Very cool–thanks! I’ve just started taking our shelter photographs, so I’m both in a rapid learning curve and busting with pride at the cuteness of some of our animals. It’s helpful for me to look at other shelters’ websites and see how theirs are set up (and to coo over their animals).
Daniel
Additional nitpick: differentiation between “hobby” and “business” for tax purposes and for purposes of local regulation of businesses are not necessarily the same. It is quite possible to run an endeavor that qualifies as a “hobby” for the IRS and yet would require to be licensed and regulated under local law as a “business”. Endeavors which involve livestock are more-likely-than average to be in that category (as are endeavors involving public attractions, selling of food and/or drink, public entertainment, and a number of other efforts). This is commonly the case in areas in which the public good and treatment of animals is an issue.
In most municipalities (check with your local attorney to find out about yours) breeding animals with the intent to sell them is, in fact, a business for purposes of local regulation, if not for federal tax purposes.
Cat people are good. I say this as the proud Momma of The Two Bestest Kitties In The Whole World. Me, biased? Naaah.
Breeding animals should not be a “hobby.” We have enough overpopulation in shelters already-we do NOT need more puppies in this world. What do you do with the results of this “hobby?” Just dump them off on someone?
If your friends don’t like it, tough shit.
OF the two things you just listed, it’s the latter that’s the problem. It’s the disposal of the animals to the shelter that’s the issue, not the breeding. Everyone who engages in the former shouldn’t be required to pay for the sins of those who do the latter.
I guess we’ll just have to chalk this up to ideological differences. The social libertarian in me really doesn’t like to see people punished for things that they could potentially do.
You’re essentially saying that in order to demonstrate that my friends are responsible breeders (I myself don’t plan on breeding for a while) that we have to support your ideological views (namely, that forcing people who own unaltered animals pay extra because they could potentially act irresonsibly is appropriate). That’s bullshit; if having to support your ideology is necessary for you to apply your own personal “RESPONSIBLE[sup]TM[/sup]” label then I just won’t care about your opinion on that matter.
And if you want to call me a wanker because I don’t want to be forced to pay extra to alleviate a problem that I’m not anymore responsible for then the average Joe, then fine.
Saying that you don’t consider the breeders I know responsible because they don’t support your views on this issue is a different ball of wax then saying that they don’t explain about the care and tending of the animals they place. The latter is factually false; the former is a matter of opinion.
Once again, the problem isn’t unaltered dogs, it’s dogs that their owners allow to be a public nuisance. If someone’s dog is a public nuisance, then fine the snot out of them.
[QUOTE]
Endeavors which involve livestock are more-likely-than average to be in that category (as are endeavors involving public attractions, selling of food and/or drink, public entertainment, and a number of other efforts).]
Companion animals aren’t considered livestock.
Cite?
And here we get to the root of the matter: The fucked-up animal rights ideology that the interests of animals trump the interests of people. Because some breedings cause harm to animals, and violate their interests, no one should be allowed to breed, even if they do it responsibly and enjoy the activity.
If people like breeding dogs, and the specific animals they breed don’t cause a nuisance or an economic hardship on the community, then they causing any harm and they should be allowed to do as they wish. To say otherwise is to engage in the same ideological fascism that the religious right is engaging in, and frankly y’all are just as loony as they are.
Doh! The last part of my second-to-last post should have been this:
Companion animals aren’t considered livestock.
Cite?
I guess it could be a hobby if all the profits are taken for care of the puppies/kittens/etc. But how many breeders really don’t turn a profit? I seriously don’t know, I’m not being snarky BTW.
I didn’t say “no one should be allowed to breed.” I said it shouldn’t be done as a hobby, or a lark, and it should be regulated.
I can’t say for certain, because I don’t know what the proportions are of the various types of breeders.
Generally, I see a few different types (of intentional breeders):
Puppy millers: These are unambiguously for-profit companies that breed dogs to sell, often to pet stores. Health and behavioural problems are common. They most certainly do turn a profit, or they wouldn’t be breeding.
“Backyard breeders”: People who buy a purebred dog (often from the classifieds) and breed it to another purebred dog without any participation in conformation shows, knowledge of the breed’s standard, etc. Their motivations and profits are varied–some, after vet bills and such, may make a profit, some, if the pregnancy is complicated, may not.
“Responsible breeders”: People who participate in conformation events (dog shows), know the breed’s standards, are aware of the health problems specific to the breed, have a goal in mind with the breeding, etc. These people almost never turn a profit. Buying a show quality dog is expensive to begin with, and showing a dog can be very costly. To “finish” a dog (put a championship title on it) can involve going to many shows. $25 a day to enter the show, plus hotel expenses, travel expenses, advertising in breed magazines, etc. Over a dozen or more shows, it adds up. Plus, when they do breed, they’ll likely be paying a stud fee, and they likely won’t be charging “full price” for a good portion of the puppies and will probably be keeping one or more of them.
You said
Which kind of implies that you don’t think anyone should be breeding animals. If you didn’t mean that, then I misunderstood you.
So what are you saying then? Are you suggesting that all breeding should be done as a business (i.e., for-profit)? 
No, what we’re suggesting is that if you want your “hobby” - or the option of your “hobby”, then it’s not unreasonable to expect you to pay for your “hobby”. And if people are breeding dogs to sell - for a profit, as opposed to as a hobby, then they can be expected to pay various and sundry fees associated with running a business - such as the one proposed. ALSO not unreasonable.
As there is a problem with unaltered dogs (several problems actually - behavioral ones, issues with people doing the breed-n-dump thing, breeders selling aggressive dogs to anyone with 500 bucks without benefit of information about how to control their aggressive dog, etc, etc ad nauseum), then people who want to OWN unaltered dogs can pony up a little bit of extra money for their priviledge. Or they can have their dog altered. In much the same way that people who want to drag race may only do so in designated areas - for the safety and protection of others - or they can just not drag race.
