Stop Mandatory Spay/Neuter Legislation

[Monday]

Originally Posted by labrown

The government has already assumed the responsibility of taking care of canine overpopulation, and this legislation is a way for them to treat a growing problem. You know not everyone will abide by these laws, just like not everyone getting a city license for their pets even though they are required. But I think that if the government completely pulled out of their involvement with pets, we'd have a much larger problem on our hands.

Sadly there always will be those who ignore public laws.
And some laws are hard to enforce (such as "No Spitting, No Littering, keep dogs on a leash).

However, we can only hope that mandatory neutering of pets will help cut down on the large population of unwanted and sick dogs that end up in shelters.

These are the poor dogs who end up wandering the streets unloved and unwanted, or having to be euthanized .

[Bravo916]

Here is the website for AB 1634, what they are calling the California Healthy Pets Act. AB 1634 Official Site - California Healthy Pets Act There is actually a link on that site where you can read the actual bill they are trying to pass.

In theory it sounds really good--like it would actually put a dent in pet overpopulation, stop byb'ing, close puppymills when it really only hurts the people who are in it for the betterment of dog breeds and the actual dog breeds themselves.

They claim to have provisions for working, show, police, and dog/cats unheatlhy enough to undergo the procedure but these provisions put a huge financial strain on the people who are doing right by animals.

Let me explain, here are two different examples of the provisions they allow for unaltered permits: titled dogs (or dogs under 3yrs who are working on their titles) and any individual with a business and resale license relating to the selling of animals. These people need to pay an annual fee (which I will discuss later) for an intact animal permit on each unaltered dog they have.

"(1) The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or her
business license and , federal
and state tax number tax identification number,
California seller's permit, as required by Section 6066 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code , or by other proof, as required by
the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency,
that he or she is doing business and , if licensing is
required, is licensed as a breeder at a location for which the
local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency has
issued a breeder license."

2) The owner's cat or dog is a valid breed that is
recognized by an approved belongs to a recognized
registry or association, and complies with at least one of the
following:
(A) His or her The cat or dog is
used to show or compete and has competed in at least one legitimate
show or sporting competition hosted by, or under the approval of, a
recognized registry or association within the last two years, or by
whatever proof is required by the local jurisdiction or its
authorized local animal control agency demonstrating that
the cat or dog is being trained to show or compete and is too young
to have yet competed.
(B) The cat or dog has earned, or if under three years old, is in
the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting,
herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other title from
an approved a recognized registry or association.

The only people I know with business licenses and California sellers permits when it comes to selling dogs are puppymills. One lady came up to me at a show with my Yorkie and asked me if it was customary for breeders to charge her tax on a puppy--I advised her to run.

The intact permits they mention are clearly stated in the bill that the price will be determined by each county. In some areas with mandatory spay/neuter laws in effect, these can be as much as $500 a dog per year.

It seems highly unfair that people that are breeding for the betterment of the breed and people who own titled dogs who dont breed but arent in the position to make such an important decision to neuter, should be decreasing the California budget deficit.

If you have ever met a small time show breeder--they carefully plan each litter--the are meticulous with the health tests, cross all of their "T's" and dot all of their "i's"--they dont jump until all is perfect. Breeding is definitely not a source of income but more of a passion with the goal of creating a dog that will go Best In Show. We need more of these people in the world. Imposing these huge annual penalties only puts an even larger financial strain on them.

From my perspective, I own a titled Doberman and have never bred him nor do I plan on it in the future--however I am not ready to neuter him just yet. I also have a Yorkie, who's sire and dam are from impeccable bloodlines, who is working on his championship. I havent bred either of my dogs and I dont have plans to as of yet. However, in order for me to remain a law abiding citizen I must purchase 2 of these permits annually which turns my passion into a financial constraint.

Puppymills on the other hand, have that kind of revenue to purchase these permits. They mass produce with no regard to what ill effects it has on the breed. Their only concern is the bottom line. In reality, theses permits are actually a tax write-off because they are a business expense. And YES puppymills do pay taxes--just ask the IRS!

BYB's will just hide their dogs, who probably arent licensed to begin with, and it will be business as usual.

I know my argument isnt air-tight but I hope you get the general gist. Believe me I am all for getting rid of BYB's and puppymills--there is nothing in the world that urkes me more. I just think this isnt the right solution--it attacks the responsible pet owners not the people whom it was intended.

By saying no to this law we are asking them to sit back down and redraft it so that it sends its message to its intended target audience: puppymills and byb's that overpopulate shelters.

