Florida Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill Introduced

[amandawash]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

Well the way I'm reading it is this isn't meant to shut down breeders it's meant to prevent unwanted and careless breeding. Show breeders can keep right on doing what they do and non show breeders only have to apply for a permit. Here it is as of now if anyone is interested. http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sectio...1&Session=2009 My only real problem with it is I would prefer the neuter age to be a bit older. It does stipulate that if it is unsafe, for whatever reason, to neuter your animal (such as being too little) your vet only has to certify that in writing. Any vet should be willing to do that and if not I'd be looking for a new vet.

I understand the AKC being against this as breeding is their income. All of my dogs are AKC and I do believe it's the most responsible registry in the US but we all know the dollar is the bottom line or we wouldn't have so many AKC puppy mill dogs.

I am one of those people who don't believe that 75% of breeders should not be breeding. I actually think this is great, but I hope they don't put the GOOD, quality show breeders out, just those idiots who think their dog is "the cutest thing" and "I just HAVE to have a puppy from him!!" and puppy millers. Doubt the puppy mills will ever be eradicated though, and that is so sad.

[Lee B]

Originally Posted by MissPoufy

As a Floridian, and also as someone who lives next door to a man who has dogs he allows to indiscriminately breed and is constantly giving away "free puppies" at our local grocery store, I think it could be an excellent law IF it weren't so costly to have a dog spayed or neutered. The average cost is over $300.00 at our local vets. Unfortunately it's the people who can't afford the spay/neuter fees who are the ones who allow their dogs freedom to breed without any control.

I believe THIS is exactly what this proposed law is designed to do: force responsibiity on those who will not voluntarily take it on themselves.

Please remember that our pure-breds, regardless of whether they come from responsible breeders or puppy mills, are still just a FRACTION of the total dog population.

This bill is NOT designed to penalize responsible ownership or breeders; it is NOT designed to force neutering on puppies who are too small for surgery. There are provisions that provide sufficient loop-holes.

Too many people won't do the right thing unless they're compelled to do so. There *are* low cost neutering clincs run by people who want to help people "do the right thing". Maybe there are no expenisve pre-surgical blood panels performed, but responsible surgical procedures are followed, including anaesthesia and pain meds. These clinics are often run on weekends so owners don't even have to miss time from work. But they (the owners) still fail to take advantage, for whatever reason.

I have read MANY proposed laws of this nature; Florida's is probably one the most reasonable posed. It has all the loopholes needed to not be oppressive or repressive.

Read it again: this requires a logical - not visceral - reaction. And remember: if ALL pet owners were as responsible as we try to be, laws of this nature wouldn't even be needed.

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by SweetViolet

Does the proposed law give any criteria for obtaining a breeding permit? Because if it doesn't, this won't do anything to eliminate puppy mills. Absent a requirement for a site inspection...and regular re-inspection...the mill owners will simply get a breeding license and may even use that as a sales technique "Licensed by the State of Florida."

If the cost of the breeding permit is high, that can also benefit puppy mills as it can effectively limit the number of hobby breeders who can't afford the permit. I understand the intent is probably to reduce the number of accidental breedings among the general dog population, but I'm not sure this is the best way to go about it.

You are right- this most likely won't put a big dent in puppy mills. Fortunately they aren't as big of an issue for FL as they are in many states. This bill is written to cut back on the animals being euthanized in shelters. You can read the bill in the link I provided to see what it is actually for.

Originally Posted by Lee B

I believe THIS is exactly what this proposed law is designed to do: force responsibiity on those who will not voluntarily take it on themselves.

Please remember that our pure-breds, regardless of whether they come from responsible breeders or puppy mills, are still just a FRACTION of the total dog population.

This bill is NOT designed to penalize responsible ownership or breeders; it is NOT designed to force neutering on puppies who are too small for surgery. There are provisions that provide sufficient loop-holes.

Too many people won't do the right thing unless they're compelled to do so. There *are* low cost neutering clincs run by people who want to help people "do the right thing". Maybe there are no expenisve pre-surgical blood panels performed, but responsible surgical procedures are followed, including anaesthesia and pain meds. These clinics are often run on weekends so owners don't even have to miss time from work. But they (the owners) still fail to take advantage, for whatever reason.

I have read MANY proposed laws of this nature; Florida's is probably one the most reasonable posed. It has all the loopholes needed to not be oppressive or repressive.

Read it again: this requires a logical - not visceral - reaction. And remember: if ALL pet owners were as responsible as we try to be, laws of this nature wouldn't even be needed.

There are a lot of options in FL- we have very good animal laws and animal care compared to many states. There is an entire veterinary clinic in my town that caters soley to low income families in addition the the free and low cost clinics offered regularly.

[Ellie May]

This is one thing that makes me sooooo that I can't stand it. I cannot believe that this can be forced on anyone. If I don't want my dog to have surgery, that is MY choice. And what about those people who feel that the risks of neutering a male outweigh the benefits? How is this fair to them? What about those people who don't want to remove body parts from their dogs??? I know I was very close to not spaying Ellie and while she was unspayed, we contributed zero to the population of unwanted pets because we didn't let her run free. There are other ways to accomplish this goal that aren't so forceful. Pretty soon everything will be legislated.

