The Reality of Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws.

[LilacDragon]

Quote:
Animal Welfare supports humane use and treatment of animals and believes that humans have a responsibility to care for animals. Animal Welfare includes humane treatment and responsible care of animals used by humans for service, research, food, education, kept in zoos or sanctuaries, and especially those animals kept by pet owners.

Animal Rights (AR) is based on moral and ethical philosophies. While Animals Rights Advocates and Groups talk about humane care, the bottom line is to work for humane care and legislation ONLY until all animals can be removed from human use. The reason for this is the Animal Rights belief that no species on this planet is better than another; therefore, humans have no right to dominate over, use, breed, or eat non-human species. www.animal-rights.com/arpage.htm

Quote:
"..can the slavery of animals be justified? After all, precisely what characteristic or "defect" is it that animals have that justifies our treatment of them as our slaves, as our things, as property that exists only for the sake of us, the human masters. The reality is that we progressives like to think that we have eschewed all vestiges of slavery from our lives, but the reality is that we are all slave owners, the plantation is the earth, sown with the seeds of greed, and the slaves are our nonhuman sisters and brothers." Gary Francione, (Professor-Rutgers School of Law) Animal Rights Commentary, February 15, 1996: Human Superiority. www.animal-law.org/commentaries/

Quote:
HOW IS THE ANIMAL RIGHTS AGENDA ACCOMPLISHED?
By changing public opinion - By changing the law – by electing pro animal rights legislators. Dr. Elliot Katz, founder of In Defense of Animals says “our efforts to raise the status of animals beyond that of mere property, commodities and things dramatically expanded as the state of Rhode Island, and the cities of West Hollywood and Berkeley, CA, and Sherwood, AR, followed Boulder, CO, in passing legislation recognizing the significance of animal guardianship ... important victories in our relentless war on animal exploitation, cruelty and abuse.” He further claims “Updating city codes to include the term "animal guardian" is a symbolic change that demonstrates a new attitude of public concern for the welfare of all animals. Though updated legal language does not affect one’s legal rights, responsibilities and liabilities, the psychological and sociological impact of this change in language is advancing positive attitudes about animal care.” www.guardiancampaign.com/whatDifferenceWord.htm

Quote:
HOW DO THE ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUPS CHANGE THE LAW?
Visit the Institute for Animal Rights Law (IARL) website. There you can download their radical version of a model spay/neuter ordinance which reads “it shall be unlawful to harbor in this jurisdiction any unspayed cat or dog over four months of age or any unneutered cat or dog over four months of age. "Harbor" is defined to include legal ownership, or the providing of regular care, or shelter, or protection, or refuge, or nourishment, or medical treatment…”

IARL will also “educate” you on why anti-breeding laws are constitutional. Their website says - The core of a typical anti-breeding law is its “findings,” which usually are that:

· Euthanasia of unwanted cats and dogs is rampant, with totals annually of millions of animals;
· The root cause of this mass killing is the problem of overpopulation, which causes social problems beyond those of euthanasia.

Further, IARL says “Based on these findings, the anti-breeding laws provide for a moratorium on the breeding of cats and dogs, and if that doesn’t reduce the overpopulation problem in that municipality then a mandatory spaying and neutering program is provided.”

As the end goal of animal rights is to end breeding of companion animals, they need to draw a straight line between breeding and euthanasia, whether or not the logic used to make a case is flawed or the information presented is inaccurate. First euthanasia is hardly “rampant”, as figures have steadily decreased over the past decades. Further, IARL, in typical activist fashion, chooses to completely ignore all other reasons for animals ending up in shelters - generally related to a breakdown of the owner’s ability or desire to care for the animal.

CONCLUSION
If you become involved in local legislation issues, it is important to remember that much of the general public and many of the legislators do not understand these differences. They are being manipulated into passing restrictive laws which can be the vehicle for future enactment of measures to possibly eliminate ownership of pets.

