?opinions On Mandatory Spaying/neutering

[Baby Blessing]

We are curious as to what others comments and opinions on this subject, regarding changes in the law was just passed for all owners of dogs here in Los Angels County Code regarding Dogs.

I didn't know where to post this but thought this thread would be ok. I have typed this from the forms and the letter I obtained from our local animal shelter this afternoon. The letter states that it can be viewed in its entirety through the http://animalcontrol.co.la.us

1. Dogs which are unable to be spayed or neutered without a high likelihood of suffering serious bodily harm or death due to age or infirmity. Written confirmation from a licensed veterinarian is required to qualify for this exception.the written confiramtion must be an original document and it must be submitted on the veterinary clinic stationary.

2. Dogs used by public law enforcement agencies for law enforcement purposes . Documentaion from a public law enforcement agency certifying that the dog is used for law enforcement purposes by that agency is required to qualify for this exemption.

3. Service or Assistance dogs that assist disabled persons.
Their definition of this is: a guide dog or seeing-eye dog which was trained by a person licensed under Chapter9.5 (commencing with Section 7200)of Division 3 of the Business and Porfessions Code, a signal dog or other dog individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability , including but not limited to , guiding individuals with impaired vision, alerting individuals with impaired hearing to intruders or sounds, providing minimal protection or rescue work, pulling a wheelchair or fetching dropped items. REQUIREMENTS: To qualify for an exemption as a Service Dog, the owner must provide documentation satisfactory to the Department that certifies the dog in question is a qualified service dog and the dog must have a service dog license with a completed affidavit.

4. COMPETITION DOGS
1. Is a dog which is used to show, to compete or to breed, which is of a breed recognized by and registered with the AKC,UKC,ADBA OR OTHER APPROVED BREED REGISTRIES. The dog or owner must also meet ONE of the following requirements.
REQUIREMENTS:
a. the dog has competed in at least one dog show or sporting competition sanctioned by a national registry or approved by the department within the last 365 days or
b.the dog has earned a conformation obedience, agility, cating, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working or other tiktle from a purebred dog registryreferenced above or other registy or dog sport association approved by the department or
c.the owner or custodian of the dog is a member of the department one of the department ---approved purebred dog breed clubs, which maintainsand enforces a code of ethics for dog breeding that includes restrictions from breeding dogs with genetic defects and life threatening health problems that commonly threaten the breed.

If you believe your dog meets one of these exemptions, one is able to fill out the Eximption Form and complete and return.this form and other information is available on the website at http://animalcontrol.co.la.ca.us

FINES AND PENALTIES

A first violation of this ordinance is an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed $250. If the owner fails to correct the underlying cause of the violation within 30 days after being notified of the violation, it shall be deemed a second violation. A second violation is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the ocunty jail for a period not to exceed six months or by a fine not to exceed $1,000,or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each subsequent violation shal be considered an additional misdemeanor.

THE FULL TEXT OF THIS ORDIANCE IS AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE. THIS BECAME EFFECTIVE ON JUNE 3, 2006 THE DEPARTMENT WILL PROVIDE A 90-DAY GRAE PERIOD TO ALLOW DOG OWNERS TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW REQUIREMENTS.

[doggrooming]

I am not sure what my opinion is on this topic. I do not live there. I have mixed feelings about this topic. I can see the pro's and con's from both sides. I don't think I would like to have someone tell me what to do with my doggies. I think it could be a good thing to stop unwanted pets filling up shelters. I also think it is just a way to make more money for the counties. I am really unsure about it.

[yorkieusa]

I'm not really sure what my opinion would be, but after all of the poor little dumped and abandoned yorkies I saw yesterday on petfinder, I'm thinking it can't be all bad.

[Surfie and Tiki]

I'm 100% for it.

[Hickey007]

I'm all for it too, but maybe that's because as long as I've been alive we've never had a dog or cat that hasn't been spayed or neutered, so with or without it I'd be doing it anyway.

[livingdustmops]

Until we stop euthanizing 12 MILLION pets a year and have responsible pet owners I am a 100% behind this. The 12 million is just a guestimate as the government only has statistics from the last census at which in 1999 it was data just from state run animal control centers and Humane Society volunteering to give the info. Do you know what the cost is to each tax payer to house these animals and then to euthanize them is? This is in no way a way to make more money for the cities but to end the uselss slaugher of many animals and the high costs of having city/state animal control centers.

[Marie]

I agreed with Cindy.

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by livingdustmops

Until we stop euthanizing 12 MILLION pets a year and have responsible pet owners I am a 100% behind this. The 12 million is just a guestimate as the government only has statistics from the last census at which in 1999 it was data just from state run animal control centers and Humane Society volunteering to give the info. Do you know what the cost is to each tax payer to house these animals and then to euthanize them is? This is in no way a way to make more money for the cities but to end the uselss slaugher of many animals and the high costs of having city/state animal control centers.

I have to say I support this also. Irresponsible pet owners are to blame..IMO .

[Baby Blessing]

Originally Posted by doggrooming

I am not sure what my opinion is on this topic. I do not live there. I have mixed feelings about this topic. I can see the pro's and con's from both sides. I don't think I would like to have someone tell me what to do with my doggies. I think it could be a good thing to stop unwanted pets filling up shelters. I also think it is just a way to make more money for the counties. I am really unsure about it.

