CA AB1634 Mandatory Spay Neuter Bill

[wildcard]

The majority of animals in shelters (more so dogs than cats) are not puppies or unwanted litters. They are there as owner surrenders, mostly "teenagers.". They once had homes. Our problem is not overpopulation per se but animal dumping. These dumpers tend to go right back out and get a different dog, contributing to the problem. But I don't percieve it as a matter of far too many animals versus homes that want them, that's overpopulation.

The slipperly slope becomes significantly slicker when a bill"s sponsor makes last minute changes after hours upon hours of discussion and compromise. If he is willing to eliminate parts now why not try to add more later once the immediate fire is out?

[Nancy1999]

I'm just curious to those of you who are opposed to this bill, what do you think should be done to cut down on all the dogs and cats roaming the streets? If a pet owner has allowed his pet to get loose three times, what should be the punishment? If it's just large fines, many people won't be able to afford it, and does that mean they would forfeit their dog? Who would take the dog? Does that mean the dog would become another member of the "unwanted" population to be euthanized? For those people who have lots of money, does that mean that they can let their dogs run loose without any real impact? We have a serious problem, if you don't like this solution, what are the alternative solutions?

[wildcard]

Also, is California planning on creating a state animal control agency or increasing funding to local govenments to pay for the enforcement and compliance with such a law? Most local governments with animal control departments already have leash laws with fines in place. They aren't being enforced apparently if there really is a plethora of pets running the streets of California.

I fully support government low cost alteration programs so long as they are voluntary, for those owners who want to avoid unwanted litters but who have limited means. Both government or shelter operated clinics and voucher programs are extremely effective.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by bjh

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.

Ab 1634 doesn't call for the mandatory spaying of all pets, only those who have been caught running loose three times. Again here is the link to show how AF 1634 would change the law, the only thing different is first offense would be a higher fine then now, second offense higher fine and microchip, third offense is mandatory spay or neuter. http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/AB1...P-overview.pdf

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by wildcard

Also, is California planning on creating a state animal control agency or increasing funding to local govenments to pay for the enforcement and compliance with such a law? Most local governments with animal control departments already have leash laws with fines in place. They aren't being enforced apparently if there really is a plethora of pets running the streets of California.

I fully support government low cost alteration programs so long as they are voluntary, for those owners who want to avoid unwanted litters but who have limited means. Both government or shelter operated clinics and voucher programs are extremely effective.

There is already a law in place they are just increasing the penalties with the third offense calling for mandatory spaying and neutering instead of just a fine. They will continue to provide low cost spaying or neutering, and if your animal has been caught three times you have a choice to use their program or your own vet.

[wildcard]

It would be VERY interesting to know how many people under the previous law actually paid the fines and reclaimed their pets up to three times. I bet the number was not very high. If animal control agencies are not able show they were enforcing the old law through the 3 steps but to no avail, no reason to up the penalty to mandatory alteration. I am guessing that information was never compiled or shared; if someone knows where I can find it I would like to take a look. I don't understand why a law would be changed unless there was an actual showing other than a few anecdotes, that the first one was ineffective.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by wildcard

It would be VERY interesting to know how many people under the previous law actually paid the fines and reclaimed their pets up to three times. I bet the number was not very high. If animal control agencies are not able show they were enforcing the old law through the 3 steps but to no avail, no reason to up the penalty to mandatory alteration. I am guessing that information was never compiled or shared; if someone knows where I can find it I would like to take a look. I don't understand why a law would be changed unless there was an actual showing other than a few anecdotes, that the first one was ineffective.

The old law says a one hundred dollar fine should be paid for the third offense, the new law says that the dog must be spayed or neutered. Believe me this will cut down on the dogs running loose, and unwanted pregnancies. Anyone knows a neutered dog isn't as likely to run, even those who have irresponsible owners, the dog is much more likely to stay at home, and if he would get out, no offspring will be reproduced. Can you imagine the frustration of animal control officers picking up the same dogs over and over?

[chachi]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

The old law says a one hundred dollar fine should be paid for the third offense, the new law says that the dog must be spayed or neutered. Believe me this will cut down on the dogs running loose, and unwanted pregnancies. Anyone knows a neutered dog isn't as likely to run, even those who have irresponsible owners, the dog is much more likely to stay at home, and if he would get out, no offspring will be reproduced. Can you imagine the frustration of animal control officers picking up the same dogs over and over?

