Pet Sterilization Law

[CathrynRose]

And who here is against doing that?

What is the problem with also requiring people to alter their dogs and cats again? Can someone remind me why that is a bad idea?

Oh yeah...because some people won't? Huh?

Its weird, right?

 

[hiwaygal]

Because it won't work. Just like breed specific banning has been shown to not work.

but it IS working...

http://www.itchmo.com/san-francisco-says-pit-bull-sterilization-law-successful-2577

Granted this is just one breed, targeted for many reasons...but if it works for one breed, why wouldn't it work for others?

 

[Nana Annie]

And who here is against doing that?

What is the problem with also requiring people to alter their dogs and cats again? Can someone remind me why that is a bad idea?

Oh yeah...because some people won't? Huh?

Because it won't work.

It is unenforceable. Heck, the enforcement officials are already stretched thin enough. This is just a platitude to some very vocal groups to get them to be quiet for awile.

I fully support spaying/neutering all non-show/non-breeding animals.

However, I don't support legislation forcing it to happen. The legislation is too vague, it is impossible to determine who are the responsible people that should be allowed breeding animals. As the legislation reads, since puppy mills are licensed breeders, they get to have all the breeding animals they want.

This will not help the over-population of pets. It is only going to hurt the very people that are actively working very hard to curb the overpopulation issues.

I support legislation funding the enforcement of the laws we currently have. I support going after the biggest problems in the dog industry. I support funding of low cost spay/neuter clinics with large educational budgets.

But another unenforceable law on the books, probably with absolutely no funding behind it? How is that going to help?

If it is unenforceable, nobody will heed it, thus making it a stupid law.

Spend the money and effort on things that will really work.

 

[PrincessKitty1]

From Best Friends website:


Rally Against The AKC's Support Of Puppy Mills
April 12, 2007 : 12:00 AM
Update April 13, 2007 A number of people showed up today in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania including Best Friends Animal Society to rally against the AKC's support for puppy mills. The rally took place during a seminar the AKC held to help breeders and dog owners oppose regulations of puppy mills and such anti-cruelty measures as anti-chaining laws. For more on this and how you can contact the AKC, read the report below.

________________________________

An American Kennel Club (AKC) representative, Lisa Peterson, recently stated: “Dogs are … property. …And we like to leave the option to the owner of the property, of the dog, with the breeder…. It's their decision as to how … many intact females to own or how many litters to produce.”

Commercial dog breeders are often “puppy mills”, those businesses that mass produce dogs for sale. There are reportedly 4,000-5,000 puppy mills in the U.S., each with 75 to 150 breeding dogs. Puppy mills are not much different from the factories that churn out toasters, televisions, and the like. Female dogs used for breeding in puppy mills are bred over and over until their bodies give out. The dogs are literally “stored” in cramped, usually filthy, dark cages, given little or no care, and no socialization or human companionship. Dogs in puppy mills have been found starved, with matted fur covered in fleas or tics.

Puppy mills mean big revenues for the AKC. In 2006 the American Kennel Club (AKC) registered 870,000 individual dogs and 416,000 litters. At $20 per dog and $25 per litter (plus $2 per puppy), AKC brought in well over $30 million in revenues from registration of dogs born in puppy mills.

The AKC, though, does not for the most part check to find out if dogs even qualify for registration. The AKC does not actually travel to every breeder’s facility to inspect it. The AKC has announced it “cannot guarantee the quality or health of dogs in its registry.” But AKC is happy to take the money and issue "papers" for the dogs anyway. Usually the "papers' simply list the purebred lineage listed on the application submitted by the breeder.

Most puppy mill dogs are sold in pet stores or online. The consumers believe a dog with AKC registered papers is actually a purebred that is in good health. Of course, many dogs from mills are inbred, provided little or no care or socialization, and have diseases, illnesses or deformities and behavioral problems.

Now the AKC plans to have a seminar called "Legislative Empowerment" where they will teach breeders and other dog owners how to oppose legislation and regulations.

In another example of stunning indifference to cruelty to dogs, AKC announced restrictions on tethering or chaining dogs is "unnecessary". For more on the cruelty and danger of tethering or chaining dogs, click here. A Growing Movement To End The Tethering And Chaining Of Dogs

Dogs Deserve Better, http://www.dogsdeservebetter.com/ is planning a protest at this seminar.

