Labrador Retriever Forum
The following is not a criticism, but an observation. The amount of posts I have read on this Forum shows the level of its membership's knowledge on contracts for stud fees, puppy sales, and related items is extremely high. There are people on this board who can point out the most nuanced meaning of certain words or phrases in a dog sales contract.
But take the same group of people, and tell them only about one aspect of a proposed ordinance or law, and if they like that one aspect, even though they have not had the opportunity to learn about the rest of the proposed legislation, they will say the entire piece of legislation should be passed.
I want to suggest to these people, that just as with a contract, you do not have to live with one phrase or paragraph in the signed contract, you have to live with the ENTIRE CONTRACT. The same is true with any municipal, country or state law. You live with the ENTIRE LAW which is passed, not just the part you like.
There is an very obvious push across the nation right now to have laws passed, which have one or two very positive aspects incorporated into them, and then a host of very unsavory antipet owner, antibreeder provisions buried in the text. No one who is an intelligent dog owner or breeder should throw their support behind any new law or ordinance unless they know absolutely all of its ramifications. Apply the same scrutiny you apply to these laws, that you would apply to a dog sales contract. Unless you get to read the entire contract, there is no sale! 
It is actually very simple. You make sure the ordinance deals with that issue only and nothing else. Then you make sure the law has legal standards so when it is enforced, it is enforced uniformly and not at a dog control officer's whim. You certainly would not pass a law which would allow any animal control officer unfettered access to your private property. Nor would you allow a dog control officer to take your dog, without having a standard as to why a dog was chained, how long were they chained, where they might be chained, how long the chain might have been, etc..
You certainly do not allow an ordinance to be passed which is overemcompassing in scope, and deals with other issues. Most people (perhaps even you), don't realize they have certain civil freedoms, which allow them to enjoy pet ownership. Unfortunately some people (perhaps even you), will allow these rights to be taken away on a false pretext (protecting the dog), when it is actually a way for some people to reduce pet ownership, which is an idea they do not agree with. Wait. That might you as well. Nice try though. 
Gee, considering your response doesn't deal with any of the legal points I raised makes me think I was right on target. We will just have to let the people reading our respective posts decide who has an agenda with dog owners and dog breeders at heart and who might have other interests they are promoting, which are really neither dog nor dog owner nor breeder friendly. Oh well. Have a nice night. 
Here we go again. There's no agenda here. You have a nice night too.
Devil's Advocate...
How right you are. So many of those who say that they support "pets", also support doing away with breeding/breeders. So much of the legislation being pushed in so many states/locales currently is advertised relative to its one or two major GOOD points. However, it doesn't take too long to see the potential negative fallout of all the other "stuff" that's also written into these bills.
If you follow the PETA/HSUS philosophies, we should ALL spay/neuter our animals immediately, or by 4 months of age at the oldest,and adopt an animal from a local shelter (also already spayed/neutered). Then, within a decade or so, there will be no more dogs/cats for anyone to have to worry about since there will be no breeders and no intact animals left!
I don't like to even think of a world without my dogs.
>>They mentioned how many thousands of dogs are put down each year which, I believe, is the goal of some of the new legislation.>>
I was way off on the total number of animals killed each year, this excerpt is from the 60 Minutes segment...
"The dogs all come from southern California animal shelters, where many of them would otherwise be put down, a euphemism for killed. A fate that the ASPCA says befalls as many as nine million lost and unwanted dogs and cats each year in this country."
Nine million, it's unfathomable.
As somebody who works in a shelter, belive me, we do not have the resources to run around checking every pen and rope. It is also our goal to keep the dogs in their homes, not to take them away!!!! Good lord, do you think the animal control officers want to take dogs away from owners when they are well looked after? Education has and will be the first line of defense because nobody wants to remove an animal who is doing OK in his home and risk euthanasia or parvo or placing him in an even worse home. We leave dogs in some pretty shabby and just OK homes every day because we know that it beats the alternative.
The SPCA is not our enemy and we have to pick our battles. If we pick apart every attempt they make to protect the dogs we claim to love, then what will they make of us and how much will they trust our opinion in the future? Yes, dogs are property and we have rights as property owners but this right has been abused countless times and to date, nothing has effectively been done about it. Unless anybody else comes up with a better strategy that will actually work, I see a plan that has some flaws but has admirable goals.
