Pet Sterilization Law

[eclectics]

(FWIW, I don't like being told what to do either. Unfortunately there are enough people neglecting the welfare of dogs and cats that these types of laws are becoming necessary)

Exactly. Apparently Los Angeles has reached the breaking point with unwanted animals and this is a neccessary step. Of course, some will only see this as merely the government telling them what to do and won't see the big picture. Not all laws are bad ideas. I still have doubts about enforcement, but it's a start in the right direction, imho. The law can always be tweaked later.

 

[Nana Annie]

I support the law 100%. I'd even argue that there's no reason for show animals to be bred, since there are so many breeders who end up doing horrible damage by trying to get their animals to achieve some sort of absurd standard. Then again, I don't understand why show animals have to be intact at all.

Snip 'em, folks! Until every single animal has a loving home, there's no reason to make any more.

Because the sole purpose of a dog show is to evaluate breeding stock.

It is to have educated people evaluate dogs and determine which are the best of the best and should be used in breeding. This includes judging for structure, temperament and in field dogs, the work that they were bred for.

It would make dogs shows a moot point if all the potential breeding stock was altered.

And there has been far more damage done to dogs by backyard breeders, uninformed breeders and puppy mills than there has ever been done by reputable breeders.

The show breeders spend hours, weeks, months and lifetimes knowing the dogs, their pedigrees. They can tell you what diseases a dog 5 generations back passed on. They can tell you the temperament of each and every dog on a pedigree. They can tell you exactly why they bred dog a to dog b - was it to correct a topline, a weak front, etc.

Most backyard breeders say, wow, I have Sunny and my neighbors have Daisy, so lets make puppies. This is where the damage to breeds has been done, not by the reputable breeders.

 

[PrincessKitty1]

I think it's a great idea, combined with a "token" cost spay/neuter program (e.g., 5 bucks to get your pet spayed/neutered--since people don't value what they get for free). That way nobody can complain they can't afford spaying/neutering.

Re: enforcement, my locality just passed a law making it illegal to chain a dog in the yard for more than 3 hours of a 24 hour period. You can call up to report violators. Everybody I know who has reported a chained dog has said the dogs stopped being chained out after an apparent visit from animal control.

I do think there are too many people who don't care about the animals they adopt, but I think an equal number of people are just ignorant and need to be educated on the proper care of a pet. I know when I got my first dog in the 1970s, my trainer convinced me that spaying/neutering was the worst thing you could do to a dog (especially male--maybe a little projection going on?? ) and so my dog was intact for the first 7 years of his life until I wised up.

Likewise, my brother (who is very well-educated and very caring) lost TWO dogs to strangulation that were tethered. He didn't know that tethering a dog outside all day while he was at work could be considered neglectful.

A BIG part of the point of laws like this is to educate people. Similar to seat belt laws--once the law is passed, it becomes the norm to wear seatbelts rather than considering them optional. Once the law is passed to neuter your animals or to not tether them, people get educated on the issues and start doing what is right.

 

[poohandwendy]

Another sad fact is that many people get a puppy/kitten and get rid if it because it reached sexual maturity, which brings about unwanted behaviors like spraying etc.

I just lost a cat we took in last year that was an adult iintact male cat. Lord knows how many kittens he produced while he was on the streets. You can't imagine what a wonderful cat he was after he was neutered.

And my other cats- Took in a very pregnant female cat, she gave birth to 8 kittens. Why on earth was she pregnant? Why on earth was she outside and unaltered? There was no reason for it. My guess is that she became a pain in the butt when she went into heat, wanted outside and they let her. Then, when she showed up pregnant, they let her out for good or took her for a 'ride'.

We tried for weeks to find her owners. No one seemed to know anything about her. Go ask at any shelter or vets office. You will never see a sign "Missing pregnant cat- reward if found" (she and her kittens are beautiful, wonderful altered cats now. One of the kittens in in my siggie)

Let's not forget to mention the fact that unaltered animals on the streets carry and transmit disease to each other due to fighting and during mating.

These stories are being repeated all over the place, every day and in every area of the country.

If laws will make even a small difference, I am all for them.

 

[Nana Annie]

I have seen pics that make me sad, make me ill, make me feel icky. But I have never CRIED - at a pic. And I saw it, and had to scroll my mouse wheeley really quick and get off of it, and cried. Not *sob sob sob* but cried, and then showed my husband - who asked where she was (NYC...too far to go get. )

My male intact show dogs never think about kicking it unless there is a ***** in season. It is not like people. It is completely hormonally driven. In fact, I have an intact ***** and male sleeping next to each other right now and they are not thinking about kicking it.

