Stop Mandatory Spay/Neuter Legislation
 

As most of you in California have probably heard AB1634 is back and Assemblyman Levine has his credibility on the line. He is trying to save face after his first proposed mandatory spay/neuter legislation was defeated last fall.

To add to the problem, today Los Angeles City Council just passed an ordinance that makes it mandatory that owners have all animals spayed/neutered at mos of age or face severe criminal penalties should they be caught. AB1634 supporters will try to use this example to win their case.

While I do agree that there is a HUGE problem with irresponsible owners and backyard breeders this is NOT the solution.

For those of you who think this is an isolated California problem think again. If this passes in CA, rest assured the winds of change will start sweeping to the rest of the country.

Visit PetPAC to read more about both sides of the mandatory spay/neuter legislation and what you can do to stop it from coming to your area.

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

I think it's a great idea. I wish more states would take the same initiative.

Under the bill, you can get a letter from your vet stating that your dog can't be spayed or neutered until nine months instead of the six months in the bill. This would be great for those of us with toy dogs who may need to wait until they are a little older to remove retained baby teeth or wait until they get a little bigger.

Responsible breeders will have no problem getting an "intact permit" under the bill. If a breeder has a federal tax ID #, business license and a sellers permit to do business as a breeder, she would qualify. Breeders who belong to a recognized registry like the AKC and are involved with showing would also qualify. People breeding dogs, even mixed breed dogs, to be used in law enforcement, fire service, search and rescue, or medical service activities would qualify for the permit, too.

The only people who be impacted by this bill are backyard/hobby breeders who are a huge part of pet over population in this country, much, much more than puppy mills are. Considering the fact that 25% of all pets turned into shelters are purebred, it would greatly reduce the amount of animals being euthanized.

If anyone wants to read the actual bill, not all the websites with their spin on it, you can go here:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/...d_sen_v92.html

sorry..i am all for it ..i think it is important for the pets to be spayed or neutered.it is just my opinion...

What about show dogs? They can't be altered. :confused:

I just read the proposed law, and I support it. It makes very reasonable provisions for show/performance animals. It also allows for limited breeding with strict regulations.

Please read the actual wording of the law that Ladymom provided the link to. It sounds like a good law to me.

I am definately all for it. It is the backyard breeders and people who just let animals breed that are causing the problem. There needs to be a law!

Show dogs qualify for an intact permit under the bill.

i am a breeder and i am for it. i don't mind spending any extra money for my small breeding. now as far as showing, i would hope that the fees would be much less since it is very expensive to be in the show ring world.

I totally agree with your post.:thumbup:
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 with you.

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.

The things I think the government DOES have a right to control are those things which could hurt people if left to the public. I think it is reasonable to require rabies vaccines (no more than every three years). I also think it is reasonablt to take dogs away from owners who allow them to continually run loose or join a pack.

I TOTALLY agree with you.

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...