:thumbup::thumbup:

It's done all the time when it is for the greater good of the public. Look at mandatory seatbelt legislation. People were just as outraged about the government telling them they had to buckle up when they got in the car, but now it's automatic for most people. And look how many lives it has saved.

The question is where do you draw the line and let adults make decisions for their own lives? Should we just give up our right to make choices and let everything be dictated to us as if we were children? I guess one upside to that is we couldn't be held responsible for any of our decisions.

You are so right! I don't need the Government to decide what is for my greater good. It scares me to think that every step of the way the public is no longer able to decide things for themselves. :thumbdown When animal control costs increase the rate of euthanasia increases also. I am totally against these types of laws - it's just one more thing that chips away at our freedom.

I would not oppose smart legislation that targeted the mass production of puppies or the mistreatment of animals but when the lines are so fuzzy and enforcement could potentially do more harm than good I think it is time to go back to the drawing table.

As for the exemption for show dogs...what consitituted a show dog? A dog shown once? A finished champion? What about those beautiful dogs that are owned by responisble breeders that do not like to show...we would now have to force them?

At what age were they supposed to be spayed/neutered? A show dog in my eyes is not determined until adulthood, so how do they handle that?

After seeing how the DQ in our standard is interpreted these days we all know you have to spell out what you mean perfectly and without question and I just do not think this bill did that. I have sat down and read this bill, and I think that is where the confusion lies...everyone took a different meaning from the bill...I just wonder how those that would be enforcing it would interpret it.

:thumbup::thumbup:

Yes, that is a sad figure and very shameful for such a wonderful country. I would have to venture to say that probably 95% or more of those animals are not bred by reputable breeders and out of that, most of them are not even purebred. If we want to play the blame game, I would have to put my money on bybrs and mills, big box pet stores and uneducated buyers/breeders. And when the "other entity" steps in, they want to shut everyone down except the mills and the pet stores that sell the puppies and kittens. They may try to make exemptions for show breeders, but who is to determine what is or is not show quality and who is and exhibitor? What about hobby breeders and those that are just getting started showing?

I am glad that the bill was shut down (again, who knows when it will crop back up yet again). I recently worked to fight very similar legislation in the city in which I work (I live in the neighboring county thank goodness not that city). Not even considering the due process issues, the practical end result would have been yet another worthless, unenforceable piece of legislation. The superintendent of the City's animal control division admitted that there was no way he could enforce it, but that it looked good on paper. These laws would only be voluntarily complied with by people who would have spayed or neutered anyway, and the only breeders who would make an attempt to follow such laws would be the ones that should be breeding dogs, not the ones that shouldn't. Intact dogs (and cats more so) would still roam, reproducing randomly and puppies would still end up at the shelters, except more would be dumped there instead of surrendered during shelter hours. The only time it would be enforced would be if an animal control officer actually picked up a loose pet (rarely happens unless there are complaints that the animal is behaving aggressively or is damage property) and the owner had to spay/neuter it to reclaim it-- chances are they'd just leave it there and find a new $50 replacement that would then roam free and reproduce for as long as it did not get caught.

I am so tired of attempts to create laws to limit people who are purposefully breeding animals when the majority of those in the shelter are the result of accidents and irresponsibility.

We are not faced with a pure overpopulation problem. What we are faced with is an irresponsible owner problem. Most shelter dogs are juveniles that once had homes, but their owners did not take the time to train them properly and the dogs are then abandoned for behavioral reasons which could have been avoided. The problem is so much deeper than pure overpopulation.

Very well said!...Let's see a bill that enforces responsible pet ownership!

And that's what I think mandatory spay/neuter is all about :). It forces folks to be responsible about spaying and neutering. So I think you just reinforced the need for the bill right there. :p

How does is force people to spay and neuter? It can't be consistently enforced. No one is going to inspect your dog and regardless there is no way to tell from looking whether a bitch is spayed (if she is not in season). What is does is force people with intact dogs to go underground, be less vocal, and discourages licensing, the point of which is to insure the public health via confirmation of rabies vaccination, a zoonotic disease. Believe me there are lots and lots of spayed and neutered dogs being surrendered to shelters-- a one day surgery does not equal the training necessary to have a livable, lovable pet that you want to keep and not abandon. You can't legislate everything.

There is far more to responsible pet ownership than spaying/neutering their pet...If we spay/neuter all dogs where does that get us?...Most of us would not have that beloved pet that we have...

