Glad I'm not a California Girl.

You seem to believe that you and I have totally different opinions on this issue. I'm not argueing that non show dogs should not be altered. I believe they should too. BUT I am one of those people that believes that large breeds at least should not be altered too young. I own large dogs. And neither of them were altered until they were fully grown. You have your beliefs on this and I have mine. I don't think that anyone has the right to tell me when i should alter my dog. I altered my dogs in thier best interest as I saw fit. And until there is a blatant arguement that altering a dog early will NOT harm them, AND in fact waiting for a year, WILL harm them, then I feel it is up to me.

FTR I live in Canada. I'm not from California. I did not know that there are so many free spay/neuter clinics down there. There are none up here. The only incentive we have up here for sp/n is $5 off you license and a slightly reduced price for microchipping. I do know that alot of people up here don't alter their dogs because for a simple neuter, it costs close to $300 in some places. Its much cheaper just to let your dog have puppies. And yet our pet population is less than yours. Perhaps that is because puppies don't stand a chance in our elements. Who knows.

Anyway, so what is the fine going to be if your pet isn't altered? Will it be more than you can charge for a puppy if you breed to sell them? I see the intent, I just don't see how it will work.

ORIGINAL: chmissgingerisfancy
What I mean is that dogs should only be bred after they have proven themselves breed-worthy in the ring as well as shown they are capable of doing what they were bred to do (suffix titles).  Therefore, people wait to breed their dogs until they have proven their dogs are breeding quality.  Some dogs will go on to become performance/show and others just as pets. 

 
If you have been in the breed ring you would know that winners are often picked just as much by who is at the other end of the leash.  Also there are trends in the ring that determines winners that have nothing to do with the breed standard and what does suffix titles have to do with the quality of a dog.

Again I point out the fact that irresponsible breeders will not be dissuaded from breeding.

 
So all this law is doing is putting the responsible breeders out of business where they are the very ones we want to continue.
 

No, this will not stop breeding altogether, but some people are ept to just follow the law and do it, out of "fear" of paying fines or losing their dog.  This is a small yet effective step towards more altered dogs and less unnecessary litters. 

Education is the key not penalizing responisble breeding.
 
 

Also, by altering a dog at a young age, the cost is MUCH MUCH less than altering a larger, adult dog, or even maturing pup.

Since when.

This is NOT about stopping ALL breeding, it is about stopping the wreckless breeding of NON-breeding quality dogs. 

This is about stopping all breeding.
 

Seriously, don't you want to stop the wreckless breeding of mutts and half-quality purebreds, and SAVE the millions of homeless dogs just waiting for their terrible fate of euthanasia??  Don't you????

What's wrong with a mutt.

Raise the age line to 1 year. Then the age argument of whether it is safe or not would be void. It would also give purebred dogs a chance to compete. Even say if you spay or neuter you pet before it is 4 months, you save half the cost or whatever. But mandatory after 1 year.

Many dogs aren't ready for the ring at a year.  There are many dogs out there that are producing wonderful pups that have never been in the ring.  Their style isn't in fashion right now.  Remember judging is defined by the current fashion within the standard.  Also limiting breeding to just champions will destroy breeds.  There are many breeds that are in genetic trouble because of the champion only mentality.

I will never support a bill anywhere where the ultimate goal is to wipe out the companion animal population. I love my dogs and I would never want to live without one.

Well that is the goal of all these bills.  Look up statements by the leaders of the AR groups supporting these bills.  That is their goal.
 
 

This is a misguided, but well intentioned effort to control the pet population.
 
Misguided because the authors do not understand how dog shows work or they would know a 4 month old puppy cannot be shown. Misguided because it gives individual licensing authorities too much decision making power---such as which registries are approved.  Misguided because it allows individual "jurisdictions" to set fees as they see fit.
 
So you cross a town line and your dog is suddenly illegal or costs five times as much to register?
 
Plus, it does nothing to address puppy mills and BYB who have tax id numbers and business licenses.
 
It also does not allow for exemptions for animals brought into the state for competition.
 
While I support spay/neuter I think charging higher fees for intact dogs is a more reasonable way to approach this.
 
 

ORIGINAL: polarexpress
While I support spay/neuter I think charging higher fees for intact dogs is a more reasonable way to approach this.

Unfortunately this doesn't work either.  Differential licensing has shown a lower overall registration rate.  Irresponsible people won't stop breeding they just will not license their pets.  All it does is penalize responsible people.  We have differential licensing in our county and the estimate of registered dogs and cats is about 20%.

This bill has the stink of PeTA and H$U$ all over it.  For all the reasons already stated...I am against it, and so happy I do not live in a state that so readily removes choices from all it's citizens without many of them even having done anything wrong. The stuff in support is just what AR's want to hear...it will make their job of eliminating the "enslavement" of animals as pets...all the easier.

