CA Manditory Spay/Neuter Bill

[Alex]

http://www.doggonecalifornia.org/ab1634.html

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bil...ntroduced.html

This is a bill that they are considering in CA.

What do you think?

Honestly, I hope that it passes. There are far too many ignorant or just plan stupid people in this world who think they need to breed their dogs.

[RD]

No, no, no, NO.

I think it's BS and the fact that they would want 4 month old animals neutered shows how little politicians and "the people" understand animals. I'm all for spay/neuter, but I won't do it until the dog is physically mature.

I don't like mandatory ANYTHING when it comes to dogs - I don't want someone governing every aspect of my pets' lives.

[Laurelin]

Bad idea for many many reasons.

[fillyone]

I'm so against it it's not even funny.

To neuter my GSD at 4 months old would be detrimental to his health.

I don't know what the answer to the number of dogs in shelters is, but this isn't it.

[ravennr]

It will not help anything.

[Zoom]

Bad, bad idea! I'm all for spay/neuter, but not early spay/neuter.

[Laurelin]

I'm for spay/neuter just not MANDATORY spay neuter. It's not going to solve anything. The people who don't care still won't. And it makes life difficult for anyone who has intact dogs for whatever reason. (work, show, etc)

[showpug]

:mad: That's all we need, just more government telling us what to do.:rolleyes: When are people going to learn that more regulation doesn't help anything, all the while we slowly give our rights away...

Awful idea in my opinion!!!

[Aussie Red]

Nope isn't going to work. It will cost tax payers more money and who will enforce it ? Although I strongly support spay nuetur this is not the answer. I am never for another law that infringes on rights. Sorry can not support government and more bans or laws that only affect those who will obey them. How would an already over burdened police force or animal control enforce this ? It would mean more people hired to do more paper work and get no where other then into my wallet again and I would rather donate my money to the shelters .

[Angel Chicken]

Not only that... but think of all the dogs that are worthy of being bred. The one's that are champions to their breed, the ones that have worked hard towards that title. These Champions that DESERVE to have their lines passed on, it would ruin them!

[savethebulliedbreeds]

I do not have a problem with Spay/Neuter laws. I think they are great thing if they CAN and WILL enforce them and leave the reputable breeders etc out of the bill. I don't think it is far that they make you get them s/n when they are 4 months old. Way too early for me. Also instead of making it manditory they could do some sort of incentive type thing. Not sure what they could do but that may work better than manditory s/n.

[joce]

Do you see tha ages it makes you alter? It better not pass.

[RD]

Something else I just realized was the registry thing. My puppy isn't AKC, UKC or ADBA. She's registered with the American Border Collie Assoc., which isn't recognized by the bill. Would her lack of AKC recognition make her nothing more than a mutt?

There is a lot more to dogs than AKC and UKC, especially in the herding breeds. The "working" sides of breeds like Border Collies, Australian Shepherds, Jack Russell Terriers etc will also have their own registry. To be fair, the bill would need to take each and every one of those into consideration. That's a helluva lot to monitor! Easier to just reject it now. ;)

[savethebulliedbreeds]

Yeah, I think you are right. If they are going to pass a bill like this then I think they should make sure they know what they are doing. I think they should do a lot more research on breed registries etc.

I really don't think the idea as a whole is a bad thing though. They just need to make sure it is enforced and they don't think they can do whatever to whoever whenever they want like the people that enforce BSL.

Unfortunately it is the government, so we all know how it would turn out. A bunch of BS.

[Aussie Red]

See already too many problems and the need to cost tax payers money to sort them out and then cost tax payers another head ache about some one else intruding into their lives. NO NO NO !!!!

[Alex]

While I believe that the age is too young, I think the reasoning for the age was that it is not possible for the scum of the earth (BYB) to breed their dog before they hit the age limit.

For some reason, the other link isn't working. Here is the complete bill.


BILL NUMBER: AB 1634 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT


INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Levine
(Principal coauthor: Senator Padilla)
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Nava)

FEBRUARY 23, 2007

An act to add Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 122336) to Part 6
of Division 105 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to pets.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 1634, as introduced, Levine. California Healthy Pets Act.
Existing law sets forth provisions relating to veterinary public
health and safety and provides for or regulates spay, neuter, and
breeding programs for animals.
This bill would prohibit any person from owning or possessing any
unaltered cat or dog over the age of 4 months, unless that person
possesses an intact permit, as specified. The bill would establish an
intact permit fee in an amount to be determined by a local
jurisdiction, as defined, and would require the revenue from these
fees to be used for the administration of the local jurisdiction's
permit program. The bill would make a violation of these provisions
punishable by a prescribed fine.
The bill would require all revenues derived from these fines to be
used for funding free and low-cost spay and neuter programs, and
outreach efforts for these programs, which would be required to be
established by each local animal control agency, to the extent that
funding is available, and for the enforcement of these provisions.
By increasing the enforcement responsibility of local agencies,
this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the
California Healthy Pets Act.


SEC. 2. Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 122336) is added to
Part 6 of Division 105 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:
CHAPTER 9. SPAY AND NEUTER PROGRAM FOR CATS AND DOGS



Article 1. Definitions


122336. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions
shall apply:
(a) "Alter" means to spay or neuter an animal, as performed by a
California licensed veterinarian.
(b) "Intact permit" means a document issued annually by a local
jurisdiction that authorizes a person to own or possess within that
locality an unaltered cat or dog.
(c) "Local animal control agency" means the municipal or county
animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing
animal-related laws.
(d) "Local jurisdiction" means any city, county, or city and
county.

Article 2. General Provisions


122336.1. (a) A person shall not own or possess within the state
any cat or dog over the age of four months that has not been spayed
or neutered, unless that person possesses an intact permit, as
defined in subdivision (b) of Section 122336.
(b) Any person who violates subdivision (a) shall be subject to
the following:
(1) Unless paragraph (2) applies, a person in violation of
subdivision (a) shall have his or her cat or dog spayed or neutered
within 30 days from the date of compliance as required under this
section or Article 3 (commencing with Section 122336.2), whichever is
applicable.
(2) If a person in violation of subdivision (a) provides a letter
from a California licensed veterinarian indicating that due to age,
poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or
dog within 30 days from the date of compliance under this section or
Article 3 (commencing with Section 122336.2), whichever is
applicable, and indicating that arrangements have been made to alter
the cat or dog within 75 days from that date of compliance, he or she
shall have his or her cat or dog spayed or neutered within that
75-day period.
(3) Any person who violates subdivision (a) shall, for each animal
for which a violation has occurred, be subject to a civil penalty of
five hundred dollars ($500) for each applicable period of
noncompliance, as set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2). This penalty
shall be imposed in addition to any other civil or criminal penalties
imposed by the local jurisdiction.
(c) Any fines imposed under subdivision (b) shall be waived by the
local jurisdiction if the person in violation provides proof that
his or her cat or dog has been spayed or neutered by a California
licensed veterinarian or provides proof that he or she has obtained
an intact permit for the cat or dog.