Please join Best Friends and Dogs Deserve Better in a protest at the AKC seminar in Harrisburg at the Pennsylvania Farm Show Complex, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on Friday, April 13th, 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

If you cannot attend the rally, let the AKC know it’s time to stop the exploitive breeding of dogs. It’s time to stop the cruelty from which the AKC is profiting.

Contact the AKC:
American Kennel Club Headquarters
260 Madison Ave, New York, NY 10016
Telephone: 212.696.8200
doglaw@akc.org

by Laura Allen of the Animal Law Coalition

 

[poohandwendy]

Because it won't work.

It is unenforceable. Heck, the enforcement officials are already stretched thin enough. This is just a platitude to some very vocal groups to get them to be quiet for awile.

I fully support spaying/neutering all non-show/non-breeding animals.

However, I don't support legislation forcing it to happen. The legislation is too vague, it is impossible to determine who are the responsible people that should be allowed breeding animals. As the legislation reads, since puppy mills are licensed breeders, they get to have all the breeding animals they want.

This will not help the over-population of pets. It is only going to hurt the very people that are actively working very hard to curb the overpopulation issues.

I support legislation funding the enforcement of the laws we currently have. I support going after the biggest problems in the dog industry. I support funding of low cost spay/neuter clinics with large educational budgets.

But another unenforceable law on the books, probably with absolutely no funding behind it? How is that going to help?

If it is unenforceable, nobody will heed it, thus making it a stupid law.

Spend the money and effort on things that will really work.

Please elaborate as to how it would hurt the people who are actively trying to curb the overpopulation issues? Because I work with the cat rescue groups and with members of the human society and they are ALL for laws requiring mandatory neutering of pet animals who are owned by people who are not licensed breeders.

People thought the seat belt laws were unenforceable and stupid too. Fact is, they changed the mindset of generations of people. And they lowered deaths.

 

[Nana Annie]

but it IS working...

http://www.itchmo.com/san-francisco-says-pit-bull-sterilization-law-successful-2577

Granted this is just one breed, targeted for many reasons...but if it works for one breed, why wouldn't it work for others?

Many cities are also lifting the breed bans because they just don't work. It is impossible to determine what dog is a breed and what isn't, so almost impossible to enforce.

I think there was a link in CathrynRose's Pit thread that showed how difficult it was to pick out the pits. For this very reason, towns are lifting breed bans and going back to the irresponsible owner/breeder legislations that were already on the books.

 

[hiwaygal]

Many cities are also lifting the breed bans because they just don't work. It is impossible to determine what dog is a breed and what isn't, so almost impossible to enforce.

I think there was a link in CathrynRose's Pit thread that showed how difficult it was to pick out the pits. For this very reason, towns are lifting breed bans and going back to the irresponsible owner/breeder legislations that were already on the books.

The article I quoted isn't a breed ban...it's mandatory sterilization of one breed. And it has reduced the numbers of THAT breed in the shelters.

Surely you can see the correlation to this discussion?

And I was the one who posted the link in CR's thread about identifying the pitbull.

The point is that sterilization of pets reduces the numbers of animals in shelters. Baby steps...one at a time...

 

[Jynohn]

Nana Annie is absolutely correct, the only breeders who have regular inspections and hold licenses are commercial puppy mills. Enacting impractical, uneforceable laws will only serve to drive the reputable breeders out of the area.

In my breed, Great Danes, neutering before the age of one year when can severely alter the dog's growth, resulting in tall, gangly, skinny Danes that look nothing like the breed's standard. I suscribe to many show/breeding email lists, and most of the members agree that they will not place a puppy into a home where local laws require spay/neuter at such a young age. So where will people go instead to get a purebred puppy? Pet stores, puppy mills, and unscrupulous breeders, the very same people who's dogs are ending up in shelters and rescue to begin with.

These laws won't do anything to change the behavior of the people who don't care about their animals to begin with, and will only serve to drive away the people who do.

 

[PrincessKitty1]

Nana Annie is absolutely correct, the only breeders who have regular inspections and hold licenses are commercial puppy mills.

I have a small, out-of-home business, as does DH, and we are both licensed and have had a couple of inspections. So I am guessing that most unlicensed breeders are "backyard breeders" which also are not good.

Sounds to me, from the article I posted about the AKC, that there are a lot of corrupt breeders, both of the puppy mill and the backyard breeder sort.

I had a co-worker who was a backyard breeder of (of all things!) pitbulls. I know she and her DH loved their animals and took very good care of them. Nevertheless, she sold them to people unspayed, who in turn bred their dogs.

