Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws

[Rip's Girl]

With this proposed bill in California, there has been a lot of discussion in regards to mandatory s/n.

For those that aren't familiar with it, here is the "lowdown" on AB1634. http://www.cahealthypets.com/

In a perfect world, where it targeted only BYBs and puppymills, I think it would have potential. Realistically, I can't help but wonder how the heck this will be enforced.

On another note, this will affect my breed (working Border Collies) drastically. I have a little bitch, for example, who is ABCA registered. This bill doesn't recognize the ABCA, so my lovely bitch with hundreds of years of good breeding behind her will be nothing more than a mongrel. Also, a lot of the absolute best working dogs ARE mongrels or come from unregistered purebreds, and this bill wants to leave whether or not they will be bred up to the jurisdiction of ANIMAL CONTROL? Sorry, maybe other cities have better AC departments but ours is miserable and I cannot imagine anyone from our AC being able to identify a good Border Collie from their own posterior.

This is an interesting page in regards to working dogs (not just stockdogs). http://saveourdogs.net/workingdogs.html

Ultimately I think this bill is full of holes, and that despite the cheery appearance plastered on the site, it will end up hurting responsible breeders and working dogs, while allowing puppymills to continue to produce mass-quantities of animals as long as they're "registered".

Thoughts?

[oc_spirit]

I think having a law like that is BS. Maybe make it mandatory that all PET dogs be s/n but even then I wouldnt back it up...Id rather see them putting time, effort, and money into more serious matters rather than trying to control what someone does with their own personal property. Not sayong a dog is just an item to own but under the law's eyes dogs are viewed as personal property.

[AVA]

just another tool for government to control you
glad I don't live in CA, and I guess I won't be taking any
vacation there either because my dogs always go where I go.

[calgal]

I doubt it would affect people comming here to visit, but they sure are going about this the wrong way. Telling you what you can do on your own property when it affects animals in a negetive way such as mills and such should be handled differently. First off millers should be put out of business by passing a law that prohibits more than a certain number of breeding dogs (maybe 4) and not to be kept in deplorable conditions outside. The law already prohibits having more than 3 cats and dogs inside the city limits, but I don't think it's fair to let the others do as they please just because they are not inside the city limits. Laws are laws. (or should be anyway) The big problem with any of these laws is, we don't have enough people to enforce them.

[D.Schäferhund]

Due to some happenings , here in Lawton they try to inforce that you either spay or neuter or pay a fee over 200dollars yearlt to keep an intact dog!

though they "grandfather in" dogs that have been there, they require new dogs to be covered in that law!
But i don't see why this should be affective!
It will keep the resposible owners responsible, just will cost them more money, the other ones always find ways to get arround!
For me these laws may have good intentions, but sorry they are not the smartest move, they are for me, just shots in the blue to make the puplic feel safe, like they done with the baned breed lists.
They will fail!
To me this what is happening here is more a moneymaking thing for the city as anything else!

If you are byb you find a property in the cou ntry to keep doing what you are doing!
May be remotly good intentions, but i don't think so!
Instead of punishing how about some extra work in dogowner education?

[TinyAlbinoDancer]

I think for Los Angeles County specifically it's a good idea. I was just on their site and it said they euthanized over 18,000 animals in one year. For that I say stomp on people's rights, something's got to be done. And I don't think enforcement will be as big of a problem as people seem to think, either. They even have free microchipping now to help reduce the number of lost pets as well.

For other cities/states, though, I would hope they're taking that drastic step in response to a drastic problem like LA County's. In my 20 years of living here, CA just seems to have this wierd attitude towards pets where no amount of education gets through to people. They just don't care (and especially not if they're making money!). We have an overpopulation of just about every pet you can think of. Turtles, fish, chickens, goats, potbellied pigs... they all make it into the LA shelter system. That's how ridiculous it is. My local shelter just had 70 animals in their care put down because they got overcrowded and illness broke out. Overcrowding is like THE disease in CA shelters.

Ava, there are exemptions for dogs visiting the state (for show dogs, for example), and the ordinance isn't statewide, either.