I agree something must be done about the unwanted pet population.

But this is not it.

As somebody else mentioned, there will only be more and more dogs under the radar and will not seek vet help when needed.

Most reputable breeders have spay/neuter clauses in their contracts. You show proof of spay/neuter, you get the papers. They also spend hours interviewing potential buyers to ensure a proper home that will spay/neuter the pet quality pups.

The backyard and puppy mill breeders remain a problem. For the majority, their only thought is to profit and they could care less who their puppies go to and whether they are ever spayed or neutering.

But then again, there are some very reputable backyard breeders that are filling a niche for pet quality animals that the show breeders cannot.

There are already plenty of dog breeding legislation on the books. Adding more is not going to make the problem go away. You are just going to penalize the good breeders and cause more problems than before. Enforcing the existing regulations would be a good start.

 

[Nana Annie]

I really agree with this!!!

If everyone had to be licensed then so many agencies could come into play to help enforce certain things.

People would know NOT to buy from someone who isn't licensed (backyard, irresponsible breeders and puppy mills have got to be the biggest cause of pet overpopulation).

If you weren't a licensed breeder, you couldn't have more than a specific number of un-altered animals. And even if you ARE licensed, you couldn't have more than a specific number of un-altered animals (to prevent over breeding and "incestual" breeding).

And who is to determine who are the breeders that are to be licensed?

The people that know the pedigrees, the health concerns, the temperaments, etc for generations and generations? Or the government?

What do you call 'incestual' breeding?

It has been proven that carefully selected line breeding, by knowledgeable breeders, actually can create better dogs than always having complete outcrosses. And most reputable breeders have a coefficient of line breeding that they never cross.

What about rare dog breeds that have a very limited gene pool? That beautiful Tibetan Mastiff at Westminster is an example. If you prevented 'incestual' breeding, there wouldn't be any Tibetan Mastiffs. Or the Neo with such bad movement. It looked horrible, but by careful selected breeding, the movement of that dog was way better than it was 15 years ago. And since the Neo gene pool is so small, careful "incestual" breeding has to be used to improve the breed. In another 15 years, I bet we see a gorgeous Neo with movement that is not detrimental to the dog.

That works well with Labs, Goldens and poodles with a basically unlimited gene pool, but the breeds down at the bottom of the popularity list would be severly affected.

 

[poohandwendy]

My male intact show dogs never think about kicking it unless there is a ***** in season. It is not like people. It is completely hormonally driven. In fact, I have an intact ***** and male sleeping next to each other right now and they are not thinking about kicking it.

I agree something must be done about the unwanted pet population.

But this is not it.

As somebody else mentioned, there will only be more and more dogs under the radar and will not seek vet help when needed.

Most reputable breeders have spay/neuter clauses in their contracts. You show proof of spay/neuter, you get the papers. They also spend hours interviewing potential buyers to ensure a proper home that will spay/neuter the pet quality pups.

The backyard and puppy mill breeders remain a problem. For the majority, their only thought is to profit and they could care less who their puppies go to and whether they are ever spayed or neutering.

But then again, there are some very reputable backyard breeders that are filling a niche for pet quality animals that the show breeders cannot.

There are already plenty of dog breeding legislation on the books. Adding more is not going to make the problem go away. You are just going to penalize the good breeders and cause more problems than before. Enforcing the existing regulations would be a good start.

I don't see why this would affect the good breeders at all? If anything, this could be a wonderful thing for breeders. Better standards for their breeds if backyard breeding is made illegal. I don't think it has been suggested to ban reputable breeding. (if it has, I disagree with that) That doesn't mean that one purebred dogs and cats would be available, breeders could breed mixed breeds if they choose. I don't think the laws should state which animals breeders should breed, only that they maintain healthy standards.

Again, people who care about their animals are getting them altered and wouldn't need to avoid the vet. The ones who would avoid getting their animal fixed are the same ones who aren't willing to pay for vet care anyways.

 

[Nana Annie]

Completely!!! As well as a limit on how many times you can have a dog knocked up. It breaks my heart knowing how many times some of these poor dogs are used as canine incubators, over and over and over, for greedy owners.

The puppy mills ARE the licensed breeders, the ones that are completely regulated, inspected, etc. Or at least they are supposed to be.

 

[poohandwendy]

And who is to determine who are the breeders that are to be licensed?

The people that know the pedigrees, the health concerns, the temperaments, etc for generations and generations? Or the government?