I don't think animals should be exempt from spay/neuter laws just because they are pure breds, so I will agree with you on that: The loopholes have to be tightened so that puppy mills cannot continue.

 

[daisax]

Lots of interesting thoughts in this thread. I'll preface my comments by saying that I have only bred one litter but have been active in showing and rescue for 12 years.

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.

The problem with this kind of legislation (which I assume was brought to you by the Doris Day Animal League/Humane Society of the US unholy alliance) is that it penalizes just the very people you WANT to have intact animals. A good breeder may have, say, 5 dogs at home. In my breed, say 1 male, 7 years old. If he's not useful for the gene pool, he's been neutered. If the breeder is lucky enough to have a great stud dog, he's intact. There's a female who is 4. She had one litter at 3, and will have one more this year. Her first litter is now a year old. The breeder kept 3 puppies to "grow them out" and determine which of them (if any) is worthy of showing/breeding.

That means 4 intact females, only one of whom will produce a litter this year -- and the pups won't for another year or two. Yet this breeder would be subjected to $500 in registration fees annually. Meanwhile, Fred and Susie down the block will take their 6 month old and try to get a litter out of her to sell before they spay her. Or they'll write off the $100 once, and breed her 3 times before it's time to relicense her in a year and a half. They're not going to spend $200 in fees before she's 2 and eligible for the necessary health testing to screen for certain diseases in the breed, or until she's 3 and has proven her worth in the show ring. They'll just breed her ASAP to maximize their profit before spaying her.

That's the sort of legislation that doesn't look at conscientious breeders who have unaltered animals but are NOT breeding them at any given time, versus puppymills who mass produce dogs and can easily write off an extra hundred in operating expenses so long as the female in question produces 5-6 pups to sell for $$$.

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.

A conscientious breeder shows her animals, because that's the best way to ensure that outside judgements and evaluations are made as to the quality of the animal (it's easy to mislead yourself about the quality of your dogs if you're not actively seeking outside input). A show in my area costs $25-30 to enter. A handler costs $100. Typically there are 2-3 shows in a weekend. At minimum, if using a handler, that means almost $400, once you figure in gas money and your share of the handler's hotel or RV parking fee.

In my breed the average number of shows to complete a championship by the very elite dogs is 30-35. And those are the top winning dogs with top handlers! For someone entering a show here and there when money permits and only within a certain driving radius, it can take much, much longer.

Then you factor in health testing. We do annual holter exams (heart screening) at about $200. That's the most expensive annual exam we do, but there are other one time tests and cheaper occasional tests. Hip testing can cost from $50-$400, depending on the type. Other breeds have different blood and eye and orthopedic tests that are necessary, and genetic testing for various diseases is a growing field (thank goodness!) But it's not cheap, especially when you multiply these expenses by a handful of dogs.

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

The way things used to be, yes, the lay people were the main overpopulation problem -- one-time litter registrations accounted for more overall dogs than even the puppy mills. However, the advent of the world wide web has enabled small time mills to prosper and market themselves around the country/world. They put up websites with precious beaming children cuddling fuzzy puppies. They describe their home raised, hand raised, kitchen raised pups. Except if you really dig around and pay attention, they have 6 different breeds and always have a litter of each available 52 weeks a year. They can take 3 girls and one boy and make a TON of money shipping out of state at $500/ea. But people look at the website and they buy it.

And the major puppy mills do the same thing -- after all, they used to (and still do) sell the pups cheaply ($40 each) to the middle men, who sell them to the pet store chains for $100, who sell them to the public for $1000. Now they can put up that picture of the adorable toddler with the romping puppies and sell that same pup direct to somebody for $1200, claiming that they hate puppymills. It's all very sad.

Please elaborate as to how it would hurt the people who are actively trying to curb the overpopulation issues?

You didn't ask me, but the way I would explain it is that the "high volume" breeders are licensed. If you make it prohibitively expensive for the person who only breeds every third year to breed (because they have more than one or two intact animals), you're giving the playing field to the corporations (and yes, there are major corporations) for whom these fees are a drop in the bucket compared to profits.

And it's generally the breed rescue people who get the purebreds out of the shelter, rehab and rehome them. Let's just say the Hunte corporation is not well represented in the Rescue community!