I will post my opinion on this subject now that others have commented. We have always abided by the laws, and we are responsable owners to Baby Blessing. We do not want to have Baby Blessing spayed and are refusing to do so, and will continue to do so. We did not get her for breeding, She is registered and a purebred. Today, at the animal control to be told also that APRI is not a recognized club like AKC so therefore she wouldn't fit into their category of a recognized club that would allow her to be exempt from being spayed. That was upsetting, I called that down right discrimination. When I had her microchipped, I discussed the spaying problems that can occur with our Vet and his comment was, things can happen, she is very small. We love her dearly, and we have our reasons for not wanting to have her spayed. We are going to stick by our decision. We shall see what the next few months hold, I am pursuing it with the proper agency to handle this. I think this new law was not properly drawn up, that is our opinion. I respect everyones opinion and hope that others will respect ours. To those that can understand our feelings on this, please say a prayer for us in dealing with it.
I have to handle it all as Jack isn't able to and today it was very wearing on me and quite stressful.
Thanks, Patti and Jack and Baby Blessing

[romeos mommy]

imo it's good for irresponsible pet owners. it's a shame local government has to take these actions. people should be more responsible with their pets. this is very controversial.

[megan_kat22]

I am pretty much behind it. I know it is a somewhat of a heated topic, but I think there are too many unwanted babies in shelters. This is a very practical way to significantly help lower those huge numbers. The amount of dogs that are euthanized every day because there aren't enough people or homes breaks my heart.

[cheryl000]

I am sorry that you have to go through with something you don't want to do with your dog. But I have heard from many vets that if you are not going to use your dog for breeding it is healthier for it to be fixed. I'm sorry this law has effected you. But too many people in the US have ruined pet ownership for everyone.
Too many dogs are being killed everyday. Dogs aren't precious to everyone like they should be. It should be an honor to own one, but anyone can pick one up off of the street and abuse it. That is part of the reason that Pitbulls have such a bad rep, anyone can get ahold of one and abuse it because those dogs are so overbred. This will cut down on the bad breeding practices of bybs and backyard puppymills in LA. I have been following this law in LA and I agree with it. I know it started out with pitbull attacks, but I'm glad they did not make it breed specfic. Now hopefully only people who care about their animals will breed them.

[Baby Blessing]

Originally Posted by cheryl000

I am sorry that you have to go through with something you don't want to do with your dog. But I have heard from many vets that if you are not going to use your dog for breeding it is healthier for it to be fixed. I'm sorry this law has effected you. But too many people in the US have ruined pet ownership for everyone.
Too many dogs are being killed everyday. Dogs aren't precious to everyone like they should be. It should be an honor to own one, but anyone can pick one up off of the street and abuse it. That is part of the reason that Pitbulls have such a bad rep, anyone can get ahold of one and abuse it because those dogs are so overbred. This will cut down on the bad breeding practices of bybs and backyard puppymills in LA. I have been following this law in LA and I agree with it. I know it started out with pitbull attacks, but I'm glad they did not make it breed specfic. Now hopefully only people who care about their animals will breed them.

This new code to the law was passed in the Unincoporated areas of Los Angeles County ( which we are in ) they say it only involves those within this area for now, but eventually will be put forth to be implimented within the cities. IMO the real problem lies within the cities of dogs being loose and strays, and not so much in the unincorporated areas, which are mostly remote areas, such as we are, fortunately people in our area are great about keeping their dogs in and are not a nuisance. I may add dogs aren't the nuisance it is the owners. The dogs aren't to blame for running loose, not generally. Irresponsable people have definately caused this problem but there has been leash laws and other laws which they haven't abided by in the past so how is this law going to change these irresponsable people? As I see it they will continue to breed dogs and not get their neccesary rabbi shot nor get them licensed, they will continue to run loose. I hear this in public from people. It is very sad situation. Too bad, and a little bit too late but maybe through the years more concentration should have been put forth to do something sooner and not this drastic to take away a right from honest and responsable people. I am so glad they made the micro chipp mandatory, and we are hearing that many are not going to get their dogs micro chipped, there again, is the irresponsable people not abiding by this new law. Yes, we got Baby Blessing licensed and micro chipped and doing everything we can to be what we consider responsable and so now we just are hoping that all works out, if not then we will apply for a breeders license and pay the $250.00 plus per year, and that will be the end of it.
These are our opinions. Patti and Jack

[dezertblu]

My only concern is some people want at least one litter from a long time cherished pet, like we had chiuahuas, not pure bred, but we loved them, our female was getting on a bit, but not too old to have babies, so we let her and the male have pups, because we wanted one to carry on her memory in our family, just the same I understand the point and understand many dog owners arent responsible enough to keep thier in heat bitch from dogs, but its so unfair to those who want to remember or carry on a long cherished family of pet, such as we did.I know Moe should never breed, due to underlying probs, and would never give him the chance to breed,I am still in the air on getting him fixed tho, as I am too fearful he wouldn't come home from the op.I guess it is a good idea, its just a shame people cant be more responsible instead.

[Hickey007]

I do understand some of the problems its going to cause to responible pet owners and I do feel sorry for those. I also understand the concept of irresponible owners not having it done anyway, but I feel that if even one or two have it done that wouldn't have before then that's how many litters that we won't have to worry about. I also love the fact that this is going to, try at least, to enforce neutering. I know too many people who have cats and dogs, that run freely might I add, that don't not have them neutered b/c its not their problem if a litter is created by them. These are people who would more than likely would follow the laws if they were there, but they are nto there so why worry about it.

I really feel that this will help, even some irresponsible owners will have their pup fixed. The laws themselves may educate people. Some people just don't get the concept of their pet being their responsibility and that they actually have to take care of it. If more laws are made then maybe they will start to understand just how important it is. Also even if the laws don't make people have their pets fixed, then at least the authorities can do something about it. Without laws their hands are tied.