![[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!