I know PETA is often a driving force behind these proposals, but you also need to educate yourself and understand the other side, the one that euthanizes dozens of healthy animals each week. It wears you down and they feel they need to do something. I have the delightful job of temperament testing and choosing who will live and who will die. The number one reason for euthanasia is behaviour problems related to lack of socialization, period. The more dogs I see chained to dog houses, the more depressed I become because I know these dogs personify the types of dogs I have to kill every day. There are very real problems related to tying dogs out, especially dogs with breed drift toward aggression or aloofness and to high prey dogs. Fortunately I am not the one that has to hold these dogs when they die. If I were, you can bet I would be even more involved in trying to find solutions and I guarantee none of those solutions would be perfect.
We as breeders do not have good reputations with the shelters right now. Unfortunately we get mixed in with the 'breeders' who do not take animals back, who call the shelters when their dogs can no longer be bred, or who hoard dogs or cats and cost the shelters a LOT of money and heartache in seizures and care of the seized animals. I am not saying that we are part of the problem but if we block their every attempt to make a difference, we quickly become part of the problem. I doubt an ordinace could ever be created that would make everybody happy. At some point, somebody has to lose and I just hope it isn't the dogs.
Sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the war
Gina, it is nearly impossible to keep this thread on point. The issue is the overexpansiveness of the proposed Montclair law, and how it goes beyond the single purpose it supposedly only deals with. The other side keeps coming in with distracting unsupported statistics, and ignoring (inadvertently or deliberately) the other provisions which have nothing to do with the health or welfare of the dog, and questioning who is making comments rather than dealing with the actual substance of the comments themselves.
I questioned the lack of standards involved with what would be considered improper leashing of a dog. I questioned why the sanction fees are so high. I questioned why there is no first warning provision in the proposed ordinance. People who would be concerned about a dog, would still relate to all the points I raised ( none of them are contrary to treating a dog well ). However, just like a lot of these new proposed laws, you have people flying under the rader, saying "I have the pet's best interest at heart" over and over again, until they hope people will only listen to what they are saying, and not what they are actually doing or supporting.
Just like you, the best thing I think that can be done is to point a big bright spotlight on the actions of these people, and point out the full legal ramifications of the proposed "only good will" legislation and ordinances they are trying to foist on the unknowing and unsuspecting public.
To the people who genuinely care about dogs, I wish only the best. To those of you with other agendas, here's looking at you, and telling others to look at you as well, and telling them to watch exactly what you are trying to do.
>>It has a few points that directly affect puppy mills, but there is much more written in that will affect EVERY breeder in the state...and most is NOT positively.>>
Sorry, but there ARE breeders that need to be affected.
>>Also, I have no quarrel with the SPCA and the many local humane societies around the state/nation.>>
Well, I surely hope not. 
>>Too many people are willing to take note only of what is told to them...If you TRULY care about animals and their care, get people to enforce the laws that are already out there. New/more legislation won't solve the problem.>>
We are taking note of what is being told to us by the compassionate, hard working folks who are there and KNOW what is happening in the shelters. What laws are out there that are not being enforced? Any law they try to enact is shot down by groups more concerned about their rights than the dogs.
Devil's Advocate...sorry, but your posts reek of agenda.
Dear Lab Breeder:
My posts absolutely reek of agenda and purposely so. My agenda is that people do not have their personal property rights or privacy rights taken out from under them by what is usually referred to in legal circles as "Theft by Deception". I won't let various groups fly under false colors, claiming they do what they do for the sake of the dogs, when THEIR AGENDA is about reducing pet ownership and using these new proposed laws about the dogs as a means to that end.
The good thing is when people read our respective posts, they know by their content what my goals are AND what your goals are. I leave to the readers to decide whose agenda reeks the most!
Why dear breeder, that is exactly my point. When these laws pass, everyone loses, except of course the animal rights people.
I suspect, as Red Birch has suggested, you belong in that latter group, although you think if you don't actually say that people will not realize it. You truly underestimate the people on this Forum.
I do encourage you to keep posting though. The more you say, the more people see who you are and what you really want, and that is exactly what I want to happen. It was to be expected that AR people would start trolling the dog website forums, interjecting why these restrictive laws should be passed "for the good of the dogs". Your posts have shown the Forum readership just how pervasive your groups have become, and why we all need to pull together to protect our rights as owners and breeders. I am busy at this point, so I won't be responding any more. I will cede you the last word, which I am sure you will take. I won't however, ever stop my efforts to throw a bright spotlight on your misguided agenda to end pet ownership whenever possible. See ya!
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
>>The good thing is when people read our respective posts, they know by their content what my goals are AND what your goals are. I leave to the readers to decide whose agenda reeks the most!>>
It sounds to me that your posts are about cramming your opinion down people's throats. You're supposedly concerned about laws that, according to you, will do the same thing. It also sounds to me like you've got alot to lose if these laws do pass.
