: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.