So while I don't agree with the bill in a generalized sense, I think looking at why they would be that drastic is important. People have rights, animals lose their lives for those rights. It always has been and always will be that way, but I think imposing on people's rights where the situation is dire is called for.

Am I the only one who lives in an area where BYBs and overpopulation is just rampant? You can't turn the street corner without seeing a sign for puppies for sale, and I can't tell you how many litters of puppies have been born on HALF of one cross street!

[Sophie45]

Wow, good topic....

I'm torn, because I am a strong supporter of strict spay/neutering policies because of so many negligent pet owners who simply don't spay or neuter because of the expense and additional effort required for recovery, follow up visits, etc. Or they just don't care either way, they don't see the big problem with it. There are so many unwanted dogs and cats, and shelters are jammed full of abandoned animals, many who are put to death. Others may find a home, but not always successful ones because of ignorant owners, behavior problems, etc. They often wind back at the shelter, perpetuating the cycle....This also is very costly, but that is a completely secondary concern, IMO. Since breeding is exponential (one dog can have eight pups, of maybe four are female, who can have eight pups apiece....and that's just one litter!) it can become a major problem very quickly. So many people just don't want to spend the time and effort to properly train their dogs, so they just dump them at a shelter, giving the problems to the next owner. Stray dogs and cats can put a big burden on the community, including dangers of animal bites, spread of rabies, etc.
On the other hand, I feel that someone in your situation-a responsible dog owner who has a compelling reason to keep your dog intact, should be able to appeal this law. You should have the right to present your case, which I think is an extremely legitimate one. Your rights as a RESPONSIBLE dog owner should not be stripped because of the cruel, irresponsible and reprehensible behaviors of others, especially BYB.

Why isn't there being more done to crack down on BYB's? If they are so worried about the stupid tax/money factor, then fine the BYB'S some ridiculously high fines, like $10,000 per litter! Like that will happen....

[TinyAlbinoDancer]

One thing that I thought was neat about the fines for intact dogs/cats is that the fees go back to the spay/nueter programs:

"Local animal control agencies would be responsible for enforcing the California Healthy Pets Act. A portion of the fines collected would be used to expand the availability of free or low-cost spay or neuter programs and other outreach efforts." (http://www.cahealthypets.com/)

So if you're a breeder or what not at least your money is going back into the community to spay/nueter more pets! One of the shelters in LA County whose website I was on said the cost of the permit for having an intact animal was nominal, too. What their definition of that is I don't know, though. AKC's website says, "Los Angeles County, CA features a $60 intact animal license and a $175 litter permit if you choose to breed a bitch." Elsewhere says $30 per dog in LA County. A bunch of websites say it's a $500 fee for a permit, but that's actually the cost for violating the ordinance.

I don't agree with spuetering the animals at 4 months of age, either. Is that absolutely necessary? I'm unfamiliar with the earliest a dog can come into heat...

Here's the full bill: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/...ntroduced.html

[briarlow]

I would hate for this to happen in my country. I think it's awful that responsible breeders in that state will no longer be able to breed their dogs and that say if they are rare breeds that they will no longer be able to improve upon them.

[scarfy]

I agree that pets should be speutered, especially mixed breeds cause there's no reason to add to the population of unhomed dogs that fill up our shelters and ultimately get euthenized.

However, I am against the government trying to force me to do things like that. Like the seat belt law. I was fine wearing my seat belt all the time, then it became a law and I feel like I should be able to choose. If I'm just going up the road and I don't wear my seat belt should I get pulled over?

Plus how can they enforce this law for female dogs? Especially furry ones. Are they going to force me to prove my dog is fixed? Are they going to take me on my word that she is? It seems like a ridiculous law.

[Sayuri]

I'm not a fan. The law provides an "exemption" for animals that are being shown, but the exemption is so much hot air being blown up one's...well, you know. . The law requires the animal be neutered at four months of age, and it is not possible, for example, to compete in a conformation show until six months. My understanding is that you have to provide PROOF that you've exhibited the *particular* dog in an event before the four month mark in order to receive that exemption. Call me a cynic, but it seems like people were being *awfully* sneaky about how these supposed exemptions were supposed to work...that or there was really NO attempt to research the issue thoroughly. Additionally, what is to stop someone who really has NO plan to seriously exhibit their dogs in any form of objective evaluation, but just enters each unaltered dog they own once?

