New California mandatory spay/neuter law - Page 4

Assuming that the motivation for the legislation is really to reduce the numbers of dogs that end up in being killed in shelters : what is the evidence that this type of mandate will work?

Even within the vanguard of the animal welfare movement mandatory spay neuter is considered a bogus and antiproductive vehicle for reducing the carnage. Check out anything written by Nathan Winograd, the "guru" of the post-modern pet humane movement.

Wouldn't an examination of successful strategies lead to better ways to reduce the pet-killing than forcing people to de-sex their pets?

How about a very large fee to all landlords who don't allow pets? (The single largest reason for pet surrender.)

How about using pet license fees to help fund allergy "outreach" programs designed to help people keep pets even when they have allergies? (The second most common reason for pet surrender).

How about the people who have new babies getting help from their families with housework, etc.. so they don't dump their pets? (Third most common reason pets are abandoned).

How about a fee for surrendering a pet rather than one for adopting a pet?

How about a cessation of ultra lucrative contracts for municipal-killing operations?

How about firing lazy shelter workers who kill animals because it's easier than feeding, watering and cleaning cages?

How about running a shelter so that adopting a pet is easier and more pleasant than buying one?

The list goes on and on.

 http://news.vin.com/VINNews.aspx?articleId=13238



Business & Economics
 

California tax officials target breeders via Internet

Send us feedback about this article

June 29, 2009
By: Timothy Kirn
For The VIN News Service 


California tax officials are surfing — the Internet, that is.

It is not unusual for authorities, potential employers, bankers and others to use the Internet to investigate people.

And now California tax officials are targeting potential breeders that way. 

According to a letter from the California Board of Equalization, board officials visited the American Kennel Club Web site and linked to individual dog clubs to identify potential breeders living in the state.

Board officials are not sure if these dog club members are breeders, but they could be.

Tax board spokeswoman Anita Gore confirmed that 361 individuals will receive the letter. She would not say how or why those particular individuals were identified, however.

Gore also said the board was unapologetic about using the Internet to identify potential breeders. The Internet is a research tool, like any other, and a fairly popular one, she said.

Though a few blogs have speculated that the state might be groping gracelessly for funds with this effort, due to the California government's financial distress, Gore said the letters are a typical education and outreach effort that the board periodically makes.

Breeders are in the spotlight because "quite often people who sell animals are not aware of this tax obligation,” Gore said.

According to California tax law, anyone who sells more than two animals a year must have a seller’s permit and pay the state a sales tax. 

Fifty letters have been sent out so far, Gore said. The rest will be mailed in the coming weeks. The letter states that the recipient must respond and let the board know whether he or she has a permit, would like to apply for one or does not need one because he or she does not sell animals.

Board members have received no complaints about the letters, Gore said. But at least a few are concerned.

Dawn Capp, an attorney and animal advocate, said the fact that the board has used the American Kennel Club Web site and other dog club Web sites is going to upset some people who will ask not to be listed so they cannot be targeted. That will limit resources for the general public, as people visit club W

I am considering getting a small business license. I think my tax write-offs would be about quadruple my tax liability for selling dogs. 

It's interesting to note that the state seems to be targeting breeders who advertise online. I've never advertised a puppy in my life except the rescues, and I doubt that will be an issue for the tax board.

Unless they decide to do away with the deductions that make being in business worthwhile, that would work.  Businesses generally make a bit more money than a person does with a job, but you spend way more to make that money.  Government has always understood this and has always allowed write offs, but what if they decide they are getting shafted out of taxes because of that, and get rid of them?

Just a thought.

Crys

I can't find a nicer way to put this... The government would not have to mandate common sense, if it was more common. There are WAAYYYY to many animals being produced and Bob Barkers pleas for decades to Spay/neuter your pets has gone largely unanswered. If more people would be responsible in the first place it would never come to this. I am curious... how many breeders out there guarantee a home for all of the puppies they produce, for the dogs entire life, should the people aquiring it no longer be able to provide care. If every person that produced a litter did this, there would be no need for Peta or are governement to have a concern with, or meddle in, your affairs because the shelters would be empty and thousands of healthy dogs a year would not have to die needlessly. 
btw... I don't really expect to be popular here :-) and no I am not a member if PETA or any other animal rights groups. I simply believe the human race needs to buck up and begin taking some personal responsibility. 

Another reason not to live in California. As for dog shelters being over-run by animals, perhaps they should work at making it easier for people to adopt. I'm in Washington and you see advertisments all the time about how older people do better with a pet but then they turn around and charge outrageous amounts in fees making adoption out of reach to that very group of people. I am lucky, I have a place where there is a house for my dad and another for us on some acreage, so I am able to provide him a pet. I take care of the vet expenses and animal food but my dad takes care of the walking and day to day care of the dog. We've had this arangement for several years and the dog is now 16 years old and soon :( we will have a really hard decision to make. My rambling point is that all states have lonely older single adults who could truly use an animal companion, the animal shelters constantly cry about how many animals they are having to destroy.....one could truly use the other...why doesn't the state institute a program like that? It would seem that would be a reasonable use of taxpayer money instead of uninforcable laws like the one up above. Good luck responsible animal owners of California. 

I am thinking more and more about getting the HELL OUT of California.

thezoo,
A very large proportion of the dogs who crowd the pound are NOT AKC registered, which means that again, the state is targeting wildly and missing the mark when it harasses breeders of registered dogs. When I go look on Craigslist, 99.9% of the available dogs are NOT registered, they are just designer dogs or "purebred with no papers" (only they write purebread, which cracks me up).  You know, purebread long-nosed boxers and the like. Teacup chiwawas. Gross. Doxens. These are not people who have EVER educated themselves on their breeds, duh. I'm not saying that everybody at AKC knows spit from shinola regarding their breeds, but let's face it, AKC is heavier with people who know what they are doing, Craigslist and the pound are heavier with people who don't. So once again, the state targets the people who try to do things RiGHT. It's just sad and stupid.

Crys, I have absolute faith that they will try to mess with whoever gets legal.