CA AB1634 Mandatory Spay Neuter Bill

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by gardenyorkies

IT is not just for dogs running at large..It is even if you have a neighbor that calls animal control to complain and someone comes out to your home from Animal Control and you are sited then that is an offense...

The way I read it, is different. It says that the fine will be reduced if you get the dogs neutered. Not that you have to have them neutered. Right now, you can be fined for this, they are just reducing the fine if you choose to neuter. Some people would call this an incentive program. This is completely different than saying your dogs have to be neutered.

[gardenyorkies]

It seems that this bill has been amended numerous times..The original bill was asking for a mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs and cats by 4 months of age...I am sure many of us have read this bill at different stages of the bill...


http://www.ab1634.com/Files/ab_1634_...ed_asm_v95.pdf

[chachi]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

The way I read it, is different. It says that the fine will be reduced if you get the dogs neutered. Not that you have to have them neutered. Right now, you can be fined for this, they are just reducing the fine if you choose to neuter. Some people would call this an incentive program. This is completely different than saying your dogs have to be neutered.

Thats how I read it also

[gardenyorkies]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

The way I read it, is different. It says that the fine will be reduced if you get the dogs neutered. Not that you have to have them neutered. Right now, you can be fined for this, they are just reducing the fine if you choose to neuter. Some people would call this an incentive program. This is completely different than saying your dogs have to be neutered.

Hmmm...I wasn't saying anything about neutering...Just stating that you can be cited for more than you dog running at large!

[gardenyorkies]

http://http://www.assembly.ca.gov/ac...meset2text.htm


Here is a site that anyone interested in reading the original bill and all the amended versions...

[gardenyorkies]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

The way I read it, is different. It says that the fine will be reduced if you get the dogs neutered. Not that you have to have them neutered. Right now, you can be fined for this, they are just reducing the fine if you choose to neuter. Some people would call this an incentive program. This is completely different than saying your dogs have to be neutered.

This is taken right from the bill...

This bill would increase the above fines for a nonspayed or unneutered
dog to $50 for the first occurrence, $100 and microchipping of the dog
at the owner’s expense for the 2nd occurrence, and would require
spaying or neutering of the dog at the owner’s expense on the 3rd
occurrence

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by gardenyorkies

It seems that this bill has been amended numerous times..The original bill was asking for a mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs and cats by 4 months of age...I am sure many of us have read this bill at different stages of the bill...


http://www.ab1634.com/Files/ab_1634_...ed_asm_v95.pdf

In the process of making any bill, they get amended and changed many times, I think they start asking for the sun, hoping they'll get the moon, but will settle for much less. This doesn't seem that wise to me, but it seems like this is the way they do it.

Originally Posted by gardenyorkies

Hmmm...I wasn't saying anything about neutering...Just stating that you can be cited for more than you dog running at large!

Oh, I thought that's what you were referring to because I thought that was the only thing different. I do not know this for a fact though. Most towns now have laws in effect where you can call and complain about noise problems and other things, I'm glad our town has this.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by gardenyorkies

This is taken right from the bill...

This bill would increase the above fines for a nonspayed or unneutered
dog to $50 for the first occurrence, $100 and microchipping of the dog
at the owner’s expense for the 2nd occurrence, and would require
spaying or neutering of the dog at the owner’s expense on the 3rd
occurrence

Yes, and that is under the part that talks about the dogs running loose. Go further down the page, and you will see the other part.

[gardenyorkies]

Nancy if you go to the link I posted for the California General Assembly you can read the last reading of this bill...I think it is very clear there what they want and who supports and opposes the bill...

Legislative Inquiry

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by gardenyorkies

Nancy if you go to the link I posted for the California General Assembly you can read the last reading of this bill...I think it is very clear there what they want and who supports and opposes the bill...

Legislative Inquiry

I just read your link of the first draft, and I fully understand why people would be opposed to that. I'm just saying we should consider open mindedly what is being proposed this time.