And really...THEY get to decide which events are acceptable? What about the clubs or activities that are equally viable that they simply happen to not recognize or be aware of? Like I really want to trust the goverment's decision on what constitutes correct breeding, working, and show practices, when like as not, what they know about ANY of these issues, let alone dogs themselves, could fit on a pin's head with room to spare.

I already know people in my breed, as well as people in the show community at large, that are looking at packing up their bags and moving if this passes. My bet is the lawmakers aren't quite aware that there could be a potential backfire in terms of lost revenues. Who is going to hold shows there? Specialties? There goes dues for the event spaces, there goes whole blocks of hotel rooms that would have been rented for long weekends, there goes the extra patronage to restaurants during those weekends, there goes the rental cars, and the revenue from whatever extraneous activities the exhibitors would have taken part in during the lost shows.

Additionally, from what I have been hearing on my Shiba list, the folks that have taken the time to show up and attempt to share their side of the story (ie the ones that are NOT for the bill) have not been given their due chance to speak. That just ticks me off.

Legislation that was actually intelligent and reasonable would be great...but this little doozy here is NOT that.

And quite honestly...I am equally as curious as the rest of the posters about how they really plan to enforce these laws. At least where I live, animal control doesn't even have the man power or revenue to do the job that they are supposed to do now. Or will this be a new special branch of the police force? (LOL!) When I'm walking my dogs, is someone going to stop me and ask for their papers, proof of dog show participation, and/or proof of alteration? Or will they come to my door? Will these folks be taught to correctly identify breeds? Because MOST people can't tell what my dogs are - I've been accused of "illegally" owning foxes and dingoes. Other people assume that the Shibas are just weird mixed breeds. Am I going to have to argue with someone about the validity of my breed?

[c0_re]

I think any dog that ends up at the pound(more than once) or the owner can't prove that they are breedable or showable dog needs to be fixed. What other possible legitimate reason could you have for leaving your dog intact.

sorry just my opinion

[litlone873]

This has been on my mind for a while since our new puppy will be shown for 2 years and bred at least once at age of 2. Our city has already passed an increased license fee for unaltered dogs from $10-$150.

I understand the need for this law, but the way they are going about it doesn't seem workable.

4 mos is too young, but it seems the reason for it is because 6 mos might be too late and a bitch could go into her first heat before her appt to get spayed.

If they want this law, then there needs to be exceptions. Each owner should have to apply for an exemption and granted a license upon approval. A committee of breeders should come up with a list of exceptable exemptions and a new department should be created to review applications and approve/deny and handle appeals.

Enforcement: seems like they should use the vet's records to help enforce it. Dogs need shots, especially rabies and unless the owner has the license, they don't get rabies shots.

IMO, the other issue is that those protesting this bill (and the one in our City/County to raise license fees) are those that don't want it AT ALL and therefore, no compromise is possible. We need people that can come to a compromise to be fighting/negotiating these bills.

[3doggies2love]

Mandatory speuter, abortion and gay marriage are three things people will NEVER agree 100% on. I wish that education was enough to jar people into reality, but when you're surrounded by incompassionate and greedy people, you won't get very far. I am also a CA girl, born and raised, and it seems that too much of this state has an attitude like, "it doesn't effect me, why should I care?" which is evident in daily life, not just political issues.

::sigh::

I would also worry about vets and their integrity if a law like that was imposed...I mean, everyone has their price. Who's to say that vets wouldn't take bribes to produce fraudulent records or certificates? First spays and neuters, then rabies, then pretty soon it's impossible to tell which animals are actually fixed and treated with rabies prevention and which are just pets of immoral sack-of-crap owners.

[c0_re]

I think it would be cheaper to get the shot or get them fixed that it would be to pay off a vet, I wouldn't gamble my practice to make a quick 200$.

Again what possible reason would you not want your dog fixed unless your breeding or showing?