Sorry for the novel. (and I didnt even touch on LA's ludicrous issue of fixing dogs and cats at 4months of age...)

Best regards,

[bchgirl]

Originally Posted by MyFairLacy

Sorry, but I'm all for mandatory spay/neuter laws. Reputable breeders should easily be able to obtain licenses

Unless the government decides a limited number of breeders...regardless if they are reputable breeders or not......

[bchgirl]

Originally Posted by Bravo916

Here is the website for AB 1634, what they are calling the California Healthy Pets Act. AB 1634 Official Site - California Healthy Pets Act There is actually a link on that site where you can read the actual bill they are trying to pass.

In theory it sounds really good--like it would actually put a dent in pet overpopulation, stop byb'ing, close puppymills when it really only hurts the people who are in it for the betterment of dog breeds and the actual dog breeds themselves.

They claim to have provisions for working, show, police, and dog/cats unheatlhy enough to undergo the procedure but these provisions put a huge financial strain on the people who are doing right by animals.

Let me explain, here are two different examples of the provisions they allow for unaltered permits: titled dogs (or dogs under 3yrs who are working on their titles) and any individual with a business and resale license relating to the selling of animals. These people need to pay an annual fee (which I will discuss later) for an intact animal permit on each unaltered dog they have.

"(1) The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or her
business license and , federal
and state tax number tax identification number,
California seller's permit, as required by Section 6066 of the
Revenue and Taxation Code , or by other proof, as required by
the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency,
that he or she is doing business and , if licensing is
required, is licensed as a breeder at a location for which the
local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency has
issued a breeder license."

2) The owner's cat or dog is a valid breed that is
recognized by an approved belongs to a recognized
registry or association, and complies with at least one of the
following:
(A) His or her The cat or dog is
used to show or compete and has competed in at least one legitimate
show or sporting competition hosted by, or under the approval of, a
recognized registry or association within the last two years, or by
whatever proof is required by the local jurisdiction or its
authorized local animal control agency demonstrating that
the cat or dog is being trained to show or compete and is too young
to have yet competed.
(B) The cat or dog has earned, or if under three years old, is in
the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting,
herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other title from
an approved a recognized registry or association.

The only people I know with business licenses and California sellers permits when it comes to selling dogs are puppymills. One lady came up to me at a show with my Yorkie and asked me if it was customary for breeders to charge her tax on a puppy--I advised her to run.

The intact permits they mention are clearly stated in the bill that the price will be determined by each county. In some areas with mandatory spay/neuter laws in effect, these can be as much as $500 a dog per year.

It seems highly unfair that people that are breeding for the betterment of the breed and people who own titled dogs who dont breed but arent in the position to make such an important decision to neuter, should be decreasing the California budget deficit.

If you have ever met a small time show breeder--they carefully plan each litter--the are meticulous with the health tests, cross all of their "T's" and dot all of their "i's"--they dont jump until all is perfect. Breeding is definitely not a source of income but more of a passion with the goal of creating a dog that will go Best In Show. We need more of these people in the world. Imposing these huge annual penalties only puts an even larger financial strain on them.

From my perspective, I own a titled Doberman and have never bred him nor do I plan on it in the future--however I am not ready to neuter him just yet. I also have a Yorkie, who's sire and dam are from impeccable bloodlines, who is working on his championship. I havent bred either of my dogs and I dont have plans to as of yet. However, in order for me to remain a law abiding citizen I must purchase 2 of these permits annually which turns my passion into a financial constraint.

Puppymills on the other hand, have that kind of revenue to purchase these permits. They mass produce with no regard to what ill effects it has on the breed. Their only concern is the bottom line. In reality, theses permits are actually a tax write-off because they are a business expense. And YES puppymills do pay taxes--just ask the IRS!

BYB's will just hide their dogs, who probably arent licensed to begin with, and it will be business as usual.

I know my argument isnt air-tight but I hope you get the general gist. Believe me I am all for getting rid of BYB's and puppymills--there is nothing in the world that urkes me more. I just think this isnt the right solution--it attacks the responsible pet owners not the people whom it was intended.

By saying no to this law we are asking them to sit back down and redraft it so that it sends its message to its intended target audience: puppymills and byb's that overpopulate shelters.

Sorry for the novel. (and I didnt even touch on LA's ludicrous issue of fixing dogs and cats at 4months of age...)

Best regards,

I so agree....

