Alert: Ca Mandatory Spay/Neuter - Page 2

There are plenty of laws already available at the federal level and at most states' levels to effectively deal with puppy mills. The issue isn't whether more legislation infringing on the rights of respoonsible breeders and owners needs to be passed, but rather whether as a society we are wlling to make the commitment to hire enough government employees to enforce existing animal control and kennel laws. The question to ask is why taxpayers aren't willing to pay something like $25 per year more in taxes to hire enough animal control officers and kennel inspectors to deal with the problems this ridiculous legislation pretends to solve - that is, if the taxpayers have even been asked to do so, which I doubt. Beyond likely being unconstitutional because it creates unfettered discretion in local officials and will serve as an impermissible restraint on interstate commerce, the legislation is absolutely Stalinist in its approach and intent because it would punish the innocent along with the guilty. I see no reason why anyone's dogs should be mandatorily neutered because other people are irresponsible. You Californians out there need to tell your local Senators and Assemblymen that if they vote for this nonsense you not only will never vote for them again, but you will contribute the maximum lawful amount to their opponent during the next election cycle. This law would do absolutely nothing to stop puppy mills and is just an attempt by the "animal rights" bloc to attack pet ownership.

Here's a link to an earlier discussion here about a bill the Massachusetts legislature is considering to improve existing animal control laws. Read the links to the existing and proposed new Massachusetts law, then compare and contrast to the piece of shit California proposal: you will find that the bill seeks to place increased accountability upon the individual dog owner and prevents breed-specific bans by municipalities. http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/bulletins_read/87400.html#87400

I haven't time to read all the links or postes thouroughly because of "time" but ya know what I think this is about. Money!! Most breeders will pay what each city, county asks to keep their dogs intake. So will the puppy mills. Lottsa money to be made and nothing gets improved.Don't forget the fines as well. I am sorry but I think there are to many laws already!

This law does NOTHING to stop the puppy mills, and it will have no impact on the animal overpopulation issue. There can be no more trials or shows in California because most of us here would have had to spay/neuter our dogs because they don't meet the reuqirements for a waiver. READ the requirements. No one can meet all of them. Also no trials or shows because no one from out of state will want to come because of the huge fines they will be assessed for bringing an unaltered animal into the state. What this law will do is insure I am a law breaker because should it pass, I will not comply under any circumstance.

Trailrider, you may well be correct that the proposed law is at least somewhat about the money. But even there, the problem is that the legislation would not standardize what a municipality could charge. This also goes to my point about "unfettered discretion" in local officials and provides another legal ground to challenge the law, on the basis that the unfettered discretion will lead to unequal treatment of breeders and owners depending upon where they live and what the local authorities decide to charge. Again, compare and contrast to the proposed Massachusetts law, which sets the maximum amount a municipality can charge for a dog license for neutered or unneutered dogs.

Hang on a sec: the legislation, if I'm reading this correctly, states that in order to keep an intact dog, you have to prove you're doing something with it: showing it, or competing with it in trials. Yet you say this legislation WON'T stop the puppy mills? Please explain to me how the mills are going to show or compete with their HUNDREDS of dogs! I think the legislation is on the right track, just maybe needs a bit of fine tuning, to allow veteran dogs to be retired, and still be used for breeding. If, OTOH, you have your dogs just sitting in your kennels, doing nothing much other than pumping out litters of puppies year after year, after they've got a few basic qualifications under their collars, how does that make you any different from the puppy mills? As someone pointed out, this shouldn't be about YOUR rights, but about the DOG'S right to a decent quality life, where it's treated like a valued companion/partner/protector, instead of a prize brood sow or board! Flame away... ;-)

(Oops, don't know how that stray 'd' snuck on to the end of 'boar'!)

I am not for this, however, if it forces people to title thier dogs in some way, is it not better for the dog? "Dog has earned or is in the process of earning a title conformation, obedience, agility, carting, rally, herding, protection, sporting, working or other from a purebreed registry as recognized by the local jurisdiction." Looks to me like they want to get taxes on the pups, California. They have added a bunch of other restrictions to the bill hoping the legislature will pass for the tax.

I have mixed feelings about most dog legislature. On one hand I'd love to see fewer dogs in rescue and those who are only in it for the money stopped dead in their tracks. There are enough dogs advertised right here on this board to supply every qualified dog owner in this country. We are not helping ourselves much by knocking out litter after litter. Sadly, you cannot legislate morality. On the other hand, I don't feel all warm and fuzzy about any dog ordinance that discriminates or that is authored by non-dog owning legislators. There is already enough dog-related legislature in place that is not being enforced, why generate more? p59 has made some excellent points above. Many of these "puppy mills" could easily and swiftly be closed down right now if the local dog law officers would/could do their jobs and strickly enforce the existing laws. It seems to me that most of this anti-dog crap is the end result of this country's inability to deal with the real issues. For example, they can't stop drug dealing, the dealers protect their own best interests with the use of guard dogs. These dogs are out of control and escape from their insecure compounds and attack and even kill people and/or other animals. So let's blame it on the dogs and since they are mostly pitbulls or mixes and all dogs are the same, let's just ban them all. It's smoke and mirrors and a spin on the real issue, a huge percentage of major crime in the US is a result of illegal drugs dealt by cretins who keep dogs for protection. Not enough cops to catch them and when they do the prosecuters take the path of least resistance and allow them to plea bargain down to a lighter sentence that puts them out on the streets and back into business as usual. They get a new dog, and the cycle continues. I don't want to sound like a zealot, but IMO dog people are definitely patsies for lawmakers at every level from the White House down to the local sheriff. This is a country that does not have a clue how to keep it's citizens safe when walking the streets. If one is attacked by a dog, kill the dog and ban the breed and do everything we can to stop others from breeding dogs. We can all see what wrong with this picture, can't we? Zeroing in on what dog breeders are doing to contribute to crime in the US is a wonderfully smart diversion by our elected offcials who really should be concentrating on the real issues assuming they even recognize what those issues are.

Geez, still not much time but my spelling was terrible in that last past... to busy Easter Egg hunt coming up. P59 I figure they will ask a large fees ... maybe I am wrong. Sunsilver I think it is possible that true puppymillers can come up with false documentation. In the long run if I am correct that its about money, most likely that is all it will take to get the permit. Also IMO a "puppymill" is a place that has numerous amounts of breeds, kept in less than adequate conditions, fed poor grades of food, females are bred litter after litter (for the breeding life of the dog) with no thought of background, health or genetic screenings (forget titles). Then when their usefullness is done they are PTS. I don't agree that dogs should be kept in kennels only, my dogs aren't, I just can't do it. But there are people who do, that I know and their dogs seem happy. I also don't believe in breeding any female heat after heat, but a litter a year, year after year is certainly acceptable until the female reaches 6-7 years of age providing the pups are finding good homes. I think this is alot different than a "true puppymill".