Interesting legislation

Herding dogs will often nip the heels of sheep and noses of stubborn cattle to move them...this would make them dangerous according to such laws...is the sheep/cow "provoking" the dog by standing there and not moving? lol...be fun to prove that one in court. Given the recent "expose" on open field coursing...no one should think the ARista set isn't watching and waiting to expose the "cruelty" of herding...
 
Beagles sometimes catch the rabbits they run before the hunter shoots them, or calls the dogs off,  same thing, risk....is the Beagle a dangerous dog in general or just dangerous to slow rabbits?
 
Many dogs bite at the vet or groomer....is combing them, trimming nails, or putting a thermometer in their bum provoking them?
 
MRV is right...the language would have to be gone over with a fine toothed comb...

I hope that people who do live where these mandatory s/n are in effect, are taking their cases to court if their animal dies on the op table during a s/n...if the city is going to require that something be done then they need to step up when it results in death or extreme trauma to the animal. Butfor their law, that animal would still be alive and well...heck I'd send them my carpet cleaning bill for if my bitch developed spay incontinence...lmao.

 
Gina - I consider you one of the smartest people on this forum, but I get from this statement that you are somewhat emotionally against spaying/neutering because of the potential complications.  As someone who has had a dog with spay incontinence, which I wasn't thrilled about, I still think the ositives (as a whole) outweigh the negatives.
 
As for bad laws and poorly written legislation, we can all do something about that too.  If you know who your representatives are, write letters.  Ask your friends to write letters.  Contact lobbying groups.  My former job was as a legislative coordinator and every support/opposition letter was included with the bill file.  Sometimes legislators really don't know what this new law would do and they're usually happy to be educated about it.  I'm not saying it's always successful, but if you're educated enough to take a valid stand, it's a shame not to at least try, right?

Nope...I require all my pet pups to be spayed/neutered at 7 months, and all our cats and dogs not involved with the showing were done at or before 6 months...even one done at 8 weeks.
 
I just feel it needs to be considered that many people DO NOT like spaying that early.
 
My main issue, is being told to put my dog thru a surgery of ANY kind. That should be a choice for me to make...after I do my own research on it. Every person who has a pet should have the choice...because this is still America. Education is key, heck even peer pressure can work far better (such as at this forum)...not legislation that takes choices away from people who have themselves done nothing wrong.

My main issue, is being told to put my dog thru a surgery of ANY kind. That should be a choice for me to make...after I do my own research on it. Every person who has a pet should have the choice...because this is still America. Education is key, heck even peer pressure can work far better (such as at this forum)...not legislation that takes choices away from people who have themselves done nothing wrong.

 
I see your point, to a degree, but when I rescued Sassy, they didn't even ask my opinion.  They said "you can pick her up following her spay at ...........".   The cost was included in the adoption fee.  I love that they do that. 
 
I realize this might be a crazy comparison, but no one in California liked catalytic convertors, but we didn't get to say "no thanks, I'll pass on that".  Why can't owning a pet be considered a privilege rather than a right and the privilege includes certain rules, such as either spay/neuter it or [fill in something reasonable and enforceable]?

I don't mind the theory, in some ways, it's the execution.
 
They just need to be really careful and I think Gina is right that lawmakers may be looking for quick solutions.  Which does not usually equal thorough.

Absolutely...shelters and rescues do what they have to to ensure they don't add to the problem they are there to solve. Puppies from reputable breeders who sell on limited reg and have s/n contracts are NOT the reason dogs are overpopulating. I'd ask that the government does not regulate me like a criminal or like a child incapable of making good decisions myself...until I, personally do something to warrant it.

