Pet Sterilization Law

[Nana Annie]

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).

Already on the books

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.

I don't think so. Backyard breeders can have just as healthy an environment as a reputable breeder. The ASPCA is not going to know which are the people that research their breeds thoroughly before breeding or the neighbor that has puppies in their immaculate kitchen from their regularly vetted dog.

 

[hiwaygal]

I think allowing animal owners the legal option of not altering their pets is not working out very well for the animals.

And puts the responsibility of them "breeding" (or not) squarely on the shoulders of their owners and not the breeders.

 

[poohandwendy]

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.

I am saying our current laws are not addressing a VAST problem with overpopulation.

I agree with reinforcing the current laws. But, currently animal owners can leave their animal unaltered and breed them. It's inhumane to allow everyone that right.

 

[CathrynRose]

Nana - you must have missed my question.

You breed, dont you?

 

[poohandwendy]

Nana Annie,

As a fellow animal lover, I would like to know your answer to the vast pet overpopulation problem...if it is not mandatory neutering, what is it?

 

[SeeVee]

Sounds tough to enforce, but it's certainly a good idea.

In another Nanny State in A large Texas city, - You have to have your dog licensed and vacinated against rabbies. (I dont object to that part). Costs about 10 bucks if your dog is neutered/spayed. If you cant provide proof that your dog is neutered/spayed, it costs $100. Proof can be by surgical paperwork, signed/sworn affidavit from your vet, or bringing the dog in for inspection.

I really am not sure what I would do if the government was not there to protect me from myself. Phew!!

 

[Nana Annie]

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.

No, they will be affected by the same laws requiring all animals to be spayed or neutered as everybody else.

And losing reputable breeders would be very bad for the dog population.

Responsible breeders rarely make a profit with their puppies. They usually only breed a litter to get a dog for their own and then make the rest of the puppies available to carefully selected homes. Hopefully they break even, or chalk up the cost of the breeding to the cost of the new dog they added to their home.

If more regulations are in place, then the only people who could afford to provide the huge demand for puppies, would be the high volume, puppy mills.

You can regulate the conditions, you can regulate how many times a dog is bred, although this is easily circumvented by messing with the books, you can regulate everything about breeding dogs. But you can never regulate the ethics and morals of the breeders to do their research and to only breed for the betterment of the breed and not for profit.

With more and more regulations, you are going to force the reputable breeders out of the game, and we will be stuck with puppies where no thought was put into how they were bred.

Good temperaments, good health, good structure will all go to the wayside.

 

[Nana Annie]

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

Actually, I haven't bred a litter in years. I show almost every weekend and am on several legislation committees for our local dog group, but leave the breeding to my colleagues. And the "B" word is the proper noun for a female dog.[/QUOTE]

 

[SeeVee]

Agreed.





Im sorry - but my butt. There is absoultley NO reason to have an un-altered animal, what so ever, at all.

Unless youre an educated breeder - and I mean educated, know what youre doing (and wishfull thinking, liscensed).

NOT altering a pet is cruel unless you intend on letting it - because an unaltered pet will *need* to, and will only think about such.

In YOUR opinion. I am sure I can come up with lots of things you have "NO reason" doing. And I bet you would disagree with me.

In a free society unencumbered by pervasive government regulation, those who are responsible should be assumed be responsible and treated as such.

 

[poohandwendy]

This will work with the lay people..

Thank you!!! That is where we want to start. Cause those lay people..... THEY are the biggest contributors to the overpopulation problem.

You are more concerned with breed standards and puppy mills, I am worried about the poor mutt who is freezing and chewing all of the hair off of his tail in the cold, just to comfort himself through the last cold days of it's sad life because a LAY family decided it was ok to toss him outside because he started lifting his leg when he became sexually mature and running when he smelled a female in heat. And I am concerned about the female intact mutts he comes in contact with before he lays down to take his last sad breath.

 

[Youarehere]

I need to come back and read this thread... off to work now, but you just made my day!! I have been saying this for years. Never understood how it is not a law, yet my indoor cats have to get rabies shots.

Anyways...

 

[Nana Annie]

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.

Reputable breeders do want the puppy mills to stop. But they want that done by enforcing the laws already on the books. That is not being done. Making new laws will just put more laws on the books that won't be enforced. And the cities will wash their hands, thinking they put yet another band-aid on a serious problem. Lookie people, we fixed it. We made a law that you have to have your pets spayed/neutered. For awhile, the general population will be happy. Until they see that this is yet another law that is not enforced. And when it is enforced, it hurts the very people that are doing their best to fix the problem.

The reputable breeders would rather see the money and effort spent in enforcing the laws that are already in existence. There are a host of breeding regulations, that if enforced, would put a much bigger dent in the pet population then by just temporarily shutting people up by enacting yet anther piece of legislation that has no hope of being enforced, especially against the very organizations that are the biggest problems.

 

[MyManGoofy!]

Thank you!!! That is where we want to start. Cause those lay people..... THEY are the biggest contributors to the overpopulation problem.

You are more concerned with breed standards and puppy mills, I am worried about the poor mutt who is freezing and chewing all of the hair off of his tail in the cold, just to comfort himself through the last cold days of it's sad life because a LAY family decided it was ok to allow throw him outside because he started lifting his leg and running when he smelled a female in heat. And I am concerned about the female intact mutts he comes in contact with before he laid down to take his last sad breath.

