I'm not so sure so much that it's that they might see a financial opportunity - AKC has been running regular legislative alerts and editorials against it - so much as I don't think they're really effective lobbying groups. They don't seem to be used to looking at this from the view that political bloggers or gun-rights bloggers do on getting broadspread grassroots word out, and getting publicity on legislation.

I also don't believe that most breeders and breed associations have the experience with the duplicitiousness and lack of good faith argument from their opponenents that gun-rights activists take as a matter of course.

If anyone is going to rake in financial considerations on this, it'll be organizations like PETA, and very large commercial breeders. And puppy mills, indirectly: they're already illegal, and it won't bother them to run without lisences and import puppies into California.

Majority of breeders, purebred *and* designer dogs, if they're like the ones I know in other states, are pretty small operations: this will hit them hard financially, and put them out of business.

Which, I'm pretty sure, is the intent behind the bill and the lisencing/fee structures.

AKC/UKC could easily find themselves as "Breed Organizations" with no breeders in California - not something designed to reap them much in the way of financial reward. 'Course, it wouldn't be the first time an organization's comitted suicide-by-stupidity, so who knows?

I think they just dropped the ball on getting their side of the issue to media and new media for publicity early enough.

Standard disclaimer: I'm a breeder of working Australian Cattle Dogs, and registered Australian Shepherds, so I definately have a bias in this.

I have dogs in this fight, so to speak. ;)

I don't agree that the state has the right to mandate neutering for pets, especially after reading your detailed examination of motivations and consequences.

I am curious, however, as to why you won't have your dog "fixed". DO you take any steps to keeep your dog from conceiving, or are you willing to take on the added responsibility of puppies should they occur?

We have a cat, and she is a joy to us, at the same time, I don't want to kep her locked in the house, nor do I want litters of kittens.

I only ask because in my experience, far too many American pet owners really don't seem fit to care for the pet they have, let alone let their animals continue to breed. Why would anyone who spends at least 12 hours out of their modest apartment, and is often away on business, buy a large dog which requires a lot of personal attention, exercise and room to roam?

I was unaware of a puppy shortage, it sure seems like they are easy to find. Currently in Germany where I am stationed, animal shelters will not give animals to Americans, because so many Amnericans leaving Germany have simply abandoned their pets. Maybe we can work up a repatriation program to make up for a looming pet shortage.

It's about control over people, posing as "dog control." Those who seek vastly expanded power spin this as being in the dogs' best interests, which it is not. Ordinary people are seen as the problem, especially independent dog owners who want to think their dogs are theirs. Seen this way, small breeders and backyard breeders are the worst threat, because they cannot be identified, registered, and controlled. But I think the longterm plan is elimination of pets, and this will go a long way towards advacing that goal.

As to Coco, she's only the latest in a long line of dogs I have owned since the mid 1970s. I have never spayed or neutered any dog, nor would I unless the animal had cancer or something. Twice a year I have to keep a close eye on Coco and supervise her. I might breed her; she has a potential suitor with a compatible pedigree. As I see it, it is entirely my business whether I do or don't.

The control freaks disagree.

(But then, they don't want me having guns either....)

Please bear in mind that the reason I chose the title is not so much to argue in favor of the virtues of mutts as it is to remind people that Trojan horse legislation like this has consequences.

"I am curious, however, as to why you won't have your dog "fixed"."

I'm not being sarcastic here, nor am I being intentionally rude, so forgive me if it comes off that way, please:

Answer me why it is any of your business, and I may answer you on that. IF I think your reasons for sticking your nose in my dog's gonads are sufficient.

DO you take any steps to keeep your dog from conceiving, or are you willing to take on the added responsibility of puppies should they occur?

I keep my males in their runs when my females are in heat, I keep the females seperated from other dogs and from socializing while they're in season, and I only breed litters when I'm prepared to either make certain the puppies are placed well or able to keep the ones that aren't. I pick the mates carefully for bloodline and health when I do breed for purebred pups. [I also breed aussie/heeler crosses for working dogs, so "purebred" doesn't apply there]

Every breeder I know, home, backyard, or professional does the same.

And I don't require a "permit" per uncut dog or a threat of a fine to "force" me to do so.

"Why would anyone who spends at least 12 hours out of their modest apartment, and is often away on business, buy a large dog which requires a lot of personal attention, exercise and room to roam?"

Should *you* have the ability under colour of law to use force of law to make them choose differently?

"Please bear in mind that the reason I chose the title is not so much to argue in favor of the virtues of mutts" -Eric

Buk-buk-buk-bukaw! Awww, c'mon - why not? :)

I'll argue the virtues of mutts indefinately if you want to pass that one over to me, Eric. ;]

"Those who seek vastly expanded power spin this as being in the dogs' best interests, which it is not. Ordinary people are seen as the problem, especially independent dog owners who want to think their dogs are theirs. Seen this way, small breeders and backyard breeders are the worst threat, because they cannot be identified, registered, and controlled." - Eric

Just for the record, I kinda take offense to that line of reasoning on the part of the dog's-gonads-controllers.

I would intensely dislike seeing dog breeding forced into the channels of *only* large kennels, and taken out of the hands of hobby breeders, backyard breeders, farm breeders, and small breeders. The small breeder industry has always made a great contribution to keeping various breeds alive, "ressurecting" endangered or almost extinct breeds, and developing new breeds and new strains.

Of course, I'd be a Heretic in large parts of the breeding world: I don't share the show fancier's aversion to "designer dogs" and mutts that large parts of that industry does. It's a cross I've had to bear. ;)

IF I had the kind of lifestyle in which I could properly care for a dog, I would probably own an Australian Shepherd, they are excellent dogs.

Aussies are wonderful dogs. Heelers can be a bit of a handful, especially when they're between 6 months and a year and a half old.

I'm lucky in that I'm self employed, and I live out in the country, so I have plenty of stay-at-home time to spend with the dogs. If I *had* to live in the city, or in an apartment, I'd choose different breeds.