Again...this does nothing to address the problem of people who do NOT wish to s/n prior to 1 year of age...most statutes have either 6 months or 4 MONTHS as the timeframe it must be done in. Many folks...esp in large breeds would not be comfortable with that

I agree with you entirely on this point.  Alot of the large breeds need to have a solid foundation before the spay/neuter happens.  If you are participating is certain activities such as lure coursing, agility, ground dog, or other trials, that extra pound or two of muscle can make the difference between a dog that performs as it should or a dog that doesn't.  While it doesn't make them any less of a family pet, it could affect performance, growth, and a myriad of other details that simply get lost in the legislation.

My vet, prior to my knowledge that X would be a conformation dog, didn't even want to think about neutering until he was 8-10 months.

My dog Tasha would be considered dangerous by that law.  She's bitten two people but neither were reported.  One at a vet's office when a tech stuck their hand in her cage cause they felt bad for her cause she was so scared.  The vet told me about it and I was mortified.  She had been 6 months old and in for her spay.

The second she had fallen in the lake off a deep spot and a stranger went to grab her and pull her out, Tasha bit her before I could race down and pull her out myself.  I've worked hard on socializing her over the years and have had no other problems like that.  I still watch her when interacting with kids cause I just don't trust her but she's never shown me anything that would lead me to believe she'd bite without some kind of warning from her where I could intervene.

I agree Gina, to a point.  I think all shelter dogs should be s/n before leaving.  This should not be a choice for the new owner.  When I worked for AC I actually heard one woman who was thinking of adopting a dog that she wanted it to have a litter first...  [X(]  I don't think they let her adopt but that was before they could send all dogs home with spay/neuter.  At that time, 6 years ago, only dogs that were or looked to be PB were sent to the vet's for s/n before going home.

And for what it's worth, the local laws around here just repealed the license requirement because they couldn't enforce it..  [8|]

I have to stand with Cakana. Owning a dog should be a priviledge not a right. It should be a lot harder to get a dog and even more difficult to breed them. Maybe they should be like owning a car. You should have a dog owners licence with points. Everytime you are in breech of the law - ie dog off leash, not vaccinated, not licenced, running loose etc. you lose points and eventually risk loosing your dog. People are irresponsible because they are allowed to be.

 

Hooray for Virginia!  Even slipping an anti-BSL into that law!  [sm=clapping%20hands%20smiley.gif]
(I'm all full of applause today!)

Hooray for Virginia!

 
I'm pretty happy with the statutes myself.  Our animal welfare and animal cruelty laws are quite stringent as well.  Though the penalties aren't as stiff as I'd like to see, they're tougher than a lot of places.

That may be the way you feel Denise but I do not agree, the only thing making owning or breeding a dog harder does...is encourage under the table breeding and selling, and place a premium on dogs, that breeding them or selling them, is worth the risk for the payoff...and lessens the actual "value" of the dog as a living creature...and increases it's "value" as a commodity. People that have NO interest in breeding dogs will perk up their ears once they see there is real money, (and an element of risk) to be made off people desperate to have that which the government has denied them because of previous infractions.
 
You'd create a black market for dogs. Anything difficult to have, that might bring status or joy to it's owner...like a car, brings with it an entire culture of crime, theft...fraud...violence, etc.
 
Care standards are a whole different kettle of fish...how'd you like to have your license revoked because you did NOT get yearly combo vaccinations...but preferred to do titers? Or got cited because your Sloughi or Saluki was 'malnourished'? That's neglect...after all...according to legislators who only look at the old school info of what's "proper" in terms of the above...and famously have almost zero knowledge of dogs themselves.
 
No thanks...enforce what you have before you make more rules and laws.

But...that is apparently the plan...to make it harder and harder for the people who breed the right way...to do so, and then eventually...when the only place people can get a dog is the shelter rescue (sounds good, except that won't be the place many people will ever look if they want a purebred puppy), or the pet shop (if you want a purebred puppy)...or some JimBob or Amish kennel outside city limits...well I am sure that'll be okay.

Gina, your assesment of the whole thing makes sense, but I am curious. Is this hyperbole, or do you really see a concerted effort or "plan" to put the responsible breeder out and the puppy store or Amish Mill in?