CA AB1634 Mandatory Spay Neuter Bill

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by elegntorchid

Well my post did not show up......

I happen to work in a shelter and forcing people to alter pets WILL NOT fix the problem!!! Those that are mistreating animals now are not going to follow this law. Millers will do what they have been doing, simply not providing any vet care to the animals they breed, there in the only people that will be affected are those that care for them properly! I do not agree with having a 4 month old yorkie (or other small breed) altered, it is dangerous. Those who allow "pets" to roam the streets and produce offspring freely will continue to do so. They simply deny ownership of the animal if anyone questions it. Those who adopt from shelter do so with the understanding that every animal is altered, I chose a different way. I do not allow my pets to roam, or come in contact with others for unwanted puppies!! Why should people who are responsible be the ones paying fines or being forced to do something they may not want to do?
As far as PETA, if they had it the way they want, none of us would have a purebred anything!! Current advertising is you just purchased a puppy from a breeder, here is the dog you just killed!!! They are also protesting at dog shows and AKC events. Now we are wrong because we wanted a certain type of pet and chose to get it?????

Only dogs that are picked up three times will be spayed or neutered. If they are spayed or neutered that can't get pregnant or get another pregnant so this does fix "part" of the problem. Neutered dogs are less likely to roam. In addition, dogs that are found twice by the pound are required to get a microchip so that as you say, many who deny ownership, won't be able to get away with that anymore. You say, "why should responsible people be forced to do something they may not want to do," this only applies to people who allow their dogs to run loose, would you call them responsible? It will have no effect on the average pet owner, except your yard will be kept free of stray dogs and cats eventually. It's too bad we need laws, and if everyone was responsible, educated, and honest, we wouldn't, but they aren't, and we do.

[Nikki+2]

I'd also like to ask everyone who posted that education is the answer, not laws- Which organizations have worked harder than PETA to EDUCATE on this issue? Seriously, I would like to know so I can support them.

PETA Media Center > Print Ads > Companion Animals

That's a whole lot of education and that is just the print ads. Unfortunately we still have a problem

[wildcard]

I support no organizations that support MSN, licensing differential or breeder permits. Period. If they are for those things, even if I were to agree with them on other issues, they will not have my support. It is simplistic I admit, but having been involved in fighting such things at the local level, it is a line I have drawn. On a personal level my position has caused me to stop supporting one local humane society in favor of another local humane society that does not support such legislation. Still helping homeless animals, but doing it for an organization who does not think that an unenforceable law(and our local animal control superintendent admits the proposed legislation was not enforceable) was the answer.

Speaking of propaganda, and I think PETA's position as to companion animals was posted earlier but not its position as to PUREBRED companion animals, how is this for propaganda: PETA Media Center > Factsheets > The AKC and Dog Breeders: Partners in Crime

And no, I am not saying that all people who support AB 1634 are PETA members or supporters so please don't think that is my point. I am saying that just as you might consider one group's position to be phooey, so I might think the same of another.

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by wildcard

I support no organizations that support MSN, licensing differential or breeder permits. Period. If they are for those things, even if I were to agree with them on other issues, they will not have my support. It is simplistic I admit, but having been involved in fighting such things at the local level, it is a line I have drawn. On a personal level my position has caused me to stop supporting one local humane society in favor of another local humane society that does not support such legislation. Still helping homeless animals, but doing it for an organization who does not think that an unenforceable law(and our local animal control superintendent admits the proposed legislation was not enforceable) was the answer.

Speaking of propaganda, and I think PETA's position as to companion animals was posted earlier but not its position as to PUREBRED companion animals, how is this for propaganda: PETA Media Center > Factsheets > The AKC and Dog Breeders: Partners in Crime

And no, I am not saying that all people who support AB 1634 are PETA members or supporters so please don't think that is my point. I am saying that just as you might consider one group's position to be phooey, so I might think the same of another.

Yes I did read the single quote that always gets posted on every thread that mentions PETA. If you must agree with an organization 100% before supporting them then I understand you wouldn't support PETA. I agree that it is a very simplistic view, one I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable with, but we all have to make decisions on what feels right to us.

My point still stands that the attempt to educate has been made on a very large scale and has not solved the problem

[Nancy1999]

Whether you like PETA or not, you have to admit that they have lost a lot of credibility with the average person. Many people seem to think any bill PETA endorses isn't a good one, and automatically look at it with distrust. This is a huge problem, and one PETA members should keep in mind. I'm don't know whether or not PETA endorses the bill, but that doesn't seem to be relevant. However, PETA's notoriety seems to be a major obstacle in getting any good animal legislation passed.

[Wylie's Mom]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

My point still stands that the attempt to educate has been made on a very large scale and has not solved the problem

And PETA's stance on breeding is not that propangandist - I can think of plenty of breeders with whom I disagree - they're called Puppy Mills.

