spay/neuter bill in CA

That all sounds great, and the majority of pet owners are certainly responsible, but there are some who are not, including in this later is some who are smooth talking and know exactly what breeders want to hear and where they could not care less about spay neuter contracts or even if the dog is registered or not such maybe a Puppy Miller or Backyard Breeder may not care less, and how many breeders actually do hear back from all the people that thay have sold puppies to where some may have moved elsewhere and not left a forwarding address. Things do happen in this world, and I hope you always find great responsible homes for all your pet puppies.

Quincy

That all sounds great, and the majority of pet owners are certainly responsible, but there are some who are not, including in this later is some who are smooth talking and know exactly what breeders want to hear and where they could not care less about spay neuter contracts or even if the dog is registered or not such maybe a Puppy Miller or Backyard Breeder

The problem I have with this bill is it discourages the responsible breeders while doing nothing to discourage irresponsible ones. IMHO, the people writing these bills have a very weak understanding of what it means to breed dogs responsibly.

I would even support a mandatory spay/neuter law IF (and only if) there were restrictions put in place that would hurt the puppy mills and BYBs. For example, illegal to breed dogs without health testing. For example, illegal to breed more than 10 litters a year (or whatever). For example, licensing/fee exemptions for those breeders doing so responsibly.

If we make it difficult to impossible for responsible, small-scale breeders to breed dogs, without doing anything at all to hinder puppy mill production (which is already at a much larger scale), what will that do to the overall genetics of our dogs? We already see popular breeds like Chihuahuas and Dalmations having terrible endemic health problems that are due primarily to irresponsible breeding on a large scale.

IMO, the biggest problem with unwanted pets is not small scale or even BYBs, it's puppy mills which not only produce obscene quantities of unhealthy pups but also perpetuate the idea that it's okay for dogs to be mass-produced and marketed like stuffed animals, only to be discarded when they're no longer "fun" (or when their genetic health problems catch up to them). 

Cita

The problem I have with this bill is it discourages the responsible breeders while doing nothing to discourage irresponsible ones. IMHO, the people writing these bills have a very weak understanding of what it means to breed dogs responsibly.

Well I think those who live here and comply regarding this:-
http://animalcare.lacounty.gov/cms1_045498.asp
 
Well they might like to fill in a form like this for exemptions:-
http://animalcare.lacounty.gov/cms1_045450.pdf
 
Maybe we might see other places with such things when they consider having such ordinances or laws, this even if happened to be a state thing.
.

Well, I think the "purebred breed club" membership exemption is a step in the right direction, at least. That might also make it easier for non-showing dog breeders (such as livestock guardian dogs, or herders, or mushers, or whatever) to also have a shot at breeding responsibly for their chosen purpose.

It still frightens me that the government can decide what is and is not a sanctioned club, but IMO at least it's a step in the right direction.

What I'd *really* like to see from the government is less mucking about with wars in other countries, and more enforcement of the laws currently in place (such as leash laws), not to mention more funding for a more responsive Animal Control where we could actually get help proactively before animals (or people!) are in imminent danger.

I too think it's step in the right direction, but I did not see any cost associated with exemptions on their website. Maybe someone can contact them and ask then let us know. I wonder if anyone has forwarded information on what's happening there to Levine and members of the State Senate, maybe they already know.

Quincy

I too think it's step in the right direction,

You know what is even a bigger step in the right direction.  Enforce the existing leash/confinement laws.  If you read Levine's and the supporters of the bill words on this it is the fault of every greedy, evil breeder that dogs are getting euth in shelters.  What a bunch of bull.  Why don't they enforce existing laws!!!!!  No there are stray dogs running around because people don't follow the existing laws.  Tell me also why cats aren't addressed separately.  They have a much bigger contribution to the shelter statistics and there euth rate is much higher.  The folks that want to allow feral populations without aggressive population control are a much bigger contributer.  How many good TNR programs are out there.  Also why don't we see good detailed statistics concerning the dogs that are getting euthanized.  I would like to know the breed or breed mixes of the dogs being put down and the reasons including whether it is illness related, behavior related, adaptability related (breed type) and what socio-economic area the dog came from.  I think you would see some things that politicians don't want to address.  Not every breed has population problems, in fact most don't.  It is just a few types involved.  Why don't politicians use a scalpel to address the problem instead of a chain saw.

timsdat

Why don't they enforce existing laws!!!!! 