[yorkiekist]

I do believe we should somehow get rid of puppy mills and byb'rs, I agree with Beachgirl(above poster). She hit the nail on the head. Personally, I dont want the "government" in my face at every turn.They dont need anymore of my hard earned money. I dont think the new bill will accomplish much, let alone put a dent in the over population of unwanted pets.

[yorkiekist]

Sorry, that above poster is Bravo.

[lreed]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

I totally agree with your post.
Anyway, it may stop people from breeding their family pet but it will not stop puppy mills. They can get a license just as easily as a responsible breeder.

I think the government needs to stay out of my personal business. That isn't what government it for. What does over population of dogs have to do with the running of this country? Really? I still believe it would be against a person's rights to force a surgery on their animals that the owner doesn't want.

I agree! We have WAY too many rules to follow, license to purchase already. This is not the way to control canine over population!

[livingdustmops]

Originally Posted by MyFairLacy

who do you think pays for all those dogs to be housed and euthanized in shelters?...the city/county pays (along with donations from citizens). Also, an overpopulation of animals can be a major public health concern...dog/cat bites, strays with diseases, strays getting hit by cars and causing car accidents, etc...

I agree, it is MY taxes and probably just about everyone on this forum who pays taxes who pays for this.

[hha]

There probably would be more people spaying and neutering their pets, if it wasn't so darned expensive..I think all counties should do like ours, and spay and netuer for $60 with anethesia included in that price. A lot of people can't afford the $200 to have their pets altered.

[Milly]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

I totally agree with your post.
Anyway, it may stop people from breeding their family pet but it will not stop puppy mills. They can get a license just as easily as a responsible breeder.

I think the government needs to stay out of my personal business. That isn't what government it for. What does over population of dogs have to do with the running of this country? Really? I still believe it would be against a person's rights to force a surgery on their animals that the owner doesn't want.

I still believe it would be against a person's rights to force a surgery on their animals that the owner doesn't want.

[Ellie May]

Originally Posted by MyFairLacy

who do you think pays for all those dogs to be housed and euthanized in shelters?...the city/county pays (along with donations from citizens). Also, an overpopulation of animals can be a major public health concern...dog/cat bites, strays with diseases, strays getting hit by cars and causing car accidents, etc...

I'm sure the people who pay for it are the same people who pay for the "low cost" spay/neuter clinics. A lot of the time this goes by county. While the vet may donate their time, who is paying for the building to do this in and all the equiptment?

I also would rather pay to house a dog than pay for a person who isn't married, on welfare popping out kids...

But there does need to be something done about strays and all of that. It should not be a mandatory surgery though. Surgery is a medical decision between me and my vet for the HEALTH of MY animal.

[Ladymom]

Originally Posted by hha

There probably would be more people spaying and neutering their pets, if it wasn't so darned expensive..I think all counties should do like ours, and spay and netuer for $60 with anethesia included in that price. A lot of people can't afford the $200 to have their pets altered.

If you can't afford to have your pet spayed or neutered, you shouldn't have a pet IMO.

Having a pet is a big financial commitment. The spay/neuter is only a very small part of the expense.

[Ellie May]

Originally Posted by Ladymom

If you can't afford to have your pet spayed or neutered, you shouldn't have a pet IMO.

Having a pet is a big financial commitment. The spay/neuter is only a very small part of the expense.

[hha]

But you have to look at all the dogs/cats that people have and they are good to them, give them a good loving home and feed them...some people have gotten their pets from the humane society here, where they are already spayed/neutered before you pick them up..Now, a lot of people that have dogs can afford the food, shots, etc. but have a hard time sometimes coming up with the $200 to be spayed neutered..I could pay full cost for mine, but, the vets here always says, get a voucher, why not save money if you can, so I do..believe me, I have paid full price for many dogs to be spayed, I have never left any of mine unaltered..I'm saying, it's easier for a person to come up with the $60 over the $200!

[hha]

Now, I do have to say...the best one I heard yet, was a young lady(in her teens) hadn't had her female spayed yet..when I asked why?? She said because I haven't been able to afford it..So, a couple weeks went by, and the next thing I read from her was, guess what?? I'm getting another yorkie! Now, tell me, how can someone afford another yorkie but yet, not get the first one spayed? You will find a lot of people won't speak up and tell you(yes, ones that own yorkies) that they haven't had them spayed or neutered yet because they CAN'T afford it..I'm sure there are quite a few of them even on here, that won't say anything because they dont' want to get jumped on..