[wildcard]

Because I breed dogs and own purebred dogs that were purchased from a breeder I just have a hard time being referred to a "partner in crime," being accused of perpetuating genetic diseases and stomaching comments like "(a)s long as there are dogs dying in shelters, there is no such thing as a responsible breeder." Those things are in the PETA link I shared a few posts previously.

BUT back on topic, I am not aware of PETA being referred to as a supporter of AB 1634, at least not according to AB 1634 Official Site - California Healthy Pets Act although you have to ask them to supply the entire list of supporters for you if you want it, they just have miniturized photocopies on the site.

[bchgirl]

I understand the intent of the bill...but I really doubt much will be accomplished. It's a very irresponsible pet owner who would allow one to roam freely enough to be caught 3 times. Would an irresponsible owner even claim the animal?

In my 27 years of owning pets of my own...only one has ever gone to "prison". The fact I paid his "bail" to retrieve him flabbergasted the worker at animal control so obviously some pet owners chose to reliquish the animal rather than paying a fine.

Another question...how exactly will they determine the animal is on it's third strike? Dog mug sheets? Paw prints? You've been here before bud.

PS My dogs want you to know...it was a CAT that went to prison.

[chachi]

Originally Posted by bchgirl

I understand the intent of the bill...but I really doubt much will be accomplished. It's a very irresponsible pet owner who would allow one to roam freely enough to be caught 3 times. Would an irresponsible owner even claim the animal?

In my 27 years of owning pets of my own...only one has ever gone to "prison". The fact I paid his "bail" to retrieve him flabbergasted the worker at animal control so obviously some pet owners chose to reliquish the animal rather than paying a fine.

Another question...how exactly will they determine the animal is on it's third strike? Dog mug sheets? Paw prints? You've been here before bud.

PS My dogs want you to know...it was a CAT that went to prison.

They require on their 2nd offence that they be microchiped so I quess thats how theyd know

[bchgirl]

Originally Posted by chachi

They require on their 2nd offence that they be microchiped so I quess thats how theyd know

But there is the loophole...irresponsible owners are not going to claim the animal.

Those aren't wild dogs at our shelters...they belonged to SOMEONE. No one has claimed them.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by bchgirl

But there is the loophole...irresponsible owners are not going to claim the animal.

Those aren't wild dogs at our shelters...they belonged to SOMEONE. No one has claimed them.

Someone's claiming them now, they just want to up the fines, and penalties. If a dog isn't claimed after so long, he is free to be adopted, and I think they may spay and neuter them than, but I'm not sure. I know all the dogs we adopted from the pound in California, were already neutered.

[Nancy1999]

A long long time ago, I live in Del Rio Texas, they had parking meters, and you had to put in a dime for 15 minutes, the meters only went up to 45 minutes, and you would have occasionally leave the stores and check the meter. One time, I didn't get back in time, and the meter expired, and there was a ticket on my window. I thought my husband would kill me if he found out I got a ticket. I opened the ticket to learn the fine for an expired meter was 25 cents. That's right, it was unbelievable, and I thought all this time, I've been filling the meters, and I could have ignored them, and only had to pay twenty-five cents to park all day. However, next time, I couldn't just ignore the meter, it was the law, and so I stupidly obeyed the law, but I had mixed feelings about it. My point is that the penalty has to be high enough or some people will choose to ignore the law, the law is already in place, but the penalties for ignoring it aren't high enough. It seems like we would be stopping some of the pregnancies that are truly unplanned, and often result in very unadoptable dogs.

[bchgirl]

I realize this bill is not mandatory neutering...but should I include the word...yet?

I have issues with any legislation which dictates whose dog must be neutered...even in this instance...but only because of where it may lead.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by bchgirl

I realize this bill is not mandatory neutering...but should I include the word...yet?

I have issues with any legislation which dictates whose dog must be neutered...even in this instance...but only because of where it may lead.

Couldn't you make the same argument about anything, dog licensing for example? However, I do agree with you, we do need to be watchful, on what laws concerning animals are being passed. I just think not passing any because it might lead to laws you don't agree with, is really harmful. If the problem is unwanted pregnancies, unwanted puppies, unwanted dogs, how would you propose we reduce this?

[gardenyorkies]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Only dogs that are picked up three times will be spayed or neutered. If they are spayed or neutered that can't get pregnant or get another pregnant so this does fix "part" of the problem. Neutered dogs are less likely to roam. In addition, dogs that are found twice by the pound are required to get a microchip so that as you say, many who deny ownership, won't be able to get away with that anymore. You say, "why should responsible people be forced to do something they may not want to do," this only applies to people who allow their dogs to run loose, would you call them responsible? It will have no effect on the average pet owner, except your yard will be kept free of stray dogs and cats eventually. It's too bad we need laws, and if everyone was responsible, educated, and honest, we wouldn't, but they aren't, and we do.

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...