog intact until atleast a few years of age. "

Report Abuse

Justin wrote on Apr 12, 2007 1:09 PM:

" One thing you all fail to realize is that a law that requires you to pay money to breed dogs will not stop the people that are only doing it for money, Unless its $1,000's a dog it wont even phase them. Not to mention all the kids that do dogs shows and it keeps them off the streets!! "

Report Abuse

C. Verbeeck wrote on Apr 12, 2007 12:42 PM:

" Thank you, Ms. Priest, for presenting information with the voice of reason. No one wants unwanted animals to languish and die in shelters. That's a given. This bill is simply not the solution to the problem. For the record, I do not breed any animals, my own dog and cats are altered, and of the four dogs I've owned in the last 18 or so years, three of them were "rescues" - and I still strongly oppose AB 1634. It will not achieve it's goal, and will create far more problems than it attempts to solve. "

Report Abuse

Rose2 wrote on Apr 12, 2007 12:24 PM:

" No one has the right to force me to mutilate my dog. I am a responsible dog owner. If you want to fine and punish irresponsible dog owners, great, but this is America and you don't have right to enforce this. It's a very slippery slope to humans. Why not remove men's testicles to prevent testicular cancer? Or force women to have mastectomies to prevent breast cancer? This is just another case of the liberal do-gooders forcing their ideas on the rest of us. "

Report Abuse

Amber wrote on Apr 11, 2007 11:22 AM:

" I work for an animal shelter and I was at the hearing yesterday. This law does not say you can't breed. You just have to purchase a lic that would cost about what you make off of one puppy. Trust me purebred dogs get turned into shelter ALL the time. We're full of labs, german shepherds and chihuahuas. Breeders need to stop being selfish and think of all the animals that get put to sleep. Try doing my job. . Oh and as far as labradoodles. The world is already over populated... why purposly create mixed breeds?? "

Report Abuse

Linda H wrote on Apr 11, 2007 8:11 AM:

" Whitney, Responsible breeders are not the only ones breeding purebreds. They are also produced by commercial breeders, puppy mills, and backyard breeders. In my breed, the club made up of people who breed, show, and do other activities with our dogs rescue our breed whenever they turn up in shelters (some won't work with us). We foster the dogs, evaluate temperaments, rehabilitate, train, and place them in carefully screened homes. It costs time, money, and heartache. Most of the rescued dogs are poor specimens of the breed from unknown sources, but we love them anyway. "

Report Abuse

whitney wrote on Apr 11, 2007 1:07 AM:

" If breeders sales went to airtight homes, why are there Breed Specific rescues? The animals who result from Breeders account for AT LEAST 25 percent of shelter intatke. People dump purebreds with the same alarming regularity as "mutt" owners. Breeders! Look in the mirror and admit you would not do your "business" SOLELY for love. Rescuers go broke trying to save lives. If only breeders would beat us to the shelter to rescue their sale! Oh, thats right, they don't microchip them to be returned. And now my rescued GSD needs a walk. "

Report Abuse

tigger702 wrote on Apr 10, 2007 12:32 PM:

" the problem with this bill is that it goes after the people who are good breeders and are responsible in what they do by knowing where the animal is and at most times requiring that the animal be altered. And if for any reason the purchaser of the animal can't take care of or handle they animal it comes back to the breeder. Going after the back yard breeders is great thing to do but not when it is at the expense of the people who are responsible breeders. "

Report Abuse

SJK wrote on Apr 10, 2007 12:52 AM:

" Priest uses propoganda to frame AB1634 as harmful - actually, it is one of the best thing to happen TO ANIMALS. AB1634 will affect the consciousness of a society that is long overdue for taking responsibility for its domestic pet population. Breeders, AKC, etc. do not care about animals; they only care about their rights - these are libertarians that would resist government regulations that specified that all pets must be fed on a daily basis, ... not because they disagree with the proposal, but rather because they don't want to be told what to do. "

Report Abuse

Cherie Graves wrote on Apr 9, 2007 5:06 PM:

" Julia Priest "Thank You" from all dog owners in and out of California. The idea that the state government of California has a proprietary interest in the reproductive organs of privately owned animals is immersed in the Communist collective ideology that the state owns everything, and everyone within it's borders. Breeder licensing is a dismal failure. Look at San Mateo County. Ten years and counting has done nothing. Cherie Graves, chairwoman Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States "

Report Abuse

Rose wrote on Apr 9, 2007 3:56 PM:

" ""This attitude of "disposable animals" is exactly what this fight is about." Thats what groups like the Humane Society of the US want you to believe. It is however, a lie. You see animal rights groups like the HSUS and PETA demonize breeders and want all breeding stopped. If they could they'd spay and neuter out of existence. THAT is the motivation behind this law. Its got nothing to do with animal welfare. "

Report Abuse

Rose wrote on Apr 9, 2007 3:53 PM:

" Bravo Ms Priest! "

Report Abuse

Harvey wrote on Apr 9, 2007 3:18 PM:

" In an ideal world all puppies will be knowledgeably bred, skillfully raised, and carefully placed in homes where their new families receive the support needed to be successful owners. That is what good breeders are doing now. Mandatory spay/neuter laws make it impossible for the very best breeders to produce puppies that make the very best pets and rarely turn up in shelters. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. "

Report Abuse

Linda H wrote on Apr 9, 2007 3:12 PM:

" Based on population estimates, census figures, and average lifespans, assuming zero pet population growth, California produces homes for approx 2 million new cats and dogs per year. If virtually all pets in California are altered, where will these animals come from? Smuggled from Mexico? Imported from overseas? Both of these things are already happening in significant numbers to fulfil existing demand. "

Report Abuse

Linda H wrote on Apr 9, 2007 3:01 PM:

" To see the actual text of the bill go to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html and enter '1634'. It's only five pages long. A revision is circulating which is more restrictive, but it hasn't been posted. Look for revisions after the hearing on April 10. This bill means virtually every dog and cat would have to be neutered to be legal. Unless you believe we should not have cats and dogs, you need to oppose this bill. "

Report Abuse

Laura Sanborn wrote on Apr 9, 2007 9:37 AM:

" You miss the point if you think cost of the permit is the issue. VERY FEW responsible breeders would even be eligible for intact permits for their dogs. The bill's language is so restrictive that only "businesses" would be eligible for intact permits. Yet few breeders are businesses since the definition of a business is one that makes a profit. Few responsible breeders make any profit. Most lose money. Only puppy mills and other commercial breeding operations would be able to breed if AB 1634 passes. Responsible breeders would not be able to breed dogs. "

Report Abuse

Rescue Foster Home wrote on Apr 8, 2007 9:42 PM:

" If you want to breed your dog then pay for the permit. This bill protects the responsible breeder and legitimizes their litters. The AKC is against it because they make millions off of "papers" that are issued for purebred puppies that do not improve the breed. I foster lots of purebread dogs that have been mistreated and injured because their breeders sold them to people who are not responsible. This bill is good for the breed and the breeder. Just pay for the permit if you are a responsible breeder. "

Report Abuse

Laura Sanborn wrote on Apr 8, 2007 8:44 PM:

" Denise Stone, published veterinary medical research literature shows that spay/neuter in dogs doubles the risk of osteosarcoma (bone cancer). If done before 1 year of age, it increases the risk of osteosarcoma by a factor of 3-4. Spay/neuter increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 1.6 in males and more than 5 in females; increases the risk of splenic hemangiosarcoma by a factor of 2.2 in females; quadruples the risk of prostate cancer; and doubles the risk of urinary tract cancers. http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf "

Report Abuse

Millie Jennings wrote on Apr 8, 2007 6:55 PM:

" I just like puppies. When my dog has puppies I keep them until they are big and then I take them to the shelter. Who are these people to tell me what I should do? "

Report Abuse

JB wrote on Apr 8, 2007 3:49 PM:

" Unfortunately, it is the backyard breeder and the millers who sell to the pet stores who feed the impulse purchase of a puppy without the strict screening procedures that a responsible breeder should be doing. All breeds have good and bad attributes and those need to be delineated carefully, along with a good contract and the requirement to take back any dog produced at anytime if the placement doesn't work out. I take exceptiont to the statement that hobby breeders are cheating on their taxes. Hobby breeders don't make a profit on pups! How I wish we could. "

Report Abuse

Laura Sanborn wrote on Apr 8, 2007 12:43 PM:

" RE: the "exemption" for law enforcement dogs. You can rest assured that the nearly 4000 member North American Police Work Dog Association took that into consideration when their board of directors unanimously came out strongly against AB 1634 http://saveourdogs.net/documents/NAPWDAPosition.pdf So did the Western States Police Canine Association, when they also came out against AB 1634 http://saveourdogs.net/documents/WSPCAPosition.pdf The "exemptions" for guide, signal, and service dogs are equally useless. There is no such thing as an appropriately trained 4 mo. old puppy for any working role. AB1634 would decimate working dogs in California "

Report Abuse

Laura Sanborn wrote on Apr 8, 2007 12:37 PM:

" Lee Jennings, we have read AB 1634 and understand what it would do. First, the bill doesn't "exempt" any dog. Some dogs are potentially eligible for intact permits, cost unspecified. Based on past precedent, $150/year per dog is likely. Second, virtually no responsible breeder in California would meet the eligibility criteria for a breeder exemption. What responsible breeders do is classified by the IRS as a "hobby" not a "business" since very few responsible breeders make a profit. Most breeders don't have or require a business license; to obtain one might conflict with local zoning ordinances "

Report Abuse

Anonymous wrote on Apr 8, 2007 12:00 PM:

" This attitude of "disposable animals" is exactly what this fight is about. To stop IRRESPONSIBLE backyard breeders from letting their dogs indiscrimently have puppies and then dumping them in the country. For those animals not fortunate to be rescued by someone like myself (who lives in the country), they are picked up by animal control and EUTHANIZED. No big deal for her. It wasn't her who had to rescue the starving animal off the road or put the needle in its leg to be PTS. "

Report Abuse

Anonymous wrote on Apr 8, 2007 11:59 AM:

" Let me address the person for "dumping her dogs in the country so they can be free." That is WHY we need this bill to pass so much. To stop idiots like that from dumping her animals in the country. They are not "free and wild". They are starving, often injured and attacked, and do not have proper nutrition, vet care, or a warm place to stay. Does she know that it is a FELONY to abandon an animal? Does she do this to her children when they are "old enough to care for themselves"? "

Report Abuse

Denise Stone wrote on Apr 8, 2007 11:55 AM:

" First of all, let me correct Julia's MISINFORMATION that spaying and neutering CAUSES cancer. That is a load of crap! Just the opposite is true! Unspayed females have a greater risk of mammory cancer than spayed females. Un-neutered males have a greater risk of testicular cancer. "