The bills that I have read so far have IMO not been a bill that will solve the problems...I do know that they will drive the cost of dogs way up because the only ones breeding will be the big bussiness mills!...What a shame that only the wealthy will be able to afford a pet!...

Patti's story points out so well the problems with this type of law. Requiring alteration to get a license pressures people into early spay/neuter, which is a questionable practice in all breeds but riskier with the toys. There are a myriad of health reasons not to neuter male dogs ever, and people should be allowed to weigh the pros and cons before making these decisions. Frankly, if I were to live in a city with mandatory spay/neuter or breeding permits I would go from a normally law abiding citizen (and a lawyer) to being a scofflaw. I would not comply with licensing requirements and would run the risk of having one of my dogs get loose (has never happened) and getting caught and having to pay the resultant fines. I would stay underground for as long as possible, and if caught I'd move to another municipality that has more respect for its citizen's property rights and whose representatives prefer to think through issues of animal welfare and avoid the pressure of animal rights advocates.

Can you tell this is one of my pet peeves?

These laws have been "propagandized" from both sides- animal right activists and those opposed as well. My opinion is that pet owners and breeders alike need to examine the potential benefits and harms for themselves.

I think they went after a fast fix instead of keeping it simple but very effective by just banning ALL puppy mills and making a law that prohibits each household having but so many breeding dogs, and not allowing dogs to be kept in outside cages or to live outside.

I'm sure there are people still upset about the seatbelt law. Me personally, I always wear a seatbelt and did so even before it was mandatory. I'm torn on this bill because on one hand I feel for the emergency workers who have to deal with an accident site where someone was not wearing a seatbelt and on the other hand what's the difference between me choosing not to wear my seatbelt and me riding on our Harley without a seatbelt? It should be my decision. (of course I wear a helmet, LOL). I do however feel it should be mandatory for anyone under 17 to wear a seatbelt. The smoking bill, I'm not a smoker but feel it should be up to the owner of the private business to decide if they will allow smoking, not the government. I can then choose to patronize the establishment or not. Again, with this bill I do not want the government making such an important decision for me. I still haven't had Bella spayed because I've been too nervous. It scared me to think of her going under the knife and going under anesthesia. She just had her 2nd heat and I'm planning on getting her fixed for sure before her next cycle. She's big enough and old enough that I'm ready to do it. But it's my decision. I'm a responsible dog owner and was extremely careful with her while she was in heat. She had no contact with any other dogs. I would have been devastated to have the government tell me I have to have her spayed before I was ready. Why is it that the responsible people are expected to pay the consequences for the irresponsible ones? I'm tired of it, and I'm sick of the government in my business. You're right, it's done all the time when it's for the greater good but that's not always such a good thing. I'm glad this bill failed.

To me it is totally ludicrous to force anyone to spay and neuter a four month old puppy. Everyone should read about the added risks of spaying and neutering a pet before it is mature:
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongT...uterInDogs.pdf

People should just learn to be responsible and not let their animals run around unsupervised. We need to think about what is best for the dogs health and well being.

What this all boils down to is it's going to force us "reputable/responsible breeders to become non existant....because those that are reputable and responsible include spay and neuter in their contracts and it's the puppymills who produce mass puppies who make the money to be able to pay for breeders licenses and those of us that do it responsibly to go underground. It's sad to be forced to do something it's called a dictatorship in my opinion and I being responsible "REQUIRE" spay and neuter on pet quality puppies. It's not gonna stop the puppymills or byb's because it's going to be hard to enforce.
There is NOT ENOUGH EDUCATION to the public when it comes to owner responsiblity! And I refuse to spay/neuter at 4 months. If it were to happen in my county I will just go to the next county over that doesn't require it and register my dogs there....always around these things....think about those people that don't vaccinate after the first round of shots....I'm not wild about over vaccinating my dogs in the first place....can't tell you when the last time some of my dogs had their rabies shot because they are not exposed to the wild animals or rabbits and rabies isn't common in my area they are kept indoors and if outside are heavily supervised....They have their first rabies shot at a year and then 3 years later and after that no more....so there are always ways around this...


