CA Manditory Spay/Neuter Bill

RD

Are you dead yet?
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
15,572
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
34
Location
Ohio
#2
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.
 

fillyone

But please, call me Barb
Joined
Jun 12, 2005
Messages
820
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Portland Oregon
#4
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.
 

Laurelin

I'm All Ears
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
30,963
Likes
3
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Oklahoma
#7
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

New Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
5,218
Likes
1
Points
0
Location
Oregon
#8
: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

Rebel With Cause
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
1,194
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
HER OWN PLANET
#9
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 .
 
A

Angel Chicken

Guest
#10
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!
 
S

savethebulliedbreeds

Guest
#11
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

Active Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2005
Messages
4,448
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
40
Location
Ohio
#12
Do you see tha ages it makes you alter? It better not pass.
 

RD

Are you dead yet?
Joined
Aug 1, 2004
Messages
15,572
Likes
0
Points
0
Age
34
Location
Ohio
#13
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. ;)
 
S

savethebulliedbreeds

Guest
#14
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

Rebel With Cause
Joined
Jun 8, 2006
Messages
1,194
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
HER OWN PLANET
#15
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

New Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
59
Likes
0
Points
0
#16
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'm All Ears
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
30,963
Likes
3
Points
0
Age
37
Location
Oklahoma
#17
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.
 
S

savethebulliedbreeds

Guest
#18
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

New Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2006
Messages
59
Likes
0
Points
0
#19
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.
 
R

RedyreRottweilers

Guest
#20
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.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top