Report Abuse

bestuvall wrote on Apr 8, 2007 10:37 AM:

" Service dogs are allowed if they are "in service" guide dogs the same. no exemptions for the dogs that PRODUCE these dogs .. who are often cross bred. They will NO longer be allowed to breed.. NO four month old dogs are "in service" .they are puppies. who can tell which dog will be the best "service dogs at 4 months This bill does not allow for any "mutts' . only a few pure bred dogs.. remind you of anything.. like Nazi Germany?? Only "pure" strains were allowed,.. it didn't work then.. it won't work now "

Report Abuse

Lee Jennings wrote on Apr 8, 2007 6:24 AM:

" Have any of you even bothered to READ the legislation? The California Healthy Pets Act EXEMPTS: purebred dogs and cats whose owners obtain a permit; dogs who work as guide dogs, service dogs, or signal dogs; dogs who are used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement or rescue activities; dogs and cats whose veterinarian determines that due to age, poor health, or illness it is unsafe to spay or neuter them. More than anything - get your facts straight.....anymore, it's the breeders who might be referred to as 'activists' with all the propoganda and lies they're spewing. "

Report Abuse

bestuvall wrote on Apr 7, 2007 10:46 PM:

" Hey Spoony G Great.. glad to hear you love your mutts.. too bad Levine and the followers don't.. they want all mutts doen away with..this bill calls for the eleimation of all MUTTS int eh state of Ca.. NO MORE MUTTS ALLOWED.. "

Report Abuse

Susancatsanddogs wrote on Apr 7, 2007 9:14 PM:

" This article is a big batch of used cat litter. Over 25% of the dogs in the shelters are purebred. They are not taken there as puppies. It's when they are older and require work that they end up in the shelter. Breeders have been cheating the rest of taxpayers for years: They don't pay federal or state taxes or collect sales taxes on puppies they sell. If fixing pets by 4 months is so unhealthy, why is the California Veterinary Medical Association one of the sponsors of this bill??? "

Report Abuse

Peggy Chaplin wrote on Apr 7, 2007 8:12 PM:

" I don't see what all the fuss is about. When my dog has puppies, I just wait until they are old enough to take care of themselves and then I drive out to the country so that they can be free in the wild. That way the dogs are happy and the city doesn't pay a dime. "

Report Abuse

mmeyer wrote on Apr 7, 2007 8:04 PM:

" This is still America, any law outlawing breeding your own animal is unlawful and un-american. Everyone has a right to express thier opinion, but no one has a right to say you can't breed your dog, I can't believe this will really pass, if it does everyone in America should be afraid, who knows what will be next. "

Report Abuse

Dagne Atlas wrote on Apr 7, 2007 5:13 PM:

" First of all, The California Healthy Pets Act EXEMPTS: purebred dogs and cats whose owners obtain a permit; dogs who work as guide dogs, service dogs, or signal dogs; dogs who are used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement or rescue activities; dogs and cats whose veterinarian determines that due to age, poor health, or illness it is unsafe to spay or neuter them. Get your facts straight.....anymore, it's the breeders who might be referred to as 'activists' what with all the propoganda and lies they're spewing. "

Report Abuse

American Canine Fdn. wrote on Apr 7, 2007 3:38 PM:

" Here we go yet again, radically stupid laws drafted by those who know little and nothing about canines. ACF will again be forced to file another lawsuit. And why doesn't anyone mention the national failures of the same law tried in the PAST? After Los Angeles thought they would be sued for singling out pits/rotts, they went to "all breeds" which is a direct hit to the consumer industry, without regard to any alternatives which cost less. The rational basis for this law is completely untenable. C. Chan Esq. for ACF "

Report Abuse

sandgnat wrote on Apr 7, 2007 12:49 PM:

" Everyone on both sides of the issue should spend more time volunteering in their local shelters. More volunteers would make a world of difference in helping these homeless dogs walk out of the front door with their new families. "

Report Abuse

Myra Savant Harris wrote on Apr 7, 2007 12:44 PM:

" If this law and others like it get passed, pretty soon the only people who will be able to breed purebred dogs will be puppy millers who raise them on wire and aren't concerned about health issues. The careful, concerned show exhibitor/dog breeder is the future of the breeds we all love. "

Report Abuse

Ivan Dixon wrote on Apr 7, 2007 10:55 AM:

" Julia is a genius! I absolutely agree with her 100% Why make laws if everyone isn't going to obey them? We made laws against drunk driving but they obviously don't work, since we still have drunk drivers. I agree with Julia, lets get rid these of laws that don't work. We made laws against murder but they obviously don't work, since we still have murderers. I agree with Julia, lets get rid of these laws that don't work. "

Report Abuse

Spoony G wrote on Apr 7, 2007 5:00 AM:

" I don't know why anyone would want a pure breds. I have two mutts from the pound and they are way better than any pure bred. Pure breds are made with inbreeding while mutts have hybrid vigor! "

Report Abuse

Teri J wrote on Apr 6, 2007 7:32 PM:

" Bravo Ms Priest!! As a breeder in another state I will no longer sell puppies to homes in CA if they have to be spayed and neutered prior to maturity. The A/R has to be stopped and I hope the breeders of quality dogs and cats and loving owners show up for the meeting a let there represenatives know that quality breeders are not responsib ile for the animals in shelters. "

Report Abuse

Diane wrote on Apr 6, 2007 7:23 PM:

" Great article!! Thank you! Once again, it is those of us that try to breed to benefit the breed only....have only a few litters a year...and pour our heart and soul into our sport that are hurt again. As it is, I have yet to come out a head with a litter. Those who breed for greed....will not mind the cost for breeding their dogs as they breed many dogs many times....do not pay the stud fees for the better quality dogs....and sell for profit! "

Report Abuse

Meg Az. wrote on Apr 6, 2007 2:46 PM:

" Brava, Julia!!! "

Report Abuse

Linda H wrote on Apr 6, 2007 10:26 AM:

" T posted "Here is her (the author) breeding web page in case anyone was wondering... http://www.sontausen.allk-9.com/" It looks like she is the kind of breeder who is doing it right and producing dogs that are an asset to society - search and rescue, service dogs, police dogs, highly trained competition dogs, and great companions. Very impressive. A record to be encouraged, not criminalized by bad laws. "

Report Abuse

E. Ekberg wrote on Apr 6, 2007 5:57 AM:

" As usual this will only have an affect on law-abiding citizens, and they're not the ones dumping animals in shelters. Animals should be kept no longer than 2 weeks in a shelter, and then put down. This is a law Colorado and Wyoming are considering, which makes a lot more sense. Is California not part of America anymore. You people seem to think no one has any rights anymore. You're all a bunch of liberal nuts! Get a life!! "

Report Abuse

T wrote on Apr 5, 2007 9:34 PM:

" Here is her (the author) breeding web page in case anyone was wondering... http://www.sontausen.allk-9.com/ "

Report Abuse

Kathy Souza wrote on Apr 5, 2007 7:51 PM:

" Bravo Ms. Priest for a well written article. Unfortunately the proposed legislation was not as well thought out before it was written. For those challenging the veracity of the statements that neutering of pets does harm to those animals and increases their odds of ill health please use this link and read the facts: http://www2.dcn.org/orgs/ddtc/sfiles/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf "

Report Abuse

T wrote on Apr 5, 2007 7:48 PM:

" To Bestofall: Google her name genius, she comes up as a GSD breeder. "

Report Abuse

T wrote on Apr 5, 2007 7:29 PM:

" TO best of all: when giving information such as this the responsible writer would not hide the fact that they have a personal interest and or bias in the subject matter. Also, NO being a responsible breeder is not a bad thing as Ms. Priest seems to be, its the non responsible breeders who worry me.......and they are certainly the majority "

Report Abuse

Ann wrote on Apr 5, 2007 6:34 PM:

" Thank you for a well thought out article. This is one of the few articles I've read where somebody has actually read the bill and thought about what it says. "

Report Abuse

Debbie wrote on Apr 5, 2007 4:38 PM:

" I hope all of you who are writing these comments, and anybody else who wants to help, can come to Sacramento on Tuesday the 10th, to show support for the Opposition against AB1634. For more information on this and other ways to help, you can go to the AKC website which follows. http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/CA_action_center.cfm "

Report Abuse

bestuvall wrote on Apr 5, 2007 4:29 PM:

" to T: Why should Ms.Priest have mentioned she is a breeder? is being a responsible breeder a "bad thing" to you. and how do you know she is a "breeder" or are you guessing? here is a great place to REALLY get the facts on early spay/castrate.. all backed by scientific evidence: > http://escregistry.kattare.com/healthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf "

Report Abuse

bestuvall wrote on Apr 5, 2007 4:00 PM:

" To Ivan: Perhaps there is no "rest of the story" and that this is just a bad bill that is not supported by any one who has a rational thought "

Report Abuse

bestuvall wrote on Apr 5, 2007 3:58 PM:

" To Nichole: here is information "I've spent a good bit of time reviewing the veterinary medical > journals and research on the long-term health impacts of spay/neuter in dogs. I've written a paper summarizing this literature. Unlike > what you will find in Spay/Neuter Fact Sheets, the health impacts of spay/neuter that are discussed in this paper are all backed up with > citations to the veterinary medical literature. > http://escregistry.kattare.com/healthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf > written by Laura Sanborn you work in the veterinary care field? where do you think your clients come from? "

Report Abuse

Kathy F wrote on Apr 5, 2007 3:20 PM:

" Thank you, Ms. Priest, for being a voice of reason. I don't think anyone is against having pet owners and breeders be responsible for the puppies they have. But punish the wrong-doers, and encourage those who are already doing the right thing. "

Report Abuse

Linda wrote on Apr 5, 2007 1:39 PM:

" References regarding negative effects of spaying/neutering are in symposium proceedings from an organization working to solve pet population problems worldwide, http://www.acc-d.org/2006%20Proceedings. Scroll down to SESSION I Non-Reproductive Effects of Spaying and Neutering. Also see http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf . The bill obviously intends to list exemptions as options, but omitted the or's, so it actually says a dog has to be registered, a service dog, a police dog, and have a vet say it isn't healthy enough for the procedure to be exempt. They take appallingly little care in framing a document that will affect people's lives. "

Report Abuse

Karen M Berggren wrote on Apr 5, 2007 12:39 PM:

" I am a resident of Arizona. As your neighbor and as the owner of an uncommon breed, we often attend dog shows, water trials, and other dog related activities in California. In fact, our National Specialty will be held in the fall in California. This brings in about a thousand people who spend a lot of money! Plus- I would like to know how you plan to explain to tourists that they are breaking the law by having an intact dog in their RV! "