Article 3. Permits


122336.2. (a) A local jurisdiction shall issue an intact permit,
as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 122336, if all of the
following conditions are met:
(1) The cat or dog is registered as a purebred with a pedigree
with any of the following organizations:
(A) The American Kennel Club.
(B) The United Kennel Club.
(C) The American Dog Breeders Association.
(D) The International Cat Association.
(E) A recognized registry approved by the local animal control
agency.
(2) The dog is appropriately trained and meets the definition of
guide dog, service dog, or signal dog, as set forth in subdivisions
(d), (e), and (f) of Section 365.5 of the Penal Code.
(3) The dog is documented as having been appropriately trained and
actively used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement and
rescue activities.
(4) The owner of a cat or dog provides a letter to the local
jurisdiction from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due
to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the
cat or dog. This letter shall include the veterinarian's license
number and shall be provided, upon request, to the local animal
control agency.
(b) An unaltered cat or dog for which an intact permit was issued
who ceases to meet the requirements of subdivision (a) is subject to
the spay and neuter requirements set forth in Section 122336.1.
(c) The amount of the fee for an intact permit shall be determined
by the local jurisdiction, and shall be no more than what is
reasonably necessary to fund the administration of that jurisdiction'
s intact permit program.

Article 4. Funding


122336.3. (a) To the extent that funding is available pursuant to
this chapter, a local animal control agency shall establish a free
and low-cost spay and neuter program for low-income individuals. The
agency shall undertake outreach efforts to inform qualified persons
about these programs.
(b) All fines collected pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision
(b) of Section 122336.1 shall be used for funding free and low-cost
spay and neuter programs and outreach efforts in the jurisdiction
where the violation occurred, and for the enforcement activities set
forth in Article 5 (commencing with Section 122336.4).

Article 5. Enforcement


122336.4. A local animal control agency shall be responsible for
enforcing and administering this chapter.
SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a
local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section
17556 of the Government Code.


While most of the people on this forum are responsible, millions aren't. I get that this bill could penelize the few who are responsible and don't meet the bill's requirements, but it just might persuade those who aren't. Now, of course there are people who are not just irresponsible, but have not issues breaking the law, and unfortunatly, there's not a whole lot that can be done. But, for your average Tom, Dick, or Harry, the thought that they could be fined $$$ might be more important to them than their belief that all dogs should have one litter, or that their pretty little yorkie should be a mother simply because she's pretty. Yes, there are people who come out and ask for advice, but they are a very small minority. Most people just do it simply because they think they should. If they had to pay a substancial fine to obtain a permit to breed or keep their dog intact, hopefully (as I feel the bill is trying to do) they will instead spay or neuter their dog and help control the huge overpopulation problem we currently have.

[Laurelin]

I personally don't feel like I should have to pay a fine to keep my dog intact for whatever amount of time or for whatever reasons as long as I am being responsible, but that's just me.

And yes, it'd be really hard for working owners and breeders to keep their dogs intact under this law. I mean, I've heard all sorts of things happening with show people and the Louisville law. It'd have to be worse for the working breeders.

[savethebulliedbreeds]

Unfortunatly education doesn't work a lot of the time with these knotheads that wanna make a quick buck off of their dogs. This may be the only way. I can understand your side as well Laurelin. It would be difficult for breeders that is for sure.

All I know if the dog world keeps going like it is it won't be a good thing.

[Alex]

Unfortunatly education doesn't work a lot of the time with these knotheads that wanna make a quick buck off of their dogs. This may be the only way. I can understand your side as well Laurelin. It would be difficult for breeders that is for sure.

All I know if the dog world keeps going like it is it won't be a good thing.

I agree. But the "good breeders" out there would make it work. If it slows down all of the puppy mills and the BYB, I'm all for it. If it keeps families from breeding thier dogs so their children can experience the "miracle of life" I'm all for it.

[RedyreRottweilers]

Just one more nail in the coffin of companion animals. This bill is driven by Animal Rights Extremist groups. It is one more step to their goal of the complete elimination of all companion animals from "domestic slavery".

It is amazing how many people can be duped by slick ad campaigns financed by big bucks and celebrity endorsements.

This bill is BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. It is already legal in the state of California to require spay/neuter according to the breed of dog. Now let's alter everything over 4 months of age.

Say bye bye to dogs, people if this is allowed to continue.

[savethebulliedbreeds]

The one thing I don't get is how everyone can sit there and say that something needs to be done about puppy mills and BYB's and then when something is going to get done about it some people are against it.

I do not think that spay/neuter bills are ALL driven by Animal Rights Extremists, although I cannot say much on this one because I really have no knowledge as to where it came from. I think bills like this done properly are a good thing. The government just has to make sure that they find a way to leave responsible breeders out of it.

[Laurelin]

They can't leave responsible breeders out of it. How do you determine who is and who isn't responsible? It's just basically a tax (at least the Louisville one is) and everyone is forced to pay. Under Louisville, I'd have to get an 'animal dealer's license' because I have more than 2 intact animals regardless of species.

Plus, I believe it's $50 a year to keep an animal intact. It's not going to stop puppymills. It may stop a few BYB and responsible breeders. Everyone else will just pay the money.

All of the bills I've seen like this are driven by AR extremists. Don't take things for face value, look into them yourselves. They're pretty ridiculous when you look at them and begin thinking of how it will actually work.

[savethebulliedbreeds]

Like I said I don't know how your bills are down there and obviously they have gone about them wrong. Something needs to be done to prevent puppy mills and BYB's from even starting and finishing the ones that already exist.

I am sure there are better ways to go about it but I don't think a properly done bill to make pet owners spay and neuter their animals is a bad thing.

I know of a organization that would like to push for something along that line here in Canada and I know from experience that they are not Animal Rights Extremists. Please don't lump all that want a bill to prevent idiots from breeding their dogs all together. :D

[whatszmatter]

Please don't lump all that want a bill to prevent idiots from breeding their dogs all together. :D

But you see, laws like this do very little, and realistically they do nothing. The same idiots that don't keep their dogs from barking all day and night, the same idiots that leave their dogs chained day and night, the same idiots that don't leash their dogs when they have no training, will be the same idiots that dont' s/n their pets and will still have the "oops" litters that we have now.

