Comments by Holly
Page 1 of 24 | Next
1 of 1 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 18 at 12:51 a.m.
Amen, AZ2SB!
1 of 2 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 16 at 11:35 p.m.
At least with a reputable breeder or private rescue, there are serious hoops to go through, homechecks, references required, etc, before a buyer can take a puppy or adult animal.
Also, "Designer dogs" ARE mixes. Labradoodle, Schnoodle, etc....all mixed breeds with made-up names and phoney papers....and all the health problems of any other living creature. And no way to track and eliminate them, because they are mixes, they don't breed true, and there is no way to keep accurate pedigree records.
Want a cute mix? Go buy one at a shelter or a rescue; don't pay $1500.00 for one. Want a cute purebred? Go to a reputable breeder who raises their dogs in their home, keeps immaculate conditions and records, and stands behind their animals for life.
That said, I see where this pet shop is filling a need, and I just hope the dogs all end up in safe homes.
As for the comment on pet shops "taking a stand against puppy mill breeding", that's completely erroneous. Most pet shops get their pets from commercial kennels to begin with. Additionally, reputable breeders do not sell to pet shops, period.
Selling mixes at this pet store is not going to change the euthanasia rate at the shelters, neither is mandatory sterilization. We need to start by addressing uncomfortable subjects such as lack of rental housing for pet owners, soaring veterinary costs, and despite all the pretending otherwise, a generally VERY dog-unfriendly area.
We need to make it EASIER, not harder, to own a pet. We need to educate and support pet owners, not criminalize them.
Selling mixed breeds in the Montecito pet store is a nice gesture, and one which will make plenty of money for the owners, with a nearly 100% profit margin (mixed breed pups are nearly always free or near-free to obtain) and the cachet of political correctness as icing on the cake as it becomes the "in-thing" to buy a mix from the Montecito pet shop. A win-win for the shop owners and the fashion-conscious puppy buyers.
Hopefully, the buyers will realize these are living creatures, and will make and see through the appropriate commitment to these babies for the rest of their natural lives, and not abandon them when they become expensive, inconvenient, or Bob Barker, Pam Anderson, Oprah and Ellen find another cause to embrace.
A dog, whether purebred or mixed, is a living being deserving of a lifetime of love and good care...regardless of where s/he looks like or came from.
2 of 4 people thought this was a good comment.
Posted on November 16 at 11:35 p.m.
First off, purebred dog's do not have any more health issues than mixed breeds do. They are all animals, and animals are all subject to a variety of positive and negative hereditary conditions. The reason people believe purebreds have more health problems is because purebreds have pedigrees and are easily documented. Mixes don't have this advantage, thus researching and documenting health issues are nearly impossible.
In other words, mixed breeds are just as susceptible to health and temperament issues as purebreds, but it's easier to hide problems such as these when they crop up in mixes, as there is no pedigree nor definable "breed" to blame.
People should have the opportunity to buy their pets from whatever source they choose, whether it be from a shelter, reputable breeder, or private rescue.
Someone who wants a purebred Lab is not going to go looking for a Cocker mix...and shouldn't be forced to....any more than they should be forced to marry someone they don't love just because it's the currently politically correct thing to do.
I personally have a huge problem with selling dogs in pet stores, at "adoption" fairs, etc...and I am more than a bit uncomfortable even with public shelters. There is no way to investigate the homes these animals are going to; anyone with the $ who wants a puppy can just walk in and get one.
Posted on November 7 at 6:39 a.m.
Families will suffer, pets will suffer. My rescue will be buried in dogs surrendered by families who can't afford to or won't subject their pets to surgery, or who are just tired of being criminalized by special interests for the sin of owning a pet. It becomes such a burden that people can no longer cope, and have to make the painful decision to just not have any pets at all.