Exactly. The rescue work I do has far more contact with the "casual" pet owner than any kind of breeders. In fact - in our little corner of the cat rescue world - we rarely see any kind of breed specific cats. So in our case, it is mostly pet owners that think that it will be an inside cat so there is no need. Then the cat gets out just once - and voila - pregnant! Or the cat owner that is tired of their male cat spraying the house and purposefully lets it out. Or any of the other many excuses that they can come up with for not taking responsibility and letting intact cats breed.

 

[CathrynRose]

In YOUR opinion. I am sure I can come up with lots of things you have "NO reason" doing. And I bet you would disagree with me.

.

Then tell me your opinion. Tell me otherwise. Convince me there is some reason for someone to not alter a dog, if theyre not a reputable breeder. Why?

 

[hiwaygal]

No, they will be affected by the same laws requiring all animals to be spayed or neutered as everybody else.

Perhaps this is where the confusion lies.

The law does not say ALL animals:
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_8377287?source=rss

Los Angeles introduces new pet sterilization law
Dogs and cats must be spayed or neutered before they're four months old
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Article Launched: 02/27/2008 03:07:34 AM PST


LOS ANGELES -- It's now the law, pet owners who live in Los Angeles must have their dogs and cats sterilized by the time the animals are 4 months old.
The ordinance, signed Tuesday by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, takes effect Oct. 1 and is aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating the thousands of animals that are euthanized in the city's animal shelters every year.

"We will, sooner rather than later, become a no-kill city and this is the greatest step in that direction," Councilman Tony Cardenas, who co-authored the bill, said as he held a kitten at a City Hall news conference.

Another of the ordinance's co-authors, Councilman Richard Alarcon, brought his two pet Chihuahuas to the event to be neutered in a van operated by the city.

The ordinance brings the nation's second-largest city in line with about a dozen of its neighbors that have similar laws.

It does exempt some animals, including those that have competed in shows or sporting competitions, guide dogs, animals used by police agencies and those belonging to professional breeders.

The average pet owner, however, must have their dog or cat spayed or neutered by the time it reaches 4 months of age -- as late as 6 months with a letter from a veterinarian.

First-time offenders will receive information on subsidized sterilization services and be given an additional 60 days. If they still fail to comply, they could be fined $100 and ordered to serve eight hours of community service. A subsequent offense could result in a $500 fine or 40 hours of community service.

People with older unneutered pets and newcomers to the city with animals also have to obey the law.

Los Angeles animal shelters took in 50,000 cats and dogs last year and euthanized approximately 15,000 at a cost of $2 million, according to city officials.

Longtime animal-sterilization advocate Bob Barker of "Price is Right" fame pushed for the law's adoption and was among those at Tuesday's news conference.

"The next time that you hear me say, 'Help control the pet population, have your pet spayed or neutered,' I can add, 'It's the law in Los Angeles,'" Barker said.

If the significant majority of PET animals were spayed/neutered it would help to control the pet overpopulation problems.

 

[MyManGoofy!]

Responsible breeders rarely make a profit with their puppies. They usually only breed a litter to get a dog for their own and then make the rest of the puppies available to carefully selected homes. Hopefully they break even, or chalk up the cost of the breeding to the cost of the new dog they added to their home.

I am sorry, but I really do not believe this. If that was the case - why are so many pure bred breeds so ridiculously expensive? I know how much it costs for stud fees, food, vacs etc and they do not add up to the hundreds to thousands of dollars that is being asked per puppy.

 

[poohandwendy]

I disagree Nana, the lay people are the overpopulation problem not the breeders (good and bad)

There needs to be a law that targets the average pet owner. Yes, there will be those who abuse/disregard it. There are people who don't wear their seat belts. But laws for the average people generally change enough minds to make a difference. Like the seat belt laws.

 

[Jennasis]

I wonder if they will somehow make veterinarians accountable? If one was to bring an unaltered dog into a vet's office, the office would be required to alter the animal or (unfortunately) euthanize it if the owner won't do it? Though I would imagine that such a scenario might make some pet owners just NO take a sick/injured dog to the vet at all. Just throwing ideas out there...

 

[hiwaygal]

I am sorry, but I really do not believe this. If that was the case - why are so many pure bred breeds so ridiculously expensive? I know how much it costs for stud fees, food, vacs etc and they do not add up to the hundreds to thousands of dollars that is being asked per puppy.

While this information isn't for all breeds, it gives a good idea:

http://www.geocities.com/rugosab/Prices.htm

It's not just about stud fees, food, vacs...

 

[eclectics]

In another Nanny State in A large Texas city, - You have to have your dog licensed and vacinated against rabbies. (I dont object to that part). Costs about 10 bucks if your dog is neutered/spayed. If you cant provide proof that your dog is neutered/spayed, it costs $100. Proof can be by surgical paperwork, signed/sworn affidavit from your vet, or bringing the dog in for inspection.

I really am not sure what I would do if the government was not there to protect me from myself. Phew!!

Why not? Isn't that the same government intrusion into how you handle and care for your pet? Is it different merely because you happen to "agree" with it?