The people that pick up their animal waste, already properly confine their dogs, already use leashes and train their dogs, already keep their dogs from bothering the neighbors, will be the same ones that already have their pets S/N or else are responsible enough to keep an intact animal. Enough Gov't internevtion

[Laurelin]

It works the same as BSL. The ones that comply are the ones that could responsibly own the dogs in question.

[whatszmatter]

It works the same as BSL. The ones that comply are the ones that could responsibly own the dogs in question.

Exactly how I feel. THey already have tons of laws that do nothing. There was a case around here a few years ago, the people lived in such filth with so many dogs, the house was condemned and the dogs were taken, and returned (some of them) and it happened again a few years later. The same family, more dogs and another condemed house and the animals were confiscated this time, but I wouldn't be surpised to hear abou them again in a few years.

ANother case involved a former police officer and drugs and fighting pitbulls, This man committed more abuses against animals and humans than I care to live next to and yet he again was able to own dogs and do it all again. Then after the 2nd time of being convicted they actually were going to return some of the dogs back to him again. These were from a group that most had to be put down because of temperment, some were missing parts of ears and lots of scars that replaced chewed off flesh, and after the 2nd time this person was going to recieve some of the dogs back again???? WTF??? how can that happen??? in the end the humane society actually paid 9 Grand to the criminals to keep the dogs in their custody, and that was after keeping and caring for 40 some dogs (some put to sleep) for the past year. That's what is seriously screwed up.

There are other cases of mills and such that have dogs living in feces and with chains growing into their necks, enough cruelty violations to shut them down, but they don't. Instead, people that love and care for their animals have to jump thru more hoops.

[savethebulliedbreeds]

Yes, I understand what you are saying to a point. What needs to be done is have a bill that is written properly and the appropriate people to enforce it. Unfortunately with the other laws that were mentioned there is not the people to enforce them. I still think it would be a good thing it done properly and enforced properly.

[coteyr]

Umm, I don't know this bill stirs mixed feelings. I like my counties laws. A licence (all dogs must have one) costs 10 bucks if s/n 100 if not. It seems simple enough. Enforcing really doesn't happen though. If your dog is "caught" without a licence then it will be s/n before you can get it back. You will also have to pay for the s/n and theres a pretty big fine for it as well. As a side effect you don't see many stray dogs running around.

[ravennr]

Just like every other law trying to go over top of current animal welfare acts, this will not work, for reasons already stated.

It's already too much for officers and the government to handle, adding another law that they cannot enforce isn't going to do anything.

[savethebulliedbreeds]

I think it is up to us (responsible dog owners who want to see people stop breeding their animals for money etc.) to figure out something that will work. Im sorry but sitting around complaining about the problem and then complaining about the government trying to do something about it, just isn't doing any good.

Does anyone have any ideas that would help fix the problem? Other than education of course. We have been trying to do that forever and it doesn't seem to be working.

[Laurelin]

To me it works like this.

We have this problem- irresponsible people with intact dogs. Let's ban intact dogs.

Sounds a lot like this:

We have this problem- irresponsible people with pit bulls. Let's ban pit bulls.

Neither one addresses the actual problem nor will the people breaking the law care.

But wait, you can get a license to have an intact dog- pay a fee no other pet owners have to pay. (For me in Louisville, I think it's about $400 + a year) What if in order to keep a certain breed, you had to have a license and pay a lot more for it than other dog owners do? Do you think that would work? Not likely.

That and I don't like the government telling me what invasive surgeries my animals have to have done on them. I want to decide that for myself along with deciding what else is best for my animals.

Here's some interesting sites bringing up good points:
http://www.pet-law.com/euth7_MSN.html
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=3105 AKC article on Louisville
http://www.nopitbullbans.com/?p=66
http://www.louisville-pets.com/legislation.html
http://www.louisvillekennelclub.com/community/
http://www.napbta.com/bsl.html
http://www.saveourdogs.net/ab1634.html

[very_vizsla]

a ban like that would make pet dogs extinct in california. is that what the politicians want?

[savethebulliedbreeds]

So no one has any ideas then.

This is my point. Obviously what is currently being done is NOT working. Something needs to be figured out.

In my town you HAVE to register your dogs. It costs more to register them if they aren't s/n'erd and/or they don't have vaccinations.

Guess what. Even though it is law there are people that do not register their animals.

So I understand where you are coming from that it may not help because the people that don't care aren't going to do it anyways.

My problem is still that I am sick and tired of hearing people complain about this problem yet do not do a darn thing to try and fix it and when the government does what they think is right to help the problem, people complain about that too.

If you don't like what the government is doing then maybe we should think of ways to help out. Thats all. Not whine and cry and then not address the problem.

In all honesty I would like something to be brought in saying that every dog owner must take a course on proper animal care BEFORE they are even allowed to own a dog. I would love to see this in my city. I would also like to see manditory spay/neuter policy here. Our SPCA here just finally implemented spay and neuter policy at the shelter. Before it was a "if you want to you get a discount" type of thing.

I just really think that you need to take lessons for operating a car etc, why should you not need it to own a dog. They can be just as dangerous in the wrong hands.

[RD]

I'd rather deal with the overpopulation issue than see the breeds I love go downhill because a law makes it difficult for the responsible breeders to produce good dogs. This law will NOT affect scum and mills. They will either dodge the law altogether or just shell out the small amount of money and rake in their huge amount of profit. This is the root of the problem - shifty, high-volume BYBs and full-blown puppy mills are not there for new owners at all during the life of their dogs, and many of these dogs DO wind up in shelters. I would say that most of the purebred dogs that end up in shelters are from high-volume breeders and not clueless BYBs with good, but misguided intentions. But no, this law will not affect the people who are in it for the money. It'll affect those who are in it for the breed, but have limited funds.

I also would like to point out that the govt will allow certain dogs to remain intact, but only if they have earned a title. Your sheepdog is in the top 10 at the national finals? Too bad, he doesn't have the title to show for it; neuter him. A poor quality dog has an AKC CD? Sure, breed him.

Mandatory spay/neuter for shelter dogs is an absolute must. The shelter I volunteer at does not relinquish dogs until they have been s/n. Very young puppies, while they are allowed to go to their new homes as a foster, are microchipped and tagged as property of the shelter until proof of spay/neuter has been provided. The dog must be spayed/neutered by 6 months of age. I would like to see something similar to this done in all shelters.