We need to pull together to create a supportive environment which ENCOURAGES responsible pet ownership, not legislate it out of existence...which is actually what some of the special interests and corporations funding these types of legislation actually want. Ron Faoro and friends are just the unwitting tools of the pet extinction movement. They mean well...and also see income opportunities, but the end result is homeless and dead animals.
If you really want to help, get busy working to change the hostile rental climate for starters.
Work to start a fund to help owners get vet care for their pets; it is now so insanely expensive that pet owners often simply have to euthanize their pets rather than pay to heal them from various illnesses.
Go to a school or hospital with your pet and visit. Convalescent homes also love pet visits; when my mother was in one, she and the other patients lit up when I came with my dogs.
Help the shelters and local rescuers with donations of needed items and your time, or a few dollars if you can spare them. Teach people to buy dogs from shelters, rescues, or responsible, ethical breeders instead of less-desirable sources.
Stop buying the sales pitches of vested interests who are unwitting mouthpieces for much darker interests. Hug your pets. Get informed. Protect them and protect pet ownership for future generations.
Posted on November 7 at 6:39 a.m.
Forced sterilization also ensures more money will flow to enforcement agencies and administrative entities, and also will give law enforcement and animal control carte blanche to enter your home and property without your permission, peeking in your yard and windows to find pets while you are at work. This was shown on KEYT awhile back, complete with a very proud Animal Services employee showing how he goes around at midday when he knows people are at work, peeking into yards and windows, looking for bowls and toys and "presence of pets", and banging on doors when he knows no one is home in order to goad dogs into barking so he can "note this for future enforcement when the spay laws pass" as well as cite the owners for any license infractions.
As we speak, there is an organization which vets in some counties are being forced to share rabies vaccination data with which then keeps track of said data, then shares it with law enforcement agencies in that county. Reason? To track dogs for licensing purposes and anticipated future forced sterilization legislation. All your personal information is out there and will be used against you.
Voluntary sterilization is a good option with many benefits. Mandatory, forced sterilization benefits an entire group of special interests who will make a tidy income from this enforced and unfunded mandate.
Posted on November 7 at 6:38 a.m.
SBSue, no doubt you are an animal lover and even possibly a fellow pet owner. I have two spoiled rotten dogs and two equally cherished indoor cats.
Yes, legally, animals are considered property, and there are a number of reasons this is a good thing and needs to remain the case, all benefiting our pets and those of us who own and love them. The only folks who will benefit from "guardianship" laws will be trial lawyers and administrative agencies.
Now to address your erroneous belief that yet more government intrusion into our family's lives via mandated surgery will somehow end euthanasias and loose pets, let me see if I can show you how Mandatory Spay/Neuter bear zero effect on these issues.
Irresponsible pet owners are what they are. Forcing me, a responsible pet owner, to inflict a possibly risky (ALL surgery is risky, despite what Ron Faoro and others who will benefit financially from this proposed law will have you believe) and invasive procedure on my pets will not have ANY effect on your irresponsible neighbor with the perpetually loose dog or cat who poops in your garden.
It is NOT "very unobtrusive" to force a surgical procedure (not to mention unfunded mandate) upon me, you, or anyone else in the false hopes of coercing irresponsible pet owners into suddenly and miraculously becoming good pet owners.
Using EXISTING laws...which are NOT being enforced (leash and humane care laws) WILL deal very effectively with these people.
Also, forced sterilization (has a creepy ring to it, doesn't it?) does not begin to address the economy or lack of homes, which you also mention. May I also add that Santa Barbara county is an extremely dog unfriendly area for renters; try renting housing with a pet...worse of all...a medium to large sized dog. If you can find housing with your pet, you will pay very dearly for it, and you will most likely be allowed only one pet, and that one under 15 pounds. It is a horrific decision for a family to make, and not always taken as lightly as you portray, nor because people "...consider their pets a piece of "property" rather than a personal "responsibility". "
Forced sterilization addresses none of these issues. What it does ensure is a nice income for Ron Faoro and other veterinarians who will benefit greatly from the endless flow of dollars from those pet owners who can afford to pay for surgery, while the pets of those wgo can't will be dumped on the streets, in rescue, or at shelters.