What do you call 'incestual' breeding?

It has been proven that carefully selected line breeding, by knowledgeable breeders, actually can create better dogs than always having complete outcrosses. And most reputable breeders have a coefficient of line breeding that they never cross.

What about rare dog breeds that have a very limited gene pool? That beautiful Tibetan Mastiff at Westminster is an example. If you prevented 'incestual' breeding, there wouldn't be any Tibetan Mastiffs.

That works well with Labs, Goldens and poodles with a basically unlimited gene pool, but the breeds down at the bottom of the popularity list would be severly affected.

I think the laws should only be governing the standards of humane and healthy breeding conditions, not the standards of specific breeds (which is already left up to the breed associations and those interested in specific breeds).

I think the aspca is qualified to determine if a breeder was qualified and if they were maintaining a healthy environment for the animals. Just like the overseer of any health department.

 

[poohandwendy]

The puppy mills ARE the licensed breeders, the ones that are completely regulated, inspected, etc. Or at least they are supposed to be.

I think they should be regulated more closely, I think that is what people are saying.

 

[RIDISNEYLOVERS]

I just adopted my kitten (Zorro) from a local shelter. I had to sign papers that he will get neutered by a certain date. I called the vet and I have his neuter appointment on March 25th. Zorro will be 13 weeks old when he gets neutered. The cost for this is $75.00 and it also includes his 2nd distemper and rabies vaccination as well as ear mite treatment (if he has ear mites) and a full check up. Zorro is a house kitten and I have no intention for him to be an outdoors cat, but I will still have him neutered because it is the right thing to do - it is the law.

It is heartbreaking to see so many cats and dogs in shelters that need loving homes.

I think altering a pet needs to be a law so there is not such an over population of unwanted animals.

 

[hiwaygal]

And who is to determine who are the breeders that are to be licensed?

The people that know the pedigrees, the health concerns, the temperaments, etc for generations and generations? Or the government?

What do you call 'incestual' breeding?.

I would hope that somehow panels of experts with extensive knowledge of breeds and dogs and health and temperament and all those issues are used to help determine who is to be initially licensed. I firmly believe that requiring this formal license will help move toward eliminating the "fake" registries and even the problems within the AKC (which simply doesn't have the manpower to police it's own members).

Incestual breeding, while it can be beneficial in limited circumstances for a limited time is by and large more of a problem in puppymills and backyard breeders. Continually breeding one male to every female born over 5 or 6 or 7 generations is going to cause problems. The same goes for females who are bred over generations of their own offspring.

I have seen personally seen the effects. In fact the breeders of "my" breed (a fairly rare breed, Basenji's) had to seek out new genetic lines recently because of the problems with inbreeding that even the most reputable breeders could not avoid.

 

[Nana Annie]

IMO the answer to both is yes.

In my area there was some legislation put in place that basically required the veterinarian to inform the cities if an unlicensed dog were given any vaccinations. It's their way of ensuring dogs are licensed (as they should be) and that no one was violating the codes and having too many pets.

Many people have simply decided that they won't take their dogs to the vets for proper care anymore because they don't want the City telling them what to do.

I know of too many people who refuse to believe in the health benefits of sterilization and who refuse to have their animals sterilized. Several people have told me of "friends" who decided their two dogs were perfect so they "bred" them...

This will work with the lay people.

But vaccinations are easily and legally purchased on the internet.

It would be quite easy for those that wanted to continue to indiscriminately breeding animals to just purchase and administer their own vaccinations to keep them away from vets.

In fact, many people already do.

This thread really is amusing.

Right now, the biggest abusers of dog breeding are the puppy mills.

And the puppy mills are the ones that the government issues licenses for. There are already laws on the books that require a license if you have x amount of breeding animals. These are the facilities that are regulated by the very laws everybody here is clamoring for. And we can see how well the regulations are being enforced.

In fact, if you ever see a breeder touting their "license", run for the hills because they are most likely a high volume, puppy spewing facility.

And you want more regulations?

It is the show and reputable breeders that are working rescue, that are being responsible. And the good people that love animals of course.

For the reputable breeders, over population is the first and foremost on their minds.

 

[kimluvswdw]

I think it is a great idea. The thought of all the animals in the shelters breaks my heart. The thought of them being put down really tears me up.

 

[hiwaygal]

This will work with the lay people.

But vaccinations are easily and legally purchased on the internet.

It would be quite easy for those that wanted to continue to indiscriminately breeding animals to just purchase and administer their own vaccinations to keep them away from vets.

In fact, many people already do.