Maybe Cities and Counties are stuck in a cycle, where they are already spending so much that they don't want to spend any more, and enforcement certainly does cost. To break the cycle cities and counties need to really make an effort to gather money from those who do not license their dogs and cats, and there are heaps of them out there, starting with something like this, with official uniformed persons who carry photo identification, and it's surprising how many dogs like to greet such persons at the door or bark from inside or from backyards:-
http://www.cityofventura.net/newsmanager/templates/?a=1220&z=9
 
I've read somewhere that when licenses fall 20% below the population that it becomes cost effective to employ uniformed persons to specifically do door knocking, this to chase up those who have not licensed their pets, and where extra funding to pay for shelters plus enforecement can be obtained by fineing those who do not license their pets. 

Whilst going around knocking on doors such uniformed persons can be on the lookout for other things that don't comply to laws, and gees they might even bump into a backyard breeder with heaps of dogs where laws maybe being broken in relation to "care and conditions".

But then along comes some people mentioning "rights" and which tends to deflate the desire towards the above and the old cycle continues.
.

Quincy

But then along comes some people mentioning "rights" and which tends to deflate the desire towards the above and the old cycle continues.

Yes, people tend to get a little upset about searches without warrants.  Kind of a bill of rights thing.  Door to door stuff kind of reminds people of what happened in Germany about 70 years ago.

Around here they did a code enforcement sweep.  They targeted neighborhoods with large numbers of complaints about dog bites, loose running dogs, and histories of code problems.  Now the officials couldn't enter a property without the owners permission but could observe things from the street.  Only when they saw those things from public property could they act.  Now people from the utility properties went along to do a utilities check and to look for people that had hooked up illegally, etc.  If the utility people saw a problem and reported it then the public officials could act.  They also looked for problems with pets.  I'll tell you there was a uproar from activists about this saying they were profiling etc.  Don't know of the county will be able to do it again.  That is where any type of door to door sweep will run into problems. 

In some places in Florida it is estimated that 80% of the euthanasia are feral cats and if a AC tries to get the feral problem under control the AR cat activists are up in arms and cause such a stink that AC has to back down.  There are just about as many ferals in our county as owned cats and AC hands are tied due to the activists.

I did just read this today.

New Hampshire dramatically reduced the number of animals euthanized through a spay and neuter program targeted to low-income pet owners and paid for it with a $2 surcharge on dog licenses.

I'm wondering why organizations like the HSUS and others don't allocate more resourses towards funding spay and neuter programs.  After all they bring in over $100 million a year.  That could go a long way in getting more resources available.  Just think of all the money that has been spent trying to get the Ca bill passed.  That to could go a long way also.

I'm wondering why organizations like the HSUS and others don't allocate more resourses towards funding spay and neuter programs.

Because the HSUS is completely useless and despicably fraudulent. It raises money by sending postcards/newletters with donation request to everyone, especially targeting the elderly. Everyone thinks their money is going towards helping the cute little shelter doggie on the newsletter - NOPE!. The money goes towards sending more postcards/newletters begging for funds under the guise of helping shelters, and towards the salaries and pockets of the administrators, and towards fundraising campaigns, towards special interest groups who bomb labs....practically (or even truly) nothing for shelters/rescues. I have nothing but contempt for the HSUS.

whtsthfrequency

Because the HSUS is completely useless

I was really hoping that Quincy would answer why the champion organization for these bills isn't utilizing their vast resources to assist people with spay and neuter.

timsdat

whtsthfrequency

Because the HSUS is completely useless

I was really hoping that Quincy would answer why the champion organization for these bills isn't utilizing their vast resources to assist people with spay and neuter.

I cannot answer for HSUS for I have nothing to do with them nor do I donate money to them.

LA City Council just approved their spay neuter ordinance, and I feel LA City Council should provide all the assistance to the people within their jurisdiction. Animal Services General Manager Ed Boks estimated that it will cost $380,000 to $400,000 to implement the ordinance. I heard the LA City Council is going to provide that funding, and if more is needed then they should provide more.

Edited in - Looks like the news about LA City Council and it's new ordinance is starting to spread around the media, and it appears that the final approval vote was 14 to 1 for the ordinance, and timsdat maybe you can ask LA City Council what persons or what organisations might have been the champion in regards to their particular ordinance, anyway see the news via this link:-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/us/13brfs-PETSTERILIZA_BRF.html
.

What a sad day, when goverment micro management comes into play.  Legislation for "morality" had never been successful.  Sure wish there had been the williness to enforce the existing laws rather than write another one that will end up costing far more than anyone realizes now (in more ways than one)