North Las Vegas passes mandatory spay/neuter legislation - Page 1

http://www.lvrj.com/news/13036327.html 
 

Check it out

I personally have mix feelings about it.

I can see both sides of the coin. Now that one state is in effect we will see how many others will follow.

Does anyone know what the premitts are pretaining to? are they for service dogs or Show /working dogs and ect....

Just another brick in the wall.

Ek, most service dogs are REQUIRED to be neutered, except for police dogs. The article said they were 'Fanciers permits', so I assume that means for show dogs.

It sounds like it's a MUCH better piece of legislation than the California bill, though I don't like the 4 mo. requirement for spay/heutering. However, with a lot of the idiots out there in the general public, it's the only way you're going to keep them from allowing their pets to have accidental litters. I wonder if they'd make exceptions for performance dogs, if shown the proof that early spay/heuter can harm their growth.

The article says they aren't going to be all that heavy-handed about enforcing it. It's mainly going to be a voluntary sort of thing, unless they have to come to your house because your animal is being a nuisance. Then, they will ask if the pet is altered, and if not, you will have 30 days to either neuter it or get a fancier's permit.  I'd like to know more about the permits: what do they cost, and what are the criteria? Anyone come across this info? Louise?

altho i think most pet dogs should be spayed/neutered, this kind of legislation is just throwing out the baby with the bathwater. both of my dogs are "fixed", but claire, a rescue was spayed before we took her home from the shelter, which is i think a good idea, and angus was neutered at 11 months. i might have waited a bit longer to neuter him, but he had to have a surgery at that time, and i felt it better to subject him to only one surgery instead of 2. he would have been neutered no matter what. i was worried that if animal control came by to check on licenses i'd end up being fined or having to pay alot more for his license than for claire. because i wanted to wait (upon breeder recommendation) for angus to be neutered, i was "in violation" of pet spay/neuter laws here. where's the middle ground? it seems it all or nothing for this type of legislation.

Sunsilver, I apologize upfront if I sound a bit testy. I'm just really really tired after a YEAR of trying to educate dog people in CA about similar education. It is the naivite and lack of self education on the part of dog folks like yourself that will drive the nail in the coffin of dog ownership. PLEASE ALL OF YOU WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE. The pet people get it quicker than you that this is about the breach of dunamental rights of ownership AND about the elimination of cats and dogs. As one 7 yr said to me - if they do that there will be no more cats and dogs. Please start your education with www.saveourdogs,net and www.petpac.net  ( On the blog page you can read my testimony on AB1634 ) and the NAIA shelter project information.

To quote you "It sounds like it's a MUCH better piece of legislation than the California bill, though I don't like the 4 mo. requirement for spay/heutering. However, with a lot of the idiots out there in the general public, it's the only way you're going to keep them from allowing their pets to have accidental litters. I wonder if they'd make exceptions for performance dogs, if shown the proof that early spay/heuter can harm their growth."   What in the world made you think this was a MUCH better law - it sounds identical to me with the added distinction of giving you a criminal record if you are in violation ( Violators can be given a misdemeanor citation, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and up to six months in jail.). Yes dear you will have a CRIMINAL record. Also the decision on what age to S/N should be left to owner and vet because yes early DOES carry serious health consequences. What you are saying is that's ok for me and my dogs but no one else. FYI about 95% of pet cats are already neutered and dogs vary between 70-86% depending on the locality. In CA we are talking less than 4% of the dog population in terms of problem dogs - not to say not to work on it- but should we penalize the 96% of dog owners who are law abiding because the 4% who STILL are not going to pay attention to another law. What WORKS is education - in the last 30 years we have reduced shelter populations dramatically thru education ( down 76% in CA). If you read the piece in Las Vegas 1,500 animals were euthanized because of space concerns. The rest were " euthanized, most for medical or "mercy" reasons, such as being seriously injured by a car or in a dog or cat fight."

Oh but I forget you said" The article says they aren't going to be all that heavy-handed about enforcing it. It's mainly going to be a voluntary sort of thing, unless they have to come to your house...". Well in one county in CA that passed a similiar ordinance they are using uniformed officers to go DOOR TO DOOR to check on pet ownership and intact status. LA hired TWENY additional AC officers at a cost of more than a million dollars to do the same. This is not "benign " enforcement this is jack booted storm troopers arriving at your door. THAT is what the law WILL allow them to do. Both this and the CA law also give ANY law enforement officer the RIGHT to stop and detain you on the street to ascertain the intact status of your dog. As a cop friend said to me - do you know how many felony arrests are made on the basis of a 'broken tailight". In the law this infraction is the same as a broken tailight.  Also do not have the time right now to find you the link but go out and look up LA's program called DAW or Directors of ANimal Welfare. They are recruiting your neighbors to become a DAW adn report any SUSPECTED infraction of animal laws. THIS IS HOW THEY arrive at your door dear heart and achieve their goal of a "no birth nation" ( PETA program that they ahve jsut gussied up with a new name because of the controversy around the ol

In analyzing ANY piece of legislation whether it be a statue, rule, regulation or ordindance you MUST look at three things. 1. The intended consequences and 2. will it achieve the intended consequences (Every MSN law in effect has failed miserably on this one) and most importantly 3. the UNINTENDED consequences. You must consider not only what they say they will do under the law but in fact what they CAN do because once it is on the books - they WILL do it -please note examples above.

In every jurisdction that has adopted MSN their budgets doubled, tripled and quadrupled  - all about enforcment and empire building . We have shelter whose populations have declined by 50-70% building new shelters with FIVE times as many runs and cages at a cost of MILLIONS of dollars which could be better used for porgrams to further reduce the populations. Sacramento's new shelter has set aside $500,000 for ART. Yes folks ART. Some of the new shelters also feature video arcades and museums. ARRGGHHHHHHHH This is NOT serving the animals!!!!!!!

 Once again to quote you " I'd like to know more about the permits: what do they cost, and what are the criteria?  Generally speaking there is no standardized criteria.In the CA law they were willing to give puppy mills and commercial businesses a by but not a true hobby breeder. Cost always stays mysteriously unstated - 'oh it will only be a nominal fee", But remember what I said about unintended consequences above. Once passed w/o a limit on fees they then can impos ANY fee they want and if they want to pay for thier entire AC budget ont he backs of the hobby breeders a permit could end up costing $10,000 or even more.  Once again this is not a benign law.

Please educate yourself about some of these issues. Check out Walt Hutchins on the web under Pet law. He's put together a great booklet (web available) on the Future of Dogs. At a minimum please read that and hsi personal story. Go to the dark side and read the AR sites and get a clear vision - they do not beleive we have any rights to have dogs for any purpose.  Also educate yourself re shleter issues and some other approaches than MSN. Check out the Asilomar Accords and Nathan Winograd's No Kill nation ( I like some but not all of his ideas). One of the shelters locally that's increasing their runs despite declining populations is only open for adoptions from 10-4 M-F. Do you think if they just changed their hours they might be able to adopt out more dogs?? Have to head to work but please please educate yourself AND your dog friends AND keep doing what you and I and Shelly and Hodie and Kalibeck all do - which is one dog at a time that we can help we do.

Tig, sorry if my post made it sound like I approved of the legislation. I guess I was just trying to see the bright side of a bad deal...  My apologies. What you have said above is the truth...I cannot argue with it.