furtech | Calif Spay-Neuter Law (aka, "California Healthy Pets Act")

Current Mood: thoughtful

Calif Spay-Neuter Law (aka, "California Healthy Pets Act")

The debate over AB 1634 , aka the “California Healthy Pets Act,” aka the California spay/neuter bill is very confusing. The law basically requires dogs and cats to be spayed/neutered (with a number of exemptions, including visiting animals, working animals, etc.)

This bill has undergone a number of changes. Sponsers seem genuine in their effort to address legitimate objections. I can’t understand what the opposition to the bill can argue against this bill.

At this time, I’m in favor of this law being passed. At the same time, I am still open to arguments against this bill. I know a number of individuals I respect are –against- this bill, but I have yet to hear arguments that go beyond, “It’s PETA so it must be EVIL,” or how the bill will lead to the extinction of mixed breeds and pets in general or other emotio-based arguments.

It sounds like a debate over whether people can be responsible or whether people (generally or just a large few) are stupid.

I think the majority of pet owners are smart and responsible. The problem is with the irresponsible or ignorant/stupid minority. These are the people who feel that neutering their dog is "unmanly". These are the same people who (not surprisingly) let aggressive dogs run loose, don't bother to train them, take them to the vet, etc.

Too many times I’ve seen someone come in with an unfixed, low-quality purebred and explain that they're “thinking of breeding him/her”. Or the line about neutering a dog being “unmanly”. The Hispanic community is especially sensitive about neutering (it's a cultural thing). My basic belief is, "Some people are stupid," and if a bill like this forces them to spay/neuter all the better.

True, such Big Brother legislation is anathema, but the euthanizing of pets in shelters is worse. The origin of all those animals in the shelters is complex: some are from irresponsible owners, some are from "oops" litters, some are just no longer wanted (for whatever reason). The root cause, however, is a lot of animals are born and the Gordian solution is to reduce the numbers at that point.

I looked at web sites of both sides of the issue: the pro- sites seem more calm and rational about this issue; the anti- sites that I have seen are foamy/emotional and cite "scientific" facts that I know are patently false. My tendency is to support this bill. Sometimes the rational majority has to suffer because of the irresponsible (ignorant, stupid, etc.) minority. One pro- site noted the motorcycle helmet law: a very similar kind of debate. The end result is, cycle riders rights were impinged on (they felt it should be their choice) and the costs associated with serious motorcycle injuries plummeted.

I don't believe this is a cure-all law, but it's a start. If this proves disastrous, the law can be changed. I can not see how passage of this law will cause irreversible long-term harm-- yet I see the potential for a lot of good if it works.

As I said, though, I’m open to arguments for either side. Keep it civil, though. I’d prefer the discussion to stay based on fact and reason, but I realize that this is an emotional issue and emotional arguments will inevitably sneak in.

EDIT: As far as enforcement, why not let the public do this? The simplest way to enforce this law is to make it easy for law enforcement agencies (animal control, police, etc.) to check on the status of a pet at an address or from its license (remotely or calling in). When people report a barking dog (noise complaint) or vicious animal or whatever, that agency can easily check on the status of the animal. The scofflaws had better either lead exemplary lives with their pets or get into compliance!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

What I'm concerned about is that this bill will hopefully not curtail responsible small-time hobbyist-Show-breeders like the woman we got Morwyn from. She breeds every few years in the hopes of producing show Corgis, but it is generally true that for every show dog produced, 9 others will most likely be "pet quality" - she made sure we had Morwyn spayed, which we were happy to do.

(And I wish this bill WOULD put puppy-mills out of business, which it doesn't seem to.)

I just don't know enough about it...

And yes, as my husband mentioned earlier, I would not remove anyone who posts about dogs ♥ from my regular LJ reading list... ^^

when it comes to "unmanly" concerns, what is the feasibility of a kind of Doggy vasectomy; leaving the nuts in tact but cutting th vas deferens? so people could keep their manly dog testicals, and testosterone pumped mutts, but any matings the dog managed to get involved in would not result in unwanted puppies. Or is the ability to produce baby dogs what makes a dog manly?

