Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee B  I believe THIS is exactly what this proposed law is designed to do: force responsibiity on those who will not voluntarily take it on themselves.
Please remember that our pure-breds, regardless of whether they come from responsible breeders or puppy mills, are still just a FRACTION of the total dog population.
This bill is NOT designed to penalize responsible ownership or breeders; it is NOT designed to force neutering on puppies who are too small for surgery. There are provisions that provide sufficient loop-holes.
Too many people won't do the right thing unless they're compelled to do so. There *are* low cost neutering clincs run by people who want to help people "do the right thing". Maybe there are no expenisve pre-surgical blood panels performed, but responsible surgical procedures are followed, including anaesthesia and pain meds. These clinics are often run on weekends so owners don't even have to miss time from work. But they (the owners) still fail to take advantage, for whatever reason.
I have read MANY proposed laws of this nature; Florida's is probably one the most reasonable posed. It has all the loopholes needed to not be oppressive or repressive.
Read it again: this requires a logical - not visceral - reaction. And remember: if ALL pet owners were as responsible as we try to be, laws of this nature wouldn't even be needed. |
If this law is meant to force responsibility on those who won't take it, does that mean that if you have a healthy dog that you aren't using for breeding and don't spay/neuter, you aren't responsible? Then what do you do with the people who feel that the risks outweigh the benefits? They are trying to do what's best for their dog.
Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you but your post worded what the law is about the best.
