Comments on California’s Intact Pet Bill Gets Amended

User Avatar

Amber   Stoutsville, OH

12/24/2009 12:57:49 PM

I am amazed that someone would oppose this bill. A reputable breeder would never have 50 dogs for breeding. If the breeder loves the dogs, they would want the best for them. Breeding them to death regardless of buying their food and water is cruelty. As one commenter said, look at petfinder.com to see all the lost souls. Breeders should not be allowed to have 50 dogs. I wish we had mandatory s/n like Canada. Dogs are treasured there, not killed.

User Avatar

Isobella   Nashville, TN

9/10/2009 4:38:45 PM

We all know why breeders don't want this bill passed, and it has nothing to do with the "availability of healthy animals" .It does ,however, have everything to do with money and prestige.There are millions of animals that are euthenized and yet they want to breed more!? To me that is crazy ,irresponsible,selfish and reckless!! This bill will reduce the number of animals in shelters by reducing the number born. It is the best thing that could happen. The people opposed to this bill should go to Petfinder.com or visit some kill shelters and see what they are enabling to happen. It's ugly.

User Avatar

J   Tempe, AZ

8/27/2009 10:35:41 AM

What makes someone think that a breeder wouldn't have over 50 intact animals. If there a dollar in it, you'll always find someone willing to do it. And we all know breeders are in it for the money.

User Avatar

dogfreak   Zeeland, MN

8/27/2009 7:32:32 AM

I think that breeders should be able to have as many intact dogs as they want, as they are the ones who pay the dog food bill and puppy/dog vaccinations.

User Avatar

Galadriel   Lothlorien, ME

8/26/2009 10:04:58 PM

I disagree with this bill. Breeders should be inspected and dogs vet checked reguarly. Limiting the amount won't make any difference to their health.

ADS BY GOOGLE

User Avatar

D   Indy, IN

8/26/2009 6:56:52 PM

interesting

User Avatar

Jon   ;), MB

8/26/2009 6:45:31 PM

I 100% agree with Jane! No responsible breeder would have over 50 animals! The AKC TOTALLY needs to recognize that! (and I am an AKC Handler myself!). This would TOTALLY reduce the number of puppymills!

User Avatar

Jane   Amherst, MA

8/26/2009 6:40:39 PM

Personally, I don't think there is any responsible breeder that owns more than 50 unsterilized dogs. To me, owning and breeding that many dogs does not qualify as a responsible breeder. I think the AKC should recognize
that.
Also, I believe a responsible breeder should not be breeding to make a profit, they should either do it because they love dogs and have extensive knowledge or because they want to improve a
breed.
You can't comfortably house that many dogs either!!

User Avatar

julie   lewiston, ME

8/26/2009 11:55:44 AM

Thank you for this wonderfully informative article.

User Avatar

Alexandr   Halifax, NS

8/26/2009 7:07:47 AM

With this articule i couldn't help but think of puupy mills. I mean who could take care of 50 breeding dogs AND the puppies that come?

ADS BY GOOGLE

User Avatar

Jenn   Wheaton, IL

8/26/2009 6:37:54 AM

Hmmmmmm....

1-11 of 11 PAGE:  1

Top Products

ADS BY GOOGLE