JMHO

Donna Bird
Brooklynn's Yorkshire Terriers

:yeahthat:

Has anyone read the law, or are they getting all their information from third parties? Here's the actual law: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/...ed_sen_v90.pdf

This bill was meant to target those irresponsible pet owners who allow their pets to run loose. Nearly ¼ of all the dogs that died in California last year were killed in shelters. http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/200...our%20Dogs.pdf AB 1634 does not apply to dogs and cats that are the subject of unwarranted complaints. It applies only to dogs and cats that are repeatedly impounded, improperly licensed or repeatedly cited. This bill will not have much of an impact on breeders, only those people who let their dogs run loose, all those oops pregnancies. They would not be able to enter your home or check the premises. The bill would increase fines from $35.00 to 50.00 for the first occurrence from $50.00 to 100.00 and microchip on the second, and on the third occurrence instead of paying $100.00 the bill would require spaying or neutering of the dog at the owners expense. What am I missing? Why are so many people against this, how many of you allow you dog's to run loose? This would have a huge impact on people who raise dogs for dog fighting. They sure don't want their dog's microchiped, and they are often found running loose because no one will claim the bloodied up animal.

Here's an easy to read version: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/AB1...P-overview.pdf

Here's the rebuttal to AKC claims: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/200...C%20claims.pdf

Los Angeles County,california Ordinance Passed
 

I have copied and pasted the ordinance that concerns us all here in Los Angeles County, Califorina.

One can read it for themselves. I have hi lighted the penalties in red at the bottom of this posting.
We did try to be exempt from this law.... however, we did not meet the criteriea, according to the county. This is what we had to abide by. ID is required upon getting a dog license. Like I had to show my drivers license.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am going to have to be off line for awhile due to neck and back injuries, am to start therapy again. Please keep me in your prayers that it will help.
Thank you, Patti and Jack


New Ordinance Introduction Page - Department of Animal Care & Control

IMPORTANT CHANGES
TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE
REGARDING DOGS
In an effort to improve public safety and reduce the number of stray dogs overwhelming our animal shelters, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has passed an ordinance that requires all residents of unincorporated areas in Los Angeles County to have their dogs spayed or neutered and have an identification microchip implanted in each dog. The measure applies to all dogs over the age of four months kept in unincorporated (non-city) areas of Los Angeles County.

Contract Cities
The following cities have adopted the Spay & Neuter Ordinance: Cities

Spay/Neuter
This ordinance was passed to promote and protect public safety from the threats presented by stray dogs, as well as to reduce the number of dogs flooding our animal shelters that are subsequently euthanized. Low cost services are available and financial assistance is available to qualified individuals.

Unsterilized dogs are creating a crisis in Los Angeles County. Stray dogs are public safety hazards, and unsterilized dogs are more likely to stray. Stray dogs can bite or attack people or other animals, cause traffic accidents, spread disease, damage property and harm the quality of life for residents in a community. During the last fiscal year 23,799 stray dogs were impounded by this department.

Unneutered males search for mates and are attracted in packs when female dogs come into heat. One female in heat, even if confined, can make an entire neighborhood unstable by attracting packs of male dogs intent on breeding. These situations often become dangerous.

Unsterilized dogs can create unplanned litters, and there are not enough available homes to absorb this surplus. The Los Angeles County Department of Animal Care and Control is overwhelmed with dogs. In Fiscal Year 2004-2005 the department impounded 40,174 dogs, more than any other animal care and control agency in the nation. During that year 18,804 dogs were euthanized. Despite strong efforts to place dogs into new homes and reunite lost dogs with their owners, there are still not enough adoptive homes available. This department is committed to a “no-kill” philosophy. However, in order to reach that goal we must first greatly reduce the numbers of dogs flooding our shelters. This ordinance will help us reach that goal by reducing the number of dogs born or running loose in Los Angeles County.

Spaying and neutering also presents many health benefits for dogs. Certain types of cancers in dogs are eliminated by spaying and neutering. Sterilized dogs are less likely to roam and therefore less likely to be lost, hit by a car, injured in a fight, or abused.

By spaying or neutering your dog, you are helping solve the problem of pet overpopulation and protecting your dog from potential harm. However, since some dogs cannot be spayed or neutered for certain reasons, this ordinance has exemptions for these cases. These are:

Dogs which are unable to be spayed or neutered without a high likelihood of suffering serious bodily harm or death due to age or infirmity. Written confirmation from a licensed veterinarian is required to qualify for this exception.
Dogs used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes.
Service or assistance dogs that assist disabled persons.
Competition dogs. A Competition Dog is a dog which is used to show, to compete or to breed, which is of a breed recognized by and registered with the American Kennel Club (AKC), United Kennel Club (UKC), American Dog Breeders Association (ADBA) or other approved breed registries. The dog or owner must also meet ONE of the following requirements:
The dog has competed in at least one dog show or sporting competition sanctioned by a national registry or approved by the department within the last 365 days; or
The dog has earned a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working or other title from a purebred dog registry referenced above or other registry or dog sport association approved by the department; or
The owner or custodian of the dog is a member of a department approved purebred dog breed clubs, which maintains and enforces a code of ethics for dog breeding that includes restrictions from breeding dogs with genetic defects and life threatening health problems that commonly threaten the breed.
If you believe your dog meets one of these exemptions, please complete and return an Exemption Application.