[Wylie's Mom]

Seems to be quite a bit of flexibility in the bill as well:

"A dog shall not be required to be spayed or neutered if its owner provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the animal. The letter shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, a description of the dog in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the condition of the dog, and the date by which the dog may be safely spayed or neutered."

[Baby Blessing]

The flexibility here in this bill? I don't see the flexibility in it at all.
Unless a dog has a serious illness it is so difficult to get out of spay/neuter in most parts of Calif. where the mandatory spay/neuter law has been adopted by counties and cities, vets have told me unless a dog has a severe health issue they don't want to get involved in not spaying/neutering, that their not going to take the chance of having their license revoked.

I have witnessed a lady in tears having to have her dog spayed at nine years of age just to comply with the Los Angeles County Mandatory Ordinance.
I had to sign papers before the spay that I agreed to the spay and understood that anything could go wrong having the surgery.......even death. I hated this, because of this stupid ordinance here I was forced by our government to sign and be made to do this because of their stupid law. If it weren't for my husband having Parkinsons and constantly needed by him, I may have challenged and yes gone to jail. I can not believe that a law such as this can be passed. Where was our constitutional right? Have we lost it? I am not of young age and I truely feel that if government officials and legislatures pass bills and laws without putting something as severe as this bill and goodness knows what else in the future, before the the American people to vote on that our rights are being taken from us and this is not what I believe our country is all about.

I speak out every chance I get about how this law is so wrong. For any person that doesn't spay/neuter their dog (I had posted preiviously on the penalties) sad,very sad that a person can be charged with a misdemeanor first month & high fine, second month another misdemeanor charge & hi gh fine and if you don't abide by the law within certain length of time, face the possability of going to jail this is so ridiculous.

If this AB 1634 Bill passes then people will find out what it is all about.
When it all comes down to it I firlmly believe the legislatures are going to do what they want to do, it has been proven in our county and elsewhere in many cities here in Calif.

In my opinion, I believe the reason for this bill coming to be brought forth is because people (IRRESPONSABLE) were letting there dogs run loose, and some people got bit by dogs being astray...... so therefore proven once again, everyone has to pay the price of those that choose to be irresponsable. That seems to be how it goes, the law abiding good people always get wronged by the few that cause the problem.

As far as I am concerned why in the world should people be allowed to get their dog back and chance the poor dog being hit by a vehicle or in fight with another dog and injured after being picked up by animal control the second time around ? I would prefer then that the second time the same dog picked up should be spayed/neutered and then placed for adoption in another home where prayerfully it will be loved and cared for.
I also have been told that any dog/cat adopted through any animal shelter here in Calif. has to be spayed before it can be adopted, that has been far as long as I can remember.

Lot of controversary on the subject of micro chipping, however we did ours and did so willingly in the event of a disaster in case we had to be seperated it would be proof they were ours. The reason for the county was not for that reason it was so they could identify the owners of those strays picked up.


Patti and Jack

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Baby Blessing

The flexibility here in this bill? I don't see the flexibility in it at all.
Unless a dog has a serious illness it is so difficult to get out of spay/neuter in most parts of Calif. where the mandatory spay/neuter law has been adopted by counties and cities, vets have told me unless a dog has a severe health issue they don't want to get involved in not spaying/neutering, that their not going to take the chance of having their license revoked.

I have witnessed a lady in tears having to have her dog spayed at nine years of age just to comply with the Los Angeles County Mandatory Ordinance.
I had to sign papers before the spay that I agreed to the spay and understood that anything could go wrong having the surgery.......even death. I hated this, because of this stupid ordinance here I was forced by our government to sign and be made to do this because of their stupid law. If it weren't for my husband having Parkinsons and constantly needed by him, I may have challenged and yes gone to jail. I can not believe that a law such as this can be passed. Where was our constitutional right? Have we lost it? I am not of young age and I truely feel that if government officials and legislatures pass bills and laws without putting something as severe as this bill and goodness knows what else in the future, before the the American people to vote on that our rights are being taken from us and this is not what I believe our country is all about.