[Laurelin]

Actually one I read you had to have competed with your dog in a sanctioned show in the past two years. What happens when you retire your dog?

[OutlineACDs]

This is the root of the problem - shifty, high-volume BYBs and full-blown puppy mills are not there for new owners at all during the life of their dogs, and many of these dogs DO wind up in shelters. I would say that most of the purebred dogs that end up in shelters are from high-volume breeders and not clueless BYBs with good, but misguided intentions. But no, this law will not affect the people who are in it for the money. It'll affect those who are in it for the breed, but have limited funds.


I read somwhere that the statistics AKC has are that less than 10% of registered dogs come from "reputable breeders". 70% of their registration numbers are from BYB's. The rest are puppy mills/high volume BYB's and ILP numbers. So, I beg to differ that the BYB isn't contributing more than their fair share.

[OutlineACDs]

Actually one I read you had to have competed with your dog in a sanctioned show in the past two years. What happens when you retire your dog?

You could always have semen collected and stored?

[DryCreek]

My solution....

Take all the money they are spending on writing up these bills, laws, legislations, press releases etc.... and the money that will be required to enact and enforce them, and give it to the people who are supposed to enforce the laws already in place.

Could you imagine how the millions spent on the BSL Law issue in Ontario could have been used for the enforcement of the existing laws that already regulate aggressive animals?

What the system lacks is regulation and enforcement. Pay them to go door to door to see who has their dogs registered or not. Pay a slightly higher fee to keep intact animals. High fines for unregistered dogs. Use the money to keep records of those who have intact animals and how many they have. A hobby breeder of quality animals does not have 30 or 40 intact animals.

The only reason the existing laws don't work is due to lack of money for enforcement.

The majority of the dogs in the shelters were dropped there by owners for usually extremely lame reasons. It's more of an irresponsible owner problem than a breeder one. As long as people keep buying pups, people will keep breeding them for money. Supply and demand issues. The people buying dogs need to be educated, and until that happens BYB and puppy mills will thrive.

[~Jessie~]

:mad: That's all we need, just more government telling us what to do.:rolleyes: When are people going to learn that more regulation doesn't help anything, all the while we slowly give our rights away...

Awful idea in my opinion!!!

I completely agree =/ Also, I think it's awful to require neutering at 4 months of age.

[Laurelin]

You could always have semen collected and stored?

Not for a bitch.

[Red_ACD_for_me]

They have a law for pitbulls around Boston that they have to be S/N, muzzled in public, signs posted on your door to beware of dog, and only two dogs to a household. It doesn't work :rolleyes: There is nobody around 24/7 to keep track of these things. They started this law after all the attacks that happened one summer about 4 years ago. Putting these laws into place never works IMO. Good luck to them........ain't no one going to tell me when to chop off my dogs testicles ;)

[savethebulliedbreeds]

Yes, unfortunatly these bills don't seem to work. I really wish there were a way to have a law that did work. That made all the responsible breeders happy and took care of the rest of the idiots.

*IF* something like this could work I would be all for it. That is why I said we need to start thinking of ways to stop these puppymills and BYB'ers from producing tens of thousands of dogs each year.

I guess it comes down to not having the money to properly enforce the laws.

It is just like our dangerous dog act we have here in Saskatchewn. We have the most strict laws in the country. For some reason or another though they are almost never enforced.

[savethebulliedbreeds]

I know this really has nothing to do with the OP post but here is the Saskatchewan Dangerous Dog Legislation in a nutshell. Its a pretty straighforward legislation and they still have problems enforcing it. So I completely understand where you guys are all coming from. I still think that if done correctly and enforced properly, that it wouldn't be a horrible thing.

The following situations are offences under the legislation and may result in a fine and/or imprisonment:

*Owning an animal that attacks, bites, injures or kills a person or domestic animal without provocation.

*Not complying with a court order specifying conditions for keeping a dangerous animal;

*Owning an animal for purposes of animal fighting or training and encouraging an animal to make unprovoked attacks on people or domestic animal.

A person found guilty of any of these offences may be liable to a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for up to six months, and an order for destruction of the animal.

Exceptions:

An animal will not be declared dangerous if the actions occured while the animal was:

*Performing police work, or

*Working as a guard animal on commercial property, securely enclosed by a fence to prevent the animal's escape and children from entering.


Unfortunatly, even with this legislation in place, because it is not enforced communities have still gone ahead with BSL type laws. I completely don't understand it because ANY dog that bites is considered dangerous so why need the BSL?

[Bahamutt99]

a ban like that would make pet dogs extinct in california. is that what the politicians want?

But pet dogs come from every litter, even the most well-planned working or show litters. People shouldn't be breeding their pets. My concern is giving the local AC guys sole discretion to enforce these laws. I'm sure there'd be a problem with me breeding APBTs, where there might not be a problem with someone else breeding Cockerdoodlepoos. There is too much grey area. Too much "as long as we approve." That's like saying, "...well, we may let you continue to breed your unregistered working stock dogs... or we may not. Depends on how we feel."

[joce]

The problem with it is the millers and byb who have a ton of dogs a year will more than be able to pay for the licenses. It would hurt the good breeder more since they don't make out on the litters.

Not only that but has anyone looked into what you need for the kennel licenses-I'd never buy form someone who met all those qualifications-the pup would have no socialization.

[Laurelin]

If you want to read the full Louisville ordincance, it's here- http://www.louisvilleky.gov/MetroCouncil/animal_ordinance.htm

[Aussie Red]

Ok as I have stated government running things does not work. It costs tax payers more money and that is the long and short of it. We have allowed politicians to slowly take away our rights in this country and that has to stop.
This brings to mind the proposed law having to have your daughters vaccinated for Human patholoma virus. I will not support that either I would go to jail first. It is a new drug and what are the side effects ?? Talk to the poor girls that are forced to do this and find out they can't have children or are dying from something else now. Ok call me a radical if you want to but I have seen to many things where the government has stepped in and taken over it is not right. California is the leader in these types of things. You may think they are good but when I am told I have to change to suit others it never sits well with me. I have to wear a seat belt. I have to have Insurance.
These may be all good but again because some want them it does not make it right for all. A reasonably intelligent person already did it. Did not need a law to make you do it. As far as it costing taxpayers for their health care that could be fixed too and I would rather support a persons health care then pay thousands of dollars for research on some of the ignorant things the government gives grants for. You all know I am for fixing animals but this is just way to intrusive and open for those who are byb. The only ones this will effect are those who are going to fix the animals anyway not those who breed for profit. I do not support a ban on anything and I do mean ANYTHING !!! I may not like what some choose to do that may be true and I may speak out on it being the wrong thing to do but this is the U.S.A. and we were founded on freedom. Freedom of choice does not mean your choice is the right choice for all !!!!