Microchips
Under this ordinance all dogs must have an identification microchip. Microchip implantation and registration is available to all dog owners FREE of charge thanks to a generous donation from the Found Animal Foundation. You may obtain your free microchip and registration at any Los Angeles County animal shelter. Please call ahead to confirm microchip clinic hours. Microchip Schedules

Positive identification that cannot be lost, falsified or altered is essential to reuniting lost pets with their families. Microchipping of animals has become a customary practice – millions of dogs and cats, horses, livestock, birds, wildlife and endangered species are chipped. Microchipping is a simple, non-surgical procedure.

The microchip, which is approximately the size of a grain of rice, is injected underneath the skin with a needle. There is no anesthesia required, and even the smallest animals such as fish, puppies and kittens are safely microchipped. Each microchip has a code number embedded in it. When a special, hand-held scanner is passed over the area where the microchip has been implanted, the scanner “reads” the microchip and displays its unique code number. That number is stored in a database that contains the owner contact information.

Hundreds of thousands of lost pets have been reunified with their distraught families because the pets were microchipped. While tags can become lost or damaged and tattoos can fade or be altered, microchips provide permanent identification with unique numbers that cannot be changed. Due to the presence of a microchip, this department has reunified owners with pets that had been missing for as long as five years.

Low-Cost Assistance
Part of this new ordinance includes a $50 voucher program for senior citizens and low-income residents who have a state-issued California Advantage Card. S/N Discount Voucher Request Our agency also has a list of veterinarians who offer low-cost spay and neuter surgeries and accept the vouchers our agency will issue as part of this program. Participating Veterinary Offices

We also will conduct low-cost spay and neuter programs for dogs at many of our County shelters and we are working with a wide variety of animal welfare groups who are active in low-cost spay-and-neuter efforts. Ongoing spay/neuter opportunities will be made available, and we encourage you to check our website and with your local County shelter to find out opportunities in your area.

In addition, Actors and Others for Animals currently provides FREE spay or neuter services for all Pit Bulls and Rottweilers. Call (818) 755-6045 or (818) 755-6323, or visit their website at Actors and Others for Animals : Non-Profit Corporation Dedicated to the Humane Treatment of Animals for more information.

Effective Date of Enforcement
This ordinance became effective on June 1, 2006. The current grace period has been extended until March 1, 2007 to allow dog owners adequate time to comply with the new requirements. However, owners of stray dogs that are impounded at a County shelter during the grace period will be required to comply immediately. After the grace period has ended, dog owners will be expected to be in compliance with this ordinance.

Fines and Penalties
A first violation of this ordinance is an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed $250. If the owner fails to correct the underlying cause of the violation within 30 days after being notified of the violation, it shall be deemed a second violation. A second violation is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed six months or by a fine not to exceed $1,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each subsequent violation shall be considered an additional misdemeanor.
The full text of this ordinance is available on our website.

Below is a portion copied from the bill that is an example of what I think the bill is about. I read this to say that if you have a complaint against you, you can be fined but the fine will be waived if you spay or neuter. It doesn't specify the amount, or what the citation might be for. This gives them the power to shut down any home breeder at will, all they need is a complaint against them.

I'm not a lawyer...could it be interpreted this way?

This bill would also require provide that the owner of a nonspayed
or unneutered dog or cat that is the subject of a complaint to a local
animal control agency, as specified, to may be cited and, if cited, shall
pay a civil penalty to the local animal control agency within 30 days.
It would require a local animal control agency to waive the civil penalty
if, within 14 business days of the citation, the pet’s owner presents
written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the dog or cat was spayed
or neutered.

I'm confused this says that this ordinance became effective June 1, 2006, AB 1634 hasn't even passed yet. AB 1634 is an attempt to cut down on the dogs roaming the streets, you would have to have your dog picked up and taken to the pound three times before it would be required to be spayed or neutered, and even then there are exemptions.