This thread really is amusing.

Right now, the biggest abusers of dog breeding are the puppy mills.

And the puppy mills are the ones that the government issues licenses for. There are already laws on the books that require a license if you have x amount of breeding animals. These are the facilities that are regulated by the very laws everybody here is clamoring for. And we can see how well the regulations are being enforced.

In fact, if you ever see a breeder touting their "license", run for the hills because they are most likely a high volume, puppy spewing facility.

And you want more regulations?

It is the show and reputable breeders that are working rescue, that are being responsible. And the good people that love animals of course.

For the reputable breeders, over population is the first and foremost on their minds.

Then pet sterilization requirements shouldn't be a problem for reputable breeders.

I'm sorry, I'm willing to risk losing a few reputable breeders if the end result is less pet overpopulation and fewer puppy mills and backyard breeders.

 

[CathrynRose]

My male intact show dogs never think about kicking it unless there is a ***** in season. It is not like people. It is completely hormonally driven. In fact, I have an intact ***** and male sleeping next to each other right now and they are not thinking about kicking it.

.

Last time we had a thread regarding this you kept using the B word too. You breed, dont you?

The puppy mills ARE the licensed breeders, the ones that are completely regulated, inspected, etc. Or at least they are supposed to be.

USDA licensed. Live Stock. We're talking about a whole brand new - should happen - licensing.

I think they should be regulated more closely, I think that is what people are saying.

Absolutely. In a completly different manner then currently.

 

[Nana Annie]

I don't see why this would affect the good breeders at all? If anything, this could be a wonderful thing for breeders. Better standards for their breeds if backyard breeding is made illegal. I don't think it has been suggested to ban reputable breeding. (if it has, I disagree with that) That doesn't mean that one purebred dogs and cats would be available, breeders could breed mixed breeds if they choose. I don't think the laws should state which animals breeders should breed, only that they maintain healthy standards.

Again, people who care about their animals are getting them altered and wouldn't need to avoid the vet. The ones who would avoid getting their animal fixed are the same ones who aren't willing to pay for vet care anyways.

But the question still remains - who determines who is a reputable breeder and who is a backyard breeder?

Most reputable and/or show breeders I know only have a few animals and only breed once or twice a year. How would a government agency make the difference between them and the neighbors who bred Daisy and Sunny together to let the kids see the miracle of birth?

What are the standards and criteria of a reputable breeder?

 

[poohandwendy]

This will work with the lay people.

But vaccinations are easily and legally purchased on the internet.

It would be quite easy for those that wanted to continue to indiscriminately breeding animals to just purchase and administer their own vaccinations to keep them away from vets.

In fact, many people already do.

This thread really is amusing.

Right now, the biggest abusers of dog breeding are the puppy mills.

And the puppy mills are the ones that the government issues licenses for. There are already laws on the books that require a license if you have x amount of breeding animals. These are the facilities that are regulated by the very laws everybody here is clamoring for. And we can see how well the regulations are being enforced.

In fact, if you ever see a breeder touting their "license", run for the hills because they are most likely a high volume, puppy spewing facility.

And you want more regulations?

It is the show and reputable breeders that are working rescue, that are being responsible. And the good people that love animals of course.

For the reputable breeders, over population is the first and foremost on their minds.

Yes, I want more regulations. I think the ones we have aren't covering it.

I would think reputable breeders would the puppy mills stopped and that would take more regulations because it's obvious that consumers aren't putting an end to it.

 

[Nana Annie]

I think they should be regulated more closely, I think that is what people are saying.

No, you are saying you want more regulations.

We don't need more regulations. The regulated breeders are already the biggest problems.

We need to enforce what is already on the books. The humane treatment, the amount of puppies, all those are already on the books. We need to push to have those enforced rather than just making new laws that also won't be enforced.

Just about everything anybody has said that needs to be regulated already has a law in place to be regulated. It just takes too much money to enforce it.

 

[poohandwendy]

But the question still remains - who determines who is a reputable breeder and who is a backyard breeder?

Most reputable and/or show breeders I know only have a few animals and only breed once or twice a year. How would a government agency make the difference between them and the neighbors who bred Daisy and Sunny together to let the kids see the miracle of birth?

What are the standards and criteria of a reputable breeder?

I dunno, how do we govern any regulation? How do we control health regulations, or alcohol license regulations?

All regulations are imperfect, that is life. We don't stop making rules because there could be some who break them or abuse them. we do what we can for the greater good. I think allowing animal owners the legal option of not altering their pets is not working out very well for the animals.