[whatszmatter]

Ok as I have stated government running things does not work. It costs tax payers more money and that is the long and short of it. We have allowed politicians to slowly take away our rights in this country and that has to stop.
This brings to mind the proposed law having to have your daughters vaccinated for Human patholoma virus. I will not support that either I would go to jail first. It is a new drug and what are the side effects ??

Freedom of choice does not mean your choice is the right choice for all !!!!

A little off topic, but you started it:D Just a few facts about the HPV vaccine.

1- Half of all people get HPV at some point, you or your spouse will most likely have had it or get it in your lifetime. It's been this way for a long long time.

2-around 90% or better will clear that virus within months with ZERO intervention from doctors or medication.

3-Cervical cancer usually occurs in a womans 40's and 50's

4- they studied 9-26 year old's, in which you'd normally expect to see 1 case per 100,000 people in the general population in that age range with cancer cells in their cervix

5- they only studied about 26 thousand girls, women and boys (where they expected to find cervical cancer I have no idea on them)

6- They studied it for only 4 years, if someone in that age range were to develope cervical cancer it most likely wouldn't happen for another decade and a half

7- at the end of the study not one single case of cervical cancer was reported so they had 100% effectiveness, sounds great right? remember only 1 case per 100,000 people is expected anyway, so they didn't even have a large enough population to study

8- the vaccine will not limit your exposure to the virus, you are very likely to come in contact with it at some point in your life

9-the vaccine stimulates your body to mount an immune response against the virus, which your body does naturally and has been doing it for as long as the virus has been around. WHere exactly the need for the vaccine is I have no idea

10- actually I do have an idea where the need comes from, at over 120 bucks a shot, needing three per girl/woman, you do the math and see how much it adds to the bottom line of MERK if its mandated

11- only one state has mandated it so far, and that is TX. Coincidently the former right hand man of the governor there is now the chief lobbyist for MERK, the maker of gardasil. The governor bypassed the law making process in that state and made it an executive order bypassing all chances to block it. Coincidence?? I think not.

12- Merk is the same company that brought us Vioxx, the drug that traded ulcers for heart attacks, and they knew it long before it hit the public, and yet the continued to sell it and market it as safe. I prefer to trust the body and defenses I have over the "expertise" of MERK anyday

13- I defineatly don't want the gov't mandating me to line the pockets of their monkey boys in washington, and FYI, its on the agenda in, last I checked, almost 40 states to become mandated, so be aware.

now back to your regular programming

[Picklepaige]

I'm sure the dogs sitting on death row right now are begging for this law to be passed. To me, dogs are individuals. Sadly, not many people think the way I do. Anything to stop the murder of these poor guys.

[Aussie Red]

EDUCATION NOT LEGISLATION !!!!

[LexTalionis]

Assuming this law can be enforced across the board, it will be a good thing. People are not going to s/n and stop breeding out of the goodness of their hearts unless something drastic happens.

This bill does provide for serious reputable breeders the option to breed. Not all will be able to qualify, but as long as the dog is registered with approved registries, and they are shown once a year, they will qualify. They don’t actually have to win anything, just compete. The average BYB would not bother with it, but the reputable ones would make the effort and set aside one or two days a year. As far as many other registries not approved, that can be changed. Since this bill is very similar to the LA conty bill which is already in existence, I am pretty sure that any non for profit registry can apply for and qualify to be added to the approved registry list as it is in LA county. So that would not be an issue. The reason it say non profit is to keep the APRI, AKA, APR and the likes out of the equation which I believe most here would agree that they are far from reputable. However, reputable registries should have no problem getting added to the list.

Those breeders who have more dogs then they will be allowed to under this bill, have the option to obtain a kennel/business license. Not many will be able to qualify for one due to zoning regulations, but those who do not live in the appropriate zone, probably should not be having that many dogs in the first place. I hear many complain about how there is no one to regulate the large scale millers that are not USDA inspected. Well this bill will take care of them.

Will this bill hurt some responsible breeder? No doubt. But that is a small price to pay to control the over population and the uncontrolled bybs out there. It will actually benefit many breeders who follow the laws, and are licensed and inspected. It will ensure that they are the only ones who can legally breed. With no competition from bybs and no more poor quality sick dogs flooding the market, those remaining breeders will be able to charge more and in turn will be able to afford to invest more back in to there dogs in testing, maintenance and showing expanses. Although it will reduce the available dogs, it will increase their quality. Which is what I am sure many want to see.

Those who oppose this bill will have a much better chance to lobby for modifying it to amend the objectionable parts such as age of sterilization and the approved registries, but trying to kill it all together is futile. If you are too lazy to go to the shelter to see the end result, just open up your classified. 90% of the ads there are by people who have no business breeding. This is what the lawmakers see, the end results and the numbers.

I will most likely be exempt from this bill with my business kennel license, so I will be one of those who will actually benefit from it. If you were in my shoes, you too would see the logic behind it as I do. It makes perfect sense to. It will reduce shelter population, will virtually eliminate accidentally and mutt breeding, decrease my competition and help raise my prices. Win win situation anyway I look at it.

[Laurelin]

How do you start showing a dog if you have to have it neutered by 4 months and you can't show a dog until it is 6 months old? You'd have to break the law to even begin showing. What do you do when you wish to retire a show dog from showing yet you still wish to use it for breeding? what happens lets say in the case of my dog's grandfather who had an accident and knocked out a tooth and therefore could not show, but was still breeding quality?

Nope, still a bad idea in my opinion.

[LexTalionis]

As I said, the age is a point that needs to be addressed. as it is now, it is a catch 22. As far a retired dogs, In LA county, a titled dog does not need to be fixed. Most likely that will be the case with this one as well.

No one is saying it is perfect, but it is better then nothing.

[ChRotties]

For starters, AC doesn't/can't enforce current laws on the books both in state and locally. This is the case across the board in all states! START ENFORCING THE LAWS ALREADY IN PLACE!

This is nothing more than AR backed propaganda that leads to their ultimate goal: end pet ownership. Little by little, that's what it's leading to.