And incidentally, if you read the cite you provided from the IRS you’ll note that it indicates when an activity can be deemed a “hobby” only for purposes of determining whether or not expenses associated with it can be deductible on income taxes. It says nothing about local business ordinances that may apply to ownership of dogs or breeding of animals. It’s a specialized definition to address that one point. You will note in the following cite that in California (for example), any person who engages in sale of dogs to the public is considered to be a “dog breeder” and regulated as such.
And, by definition, animals raised for profit are “livestock”. (Cite: Livestock Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com)
For the record: I called you a wanker because you saw fit to refer to me in the following terms "Go fuck your self-righteous little twat with a glass sponge. " You’re entitled to your opinion of me, I’m entitled to mine of you.
And I made no judgement about the responsibleness of your friends and yourself when it comes to your dog - I made (and continue to make) the assertion that if your heart desires a dog that isn’t altered (for whatever reason) then you can bear part of the burden that unaltered dogs produce. In much the same way that I bear part of the burden of irresponsible drivers even though I, personally, am demonstrably not one. I also said that the fact that you steadfastly refuse to do so because you think such a fee would impede your civil liberties doesn’t speak well of your general level of responsibility. If you want to do something that in some hands causes a problem, then you can contribute to keeping the problem under control - or don’t do the problematic thing at all.
You admit that unaltered dogs are a problem but state that YOUR unaltered dogs aren’t a problem so you shouldn’t have to pay. Bullshit. We restrict (or require fees for use of) lots and lots of things that some people enjoy and others abuse. Can you think of another way to help discourage people from owning unaltered dogs without taking responsible precautions? I’m sure we’d all like to hear it if you do. If not, then whining about your personal freedom being infringed while admitting there’s actually a problem with the area makes you look like a selfish irresponsible person. So pony up an alternative, come up with a valid argument for not having such a fee, or take your ball and go home.
Pedro, if you’re that worried about psychological damage to your male pet for him losing his balls, why not get him these? There’s no way that I can imagine a dog having the self-awareness to understand that his jewels have been replaced with counterfeits.
I think that’s a bit ridiculous frankly. Obviously I don’t think neutering is in the interest of the animal like it has been defended in this thread. But it’s not so much the psychological damage that concerns me as the ethical treatment of animals. As a dog, it doesn’t feel embarrassment (no evidence, sorry) and I would be embarrassed as an owner to put plastic balls on my dog. If it needs to be neutered, then it needs to be neutered, and that’s it. LHoD holier than thou attitude rubbed me the wrong way and I didn’t really expose my views. There is a reason to keep a dog intact - namely to keep it intact. If you spay a female or perform a vasectomy on a male, it’s still a healthy animal, albeit infertile. If you neuter a male it’s no longer a “healthy” (in quotes because it’s not suffering as such) animal because a male’s sex organs are an important part of its anatomy and its psyche.
Basically I don’t view animals as toys and I don’t feel comfortable with these practices to fix animals to become part of the furniture, so to speak. If you can’t deal with an aggressive dog, you probably shouldn’t have it in the first place. I think it’s bullshit to neuter a cat to protect the carpet (I can hear the cat freaks lighting up the torches already) or a dog to let the baby heckle it to death. Animals, particularly males, need a certain amount of aggressiveness. It’s in their nature (or balls). They can have good and bad days just like us. If you can’t communicate with it properly and respect the animal bad things can happen. But in 99% of the situations the animal is blameless and it’s the owner who is at fault. For example if you keep a big dog confined in a small apartment, are you surprised if it becomes aggressive? I’m not. Is neutering the answer? I don’t think so. Dogs don’t need fixing, it’s the owner who need to adjust. If you really have a rabid dog on your hands because it has been poorly brought up or because of bad genes or something like that it’s one thing but in normal circumstances if you need to fix a male dog you shouldn’t have it in the first place. If you buy the dog from the trendy breed with the intent of neutering it so it will not be too much trouble, then yeah I consider that cruel.
I know many people will not agree, hey that’s life and I’m fine with that.
I’m confused. Testicles are required for keeping a male animal “healthy”, but ovaries and a uterus are not required for keeping a female “healthy”?
Are you advocating spaying females, but leaving males intact? Are you saying that male gonads are a more important part of male anatomy than female gonads are a part of female anatomy?
Sorry, I thought spaying didn’t involve taking anything out. My bad.
Spaying is actually a much, much more invasive proceedure than neutering. I believe a vasectomy is also, but I’ve never seen one of those, so I’m not sure.
Anyway, just so I’m clear, because spaying involves the removal of the gonads, it’s just as bad as neutering?
Yes, otherwise my position would not be coherent. I thought spaying was a procedure akin to tying up the Fallopian tube. Does it also induce behavioural changes? Most likely yes but I’m asking anyway…
It is my opinion that a vasectomy or the female equivalent, although invasive is preferable to unwanted litters. Neutering and spaying, that is, removing the sexual gonads, falls into what I described above.
Okay. I think I see your position. I was mostly confused because I didn’t think your position was coherent at first.
Yes, removing the female gonads can induce behavioural changes. They’re not as obvious, if they occur at all. Mostly, these changes occur in an agressive female, and they mellow her out, much as is the arguement is for males. (I think Elenfair mentioned a female that was mellowed by spaying in her household recently.)
I’ve owned many altered animals and many unaltered animals in my life. For the purposes of your question, I’ll have to say that the behavioural changes are far more pronouced in altering the males than in altering the females.
Yeah, I really never imagined the whole ovaries and uterus were removed from females. That’s pretty extreme!
Thanks for educating me there.
I thought you were being so civil so you could really start insulting me next. 