Spay-neuter law works in Santa Cruz

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....

But the PROBLEM isn't that the dogs are intact.  The PROBLEM is the irresponsible people who own them!
 
Spaying or neutering a dog does not make somebody a responsible owner.  I know plenty of people who have altered their animals that are THE worst people ever to own pets!

But the PROBLEM isn't that the dogs are intact. The PROBLEM is the irresponsible people who own them!

Spaying or neutering a dog does not make somebody a responsible owner. I know plenty of people who have altered their animals that are THE worst people ever to own pets!

 
I can't imagine anyone who'd argue with you on this one.  The intent of the law isn't to make pet owners more responsible overall, but more responsible for preventing unwanted litters that end up in shelters. 

Quote from Quincy:  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.

Actually that is a generalization that is decidedly incorrect when talking about some breeds.  I happen to own belgians, which for the most part have an extremely dedicated ownership population for whom titles at both ends is the expectation.  We have multiple CH OTCH;  CH MACH; CH CT, Some DCs (which require herding and conformation).  In addition we have a number of folks who compete in AKC and in protection sports ScH and FR.  Based upon our annual report in tervs, a herding instinct certification, + agility titles, + obedience titles + rally titles, are the norm... The breed motto "A well balanced tervuren has a CH on one end and a UDT on the other."  We just recently had our first Malinois CH OTCH MACH.....

Respectfully, there are plenty of people who pursue titles at both ends and sweeping generalizations have little to offer.

One issue that needs to be addressed is the time line for dogs in prospective breeding programs.  By no means can dogs who should be kept or culled from a breeding program be identified at 4 months of age.

The original bill had no language about exemption permits, nor do I believe that the current exemptions are anything more than a ploy to get the legislation passed.  I do not trust that exemptions will be available long term.

I do wonder what is to be done with the healthy animals that can not be euthanized during the transition to required spay and neutering.  There will be a considerable overlap....

My biggest concern, the logistics of the bill are too vague at this point in time.

One issue that needs to be addressed is the time line for dogs in prospective breeding programs. By no means can dogs who should be kept or culled from a breeding program be identified at 4 months of age.

The original bill had no language about exemption permits, nor do I believe that the current exemptions are anything more than a ploy to get the legislation passed. I do not trust that exemptions will be available long term.

I do wonder what is to be done with the healthy animals that can not be euthanized during the transition to required spay and neutering. There will be a considerable overlap....

My biggest concern, the logistics of the bill are too vague at this point in time.

 
I know next to nothing about breeding, showing or anything related to either, but wouldn't a dog in a prospective breeding program normally be a registered breed?  Isn't there an exemption for them already?  I agree with you that the amendments have been taken to keep the bill moving and that's not always done in the most ethical way, but if it's ultimately providing protection for the concerned groups, then it's still a good thing, no?  I also think those same groups will be just as proactive to insure that the exemptions remain.  As I said, I don't know much about the breed or show groups, but they've obviously been powerful enough to get the amendments taken, so I trust that they'll continue to pay close attention should the bill pass.
 

I do wonder what is to be done with the healthy animals that can not be euthanized during the transition to required spay and neutering.  There will be a considerable overlap....

 
My brain's a bit tired, so maybe it's just me, but I didn't understand this.

Cathy
 
As to the exemptions,,, guess you are a glass half full,  I am looking at it as half empty.
 
As to the overlap.  One of the sections of the bill indicates euthansia may not be used on a healthy adoptable pet (unless that section has been removed).  Now there are multiple statements that shelters are over run right now.  There is no time line for implementation nor regulations written by local authorities to address said implementation.  So,  we have the dogs currently in shelters, we have the dogs now protected by the law and  we have the folks still allowing dogs to reproduce while compliance is built (which I do not expect to happen, just expect it to go underground and word of mouth).  What provisions are in place to address that overlap between existing population and future populations?
 
Just dont trust the whole thing and who my conspirosy (sp?) minded thoughts make me believe are behind the whole thing.