If the gov't would really like to do something, how about redoing the zoning laws, making it difficult for the freakin pet shops to open their doors? Nope that won't happen! Why? Too much money involved!

[savethebulliedbreeds]

I am not a fan of pet shops either but how is closing them going to stop anything. Those pet shops get their animals for idiot breeders. Irresponsible breeders are the big problem.

How is wanting to stop these people from breeding thousands and thousands of dogs every year "AR backed propoganda" to "end pet ownership". I am not a crazy animal rights activist, but if the law could work I would be all for it.

Unfortunately there is not much that can be done. Everyone keeps talking about how we should educate. Well people have been educating about this for a LONG time and it still doesnt make a difference.

Bottom line....something needs to be done to stop back yard breeders and puppy mills.

[Aussie Red]

If this passes it will only effect those of us who do do the right thing. It will not stop the puppy mills. It will open the doors wide for BSL and further legislation on not owning pets period. A good case in point is that California is one of only a couple states where Ferret ownership is illegal and you will be fined for having one and get the pleasure in knowing your loved pet will be put to death if found. Nevada 24 Karat ferret rescue goes and gets them and brings them here if the officer who was called out to get yours calls them. Many do not an just kill them. You really think this is good for the future of dogs or any other animal ?

[savethebulliedbreeds]

Like I said its hard to know what to do because what is being done right now is NOT working at all.

Someone really needs to come up with a GOOD solution to the problem.

[ChRotties]

Hmm. Let's see..puppy mills/brokers sell their thousands of puppies every year to PET SHOPS. Make it difficult or impossible for new pet shops to open / or stay in business. It's supply and demand. Thru education and putting the pressure on the COMMERCIAL industry is a start!

Yes, these s/n and bsl laws are AR propaganda. Do you realize what the TRUE idealogigy is behind peta and hsus? Peta's (and other AR ogs) belief system is that NO ANIMAL (including dogs and cats) has the RIGHT to be owned/kept in slavery by man. Every animal, according to them, has the right to live free and die free. It wouldn't get them very far or tens of thousands of dollars if they preached it that bluntly. They go about it by laws like this one that is being proposed and like the one that was passed in Louisville....they start by making it **** difficult for most folks to OWN ANIMALS. Of course, they know already that these laws don't work. So in a few years, they will introduce MORE BRILLIANT IDEAS.......BULLCRAP!

If you don't believe that mandatory s/n or bsl is backed by ARs, then read this: HSUS WAS INSTRUMENTAL WITH THE GARBAGE IN LOUISVILLE!

Letter from HSUS TO L'VILLE OFFICIALS:

July 5, 2006


Dear Louisville Metro Council and Animal Ordinance Advisory Group Members:


After a number of high profile dog attacks late last year, proposed changes in the city’s animal ordinance have been discussed at great length over the last few months. Experts in various animal professions have all contributed to the effort. As the time approaches to decide on an ordinance, I hope that you will consider the following points from The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS):

Dangerous dogs – The most effective way to control dangerous dogs within a community is to give local animal control the authority and financing to easily identify and regulate both dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. Dogs that repeatedly run loose, attack other animals, and menace or attack people should all be considered a threat to the community. Good dangerous dog legislation is strictly enforced and punishes irresponsible dog owners. I have attached The HSUS Model Dangerous Dog Legislation for your review.

Pit bulls – There is no doubt that pit bulls are in bad shape in America right now. They are likely the most popular dog in the country, but unfortunately, they are also the dogs of choice for drug dealers, gang members, and anyone else who is looking for a dog to be a status symbol. Legislation banning pit bulls or requiring strict regulation will not solve the problems created by dangerous dogs. However, because pit bulls currently flood animal shelters in Louisville and across the country, legislation requiring their mandatory sterilization could be a benefit to the breed and to all dogs in the community. Additionally, the mandatory sterilization of pit bulls would negatively impact those individuals who use pit bulls for fighting, guarding locations used for illegal activities, and the backyard breeders who so recklessly add to the dog overpopulation. Requiring the sterilization of pit bulls does not have the same problems as traditional breed-specific legislation. This does not punish responsible pet owners, as truly responsible owners already have their animals sterilized.

Dog chaining and tethering – The long term chaining or tethering of dogs is a two-pronged issue: the practice is inhumane to the animals and creates a safety risk to the community. Dogs are social animals and the isolation created by long-term tethering goes against their nature. Without social contact, life on a chain leads dogs to become, lonely, bored, territorial, and aggressive. In fact, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), chained dogs are 2.8 times more likely to attack than unchained dogs and chained dogs are 5.4 times more likely to attack children than unchained dogs. By restricting the hours that dogs can be tethered and regulating the set up (chain vs. cable trolley), such legislation could protect letter carriers, meter readers, and other professionals who work door-to-door, while also negatively impacting dog fighters who keep dozens of dogs chained in their yards.

Outdoor dog shelters – While The HSUS always encourages pet owners to keep their dogs indoors with the family, dogs that live or spend much time outdoors must have adequate shelter. Certain structures like rabbit hutches or plastic barrels are not acceptable. Regulations should be enacted that outline the specific requirements for outdoor dog shelters. Such structures must have a roof, a floor, and four side walls, with one wall having a doorway; the size of the structure and doorway must allow the dog to easily enter and exit, lay down, stand up, and turn around; the structure must provide shade and protect the interior from wind, rain, snow, other forms of precipitation, and extreme weather. Regulations like these will ensure the safety of dogs outdoors.

Pet auctions & flea market sales - Animal auctions place pets without regard for their future or the pressures that a new pet puts on a family. Whether such auctions are done for profit or for charity fundraisers, they are irresponsible and unethical. Pet auctions fly in the face of the efforts of animal shelters and rescue groups, not only philosophically, but also in very real terms as animals obtained from auctions may easily be surrendered to such groups. Flea markets provide nothing but an unregulated venue for impulse animal purchases. This lack of regulation allows disreputable animal sellers to add animals of questionable health and temperament to a pet overpopulation that is already overextending both animal services offices and the taxpayers who fund them. Companion animal and human relationships are more successful when they’re carefully considered along with the understanding of commitment and responsibility that a pet brings.

Spay/Neuter and adoption groups – Pet overpopulation is a problem everywhere. There are millions of animals euthanized every year in the United States simply because they lack a home. It is imperative that animal shelters and adoption groups are required to have all animals sterilized before adoption. Dogs can begin reproducing as early as six months of age, and cats as early as four months of age. Giving out vouchers and having adopters sign contracts promising to have their new pets altered by a certain age is not effective. Too often new adopters forget, don’t care, or even want their animal intact. While some people may have concerns about juvenile (or pediatric) spay/neuter, the surgeries are perfectly safe when performed by experienced veterinarians.