Report Abuse

There are more illegal aliens in CA than stray animals! wrote on Apr 5, 2007 12:20 PM:

" Do something about that first! And many of them are selling pit bulls illegally to pay for their drugs! "

Report Abuse

Betsy Lisk wrote on Apr 5, 2007 10:44 AM:

" We are having the same problem in Florida. They think if they: impose heavy fines on new litters, on fully intact dogs and cats and much more, they will control dog biting and overpopulation in our county of Hillsborough. This is only to penalize the good people and continue to allow the bad people to do what they do...nothing, and get away with it. "

Report Abuse

lynne wrote on Apr 5, 2007 10:18 AM:

" I am a ( very small )breeder of akc dogs ,, i do all health testing for my breed and sell my pups on limted reg also they must be s/n bye 8 months ,,, I disagree with the ab1634 ,, but one things gets me rely bad why should any breeder that has a lic or tax no,, have more rights ,,, than me as they are nothing more than apup mill "

Report Abuse

Nancy wrote on Apr 5, 2007 10:11 AM:

" I can't think of one county in the entire state of California that has an Animal Control budget large enough to support this ridiculous proposal. Apparently, animal rights fanatics can't think beyond their own narrow little world! "

Report Abuse

Ivan Dixon wrote on Apr 5, 2007 10:10 AM:

" I am still waiting for Paul Harvey and the Rest of the Story. How about a little balance, Lodi News Sentinel? "

Report Abuse

Robin B wrote on Apr 5, 2007 9:50 AM:

" Bravo to Ms. Priest! Responsible breeders active in the fancy are not the problem - it is the pet mills and backyard breeders who do no health testing and are in it for a buck. Legislation such as this will drive the responsible people out, leaving the puppy mills to continue harming their dogs and selling their offspring for profit only. "

Report Abuse

Lisa May wrote on Apr 5, 2007 9:03 AM:

" As someone who is also in the field of dog training, I have seen first hand what the Animal Rights extremists can do. We cannot hide our heads in the sand and think that the extinction of our beloved pets is not possible. It most certainly is and we are moving in that direction each time we turn away. Bravo for this great article. "

Report Abuse

Florence wrote on Apr 5, 2007 8:23 AM:

" Thank you for a well written, clearly analyzed article of a bad, misleading bill. I hope that copies have been sent to all members of the State Assembly & Senate as it should be required reading. I can only hope that our legislators have the wisdom to see & do the right thing. Thanks again! "

Report Abuse

Carole A Della Penna wrote on Apr 5, 2007 8:14 AM:

" As a hobby breeder of champion AKC yorkshire terriers and co-owner and breeder of america's top AKC stud dog in yorkshire terriers I would like to thank you for bringing this bill Ab1634 to my attention. Thank-you for your article, I sincerly hope that it is defeated as it serves no purpose and will only hurt serious hobby breeders such as myself "

Report Abuse

TLC wrote on Apr 5, 2007 8:13 AM:

" A similar bill was just defeated in New Mexico, entirely due to overwhelming emails to ALL the representitives, congressmen and the senator. My suggestion is for everyone, no matter where you live, go to California's website and email all listed. What is missing from this article is that dogs are property and as such, fall under our constitutional right to own and control our property. This begs the question, "How can a state overrule the U.S Constitution in any matter?" If you are not fighting this issue actively, you are the problem. "

Report Abuse

Sandra Bearden wrote on Apr 5, 2007 4:30 AM:

" Very well stated. We do not need more laws, we need education. This new law will stop the hobby breeders, but will be an enabling law for puppy mills. It will not alleviate the stray dogs that end up in shelter. Lately, these kind of laws seem to be our government at work. "

Report Abuse

Dorothy Young wrote on Apr 5, 2007 3:49 AM:

" Thank you for a well written factual article. "

Report Abuse

Jane wrote on Apr 5, 2007 2:20 AM:

" "This is an excellent and well-thought out column,I wish for Californians to stop and think about the major damage AB 1634 would cause. AB 1634 would drive responsible dog breeding out of California, replacing it with irresponsible backyard breeding and mass-production "puppymills". No one will benefit." There are dogs needed for law enforcement,therapy,protection the blind. It is those ethical breeders who produce these animals by tryin gto preserve the breeds involved in these tasks "

Report Abuse

Peggy Bennington wrote on Apr 5, 2007 12:46 AM:

" The title of this legislation is a misnomer. Requiring that dogs be spayed or neutered at 4 months of age is the equivalent of requiring that human boys be castrated or human girls have ovaries removed at age 2. Not "healthy" for canines or humans. Surely we can address the problem of feral cats and unwanted dogs which are surrendered to animal shelters in a more intelligent manner than AB 1634. Imposing punative "intact animal" licensing fees, which may vary from county to county. on responsible breeders of dogs and cats will do nothing to solve this problem. "

Report Abuse

Nichole wrote on Apr 4, 2007 9:29 PM:

" I would just love to read those studies that claim neutering and spaying your pets can actually cause cancer. Why wasn't a single study cited for this article? I have worked for 10 years in the veterinary care business, and frankly have very little sympathy for breeders. Responsible breeders that aren't just out for profit would have no problem with this bill. "

Report Abuse

T wrote on Apr 4, 2007 9:20 PM:

" Funny how the author doesn't mention the fact that she is a breeder. Funny also that there is no reference to where she found the studies she sites as it pertains to pediatric spay/neuter. This is FULL of misinformation and propoganda. To get the facts go to: http://www.cahealthypets.com/ "