I speak out every chance I get about how this law is so wrong. For any person that doesn't spay/neuter their dog (I had posted preiviously on the penalties) sad,very sad that a person can be charged with a misdemeanor first month & high fine, second month another misdemeanor charge & hi gh fine and if you don't abide by the law within certain length of time, face the possability of going to jail this is so ridiculous.

If this AB 1634 Bill passes then people will find out what it is all about.
When it all comes down to it I firlmly believe the legislatures are going to do what they want to do, it has been proven in our county and elsewhere in many cities here in Calif.

In my opinion, I believe the reason for this bill coming to be brought forth is because people (IRRESPONSABLE) were letting there dogs run loose, and some people got bit by dogs being astray...... so therefore proven once again, everyone has to pay the price of those that choose to be irresponsable. That seems to be how it goes, the law abiding good people always get wronged by the few that cause the problem.

As far as I am concerned why in the world should people be allowed to get their dog back and chance the poor dog being hit by a vehicle or in fight with another dog and injured after being picked up by animal control the second time around ? I would prefer then that the second time the same dog picked up should be spayed/neutered and then placed for adoption in another home where prayerfully it will be loved and cared for.
I also have been told that any dog/cat adopted through any animal shelter here in Calif. has to be spayed before it can be adopted, that has been far as long as I can remember.

Lot of controversary on the subject of micro chipping, however we did ours and did so willingly in the event of a disaster in case we had to be seperated it would be proof they were ours. The reason for the county was not for that reason it was so they could identify the owners of those strays picked up.


Patti and Jack

The flexibility comes from the part that if you indeed have a legitimate reason why your dog shouldn't be spayed or neutered you can get a vet's authorization not to do the procedure. I have read several objections to the bill that included, "My vet says that my dog is to small to be neutered and this law would kill my dog," Or "My vet says that my dog is too sick/old to be neutered, I'm not going to risk my dog's life because of this law." So cases such these would be allowed to get a vets statement that says it would indeed be too big of risk. In any surgery involving humans or animals, you have to sign papers before the surgery that says you understood that anything could go wrong having the surgery.......even death. All you need to do is find one vet who agrees with you, if not one vet agrees with you that it is risky procedure, than maybe it isn't.

Again, with the new bill only the irresponsible will pay the price, those that let their dogs and cats run loose.

You suggestion that dogs shouldn't be given back to people who allow them to run loose, seems extreme to me. Again, what do you think should happen to these dogs? Adoption? You know what happens if they can't place them?

It's really easy to criticize this bill. There is a huge problem, with strays and unwanted pregnancies resulting from strays, the feral cat problem is also growing. We can't ignore the problem; just wishing that everyone would be responsible isn't working either.

[MoGraceLiz]

I've been reading through this thread and I have to ask, first offense, second offense, third offense (mandatory spay/neuter).....what happens with the fourth offense a leg or two. Pardon my humor, but that's all I kept thinking about while reading the responses.

I'm not making light of this, but really, there has got to be a better way. Perhaps statistics show that dogs neutered tend to roam less, I wonder if the dogs/cats have read that.

Good day.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by MoGraceLiz

I've been reading through this thread and I have to ask, first offense, second offense, third offense (mandatory spay/neuter).....what happens with the fourth offense a leg or two. Pardon my humor, but that's all I kept thinking about while reading the responses.

I'm not making light of this, but really, there has got to be a better way. Perhaps statistics show that dogs neutered tend to roam less, I wonder if the dogs/cats have read that.

Good day.

I suppose there would be the fine again, but the IMPORTANT part is that this dog won't be making any other dogs pregnant or getting pregnant, so there will be no unwanted offspring produced from this particular dog.


Please if you think there is a better way, lets hear some of those ideas, lawmakers are working for us, they need our input.