Thankfully I highly doubt this will pass as a statewide thing.

[Ellie May]

Originally Posted by Lee B

I believe THIS is exactly what this proposed law is designed to do: force responsibiity on those who will not voluntarily take it on themselves.

Please remember that our pure-breds, regardless of whether they come from responsible breeders or puppy mills, are still just a FRACTION of the total dog population.

This bill is NOT designed to penalize responsible ownership or breeders; it is NOT designed to force neutering on puppies who are too small for surgery. There are provisions that provide sufficient loop-holes.

Too many people won't do the right thing unless they're compelled to do so. There *are* low cost neutering clincs run by people who want to help people "do the right thing". Maybe there are no expenisve pre-surgical blood panels performed, but responsible surgical procedures are followed, including anaesthesia and pain meds. These clinics are often run on weekends so owners don't even have to miss time from work. But they (the owners) still fail to take advantage, for whatever reason.

I have read MANY proposed laws of this nature; Florida's is probably one the most reasonable posed. It has all the loopholes needed to not be oppressive or repressive.

Read it again: this requires a logical - not visceral - reaction. And remember: if ALL pet owners were as responsible as we try to be, laws of this nature wouldn't even be needed.

If this law is meant to force responsibility on those who won't take it, does that mean that if you have a healthy dog that you aren't using for breeding and don't spay/neuter, you aren't responsible? Then what do you do with the people who feel that the risks outweigh the benefits? They are trying to do what's best for their dog.

Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you but your post worded what the law is about the best.

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you but your post worded what the law is about the best.

I'll try not to take that personally. I'm a tough girl, I can handle it.

BTW, you know what makes me really mad? That a bill like this is needed because our shelters are bursting with dogs doomed to die because of irresposible pet owners. Those who don't like legistation always say there's got to be another way. I would love to hear an alternative solution.

[Lee B]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

If this law is meant to force responsibility on those who won't take it, does that mean that if you have a healthy dog that you aren't using for breeding and don't spay/neuter, you aren't responsible? Then what do you do with the people who feel that the risks outweigh the benefits? They are trying to do what's best for their dog.

Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you but your post worded what the law is about the best.

I understand what you're saying, and agree. However, I also have been around long enough to understand the reality that there are a vast number of people who are NOT responsible pet owners, and it is those to whom this proposed law is addressed.

Also, accidents happen. They're not planned, they just happen - which is why they're "accidents". An intact dog, male or female, can be subject to those accidents. An animal that has been "fixed" (I know, they weren't "broken" in the first place ) has the prospect of an "accident" eliminated, not just "reduced".

I KNOW I don't have to make the suggestion to you to visit a kill shelter ... you know what goes on there. It tears your heart right out of your chest ... you can't sleep for nights because those eyes haunt you, and the cries tear at your soul. The law has good intentions: to prevent the millions of dogs (and cats) who will follow in those animals' paths in the years to come. The ones who die this year, and next year are the result of owners who knew better, but didn't do the right thing or take the proper precautions ...

[Ellie May]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

I'll try not to take that personally. I'm a tough girl, I can handle it.

BTW, you know what makes me really mad? That a bill like this is needed because our shelters are bursting with dogs doomed to die because of irresponsible pet owners. Those who don't like legistation always say there's got to be another way. I would love to hear an alternative solution.

How about something like requiring all dog owners to pay a certain (substantial) amount per year but if your dog does not have pups and is not caught running loose, you don't have to pay that year's fee? More like an incentive. Not saying I would support it but it seems more reasonable. Not sure if it could work because I"m not a legislature... There are plenty of other countries that legislate everything and that is NOT freedom.

And for accidental breedings, leash laws should really be enforced more so than they are. I think those types of law are more fair because it is your dog and it needs to stay on your property or you need to be with it because if you're not, people could be in danger, etc.

Although I wouldn't support any mandatory spay/neuter bill, what I think would be slightly more fair is in lieu of it, you could attend a class on responsible breeding, euthanization rates, etc. so that at least everyone would be educated prior to breeding because most people just aren't.

[Ellie May]

Originally Posted by Lee B

I understand what you're saying, and agree. However, I also have been around long enough to understand the reality that there are a vast number of people who are NOT responsible pet owners, and it is those to whom this proposed law is addressed.

Also, accidents happen. They're not planned, they just happen - which is why they're "accidents". An intact dog, male or female, can be subject to those accidents. An animal that has been "fixed" (I know, they weren't "broken" in the first place ) has the prospect of an "accident" eliminated, not just "reduced".

I KNOW I don't have to make the suggestion to you to visit a kill shelter ... you know what goes on there. It tears your heart right out of your chest ... you can't sleep for nights because those eyes haunt you, and the cries tear at your soul. The law has good intentions: to prevent the millions of dogs (and cats) who will follow in those animals' paths in the years to come. The ones who die this year, and next year are the result of owners who knew better, but didn't do the right thing or take the proper precautions ...