This concern is already addressed. They make fake testicles for dogs. Really. Could I make up something that weird?

Neuticles!

Yup! I keep thinking that some day some super-macho guy will get an extra set fr his unneutered pit bull... Muy macho! ;)

First, the people who feel this way aren't forward-thinking rocket scientists: they're thugs and ignoramuses. Often the kind of person who owns a particular breed or type of dog that is intimidating or aggressive. (ie, exactly the kind of person who shouldn't own a pet, period)

Canine vasectomies are possible, but a LOT more expensive. Neuticles (see above) are cheaper! But-- these guys would probably not even go for this: again, they're the same type that would refuse to get a vasectomy for themselves OR wear condoms, etc.

dogs that still have their testicles, whether or not they are able to impregnate a female are far more hormonal than those who don't have them at all. They can have agression problems and get beat up by neutered males (work at a kennel, apparently the intact males get their butts kicked a lot. Plus dogs that are neutered don't hump your leg as much and are less likely to have/desire sex so you don't have to deal with them jumping a neighbors fence to try and mate with a female in heat.

I know some people on the corgi list were alarmed by this bill. The thing is, a lot of people confuse backyard breeders with the responsible small-time show breeders.

Personally, I think it won't do any good, and in the immediate sense people might turn their dogs/cats in to a shelter rather than spay/neuter (if they're caught with an unaltered pet). Or just deny ownership.

I would far rather see more hefty fines for people who allow their dogs and cats to run loose.

YES to animals running loose.

I was once guilty of having a free roaming outdoor cat, but I can't do it any more. Indoor kitties or kitties-on-a-string for me.

We have ferrets-on-a-string! :D

The new wording (watering the bill down even more) addresses this. The trouble I have is that people keep adding the word, "responsible" in front of "breeder," without addressing the "irresponsible breeder". I think we're all agreed that the responsible ones aren't the problem: how do you deal with the other ones, though?

I know someone who bought a Vizsla puppy from a registered AKC breeder. This dog turned out to have the genetic predisposition for Demodectic mange. The breeder denies this vehemently (before cutting off contact), even in the face of multiple veterinarians confirming the situation. Hundreds of dollars in vet bills and no recourse except to notify the AKC. How do you weed out the irresponsible ones from the good ones?

I'm not and never will be a dog breeder, and everything I know about dog breeding comes from Corgi-L, so my sampling is limited. I know the breeders on Corgi-L are fanatical about getting their dogs tested (eyes, hips, etc.), and they lecture at length that responsible breeders do not make money by breeding dogs. In fact, responsible breeders lose money.

Maybe instead of breeders it has to come down to the individual dog- this dog has been tested for such and such, and can be licensed for breeding.

You're right though- it is hard to weed the responsible ones out from the irresponsible ones. But you can start with the newspapers and Craigslist- no responsible breeder would advertise in such places and place their dogs with just anyone. Those ads make me cringe.

*sigh* I really want a corgi someday. So many things up in the air right now, though.

The breeders that get my panties in a bunch are the ones who buy a "papered" pet-quality (if -that-) dog and say in an offhand way, "I'm thinking of breeding him/her." They have -no- clue as to how to improve the breed and are only thinking, "I heard you can get $1,300 for a puppy!"

Personally, I think that the AKC should change the rules to only give out "papers" to dogs that meet minimal criteria-- or mandate that the pet-quality dogs be sold/whatever only after they are fixed. That way if some schmoe breeds their poor-quality dog, the breeder will be on notice that their line isn't worth sh*t.

Have you considered looking to adopt an older Corgi? The older dogs have a really tough time getting homed, but they're often less trouble than a pup (and grateful, too). I think you guys -need- a dog (but I think that of all my friends w/o dogs).