Breeders & differential licensing – Differential licensing is a system where owners of intact animals pay a much higher licensing fee than owners of altered animals. The extra funds can be used to provide subsidized spay/neuter services to low income pet owners. Not only does this system encourage pet sterilization, it also helps facilitate it. While this system costs breeders more money, this is fair because they make money adding to the pet population. An additional measure requiring breeders to list their license number in newspaper ads would be beneficial to the community. It would make sure that only licensed (legal) breeders advertise and would make them easier to identify for consumers and animal control officers, in case of problems.

The attempted re-draft of the Louisville metro animal ordinance has taken many forms. Despite some minor problems, most versions contain a number of excellent, progressive provisions that will benefit the community. Many groups have suggested weakening these provisions, but to do so would only hurt the animals and the community as a whole. It is not clear whether these people are motivated by financial gain or simply set in their ways. They may benefit from nixing certain points, but the rest of the community would not.

As a complement to a new ordinance, The HSUS would be pleased to send specialists to Louisville to train law enforcement officials in investigating and prosecuting dog fighters. Increased enforcement of the state’s felony prohibition on dog fighting would advance any effort to reign in problematic individuals who use dogs in illegal and harmful ways.

As always, The HSUS is available to answer questions or help in any way that we can.

Sincerely,

Kentucky Legislative Coordinator
The Humane Society of the United States
291 N. Hubbbards Lane, #280
Louisville, KY 40207
502-893-9796
progers@hsus.org

I will give the ARs credit....they are master spin doctors. They are masters at public relations.

[ChRotties]

Permission to cross post / distribute in any form necessary to educate:
************************************************** ****

From “Politics of Animal Liberation”
by Kim Bartlett,
published in ANIMAL AGENDA, November 1987

Abolish by law all animal research

Outlaw the use of animals for cosmetic and product testing, classroom demonstration and in weapons development

Vegetarian meals should be made available at all public institutions, including schools

Eliminate all animal agriculture

No herbicides, pesticides or other agricultural chemicals. Outlaw predator control.

Transfer enforcement of animal welfare legislation away from the Department of Agriculture

Eliminate fur ranching and the use of furs.

Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing.

End the international trade in wildlife goods

Stop any further breeding of companion animals, including purebred dogs and cats. Spaying and neutering should be subsidized by stte and municipal governments. Abolish commerce in animals for the pet trade.

End the use of animals in entertainment and sports.

Prohibit the genetic manipulation of species.
NOTE: This was written in 1987, long before genetic engineering and cloning. In this context, “genetic manipulation” means selective breeding”

[GipsyQueen]

Well I hope the law is not passed. Personally I think that 4 months is to young to spay/neuter a puppy, which might also result in problems if the dog is to be shown.
I also think it is everyone's choice whether to spay/neuter their dog. There are people out there that believe a dog is fine not neutered, which I find alright. People can be responsible, but unfortunately there are irresponsible people out there. I don't think it will reduce the amount of puppy mills either, there will always be people who break the law, why should there be people who don't brake this one either?

[Laurelin]

As I said, the age is a point that needs to be addressed. as it is now, it is a catch 22. As far a retired dogs, In LA county, a titled dog does not need to be fixed. Most likely that will be the case with this one as well.

No one is saying it is perfect, but it is better then nothing.

Okay, so the dog who never finished his Ch title because of his tooth must be neutered? (Pretending he didn't have his CGC which he did) But then a dog with only a CGC and poor conformation didn't have to be neutered?

And believe me, the catch 22 is there on purpose.

[savethebulliedbreeds]

I agree that the the reason for the catch 22 is there on purpose and that is extremely unfortunate.

Back to the BYB, puppymill and pet store thing. Yes they do sell a ton of animals to pet stores, but if they couldn't sell them there they would sell them themselves anyways. Closing down pet stores will not stop BYB'ers and puppymills from breeding. Sorry.

Also I know how the HSUS and PETA is and trust me I don't like them very much. If they are the ones behind this then I understand where you are coming from. I don't know much about since I am way up north here. I am just saying that I would be for something like this if done properly and I am not an ARA and I don't want people to not be able to own dogs. I do think it should be more difficult for people to get animals though.

[ChRotties]

It's like this: instead of making it difficult for the RESPONSIBLE dog people, the gov't needs to make it MORE difficult and COSTLY for the puppy millers and brokers that SUPPLY the pet stores. These folks (99%) sell directly to brokers like the (gag) Hunte Corporation, who distributes to the pet shops.

I don't have all of the answers, but this one is a more sensible start.

I've been in dogs for 15 years, I've seen my breed here in the states go from one of the most popular breeds to not even on the top breeds list. (thank God!) The breed club worked darn hard at EDUCATING the public on ownership and breeding. EDUCATION...
Even when I get tired of hearing myself talking to yet another determined wanna be Rottie owner/breeder (i.e...those that have NO CLUE as to what that entails!), I keep right on talking OWNER RESPONSIBILITY!

There is NO easy answer. There isn't a cure all solution. But as long as the ARs live and breathe and pump their propaganda into the media and at lawmakers (WHO ARE TOTALLY CLUELESS!), the RESPONSIBLE dog owners and breeders are in danger of becoming extinct.

So why are lawmakers so fast to jump on the mandatory s/n bandwagon??? Because they want to "appease" their constituents....they want to hush the outcry of the public over the pet situation...BUT , they themselves HAVE NO CLUE (and most DON'T CARE!), so, here comes the "white knights"...the ARs.
"All you have to do, Mr Mayor, is push thru mandatory spay/neuter, make it more costly to live here and own a dog, and PRESTO! "...
They are all too eager to accept the "help" from (gag) knowlegeable, caring (puke), animal folks!

And there ya go, say bye bye to well bred dogs. All that will be left in abundance is the byb puppies and the pet stores. So, why don't the ARs go after the pet brokers/millers/??? Because they know they could NEVER force legislation thru that easily cuz let me tell ya, the pet trade industry is wealthy! The Hunte Corp for example, has received funding from the USDA....to the tune of a couple hundred thousand. Therefore, the ARs stand a better chance of pulling the wool over "the average Joe pet owner" than tackling the massive puppy flesh industry.

ONe way or another, their ultimate GOAL is to end pet ownership.
I loathe and dispise them all....if they REALLY want to help animals, let ol' Ingrid Newkirk and Wayne Pascelle test the next batch of tainted pet food.