The puppy mills and website brokers are not screening homes, hence they are sending a larger number of pups not only in volume but in percentage to homes that will not keep them because they didn't realize that it was the absolute worst breed for them, or it was a bad time in their life to add a dog, or they never thought through the expense, etc. There's no breeder to call and say "I'm overwhelmed, I've lost my job, we have to relocate, I'm heartbroken but I need to make sure Fluffy's okay and you said to contact you if ever we can't keep her."

Also, another aspect of the overpopulation question that hasn't been addressed here is that you wouldn't BELIEVE the number of people who go through multiple dogs. They don't realize they're not cut out to be dog owners when they drop the adolescent bratty pup off at the shelter. They blame the DOG and go out and get a different one. Frankly, there's no shortage of homes, just a shortage of homes that KEEP dogs when they're not convenient. And that's a screening issue, not a legislation issue.

I don't know a single breeder who's not disgusted by the AKC's getting into bed with the puppy mills in the last few years. People are downright FURIOUS about it, and have made their voices heard. My subscription to the Gazette has lapsed, so I haven't been following the minutes of the meetings, but they were good reading for a while!

My solution -- major heavy duty regulation of the corporate breeders (but it won't happen because they have major lobbyist money). My second solution, all breeders must microchip puppies with their full identifying information, and are financially responsible for that dog for life. If the dog shows up in rescue 10 states away 5 years from now -- you pay to get it back or place it or put it down. Conscientious breeders already take full responsibility for life -- this might make some folks think twice about breeding as a "business."

 

[Jynohn]

I have a small, out-of-home business, as does DH, and we are both licensed and have had a couple of inspections. So I am guessing that most unlicensed breeders are "backyard breeders" which also are not good.

To the show/hobby breeder, breeding is not a business. Reputable breeders consider themselves lucky to break even on a litter, and do it to improve the breed that they love, not to earn a living. A huge red flag when looking for a reputable breeder is when they claim to be "state licensed and inspected." This is NOT a good thing. It means that they have produced enough litters that they fall under the jurisdiction of the USDA...essentially a puppy mill.

 

[poohandwendy]

We seem to have two separate issues here. Rules for breeders and rules for the pet owners.

I am all for breeders coming up with rules for breeders.

I still believe there should be laws requiring pet owners to neuter their dogs and cats.

 

[JR6ooo4]

But I agree, how are they gonna enforce this?

Easy! All the people who take good care of their animals with regular vet visits will be forced to do it or face being reported. You know, the ones that don't let them roam the alleys breeding all night.

But those that never care for their pets with vet visits, and don't register them either, will be exempt by default.

Mikeeee

 

[SeeVee]

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?

I have one male and one female both "altered" because I wanted them altered.

They are MY property and in a free society, I should be able to what I want with MY property. That is it. Period.

Until that lying, philandering, dishonest mayor pays for my animals, he should worry more about his integrity than he worries about my property.

I'll never understand why some people demand that the government (that has ruined just about everything they touch) must save us from ourselves.

 

[eclectics]

Easy! All the people who take good care of their animals with regular vet visits will be forced to do it or face being reported. You know, the ones that don't let them roam the alleys breeding all night.

But those that never care for their pets with vet visits, and don't register them either, will be exempt by default.

Mikeeee

Reported for what? And forced to do what? People are responsible for their own pets, nothing more.

 

[SeeVee]

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?

Licensed: doesnt bother me, mainly because the fee is used to fund the pound and I dont see it as an intrusion on my property.

Rabies: regardless of whether the government required me to do it, I'd do it anyway. I live on a large lot in a forested area and coons, bats, and other critters roam around that might infect my animals.

In both cases, I am not being forced to damage my property because some other poor dumb fool cant keep his under control.

 

[eclectics]

In both cases, I am not being forced to damage my property because some other poor dumb fool cant keep his under control.

Unless you want to breed your "property" I don't see how spaying and neutering will "damage" them..... but to each his own.

 

[poohandwendy]

I have one male and one female both "altered" because I wanted them altered.

They are MY property and in a free society, I should be able to what I want with MY property. That is it. Period.

Until that lying, philandering, dishonest mayor pays for my animals, he should worry more about his integrity than he worries about my property.

I'll never understand why some people demand that the government (that has ruined just about everything they touch) must save us from ourselves.

I wonder how many slave owners said the same exact thing about their property? Let's not forget we are talking about living beings, not inanimate objects. We have a responsibility, as a society, to protect those living beings that we chose to domesticate.

I don't want the government to save me from myself, I demand the government save animals from irresponsible, cruel and/or neglectful owners.