Oh, I will definitely be adopting a non-puppy corgi. Between 2-6 years of age is what I'd like. I'm just not really into puppies, as cute as they are. :D

As for the breeders you mentioned, yes, those are the exact ones that drive me crazy. A neighbor of mine in Knoxville had a spoiled Maltese she bred twice just because her dog was a purebred and had 'papers'. No showing or anything like that. She loved her dog, but didn't really know anything about genetics, or even her breed's conformation. I guess she got friends to buy the pups, but the second litter had one female pup who was excessively shy, so shy she couldn't give the pup up.

I remember walking with Tracy once at a beach, and we had Wolfie with us. We ran into some other woman with a male Pomeranian and she thought it would be a good idea to breed Wolfie and her Pom, without actually knowing anything about Wolfie! I sort of went "glurk" and kept my mouth shut.

I found a 6-year-old Cardigan via Corgi Rescue for my mom when her beloved previous Cardigan passed away. Her new dog is a sweetheart too. :)

I should get on this corgi list. I have had Cardigan Welsh Corgis for 18 years, bred one small litter from a show-quality girl, and adore this breed to pieces although there is zero time in my current life for shows (which is why right now I have pets - spayed! - only.) Money was not why we bred (nor did we make any profit at all.)

One of my current Corgis is a rescue. And every Cardi breeder I know of does their best to screen potential puppy owners, and would never advertise in the paper.

It's the Corgi-L! They're a prettty good bunch of folks, and very knowledgable. I've learned a lot just by being on the list and reading what people have to say.

They even helped produce a book one year to benefit CorgiAid.

Having lived in Australia where there are spay/neuter laws I'm conditioned to see this isn't a big deal.

But only if they enforce it.

If they don't enforce it, then backyard breeders will still exist.

People dropping pets to shelters rather than spaying/neutering them is silly (Per Okojo's comment above) the FIRST thing I do when I get an animal is book its desexing appointment. it just feels like a responsible thing to do.

Have you ever watched the Animal Cops shows? People often say "It's not my animal" when confronted with problems (dog with broken leg on their property, for example.) It's astounding, but I've come to realize there are two types of people in the world: those who treat their pets like family members, and those to whom the animal is just a thing.

I certainly have nothing wrong with spaying and neutering pets- I'm all for it. I'd like to see pet stores not be allowed to sell dogs and cats, too.

I'm just very cynical about most people and their animals.

I'm also very cynical :(

It's like the pitbull ban in ontario wiping out a GOOD genetic line of pitbulls and staffies while the underground breeders will still, I'm 100% sure, breed mean dogs for drug dealers and tough guys. :/

In Canada the large pet store chains (Superpet, petSmart etc) don't sell cats and dogs, but work with local shelters to adopt homeless critters out. I went to one pet store in Toronto where they sold cats and dogs and it felt really really wrong.

I honestly think the ways you should be able to get an animal are through a shelter or through a responsible breeder.

As an ex-Animal Control Officer, I can confirm that isn't just a once-in-a-while thing. People pull that crap all the time.

This current legislation is a train wreck of compromise and hidden agendas. The best thing to do is structure pet licenses the way we do driving licenses. License the owners… with a validation to allow for breeding. And register every single pet, requiring a implant ID. If the owners screw up, pull their license to own pets.

But nobody will listen to the professionals.

Heck, even my two ferrets have been microchipped. It's not that expensive or difficult to do.

Politicians-- when elected-- too often mistake their mandate to represent their electorate for "knowing better." The internet music bill in Congress is another example of politicians not listening to the artists and professionals actually -in- the music and broadcast industry.

Your idea is better, but would be a public relation's nightmare to sell!

Yep, it's alway hard to sell more regulation.

I think that people who do that kind of abandonment or refusal to acknowledge their animal should have that marked on some kind of permanent record, and that after three strikes should never be allowed to own pets. Of course, they won't pass such a thing even for child abusers (mandatory sterilization!), so it's doubtful anything could be passed for pets (they're just things, anyway-- right?)

