Spay-neuter law works in Santa Cruz

It's quite understandable that a goal of zero euthanasia is just not obtainable, an example such as a shelter may receive so many injured or sick frail old pets where it would be humane to euthanize them to end their suffering, and these would be included in the shelter's euthanasia statistics.

 
And nowhere do I see in the pro bills statements that of the 100 or so thousand dogs that where put down last year how many of the were owner requested, dogs that should be euth for medical reasons and dogs that have issues that make them un-adoptable.  If you had these numbers I believe that the number of healthy adoptable dogs would be much lower.
 

Timsdat, I'm not going to sit on this computer all day to type this or that in an attempt to change your views and opinions regarding this Bill, and all that you have typed is not going to change my views and opinions, and I will support this Bill on what I feel is ethical and moral grounds where we cannot continue to kill huge quantities of perfectly healthy dogs and cats.
 

Are so many killed because there truly are too many pets, or because the owners simply aren't responsible enough?  I'm asking that as a valid question, b/c as of yet I haven't really taken sides on this issue.  How do we prove that the supply of animals exceeds the demand?  I think that the euthanasia statistics do establish a correlation, but not a causal link.  Is it even possible to prove a cause-effect relationship?

ORIGINAL: Liesje
Are so many killed because there truly are too many pets, or because the owners simply aren't responsible enough?  I'm asking that as a valid question, b/c as of yet I haven't really taken sides on this issue.  How do we prove that the supply of animals exceeds the demand?  I think that the euthanasia statistics do establish a correlation, but not a causal link.  Is it even possible to prove a cause-effect relationship?

 
The reason that so many are killed is that not enough people want to provide them with a home, yet more keep arriving where shelter room, food, attention, etc., needs to be provided for them and where staff, resources and funding is limited. Something needs to be done to end this cycle and which has been going on for many years.
 

Are so many killed because there truly are too many pets, or because the owners simply aren't responsible enough?

 
I think the answer is - So many are being killed because there truly are too many pets AND because owners aren't responsible enough.  I think ultimately there wouldn't be too many pets if owners were responsible enough.  Meaning dogs and cats were spayed/neutered unless being bred due to a demand for their litters and pets weren't being surrendered because they just don't meet the owners expectations.

Quincy, what is "interesting" about altered dogs not being able to compete in conformation, but allowing them in other venues?
 
Conformation is the evaluation of breeding stock, and thus you must have an intact animal to show in conformation.  This is America, and unfortunately, working titles are not required in order to be able to breed.  If no working titles are required for an animal to be bred, then even though things like herding, hunt tests, field trials, and earth dog are evaluating the dog's ability to do what it is bred to do, since that's not a breeding stock evaluation, there's no reason to require dogs be intact.

I know heaps of people who do Agility, and at 4 months of age many have already started training, this by starting socialization puppy training with some basic obedience, and where a Local Training Clubs or even Breed Clubs could easily provide some proof to a Local Jurisdiction

 
Please tell me in the bill where it states that the Local authority has to accept this proof.  There are no guidelines or requirements as to what the local jurisdiction as to accept.
 
 
122336.2.  (a)  A local jurisdiction shall issue an intact permit, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 122336, if the owner provides sufficient proof, as determined by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency
 
Notice it says that as determined by the local jurisdiction.
 

They saved all the animals but executed 17,421 of them......   Huh????    Are you joking or what?? 

They saved all the animals but executed 17,421 of them...... Huh???? Are you joking or what??

 
That information came from Maddie's fund.
 
 

ORIGINAL: Xeph

Quincy, what is "interesting" about altered dogs not being able to compete in conformation, but allowing them in other venues?

Conformation is the evaluation of breeding stock, and thus you must have an intact animal to show in conformation.  This is America, and unfortunately, working titles are not required in order to be able to breed.  If no working titles are required for an animal to be bred, then even though things like herding, hunt tests, field trials, and earth dog are evaluating the dog's ability to do what it is bred to do, since that's not a breeding stock evaluation, there's no reason to require dogs be intact.

 
The vaste majority who breed and conformation show tend not to have the time and interest to train and compete for working titles. Yet they are very happy to hear and really spead it around if one of their pet owners obtains a working or performance title. In working or performance dogs don't really need to be sexually entire, but it's good to hear that the Bill includes provision that sexually entire dogs who are in training or have obtained titles are exempt from spay neutering and where Intact Permits shall be issued on providing proof to the Local Juristiction.
 
Now we go in to "show and work", but I think that over the years on forums and email lists there have been heaps of previous threads regarding this.
 
By the way, I'm involved with training Service Dogs for those with various physical disabilities, and it's interesting that only so many Service Dogs are kept entire and where the rest are spay neutered, and where the spay neutered certainly can perform great as Service Dogs. There is provisions in the Bill for Guide/Service Dogs and this even when they are in very basic training and socialization when they are in pet homes at 4 months or older, the organisations involved could simply write an official letter stating so and where an exemption could be obtained according to the Bill. Similarly this could apply to law enforcement dogs, customs dogs, search and rescue, etc..
 
timsdat, I'm not going to bother replying to you.
 

I think the answer is - So many are being killed because there truly are too many pets AND because owners aren't responsible enough.

But this bill accomodates puppy mills and BYBs, who I'd bet big money are the MAIN reason why there are "too" many animals, plus this bill does nothing to address owners' responsibility. 

I don't know that much about BYBs, but do they generally have their dogs registered?  I kind of think of them as folks who say "hey, I'll get a male and female ______, so I'll just mate them and make a few hundred bucks".  Maybe I'm off base and maybe it won't do enough, but maybe it will do something.  As for addressing owner responsibility, I consider having pets spayed/neutered a huge part of the responsibility (again, excluding dogs meant for breeding), so it would address that. 

ORIGINAL: Liesje

I think the answer is - So many are being killed because there truly are too many pets AND because owners aren't responsible enough.

But this bill accomodates puppy mills and BYBs, who I'd bet big money are the MAIN reason why there are "too" many animals, plus this bill does nothing to address owners' responsibility. 

When you think about all the un S/N dogs in the world, that probably are not using abstinence  or the birth control pill, ([])I would have to say that the potential for puppies is probably alot more than from puppy mills.  Just think about it for a second.... You might not want to make that bet too big....

I agree with Bob.  I think there are lots more puppies due to family owned dogs that have not been fixed.  But one puppy from a puppy mill is one to many, also.  I wish all puppy mills could be shut down, I wish every dog owner was responsible enough to have their dogs fixed so no unwanted litters cropped up every few months.  I have seen to many of those around here.  Same with cats.
 
It is no uncommon to see a car or truck partked in the front of the parking lot at Walmart or local grocery store, etc, with a play pen with 6-7 little mixed breed puppies 'free". So sad.

ORIGINAL: sandra_slayton

I agree with Bob.  I think there are lots more puppies due to family owned dogs that have not been fixed.  But one puppy from a puppy mill is one to many, also.  I wish all puppy mills could be shut down, I wish every dog owner was responsible enough to have their dogs fixed so no unwanted litters cropped up every few months.  I have seen to many of those around here.  Same with cats.

It is no uncommon to see a car or truck partked in the front of the parking lot at Walmart or local grocery store, etc, with a play pen with 6-7 little mixed breed puppies 'free". So sad.

And what is really sad, is that sometimes these pups are only 6-7 weeks old.