Ethics and responsible ownership cannot be legislated – it must be taught, and animal cruelty laws already exist to punish the offenders.

http://http://www.ncraoa.com/AR_VS_AW.html
__________________

[CaninesCorner]

Originally Posted by LilacDragon

· Euthanasia of unwanted cats and dogs is rampant, with totals annually of millions of animals;
· The root cause of this mass killing is the problem of overpopulation, which causes social problems beyond those of euthanasia.

First euthanasia is hardly “rampant”, as figures have steadily decreased over the past decades.

My problem with this statement is that all of the figures I can find to support this position haven't been 'jimmied' to remove owner-requested euthanasia, euthanized aggressive animals involved in legal cases, etc. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Comparing figures from 10 years ago to today's figures on euthanasia are 'massaged' to reflect the laws and people's changes in their ways of thinking.

I'll start buying this position when I see total figures, instead of reduced figures by certain factors, as well as breed and euthanasia reasons. So far, not one organization can supply these two factors to me and thereby allow me to see the 'total picture' of this issue.

[SpayToday]

that there are a good many more people for mandatory spay/neuter than the "animal rights" people. This is not a law by or for their philosophy, this is a law that stops the influx of unwanted animals into our shelters. It is an effort to stop an underground economy of the backyard breeders that is robbing us all, breeders, animal rights, all of us. The kennel clubs and purebred breeders are playing their role by being the Godfather of the backyard breeders. Where do you think these BYB's get their breeding stock? Without a compromise of the "reputable" breeding community to alter their PET quality products, then they will have to suffer the consequences of laws such as AB 1634. It will give people like myself a tool to report the BYB's and there are so many of us just waiting to start reporting. So enforcement will not be near as difficult as you may think. I go thru our local Pennysaver and do a reverse lookup on the phone numbers for the ads for pet sales. When I am able to get an address I report this to the animal control agency in charge of that area and request a dog license check. In 90% of these ads, the "breeder" doesn't even have a dog license. But when AB 1634 does go thru, I will keep the phones hot reporting and everyone I know is going to do the same.

[LilacDragon]

Originally Posted by CaninesCorner

My problem with this statement is that all of the figures I can find to support this position haven't been 'jimmied' to remove owner-requested euthanasia, euthanized aggressive animals involved in legal cases, etc. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Comparing figures from 10 years ago to today's figures on euthanasia are 'massaged' to reflect the laws and people's changes in their ways of thinking.

I'll start buying this position when I see total figures, instead of reduced figures by certain factors, as well as breed and euthanasia reasons. So far, not one organization can supply these two factors to me and thereby allow me to see the 'total picture' of this issue.

So, Linda, what you are saying is that my dog - who was euthanized at 12 yrs. of age because she was in agony with terminal cancer - should be included in the euthanasia figures? I thought that the purpose of the bill was to reduce the number of unwanted animals?

SpayToday - there is a world of difference between REPUTABLE and ETHICAL. I know of several reputable breeders that show a ton of dogs, title them, breed them once and then sell their "proven Champion" to the highet bidder. An ethical breeder will show a couple of dogs to a championship, show them in working venues (obedience, etc.) get all of the necessary genetic tests done and maybe have a litter of puppies a year.

Why doesn't the State of California start by banning the importing of dogs for sale or rescue? Tell Hunt Corporation that they can not bring their trucks full of dogs in for pet shops. Tell rescue groups that they can no longer bring in dogs from Mexico. Stop issuing permits for "commercial breeders". Require that people take a short class on animal welfare and care (free of charge - of course!) before they can register a dog, if they get caught with an unregistered dog or a dog at large. Heck - hold the class at the local shelter and include a tour of the euthansia room.

There ARE other answers. They aren't easy and they aren't any cheaper then the proposed law. But aim them at the people who are currently breaking the law and STOP punishing RESPONSIBLE pet owners.

[CaninesCorner]

Good point! Thanks for bringing that up. Because you support mandatory speutering, does not automatically classify you as an 'animal rights' person. If nothing else, I consider myself an animal advocate and NOT an animal rights person.