Last time I was reading about the law, I remember having two major concerns about it. The first was that the law as written seemed to have a very biased exception about breeding that seemed Nazi-like in its concerns for racial purity. I certainly don't think it's right for any Joe on the street to breed his dog for stupid reasons (or to fail to prevent his dog from breeding and leading to unnecessary litters), but at the same time I find considering whether a dog has its authorized AKC papers in order to decide whether you can or should be allowed to breed your dog an incredibly arbitrary litmus test.

This is partly personal and anecdotal, of course, but I can't help consider that both Casey and my parent's mixed-breed GSD were the product of "oops" litters; both are highly intelligent and attractive and have good temperaments, and I think could have made for good litter parents. Both were neutered, so it seems like a moot point, and I know a line to cut down on unwanted puppies has to be drawn somewhere, but it pisses me off that either of them would be considered "not worthy" compared to some snippy little yappy dog that had it's AKC papers.

My other big concern was just that the law seemed almost unenforcable, in the sense that it would be punishing sincere and qualified breeders with restrictions and fees and taxes, while the most problematic offenders would easily fly under the radar, or just wouldn't think about or care about the legal consequences, or would find ways to easily evade them.

(Granted, it's been awhile since I've looked into it so the laws may have changed since then, but these struck me as the two most galling problems in a piece of legislation that otherwise had its heart in the right place. And I have no doubt that the opposition to the bill probably make themselves sound like idiots when screaming shrill against it.)

That's my $.02. :)

Yeah, AKC papers unfortunately mean nothing about the quality of the dog.

After years of experience with thousands of dogs,(as an Animal Control Officer) I think AKC papers are an indicator that the dog may well be over-bred and genetically unsound.

The American Border Collie Association will remove any dog (and all its progeny!) from their rolls if that dog is registered with the AKC. Working dogs need to be healthy and intelligent and all the AKC cares about, what the dog looks like.

Oh, yeah! Man, the ABCA *hates* the AKC! They go head to head with them all the time and make a point to go their own way. I like the ABCA: they're sticking to the roots of dog breeding and have been stubborn or strong enough to firmly establish themselves as an independent organization.

"I think AKC papers are an indicator that the dog may well be over-bred and genetically unsound.",/i>

I wasn't gonna say it, but ... yeah. :)

A working dog is supposed to be able to work. Said work does not normally include strutting a fashion catwalk. :p :p :p

The problem is that "pure" breeds are less healthy than mixed. When breeding for looks, other undesirable characteristics get overlooked. (Like hip-dysplasia.) This law was not written by anybody who knows anything about biology.

Still...that's not to say that random breeding ("oops" litters and strays, etc.) will always produce healthier, better-physically animals. Especially true when extremely divergent breeds (or inbred animals) get together and produce progeny that are malformed or carry bad genes.

Over time (allowing that the fittest survive/breed, etc.), when you get a pariah dog, sure-- you nice, healthy dingo-dogs (I love dingodogs). In the short term-- and with human intervention aiding the badly conformed or unhealthy animals-- you end up with just as many problems.

Oh certainly, random breeding isn't exactly a good thing. The only reason you will eventually get dingo-dogs (I love 'em too!) is that the really bad genetic train wrecks don't thrive.

If you look at the second link in my post, newspaper articles address how the lawmakers have changed the bill to deal with those concerns. As the bill has far fewer restrictions, a lot of exemptions and allowances, I do not see why it is being fought like this bill is The End of pet ownership...

I'd like to see it passed and then migrate to other states, like Nevada, where I live. With the addendum of one litter per year in place, I don't see why anyone should be exempt. Breeder or not. Only a handfull of the pups ever make it it to show and the rest are adopted out as pets. That's plenty of 'extra' puppies and kittens.
I'm for just about anything that helps fund more low cost spay/neuter programs, enforcment of animal control regulations.
I work with pets and watch craigslist closely. It's appalling the numbers of pets to be 'rehomed." There are far too many 'unwanted' pets to condone the making of new ones.