[savethebulliedbreeds]

I loathe and dispise them all....if they REALLY want to help animals, let ol' Ingrid Newkirk and Wayne Pascelle test the next batch of tainted pet food.

Agreed.

And don't get me wrong I DO think they should be after puppymillers. Like I said SOMETHING needs to be done. Now the question is what?

[Laurelin]

There is no easy solution. No matter what is done, it can't quickly fix anything. My best soultion is education, but unfortunately that probably won't work. You simply can't tackle things without harming the responsible people too.

[savethebulliedbreeds]

I am sure there is a way, but what. It is so hard. You are right, education probably won't work. You can't teach those who don't want to be taught....or just don't care and that is extremely unfortunate.

[Aussie Red]

Here is a thought and it boils down to the Kennel clubs promoting what they stand for. Responsible breeders . Proven and sound breeds. If they would stop issuing papers to breeders who mass produce and do not have confirmation it would slow it all down. I personally think they are the biggest contributors to puppy mills and BYbers. In order to get puppy papers one should have to show health testing. Confirmation and the like. How many puppy mills are going to go to that extreme to raise and sell pups ? or BYB ers ??? A good sound breeder will and does so they can stop it and choose not to because of the economic factor. They are making money off of it as well. Now I know a flaming may and most likely will come from this but I can prove that at least the Akc does not care. I owned a Boston Terrier that was AKC registered and knew for a fact it was 1/2 beagle I saw the breeding. I knew the people and that they used two registered dogs papers and got the litter papers and registered the mutts. I turned it in to the AKC and sent his pic too. Guess what nothing was done and the BYB kept right on breeding. The reason I owned the little guy is because the person that bought him for $ 800.00 wanted to breed BTs and no one liked how he looked so he was going to be put down. Like I say I knew all the people and was furious and more so when I gave proof to the AKC and nothing was done. They are the main reason we have puppy mills.

[savethebulliedbreeds]

I completely agree that the AKC and CKC don't care and it is SAD. They do need to do more to make sure that the puppies being born into their registry are solid.

[Laurelin]

I don't think the AKC is the main reason, I think the main reason BYBs and puppy mills are around is just money. Everyone involved from all angles is just driven by greed, and that includes people at the AKC as well as the breeders and brokers and anyone making money off of these litters. I do agree the AKC should do something more about the registry but it's not likely to happen as long as people make money. That's the way everything in the world works. It's all driven by money.

Yes, I am a pessimist. lol

[LexTalionis]

Okay, so the dog who never finished his Ch title because of his tooth must be neutered? (Pretending he didn't have his CGC which he did) But then a dog with only a CGC and poor conformation didn't have to be neutered?

And believe me, the catch 22 is there on purpose.


Well, you do not need a full set of teeth to compete in agility or obedience.

This is the LA county law which is a very good indicator of what the state law would be like.

http://animalcontrol.co.la.ca.us/cms1_045463.asp#TopOfPage
http://animalcontrol.co.la.ca.us/cms1_045498.asp#TopOfPage

With very little effort most breeders can meet at least one of the requirements. Almost anyone can join a local breed club or enter a dog in one of the many different competition types. Remember, you do not need to win, just participate and show a receipt to get the permit. It is a small price to pay to fight the BYBs and PMs.

[LexTalionis]

Here is the latest amended ver of this proposed bill.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20070417_amended_asm_v97.html

If you take the time to read it, you will see that it is not as bad as the AKC and others claim it to be. Expect it to be amended several more times to address most of your concerns as they are brought up before it will be passed. It is really not a bad bill.

[summitview]

I'm sure the dogs sitting on death row right now are begging for this law to be passed. To me, dogs are individuals. Sadly, not many people think the way I do. Anything to stop the murder of these poor guys.

AMEN!!!!!! :hail:

I support mandatory spay/neuter. I would like to see the age for spay/neuter raised in the CA bill, however. I do understand the point of making it four months, but I would like to see it raised to allow for dogs to start showing.

Education isn't working, and of course everyone thinks that they are ethical and doing it correctly and that they should be exempt. I believe the next step is legislation.

I also like the amendments that the Best Friends Animal Society has come up with:

April 3, 2007 : 12:00 AM
Dear Best Friends Network Members,

The California legislature is currently considering a mandatory spay/neuter bill, A.B. 1634. We applaud the efforts of Assembly member Lloyd Levine for introducing the conversation that spaying and neutering is a critical tool in ending needless euthanasia.

However, Best Friends does not believe the legislation is effective as currently written.

Please urge Committee members and your California legislator to amend the proposed legislation to include the following:

* Guarantee low-cost spay-neuter for pets of low-income families: A.B. 1634 does not address programs for low-income The highest euthanasia rates of cats and dogs are concentrated in lowest income areas and spay/neuter programs are the most effective way to reduce the number of homeless pets in these areas. The key to success, is making sure that spay/neuter services are available, affordable, accessible and well publicized to low-income and moderate income families, in order to really make a difference for the animals

* In addition to paying a fee to breed, a fee generated from the sale of each animal should be imposed and 100% of the proceeds should be used to fund low-cost spay/neuter for low-income families: The bill exempts ALL dogs and cats from licensed breeders, including puppy mills and exploitive breeders as long as they pay a fee to breed. Such businesses and individuals are primary contributors to the to the problem of pet overpopulation and should bear a significant responsibility in solving the problem. Until puppy mills and exploitive breeders are completely stopped, licensed breeders should be required to pay a fee for each animal sold. 100% of fees should be used to fund low cost spay/neuter.

source: http://network.bestfriends.org/california/news/13749.html (http://network.bestfriends.org/california/news/13749.html)

[Ladychaos]

I am 100% for rescue and animal shelters. infact I am aspiring to become an animal control officer. In Los angeles there are 6 county animal shelters and they are all extremely high kill. Yet people goto pet stores and back yard breeders. There are so many people trying to save these animals but this bill is not going to do anything but punish the people breeding to better dogs. I love the idea of people getting educated, and making free spay and neuter clinics. I wouldn't vote for this, to many grey areas. I would however vote for something that would put tax dollars aside for free spay and neuters. Give people the freedom to choose what they want to do. But education is key, educate people about the positives, set up free spay and neuter clinics, and shut down puppymilling pet stores. That will make a big difference.

[planet molosser]

I dont mind breeder regulations however the mandatory neuter for my working dogs is a issue. 4 months is way to young for a Molosser male, and in most cases even for a female spay.