It sounds like we are talking about two different bills. Maybe because only a few cities have adopted the bill you posted, the other bill is being considered. Here are the cities that have adopted the bill you cited. http://animalcare.lacounty.gov/cms1_051320.doc. I would hate to see AB 1634 confused with this bill, it just doesn't seem to be the same at all, and only addresses irresponsible pet owners who allow their dogs to roam loose. For more information see: AB 1634 Official Site - California Healthy Pets Act

This has to do with excessive barking, you can be cited for it, and people who have their pets neutered could get out of the fine. It doesn't mean you would have to have your pets neutered though. I think they thought that this part would "encourage" people to get their pets neutered. Right now you can be fined for excessive barking, the only thing this would change I think is that the fine would be waived if pets are neutered. I'm not sure if neutered pets bark less than unneutered pets, however, I do think a responsible pet owner should keep their reasonably quiet.

Thanks for posting all of this, Nancy, I'm learning a lot here. :)

On principal I disagree with the use of any legislation that includes mandatory alteration as a potential punishment. Big fines for loose dogs are ok by me, but mandatory sterlization is the first step down the slippery slope that leads to the truly horrific local legislation we see popping up all over.

Here is the information about the lastest attempt (last week) to amend AB1634. Who the heck knows what other amendments will continued to be proposed??


AKC URGENT ALERT: CA AB 1634 to Change - AKC Vigorously Opposes!
Print This Article
[Thursday, August 21, 2008]
Late yesterday we received a proposed 12th amendment to the wording of CA AB 1634 which Lloyd Levine's staff presented to our lobbyist. Also, we understand that Mr. Levine attempted to amend his bill in the Senate, in spite of the fact that he had assured the AKC through our lobbyist that the bill was in its final form. As a result of this last minute attempt, we no longer have confidence in the definition of this bill or the credibility of its author.

The AKC is outraged and dismayed by Mr. Levine's last minute action to remove the incentives that were put in place to recognize responsible dog ownership. The new amendment will allow local government to avoid providing discounted licenses for owners who microchip, or owners who microchip and spay/neuter, their animals.

A primary reason AKC moved to a neutral position was because it reinforced and rewarded responsible behavior. We believe the process to advance this bill is no longer being conducted in a forthright and transparent manner. Given Mr. Levine's recent tactics and the fact that we no longer feel confident that an acceptable bill will be produced, a neutral position is no longer appropriate. Therefore, AKC must vigorously oppose this legislation.

Please immediately call and email your State Senator (click here to find out who represents you in the State Senate) and ask them to oppose AB 1634.

For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.

I have a tough time with this PR Release. How much does the AKC profit from the animal industry? To me, this reads like propaganda and sounds like lobbyist-speak.

This is why I have such a hard time wading through any of this.

The AKC makes money via dog registrations, regardless of whether the dog comes from commercial breeders or a byb or a how breeder. And of course it is "propaganda" but not any more so than the information put out there by supporters of the bill who think it will somehow lower shelter #s even though pure overpopulation really is not our problem.

The point is that the bill sponsor had come up with a draft that AKC could stomach (myself I still see it as step one towards the more stringent legislation the bill originally contained but AKC felt it was a decent compromise) and then decided to modify it at the last minute. This supports the fear that once this bill's foot was in the door so to speak it would be exanded later once the opposition had died down.

Doesn't the punishment fit the crime? The dogs running loose are responsible for the unwanted pregnancies, how is a large fine going to help? What responsible owner allows their dogs to run loose three times? The slippery slope argument can be applied to anything, and it's usually used to scare people not inform them. I think many of you need to read more about the big money that is involved in dog fighting. I don't think any of you have any idea how popular this "sport" is in certain areas. I sincerely believe they are the group that is behind all the propaganda associated with this bill, and they've convinced other groups to back them up. A neutered dog isn't much good in the ring.

:confused: 3.7 Million dogs and cats being euthanized annually is not our problem?

How much do vets make from the spay and neutering? How much will the cities make in additional income from fining pet owners? Look at all the unnecessary vaccinations that the vet's are always pushing. Anyway you look at it, it is about money. I totally agree that something needs to be done to put a stop to all the stray dogs running around and their irresponsible owners but I just don't agree with mandatory spay and neutering of all dogs at a very young age. I think there should be stiff penalties for people that just let their dogs run loose. If they would just enforce that law it might solve a lot of problems.