Am I understanding you right they only enforce the mandatory spay/neutering if they have caught a pet running loose 3 times? That seems more than fair. We need that bill here. We have a real problem with cats and dogs running loose here

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by chachi

Am I understanding you right they only enforce the mandatory spay/neutering if they have caught a pet running loose 3 times? That seems more than fair. We need that bill here. We have a real problem with cats and dogs running loose here

That's right, I think there has been an attempt to mislead people by referring to this bill as the mandatory spay and neuter bill, it is not the same thing at all, but certain groups want to pass it off as the same thing.

[chachi]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

That's right, I think there has been an attempt to mislead people by referring to this bill as the mandatory spay and neuter bill, it is not the same thing at all, but certain groups want to pass it off as the same thing.

I dont see why there is a problem with this. It doesnt sound like it affects breeders like other bills that have been introduced. This is more than fair and it serves a common good

[Ellie May]

I don't think we are talking about the same law.
Is this a revised copy?

I thought for sure the OLD AB1634 called for spay/neuter of ALL dogs at four months unless they are being shown, bred with license, working...

If this is really a three strikes and you have to alter your pet rule, that I do not support because if a dog is allowed to run loose on purpose three times, the dog should be taken away...forget altering it. I think if a dog is caught loose three times without a good explanation, the owner needs to sign over the dog. Dogs pack making them potentially dangerous. I fully support leash laws for the safety of the dogs and humans. Spay and neuter after three offenses may help prevent unwanted litters but there is still no excuse for allowing any dog to run loose like that.

[wildcard]

What I am wondering is if in fact they really are picking up the same animals over and over. That is why it would interesting to know if very many dogs get as far as the third strike under the old system. Yes, call me crazy, I would like to see actual facts that show that a new law is necessary before it is inacted. Not just generalizations about overpopulation and animals roaming the streets. Our local animal control did not keep any such statistics. The experience here locally is that they get picked up and reclaimed maybe once but on the second pick up they generally do not reclaim the dog (during the time that our city was discussing new animal control legislation I got to learn a lot about how our local animal control operates and its superintendent was very honest and forthright about their limited capacity to enforce leash laws). I am guessing that is not unusual, someone who is irresponsible enough to let their dog roam is probably not going to pay $100 to get it back. Nor are they going to pay to have it altered. They will leave it at the shelter and it will be destroyed. It is just so much easier to go buy a new one...

Unless I saw that the old leash law was actually being enforced and that dog owners really were reclaiming their pets past the third strike and still letting them roam, I would not support enhancing the law based on a theoretical application.

I just have so much suspicion due to the bill's original format that my impression will always be a bit colored by it. Knowing quite a bit about how at least our state legislature goes about things I can't help but see this application of msn as the first step towards returning to the original bill which was pure msn and breeder permits.

That's pretty much the sum of my thoughts, since I am not here to convince anyone that I am right and they are wrong, I will probably let it go at that since I see I am repeating myself

[Baby Blessing]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

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. [/url]

The ordinance I have posted effected ALL OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, Effective Date of Enforcement below is stated from the ordinance. IT DID PASS AND WAS MADE LAW AS EXPLAINED BEFORE. Effective March 1, 2007

AB 1634 is a State Bill. These two are not the same.
I posted about the situation in our area because it needs to be known what is happening here and it is also happening in other areas.

To date I have no idea how many other cities recently have adopted this ordinance, but as noted below made public by the county, it certainly has been more than a few cities, HOPEFULLY NO MORE. Mandatory spay/Neuter should be a matter of choice.
However, the following is cities that have adopted the same ordinance as Los Angeles County. With cities implimenting this same ordinance, maybe eventually Mr. Levine and others won't be concerned with the AB 1634 due to the rate this ordinance is being pushed through out the state of California. VERY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO BE AWARE OF THIS ORDINANCE AND WHAT HAS AND IS HAPPENING THUS FAR.

Cities that have adopted the Spay/Neuter & Microchip Ordinance
Updated February 1, 2008

Agoura Hills - Effective Aug. 23, 2006. Enforcement in effect

Bradbury - Effective Jan. 18, 2007. Enforcement in effect

Compton - Effective Aug. 9, 2007. Enforcement in effect

Inglewood - Effective Aug. 11, 2006. Enforcement in Effect

La Habra Heights – Effective Nov. 2006 Compliance grace period until July 1, 2008

La Puente - Effective Aug. 8, 2006. Enforcement in effect

Maywood - Effective July 26, 2006. Enforcement in effectSanta Clarita -
Effective Jan.11, 2007. Enforcement in effect

San Fernando - Effective Sept. 5, 2007. Compliance grace period until April 1, 2008