Were it up to me, every companion animal would have their own legal intrinsic rights established, instead of falling under property laws with most states. Seldom do you go into a legal court with a loss of a much valued companion pet and be awarded anything more than what you paid for the companion... in rescue or adoptions, that's the cost of the adoption fee. Nowhere is there any accountability for the emotional investment or time spent rehabilitating - and in fact, rescue dogs have even less value because they're viewed as 'less than' by the general public!

Many BYBs dump their unwanted animals into the shelter systems to avoid the cost of vets euthanizing their dogs... paid for by the taxpayers who may not even own a dog to start out with! How does this supercede the average citizen's rights to equity under the law for all? Businesses pay for trash pickup, removal of hazardous wastes, destruction of sensitive documents, etc... it's simply a cost of 'doing business'. If you want to own and run a business - and BYBs breed for profit, not improving the breed as do reputable breeders do - then you must run the business as a business for protection of all consumers.

[LilacDragon]

Originally Posted by CaninesCorner

Good point! Thanks for bringing that up. Because you support mandatory speutering, does not automatically classify you as an 'animal rights' person. If nothing else, I consider myself an animal advocate and NOT an animal rights person.

Were it up to me, every companion animal would have their own legal intrinsic rights established, instead of falling under property laws with most states. Seldom do you go into a legal court with a loss of a much valued companion pet and be awarded anything more than what you paid for the companion... in rescue or adoptions, that's the cost of the adoption fee. Nowhere is there any accountability for the emotional investment or time spent rehabilitating - and in fact, rescue dogs have even less value because they're viewed as 'less than' by the general public!

Many BYBs dump their unwanted animals into the shelter systems to avoid the cost of vets euthanizing their dogs... paid for by the taxpayers who may not even own a dog to start out with! How does this supercede the average citizen's rights to equity under the law for all? Businesses pay for trash pickup, removal of hazardous wastes, destruction of sensitive documents, etc... it's simply a cost of 'doing business'. If you want to own and run a business - and BYBs breed for profit, not improving the breed as do reputable breeders do - then you must run the business as a business for protection of all consumers.

Be VERY careful about giving away your legal right to "own" your dog. You may find that anyone can walk into your house, claim you abuse your dog and walk out the door with it.

This -

Quote:
HOW IS THE ANIMAL RIGHTS AGENDA ACCOMPLISHED?
By changing public opinion - By changing the law – by electing pro animal rights legislators. Dr. Elliot Katz, founder of In Defense of Animals says “our efforts to raise the status of animals beyond that of mere property, commodities and things dramatically expanded as the state of Rhode Island, and the cities of West Hollywood and Berkeley, CA, and Sherwood, AR, followed Boulder, CO, in passing legislation recognizing the significance of animal guardianship ... important victories in our relentless war on animal exploitation, cruelty and abuse.” He further claims “Updating city codes to include the term "animal guardian" is a symbolic change that demonstrates a new attitude of public concern for the welfare of all animals. Though updated legal language does not affect one’s legal rights, responsibilities and liabilities, the psychological and sociological impact of this change in language is advancing positive attitudes about animal care.” www.guardiancampaign.com/whatDifferenceWord.htm

is the not so obvious precursor to this -

Quote:
"..can the slavery of animals be justified? After all, precisely what characteristic or "defect" is it that animals have that justifies our treatment of them as our slaves, as our things, as property that exists only for the sake of us, the human masters. The reality is that we progressives like to think that we have eschewed all vestiges of slavery from our lives, but the reality is that we are all slave owners, the plantation is the earth, sown with the seeds of greed, and the slaves are our nonhuman sisters and brothers." Gary Francione, (Professor-Rutgers School of Law) Animal Rights Commentary, February 15, 1996: Human Superiority. www.animal-law.org/commentaries/

As mentioned above by SpayToday - that most backyard breeders don't even have licenses for their dogs - is a sad truth and one that should be addressed. Maybe when she calls to turn them in, AC should have the authority to fine the owner the cost of adolescent spay/neuters of all puppies in that litter. The fine could be refunded with proof of all puppies being spayed/neutered. Also - they could impose a large fine of say $1,000 - half of which could be refunded after proof of the spaying of the dam.