Report Abuse

Fastfilm wrote on Apr 4, 2007 9:04 PM:

" How ghastly that AB1634's mandatory dog sterilization will only punish the good guys. Responsible small breeders, rescues and breed enthusiasts, inclusive of rare breeds preservationts, will be considered criminals. Commercial, non-home-socialized, quantity breeders from other states, and those smuggling dogs in from Mexico will be sole remaining sources of canines here... because the law as written bars purebred dog-owning via its numerous, intentional, "Catch-22" anomalies. Laws that only punish responsible hobbyists do not serve any public good whatsoever. This is akin to outlawing the sport of Olympic archery because thieves robbing convenience stores also use sharp objects. "

Report Abuse

Jodi Eckardt wrote on Apr 4, 2007 8:50 PM:

" Thank you for presenting responsible breeders in the positive light that they rightfully deserve. Jodi "

Report Abuse

Irene Tenney wrote on Apr 4, 2007 8:18 PM:

" Bravo, K9Julie! What I wonder is why the state is not applying the same zest and zeal to erradicate the hundreds of puppy mill operators, the so-called commercial breeders, who will greatly benefit with the elimination of a healthy genetic pool. Thanks to the ignorance of misled politicians our pets will soon join the list of "endangered species". Are we next in line? Irene and the GSD pack "

Report Abuse

patientpup wrote on Apr 4, 2007 8:03 PM:

" Thank You Ms. Priest, If only there were more critical thinkers than paid lobbyists. AB # 1634 is a travesty "

Report Abuse

Geraldine Clarke wrote on Apr 4, 2007 7:20 PM:

" Thank you so much for this article, Ms. Priest. You've covered all the points about why AB1634 will not produce the "Healthy Pets" that it claims to be it's purpose. Only commercial breeders will be able to breed dogs and rare breeds and the working lines of farm and ranch dogs will cease to exist if it is passed and enforced. "

Report Abuse

J. E. Burchard, Ph.D. wrote on Apr 4, 2007 6:34 PM:

" Well done! AB 1634 won't fix the shelter problems, but if anything will make them worse. It will increase animal control costs, and reduce compliance with licensing and vaccination regulations. Spay/neuter of immature animals, especially dogs, also adversely affects their health, so "California Healthy Pets Act" is a very misleading title. It's refreshing to read work by a reporter who took the trouble to inform herself, and was not misled by propaganda from those whose true aim is to eliminate pets (and all domestic animals) altogether. I congratulate Julia Priest on an excellent article. "

Report Abuse

Micha wrote on Apr 4, 2007 2:53 PM:

" This article is poorly written,and blatantly panders to people's unreasonable fears in order to garner support for ideas that probably have merit. I have absolutely no respect for this author or her pathetic attempt at an argument. This article is little more than political rhetoric aimed to sway the unsophisticated, emotional masses. "

Report Abuse

Aimee wrote on Apr 4, 2007 2:39 PM:

" I researched the breed I was interested in and waited 3 years to find a puppy from a reputable and responsible breeder. This law would do harm to those small breeders who are in it for the love of the breed and maintenance of the AKC standard, with a keen eye towards producing healthy animals representative of their particular breed. "

Report Abuse

nahtima wrote on Apr 4, 2007 11:39 AM:

" I highly disagree with this act.If this should happen, our most loved animals would become instinct with time. why take away the right to reproduce. It should not be a decision made by man anyway. As a christian woman, I believe that is a decision for god and only god. "

Report Abuse

Ivan Dixon wrote on Apr 4, 2007 10:03 AM:

" Sure sounds like one side of the story.... "

Report Abuse

Judythe Coffman, VP-California Federation of Dog Clubs wrote on Apr 4, 2007 9:43 AM:

" FINALLY! A newspaper that isn't afraid to tell the truth instead of putting a leftist spin on the truth. Fact: numbers of dogs taken in and euthanised in shelters throughout the state have dropped by at least half in the last 10 years. I wonder how much Mr. Levine was "paid" by the animal rights activists pushing this bill? "

Report Abuse

Gail Floyd wrote on Apr 4, 2007 8:51 AM:

" Wounderful article thank you very much I am sure there are many people now who understand what the state is trying to do thank you. I live in Modesto and read the Lodi Paper...wish you would put this in the Modesto paper \....... "

Report Abuse

Elizabeth Winans wrote on Apr 4, 2007 7:14 AM:

" Excellent article. "

Report Abuse

Diane Puntenney wrote on Apr 4, 2007 7:06 AM:

" Thanks for a clear explanation of a problematic proposal. As this article makes clear, AB 1634 would remove the breeders who are one important source of healthy, well-socialized dogs and increase the numbers of puppy mills and back-yard breeders to fill the demand for puppies. This can only lead to more dogs in shelters in California, not less. The legislature needs to reject this bill and look to education of the public for a realistic solution to the problem. "

Report Abuse

M Quick wrote on Apr 4, 2007 5:19 AM:

" This law will negatively impact responsible breeders who are concerned with preserving breed integrity it and will open the door wider for puppy mills to continue their horrific overbreeding for profit. "

Report Abuse

D-M Hedgcock wrote on Apr 3, 2007 9:49 PM:

" This is without a doubt the best newspaper article about CA AB1634. Every word is true. If AB1634 is passed in any form it is the end of pet ownership as we have always known it. This bill will be devistating to hobby breeders of dogs, cats and other pet animals. Hobby breeders have invested their lives in their animals, developing healthy bloodlines. We must stand together an fight this bad legislation. "