Walnut - Effective August 9, 2006. Enforcement in effect


Partial Ordinance Adoption

*Culver City – Effective Oct. 24, 2006. Enforcement in effect
*License Fee Schedule not adopted
Residents not eligible to participate in Low-Cost S/N Voucher Program


*El Monte – Effective May 17, 2007. Enforcement in effect
*Mandatory Microchips and Current County License Fees adopted
*Mandatory Spay/Neuter not adopted-


I have posted all I know on this subject and what we as well as many other responsable pet owners were forced to do,
Mandatory Spay/Neuter

Patti and Jack

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

I don't think we are talking about the same law.
Is this a revised copy?

I thought for sure the OLD AB1634 called for spay/neuter of ALL dogs at four months unless they are being shown, bred with license, working...

If this is really a three strikes and you have to alter your pet rule, that I do not support because if a dog is allowed to run loose on purpose three times, the dog should be taken away...forget altering it. I think if a dog is caught loose three times without a good explanation, the owner needs to sign over the dog. Dogs pack making them potentially dangerous. I fully support leash laws for the safety of the dogs and humans. Spay and neuter after three offenses may help prevent unwanted litters but there is still no excuse for allowing any dog to run loose like that.

The problem with taking the dogs away, where do you suggest the dog goes? Realistically, do you think it would be adopted? If a home can't be found should it be euthanized? Should a dog be punished because the owner isn't responsible. I hate the fact we are killing all these dogs, but what else can we do with them? Isn't spaying and neutering better than death? Before Joey was neutered he frequently tried to run out the front door, you just couldn't trust the little guy, after he was fixed, I can open the door, and he'll just stand there. People seem to think we are dealing with lots of wonderful people whose dogs accidentally got loose; this is just not the case.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Baby Blessing

The ordinance I have posted effected ALL OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY, Effective Date of Enforcement below is stated from the ordinance. IT DID PASS AND WAS MADE LAW AS EXPLAINED BEFORE. Effective March 1, 2007

AB 1634 is a State Bill. These two are not the same.
I posted about the situation in our area because it needs to be known what is happening here and it is also happening in other areas.

To date I have no idea how many other cities recently have adopted this ordinance, but as noted below made public by the county, it certainly has been more than a few cities, HOPEFULLY NO MORE. Mandatory spay/Neuter should be a matter of choice.
However, the following is cities that have adopted the same ordinance as Los Angeles County. With cities implimenting this same ordinance, maybe eventually Mr. Levine and others won't be concerned with the AB 1634 due to the rate this ordinance is being pushed through out the state of California. VERY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO BE AWARE OF THIS ORDINANCE AND WHAT HAS AND IS HAPPENING THUS FAR.

Cities that have adopted the Spay/Neuter & Microchip Ordinance
Updated February 1, 2008

Agoura Hills - Effective Aug. 23, 2006. Enforcement in effect

Bradbury - Effective Jan. 18, 2007. Enforcement in effect

Compton - Effective Aug. 9, 2007. Enforcement in effect

Inglewood - Effective Aug. 11, 2006. Enforcement in Effect

La Habra Heights – Effective Nov. 2006 Compliance grace period until July 1, 2008

La Puente - Effective Aug. 8, 2006. Enforcement in effect

Maywood - Effective July 26, 2006. Enforcement in effectSanta Clarita -
Effective Jan.11, 2007. Enforcement in effect

San Fernando - Effective Sept. 5, 2007. Compliance grace period until April 1, 2008

Walnut - Effective August 9, 2006. Enforcement in effect


Partial Ordinance Adoption

*Culver City – Effective Oct. 24, 2006. Enforcement in effect
*License Fee Schedule not adopted
Residents not eligible to participate in Low-Cost S/N Voucher Program


*El Monte – Effective May 17, 2007. Enforcement in effect
*Mandatory Microchips and Current County License Fees adopted
*Mandatory Spay/Neuter not adopted-


I have posted all I know on this subject and what we as well as many other responsable pet owners were forced to do,
Mandatory Spay/Neuter

Patti and Jack

The problem I have with you posting the other law is that people think they are the same thing, the other law has already passed, and certain cities have adopted it, maybe those places were puppy mills were operating, I don't know. This thread should be about AB 1634 and whether or not it's a good bill. The other bill is entirely different, and I don't think many of us agree that it is a good bill, I haven't really studied it, but my point is don't believe the propaganda, read the bill see what it says, don't necessarily be against it because some people say it's mandatory spay and neuter.