Posted on October 12 at 7:33 a.m.
amen, douglasgillies. This has been a time-tested SB method of shoving unwanted development down residents' throats for ages.
I don't see what's wrong with cleaning up the old Californian Hotel and keeping things basically the way they are, with businesses geared towards RESIDENTS...not tourists...for a change. We don't need timeshares for rich tourists, condos for clueless fools who think they are actually buying a home, high-end shopping, etc.
What is needed are vibrant neighborhoods with housing and businesses (and NOT more bars!) geared towards locals (such as HotSpots, to name one)....not more of this predictable junk designed to squeeze out the locals and anyone earning less than 50k a year.
Posted on September 18 at 10:12 p.m.
Jeff, it's your body and your liver, and you have the right to poison it however you wish. Far be it from me or anyone else to stop you. I absolutely support your right to put into or take out of your body whatever you like.
However, your rights end when you get behind the wheel of a vehicle. When you are driving, you take the lives of others in your hands; it's not just about you and your rights anymore.
I appreciate your attempts at humor via sarcasm. You are clever and cute and that's nice. You have a great imagination, and kudos to you.
However, I support what billclausen mentioned, especially the part suggesting you put in a little time at a MADD meeting. May I carry it a bit further and suggest you meet with the family of the DA who was killed by an impaired driver on the Pass, or make a visit to the morgue to see what's left of the victims of impaired driving?
If this makes me a wet blanket...GOOD. If it helps one person reading this discourse to make the decision to call a cab or a designated driver instead of drinking ANY alcohol and driving, then I'm thrilled.
Again, the focus of this discussion is a GPS application which enables people to locate alcohol sales and service establishments. The Valley is a big place. They aren't walking to these places; even though there are well over 100 of them and counting (and increasing weekly), there is a lot of distance between them.
Meaning people are driving. Drinking and driving.
And all the sarcasm and personal attacks against those of us who clearly see that fact doesn't change it.
Good try, though:-)
Have a nice day!
Posted on September 18 at 4:08 p.m.
Cathy, methinks thou doth protesteth too much..
The article is about a GPS application, so you can locate wine sales and consumption facilities, drink, then get in your car and DRIVE to the next one so you can drink some more.
Wine is alcohol. Alcohol impairs your judgment. We all know this. No matter how loudly or how often one shouts the contrary, those pesky facts keep popping back up.
Pretending that modern-day wine is not alcohol is just silly. It IS alcohol. It DOES impair mental acuity. And as ridiculous as the whole chi-chi "wine culture" is, it ceases to be amusing when these yahoos get behind the wheels of their vehicles and DRIVE to the next alcoholic beverage consumption facility.
Until your family has been touched by the actions of an impaired driver, you cannot know what a horror it is. Pretending it's "not so bad" because "it's just wine" is a fool's presumption. Go look at any "wino" sleeping in a doorway. He's drunk on WINE. It may have a screw cap and not be as pricey, but it's WINE.
Wine is alcohol. Alcohol intoxicates. You can deny that all you want, and scream at those of us pointing out this fact all you want, but that doesn't change it.
Don't drink and drive. It's that simple.
Page 1 of 24 | Next
Previous Month
Posted on November 20 at 12:17 a.m.
“I don’t lie. I don’t cheat. I won 40 academy awards. I have five children,”
WTF does his academy awards and spectacular reproduction overload have to do with anything? What a jerk. Stick a sock in it, Jon...nobody cares.
I'd like to see this loser put in one hour at his former gardener's job and survive it.
Bravo to Mr. Gonzales for persevering and prevailing!
As for Peters...learn to mow your own lawn and water your own plants, ya lazy twit!
On Producer Must Pay Landscaper