Nevada, Arizona-- the rural states where the stray problem is out of control need legislation like this. Of course, those areas need to establish cheap spay/neuter programs first. Those of us in big cities sometimes forget that in the more bucolic states and areas, cheap spay and neuter clinics are non-existant.

They are more rare here, that's for sure. Luckily many vets step up and offer clinic days for discounted shots and such. One vet I worked for worked closely with several rescue opration and dedicated at least one day a week to free spay and neuters. It was at the expense of paying clients too. He was very busy and needed that extra day honestly.

I'm a little baffled by the uproar over this, other than people thinking the penalty is too stiff. Lots of municipalities have two sets of licenses. The license for a neutered pet is dirt cheap. The license for an unneutered one is quite a bit more. Virtually all the towns here in CT do that. it's not a huge difference though. I think in bethel its $8 for neutered animal, $40 for unneutered. The state minimums are $8 verses $19, but individual towns can jack up the price to cover the dog wardens salary, pet adoption programs, etc.

I see loose dogs about... never. I might see one every few months.

Where they get you is on penalty for not licensing or not giving them a rabies shot. Again, towns get to set price, but it seems to be between $50-$100 for no license. Then an additional $100-$200 for no rabies certificate.

Hit the trifecta here on an unlicensed, rabies certificate-less, unneutered dog, and you're looking at between $200-$300 in fines.

Many of the Californian cities seem to have a similar two tier system for neutered vs unneutered animals. It seems like they're taking this huge penalty on to those that actually licence their dogs instead of enforcing the existing licensing laws. Backyard breeders can probably already get nailed quite easily for violating licensing and rabies cert.

To avoid current hubabaloo it would seem a more reasonable method would be "three stikes" you're out. (or some other reasonable but low number like five) Three unlicensed dogs in your possession you get hit with all the fees for it and you get restriction that you can't get a license anymore, period. And if you get caught with unlicensed dogs again, the fees are doubled or tripled and you could get jail time. If you lost ability to get licenses anymore, its auto-confiscation time too.

That would mean that new pet owners or immigrants that didn't realize they needed a license can pay their fines and keep their critters. They probably won't do it more than once. Genuine ignorance of the law is bad, but people do genuinely make mistakes. Those that constantly have a household full of unlicensed animals will be sorry. If the bad breeders try to get around it by licensing everything, that's a simple thing to have the county records flag. "Oh look, this location has ten unneutered dogs licensed on site, they get a courtesy call from the dog warden to make sure everybody really does have a license and nothing untoward is going on". Just like if you have a food service certificate, the health department will show up now and then to inspect your premises, those with lots of animals will get flagged for a visit.

Many places also have cat licenses, including some parts of california. Same kind of deal could apply.

The idea behind California bill seems reasonably sound, but the implementation seems a bit sketchy.

I agree about the confusion about the furor over this bill (especially in its present form). The people saying that owners will turn in pets if they get caught (or even if the bill just passes): these are exactly the people who shouldn't own pets.

In Los Angeles, there is a $100 difference between owning a fixed animal and an unfixed one. What happens? Most people who don't spay/neuter their pets just don't get a license. So the situation that some cry out will happen if the bill passes (people going underground) ALREADY happens!

These are the same people (unlicensed) who don't get their pets checked (even when exhibiting signs of illness or injury) and don't get rabies shots (despite there being plenty of cheap vaccinations available).

I also agree (and I think the new wording of the law reflects this) that you get a first chance to correct the problem and avoid fines.

Implementation is always a problem (like how they don't enforce existing laws). However, I think that better communication (being able to check the status of a pet at an address remotely or by other law agencies) could make this a lot easier. Someone complains about a dog barking? Vicious dog? Dog that (fill in blank)? Check to see if they have licensed/are in compliance! Done.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Calif Spay-Neuter Law (aka, "California Healthy Pets Act")

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

aggression

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Corgi list? :)

Re: Corgi list? :)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

The ABCA vs. AKC

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

I've been watching this closely

Re: I've been watching this closely

Re: I've been watching this closely

no subject

no subject