One of the sections of the bill indicates euthansia may not be used on a healthy adoptable pet

 
I didn't realize that was in the bill but if it is, I see your point.  While I'd love to think that no healthy, adoptable pet would be euthanized, it's hard to imagine how that's going to be possible until the tide changes dramatically.  I do tend to be a glass half full person and it's difficult for me to see things that aren't always crystal clear.  I hate thinking that something that seems to have good intentions is politically motivated and self-serving for anyone/thing other than the animals that could benefit. 

Too true,,, this is such a thorny issue.... I understand the concerns but I just have not seen legislation make that big a difference if personal responsibility is not addressed... Case in point.... I live with No Child Left (Too Far) Behind, which is an unfunded mandate, on a day to day basis.  Yes there have been some improvements, but folks are not really paying attention to the data.  I worry that this is the case with this bill as well.

The intent of the law isn't to make pet owners more responsible overall, but more responsible for preventing unwanted litters that end up in shelters. 

But forcing people to alter their pets does not force them to be more responsible.  It just forces them to alter their pet.
 
It doesn't make them keep the dog at home, it doesn't make them prevent the dog from roaming the neighborhood and mauling other animals, or attempting to procreate even though they've been altered (Males moreso in this one....once they know what "that smell" is, if they're old enough, they'll continue to go to it as its an ingrained behavior).
 
Forcing them to alter their pets does not force them to bring their dog indoors out of the heat, or let them off the chain they're tethered to.  Forcing them to alter their pets foes not make people more responsible with the NEXT dog they get.
 
The problem with bills like these is that you start trying forcing one thing, then what's next?  It's a big snowball effect.

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....

In the past, I would have agreed with you, but having been working at a shelter seeing all these purebred dogs, some from good breeders, some from puppy mills, others from BYBs...I'm still shocked at the dogs people are turning over and the reasons for turning them over.  I cannot honestly say that the majority of dogs that come into our shelter are dogs that people originally got as strays or unwanted dogs.  These owners originally sought out these dogs from all the types of people that are getting exeptions with this bill (the good and the bad), and then turned them in for something as dumb as "he peed on the rug once".

I'd like to get back to the original post about how Santa Cruz county is doing so well since they adopted manditory S/N.  I got the statistics from San Diego county to compare to Santa Cruz county.  San Diego had numbers that are easy to find.  They are posted at the Maddies fund web site.
 
Here  is a little background information about San Diego.
 
"In 1998, San Diego County Supervisor Pam Slater-Price proposed the adoption of a "no kill" policy as a goal for the county's animal services. Her call to action helped open the dialogue among animal welfare organizations and raise public awareness about the plight of homeless animals.
In 2001, animal agencies throughout San Diego County came together as part of a No More Homeless Pets coalition to save more lives, establish common definitions and share statistics. "
 
Now San Diego has a current population of a little over 2.8 million.  Santa Cruz has a population of around 240,000.
 
The 2005 shelter statistics the 2 counties are as follows:
                     op              Intake         Euth
San Diego     2,800,000   53,550     20,600
Santa Cruz       240,000     5,405       2,156
 
Now when you compare the intake and Euth vs the population you find.
 
                          Intake         Euth
San Diego           1.91%        .74%
Santa Cruz          2.25%        .90%
 
Note: According to the Maddies fund web site in San Diego 18,280 of the animals euth. were due to the fact that they were un-healthy and untreatable or the owner requested the euth.
 
Just from looking at the statistics it looks No More Homeless Pets programs due just as well if not better than manditory S/N.
 
Maddies fund web site information about San Diego: [linkhttp://www.maddiesfund.org/organizations/community_sandiego.html]http://www.maddiesfund.org/organizations/community_sandiego.html[/link]
Santa Cruz information came from: [linkhttp://www.scanimalservices.us/news.asp]http://www.scanimalservices.us/news.asp[/link]

I would like to address the Euthanasia versus Execution  name that is given to what we do with these poor shelter dogs by the 10's of thousands, since this topic has come up in a few posts. Some people take exception to the fgact that I won't use the "sterile"  "Euthanize" name to describe what happens to the dog or cat, and am using Execute instead.  They feel that I am being too "emotional".........  I know that this will upset some people that don't like to be slapped in the face with reality, but here goes........