Report Abuse

bestuvall wrote on Apr 3, 2007 9:41 PM:

" Julie: You are AWESOME!What a wonderful article. It should be published in every newspaper,especially the one where Mr Levine lives. Levine owns no pets but has no problem with telling us what to do with ours. He is ill informed on the very bill he is sponsoring. NO MORE PETS..for anyone. PETA and the HSUS say there will always be mutts. How can this be if this law is enforced? I think there are better ways to use our police force and our tax dollars than to fill the jails with the dreaded "puppy breeder".. "

Report Abuse

Jane Mundy wrote on Apr 3, 2007 9:16 PM:

" This is an exellent article. I hope the committee reads it and takes it to heart. At a time when much of the public is disillusioned with it's government, it seems foolish for them to pass such legislation that will put them in such an adversarial roll with their constituents. "

Report Abuse

jenny stephenson wrote on Apr 3, 2007 9:04 PM:

" Thank,s so much Ms Priest on your most welcome article ,,,I oppose this bill 100% ,, the only ones it is going to hurt is us responsible dog owners ,i don,t see where it will cut down the #,s of dogs/cats being put too sleep in these shelthers ,,, but it will cost us tax payers more trying to inforce this bill "

Report Abuse

Jill Holt wrote on Apr 3, 2007 8:56 PM:

" Thank you for a great article that outlines the real effects of the bill as well as the agenda of those supporting it. Forcing ethical, responsible breeders out of CA will drastically reduce the choices people have in pets. "

Report Abuse

Janet LeClainche wrote on Apr 3, 2007 8:05 PM:

" This is a very good article and ought to be required reading for our legislators. "

Report Abuse

R Nunzir, Livermore CA wrote on Apr 3, 2007 6:23 PM:

" Thank You for FINALLY stating in plain english for your readers, what this ridiculous piece of legislation is all about. And by the way, most of us who are hobbyist breeders also have stipulations to take back our dogs if the owner(s) can no longer take care of them properly rather than turning the dog over to the local humane shelters "

Report Abuse

Sue Matthews wrote on Apr 3, 2007 4:18 PM:

" Thank you Ms. Priest for explaining the problems with this misguided, draconian proposal. The decision to spay and neuter a pet, and the age at which to do so, is a medical decision that should be made by the animal's owner and their veterinarian, not by some politicians. I would encourage all Califoria pet owners to contact their representatives and let them know that they oppose this bad legislation. "

Report Abuse

C. Eliason wrote on Apr 3, 2007 4:15 PM:

" This article should be required reading for legislators "

Report Abuse

vonnie taylor wrote on Apr 3, 2007 4:01 PM:

" Great editorial. Hope the legislature listens. There are so many more needful ways to spend CA tax money than passing a law that can't be fairly enforced and wouldn't solve the problems it's supposedly targeting anyway. Those problems can be solved by fair but rigorous enforcement of existing laws that address owners who abuse and/or neglect their pets or don't go to the effort to keep them home. "

Report Abuse

Cindy Clark wrote on Apr 3, 2007 3:11 PM:

" Bravo, Bravo, Bravo! Well written article. Thanks for stating the facts on AB 1634. This bill MUST NOT pass! "

Report Abuse

M Milde wrote on Apr 3, 2007 2:32 PM:

" This is an excellent article! Perhaps the best I've seen so far on the subject. I'd like to add also that, if passed, this bill would have a highly deleterious effect on maintaining genetically viable breeding populations of rare breeds and non-registered working lines. This impact would be even felt outside the state of California. So - not just a California problem! "

Report Abuse

Concerned and educated dog owner wrote on Apr 3, 2007 1:54 PM:

" The proponents of AB1634 cite a large number of pets being euthanized in the state's shelters. That number is half of what it was 10 years ago. That is a positive they don't want JQP to know. They do not tell you that California shelters routinely import dogs from other countries. These dogs are usually strays, and often carry diseases that the shelters then pass onto the public. Education is the key. To find out what the potential harm and benefit to spay and neuter, read this report at http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/35c7sd "

Report Abuse

Janice Denny wrote on Apr 3, 2007 1:33 PM:

" I live in Arizona, but have a daoghter who is a breeder in California. Please do not let them pass this law. It is not fair to the very concientious breeders. "

Report Abuse

Michelle Langenberg wrote on Apr 3, 2007 12:58 PM:

" I have to agree with the reporter. I have been involved in rescue for roughly 10 years, this last year we have seen a drastic decrease in the number of dogs in need. But we fear a law like this will result in lack of vet care for people will be even less likely to take their pets to the vet in fear of being reported. There are far more important issues, like education, immigration, etc. "

Report Abuse

Debbie Lind wrote on Apr 3, 2007 12:48 PM:

" WOW, Ms. Priest..you're article is the first one I've seen to actually explain the realities of this proposed legislation - with no sugar coating from AR people. All CA citizens will be affected if this passes, as it is an assault on our personal rights. Targeting breeders is the easy answer, but it's not the solution to the problem. "

Report Abuse

Martin Deeley - Florida Dog Trainer wrote on Apr 3, 2007 12:32 PM:

" Thank you for this Article that is full of common senses and correct information. Julie has taken the potential legislation apart and quite correctly shown it to be full of illogical thinking. I often ask myself whether the policy makers have consulted those within the world they are making legislation on, and if they have whether those they have talked with are balanced and unbiased in their analysis and advice. Thank you Julie Priest for this article which demonstrates your true knowledge and understanding of the dog world and what is really required. "

Report Abuse

J. Perciaccanto wrote on Apr 3, 2007 12:16 PM:

" It is about time a newspaper finally elected to report the truth about what these laws are attempting to do. The reality is, legislation will ultimately end up support puppy mills and spay neuter dogs of quality out of existence. These programs have not worked in the areas where they have already been implemented. I wish more newspapers had the common sense to write such articles so the public can understand what their legislators are doing. "

Report Abuse

Merry Shelburne wrote on Apr 3, 2007 12:01 PM:

" Thank you for an excellent article explaining AB 1634. Let us hope that this bill dies in committee. "

Report Abuse

H. Houlahan wrote on Apr 3, 2007 11:57 AM:

" I applaud the author for cutting to the meat of this horrible, damaging bill. AB 1634 will do nothing to help shelter animals. It is simply an intrusive, dictatorial nanny-state law that denies Californians the right to make medical decisions for their own pets. By giving an exemption to puppy-mills, it supports an abusive industry that will no longer have to compete with knowledgable, ethical, small-scale breeders of pets and working animals. AB 1634 will also burden every California municipality with jobs they are not qualified to do, and almost certainly do not want to do. "

Report Abuse

Vicki wrote on Apr 3, 2007 11:25 AM:

" GREAT Article Legislation like AB 1634 criminalizes responsible pet owners and breeders. Legislation needs to focus on encouraging voluntary spay/neuter, development of low cost spay/neuter programs, education of the general public on responsible pet onwership, higher placement of shelter dogs, shelters developing good working relationships with legitimate rescue groups, enforce leash and containment laws, enforce nuisnance laws, and give jail time to people convicted of aniaml cruelty. "

Report Abuse

Mimi Dygert wrote on Apr 3, 2007 10:38 AM:

" Thank you for the good article on AB 1634.While I no longer live in California I do feel that Ca. sets the standard for the rest of the country. Thses are very serious long reaching decisions. "

Report Abuse

M. Pogorzelski wrote on Apr 3, 2007 10:27 AM:

" I applaud the author and this newspaper for explaining the realities of the proposed legislation. Education, not legislation - is key. Many excellant points were covered in this article. "

Report Abuse

Kathy wrote on Apr 3, 2007 10:21 AM:

" Well said! "

Report Abuse

W. O. Ward wrote on Apr 3, 2007 9:55 AM:

" I agree with the author of this article. If AB 1634 is passed, the state will have made one more unnecessary intrusion into our lives. Reputable breeders will be adversely affected and scofflaws will continue to follow bad breeding practices. The "good guys" will lose and the bad guys will laugh. "

Report Abuse

Edith Hoyt wrote on Apr 3, 2007 9:54 AM:

" Thank you for the good article on AB 1634. I Oppose this legislation and feel that you are correct about the need for education, not legislation. I feel that this legislation is an all out assault on my personal liberty and property rights. "

Report Abuse

Walt Hutchens wrote on Apr 3, 2007 9:47 AM:

" You tell 'em, Ms. Priest! This is one of VERY few newspaper pieces I've ever seen to get this right. Laws like this have NEVER worked. Should AB 1634 pass, you'll be able to watch all the progress reverse, as good breeders leave or stop breeding, as 'just for a buck' puppy moonshiners and back of the pickup truck importers replace their dogs. When the law fails the ARs will say "It works but people are just so irresponsible that we need STRONGER ENFORCEMENT." "

Report Abuse

Mark Herrick wrote on Apr 3, 2007 9:21 AM:

" Hello, This is a great article. My compliments to Ms. Priest. I am a member of California Rescue Dog Association [CARDA], the largest and oldest K9 search and rescue organization in California. We provide trained and State certified search and rescue K9s to all the citizens of California at no cost to the tax payers of California. Ab1634 will adversly impact the breeding of genetically strong, working dogs used for search and rescue work in California. The citizens of California will suffer from this legislation. Regards, Mark Herrick CARDA #600 "

Report Abuse

D Surber wrote on Apr 3, 2007 8:50 AM:

" Thanks for a clear analysis of the bill and the issues. No one thinks killing animals in shelters is good, but this bad bill throws the baby out with the bathwater. "

Report Abuse

Laura Sanborn wrote on Apr 3, 2007 8:45 AM:

" This is an excellent and well-thought out column, coming from an experienced and very well-respected California dog trainer and breeder of working dogs for law enforcement, search-and-rescue, and service. I hope Californians will stop and think about the collateral damage AB 1634 would cause. AB 1634 would drive responsible dog breeding out of California, replacing it with irresponsible backyard breeding and mass-production "puppymills". Nobody would benefit from that. "

Report Abuse

Comments on this story are now closed.

Special Sections

Sentinel Silver 2010

Photo Reprints

Find Ads




Services

Contact Us

Office

125 N. Church St.
P.O. Box 1360
Lodi, CA 95241
(209) 369-2761
Fax: (209) 369-1084

Newsroom

E-mail

(209) 369-7035
Fax: (209) 369-6706

Subscriptions

Subscribe

Problems with your subscription?
(209) 333-1400

Advertising

E-mail

(209) 369-2761
Fax: (209) 369-1084

Classifieds

Place an ad E-mail

(209) 333-1111
Fax: (209) 369-1084