![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
furtechThe 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!
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!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-10 02:02 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-10 02:32 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-10 07:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-10 08:37 pm (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2007-07-10 09:31 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-10 09:45 pm (UTC)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).
no subject
Date: 2007-07-10 10:19 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-12 08:56 am (UTC)Corgi list? :)
Date: 2007-07-12 08:54 am (UTC)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.
Re: Corgi list? :)
Date: 2007-07-12 01:56 pm (UTC)They even helped produce a book one year to benefit CorgiAid.