The definition of Euthanasia in Websters  is : 

Main Entry: eu·tha·na·sia
Pronunciation: "yü-th&-'nA-zh(E-)&
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek, easy death, from euthanatos, from eu- + thanatos death -- more at [linkTHANATOS[/link]>http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/thanatos]THANATOS[/link]
: the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.


Well is that what we are doing in the shelters, every day.  I don't think so...!!!!!!! Are these animal's that  are condemned to death " hopelessly sick" or "injured".  In almost every case,NO

What we are doing is executing a death sentence that was directed by the people in charge of the shelter where the dog is housed.  The dog can't appeal, because there is no appeal process. Tomorrow there will be hundreds and perhaps thousands of dogs and cats that will have to face execution...We are executing the dogs that are perfectly healthy and would love to live another day if they could, but they have to be executed to make room for more homeless dogs that stream in on a regular basis due to overpopulation and a lack of people that will give these animals homes.  

That's reality folks.....Not as antiseptic as a bunch of statistics, but more indicative of what is happening to these poor animals. 

...

I live with No Child Left (Too Far) Behind, which is an unfunded mandate, on a day to day basis.

 
Oh you've got my nod here.  I work for a charter school and previously for the State Board of Education...and previously the Secretary for Education.  NCLB is not something we've applauded [8|]...I hope this legislation isn't as misguided as that was.

ORIGINAL: mrv

Quote from Quincy:  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.

Actually that is a generalization that is decidedly incorrect when talking about some breeds.  I happen to own belgians, which for the most part have an extremely dedicated ownership population for whom titles at both ends is the expectation.  We have multiple CH OTCH;  CH MACH; CH CT, Some DCs (which require herding and conformation).  In addition we have a number of folks who compete in AKC and in protection sports ScH and FR.  Based upon our annual report in tervs, a herding instinct certification, + agility titles, + obedience titles + rally titles, are the norm... The breed motto "A well balanced tervuren has a CH on one end and a UDT on the other."  We just recently had our first Malinois CH OTCH MACH.....

Respectfully, there are plenty of people who pursue titles at both ends and sweeping generalizations have little to offer.

Well what I mentioned was not just on your breed Belgians, Tervuren and Malinois but on "all breeds" and on what generally applies. With all the titles you have obtained and across all breeds you would be within a small minority, this considering that on average and yearly about 22,000 obtain conformation champion titles and where heaps more who try do not achieve this level, and on average and yearly about 2,000 obtain champion titles in work or performance and where heaps more who try will not achieve these levels. Being in the scene for many years and titleing at both ends even with DCs and TCs, my view is as I mentioned:- "The vast majority who breed and conformation show tend not to have the time and interest to train and compete for working and performance titles. Yet they are very happy to hear and really spread it around if one of their pet owners obtains a working or performance title." Also I will add, seeing the registration stats across all breeds, and I do know that some breeders do not register some litters where the actual stats would be higher, and considering on how many actually obtain working or performance titles. I feel that the vast majority of pure bred dogs are really not being used for their breed's working or performance function, but instead are in typical suburban homes as companion pets and where they really do NOT need to be sexually entire. 

ORIGINAL: Xeph
Spaying or neutering a dog does not make somebody a responsible owner.  I know plenty of people who have altered their animals that are THE worst people ever to own pets!

 
But you mentioned they "have altered their animals", well their animals are certainly not going to reproduce so no offspring to contribute to the shelter intake problem.
 

I am not discounting the fact many pets could easily be alerted.  The reason I responded was to clarify for lurkers that a sweeping generalization that people who show dogs dont care about performance.  That paints as unfair a picture as claiming that all pet owners breed their dogs one time to "settle" them down.
 
This issue deals with personal responsibility.  I have yet to see improvement in personal responsibility on a large scale as a result of legislation.  My expectation of driving the primary target/offenders underground still stands.

The current legislation impacts all breeds unilaterally.  Impacting the breeding population of goldens and labs is less of an issue genetically than the same impact on dogs that have far fewer registrations annually. 

I object to the details of the law and especially object to the fact there a multiple laws in many communities (concerning animal ownership) that are not enforced now.  I dont see the value in writing one more.