So you believe that even if an owner of a male dog reads on the internet (and teh information is correct) that the risks may outweigh the benefits and they don't want to do that to their dog, they should be forced to anyway?

[Lee B]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

So you believe that even if an owner of a male dog reads on the internet (and teh information is correct) that the risks may outweigh the benefits and they don't want to do that to their dog, they should be forced to anyway?

The wording of the proposed law allows for exemptions by a vet. If you can find a vet who supports the same point of view, your animal can be exempted.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm really not. I believe in the freedom to make choices. However, many laws are enacted - silly as they may be - to protect those who are too stupid to make appropriate decisions. Many times, those laws penalize people who ARE responsible. Just to toss another "hot potato" out on the table, what about the laws restricting gun ownership? Those laws penalize an entire population because of the irresponsible actions of a few. So the Government feels obligated to step in and "protect" us all.

So it is with this: the ones who will not take responsibility are taking the freedom of choice from those who will. But the end result is to benefit those poor animals whose lives end in gas chambers, abused, unwanted and unloved.

[romeos mommy]

This is crazy. Another example of gov't going too far. (isn't this the same state w/ a ban on same sex couples adopting kids?)

[Nikki+2]

Originally Posted by romeos mommy

This is crazy. Another example of gov't going too far. (isn't this the same state w/ a ban on same sex couples adopting kids?)

There will always need to be laws to protect animals and judging by the sickening amount of animals discarded and put to death, I hardly think animal protection is over legislated at this point. I'm not sure why you chose to attack the whole state but FL has basic, humane laws in place to protect animals such as a minimum age to sell puppies (I don't believe NJ does?) as well as other laws that many states don't have such as outlawing the use of gestation crates (I don't believe your state has that law either?).

As far as same sex couples not being permitted to adopt children? First, huh? How are you comparing this to animals procreating?

I have no idea how this relates to the topic of this thread but since for some reason you brought it up... it certainly isn't one of my state's prouder points any more than prop 8 passing in CA was proud for them. I am proud that my state is ahead of many others in protecting animals (which is what this thread is about) and continues to make protection of animals a priority.

[wildcard]

The bill's exceptions for show and performance dogs make no sense. If I as a breeder have an exceptional dog that finishes its CH quickly, then completes multiple performance titles in multiple venues (yes, I own a dog like this) when the time came for me to breed him, he would not fit under the exceptions, because he is no longer a "show dog" and he is no longer in the process of obtaining performance titles. How silly is that? So I would have to apply for some breeding permit with a fee that could be whatever the state of Florida wants it to be? Or I guess I could claim any of my dogs are "show dogs" so long as I entered them in one recognized competition. It just isn't well defined at all.

I do spay my girls if I decided I do not want to breed them. I do it because I believe it is healthier for them. I have not neutered any of my boys since my first male dog. It is not healthier for them, and I do not have behavioral issues that necessitate it. We have not had accidents, we have not had escapees, we have not had unwanted litters of puppies. These are MY dogs and I want to make my own decisions concerning their medical care.

The people that this legislation intends to target (which I assume are people who let their intact animals roam and breed randomly then turn their litters into animal control) are NOT people that are going to give a fart if their habits are illegal. If they have unwanted puppies they will stop taking them to shelters for fear of a fine and they will dump them on the side of the road. They will leave their unaltered adults at the shelter in lieu of reclaiming them and paying a fine. That is not an improvement-- it is a step backwards.

Who is going to police this? Veterinarians are not going to want to alienate their clients and turn into officers of the state. It isn't the job they signed up for when they spent their time, energy and money studying medicine. If enacted, it will be just one more ignored law that only affects people who are responsible enough already to want to comply, ie people who are not letting their animals roam to begin with.

A more positive approach is to provide for substantially low cost spay and neuter on a voluntary basis. The price of these surgeries is getting ridiculous, and the requirements from most vets that you vaccinate for everything including the kitchen sink before they perform any surgery is even more so-- and ups the costs substantially. The county neighboring ours has had a greatly increased rate of spay/neuter since their humane society started offering low cost surgeries. It helps those people with low incomes who want to be responsible actually be responsible.

[romeos mommy]

Originally Posted by Nikki+2

There will always need to be laws to protect animals and judging by the sickening amount of animals discarded and put to death, I hardly think animal protection is over legislated at this point. I'm not sure why you chose to attack the whole state but FL has basic, humane laws in place to protect animals such as a minimum age to sell puppies (I don't believe NJ does?) as well as other laws that many states don't have such as outlawing the use of gestation crates (I don't believe your state has that law either?).

As far as same sex couples not being permitted to adopt children? First, huh? How are you comparing this to animals procreating?

I have no idea how this relates to the topic of this thread but since for some reason you brought it up... it certainly isn't one of my state's prouder points any more than prop 8 passing in CA was proud for them. I am proud that my state is ahead of many others in protecting animals (which is what this thread is about) and continues to make protection of animals a priority.

I meant this as a point that Florida law makers go too far. Animals should be protected , but there are many responsible pet owners. I think a 4 month restriction could cause many problems in small dogs. Some may be too small to handle the surgery.