[linkhttp://www.danesonline.com/earlyspayneuter.htm]http://www.danesonline.com/earlyspayneuter.htm[/link]

There are many articles out there regarding the safety of pediatric spay and neuter.....and yes, everyone has their opinion. The problem is, I don't think a lot of people realize that Pediatric spay neuters have been done for years...lots of time for them to have done safety studies and long term effects on it. In fact, it is really proving to be much easier on your pets.

And many other studies, and anecdotal evidence will point out the harmful effects...lol.
 
Here's my reality, IF they enforced the laws they already HAVE....there'd be no need for more.There's one thing they never, ever admit but is 100% true. I have yet to see anyone argue that one away...but I'll wait....

You can not enter a dog in an AKC event until they are SIX MONTHS old. So for two months, you are breaking the law.  Yes there are puppy matches, but that doesn't fit one of their 'exemptions'.  I hate to say this, but I do believe the writers of this bill know this and purposefully put in that age limit to force more people to either break the law or neuter their animals. Argue with me all you want, but their exemptions do not allow for those that actually compete in conformation events.

Not to mention, this is the United States of America, and I do not believe that anyone has the right to tell me what is best for MY pet. All this language of 'guardian' and not "Owner" is designed to take away our rights of making the decisions that are best for our pet.  Those owners who obey the law are going to be the ones penalized, not those who don't care to begin with. And it is those owners, in my opinion, that contribute to the overpopulation of pets.

Don't get me wrong - I hate that so many animals are euthanized, but I don't believe that this bill will even begin to make a difference in those numbers. If nothing else, I see an increase in the number of dogs and cats that are going to be dumped on the side of the road or turned into shelters. Why do I say this? Because people are going to dump their animals rather than pay to have them fixed or pay the fines.

You can not legislate morality. Educate! Do not legislate away our rights! I will state again, the government does not have the right to tell me when I have to have my animals fixed. It should be left to the decision of the owner after consulting with their vet.

This bill stinks all the way down here to Texas and I pray to God that it gets defeated!!!!!

Personally I think they KNEW the 4 months would send people off the deep end...so they did it with the intent of "negotiating" their way. Dog people will think they've 'won a victory' when it's raised to 1 year...but in fact they were the only ones to give ground....they are the only losers.
 
I have a diagram I will post of exactly how ARistas work on things like this...

Gina,
 
You forgot one thing in your diagram.  The arrow back to the top where they start all over again to take away more.
 

ORIGINAL: cockapoosheida
 I have a 3 month old puppy dont want her fixed yet cause I dont know what Im going to do cause family memebers want puppys from mine then get her fix.

 
Please visit these websites to learn more about breeding your dog:
[linkhttp://www.dogplay.com/Breeding/ethics.html]http://www.dogplay.com/Breeding/ethics.html[/link]
[linkhttp://www.wonderpuppy.net/breeding.htm#breeding]http://www.wonderpuppy.net/breeding.htm#breeding[/link]
 
If you go into this unprepared or with a dog that is not fit to be bred, you are asking for a lot of trouble -- and you are putting your dog at a high level of risk. Please do not breed simply because other people want puppies.

You can not enter a dog in an AKC event until they are SIX MONTHS old. So for two months, you are breaking the law.

 
Longer if you're an agility junkie.  AKC states dogs have to be FIFTEEN months to enter.  I have to admit, I'm so glad I'm not a Cali girl too. 
 
Because I am an agility junkie (need a group for that), I would never do an early spay/neuter on a potential performance dog until more scietific data is out there.  If even 1/4 of what Dr Zink wrote about in her article is true, I'll wait.  I'm an adult and I know how to use a door AND a leash. 
 
(Dr Zink's article [linkhttp://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html]http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html[/link]
If you've been around canine sports you're familiar with Zink, or should be.)
 
Additionally, the basenji community has worked so hard to import dogs from Africa.  These dogs would not win in the show ring, but they are so very, very important to the breed.  These dogs are the basenji.  They are the dogs doing what basenjis were doing 5000 years ago.  The thought of all those dogs being spayed or neutered breaks my heart. 
For more info on this project: 
[linkhttp://www.basenji.org/african/project.htm]http://www.basenji.org/african/project.htm[/link]
[linkhttp://www.africanbasenji.com/AvuviProject.html]http://www.africanbasenji.com/AvuviProject.html[/link]
 
Additionally, most working border collies and other working stock dogs don't have titles but they are incredibly important to the shepherds.  Most of those people wouldn't touch an AKC bc with a 99 foot pole. 
 
Also, this bill doesn't make any allowances for rare breeds that aren't accepted by the AKC, unless of course the local animal control agency accepts the registry.  That's too much of a grey area for me.
 
This verbage is on the proposed revised bill:

122336.2. (a) A cat or dog is exempt from the requirements of subdivision (a) of section

122336.1 if any of the following conditions are met:

(1) The owner provides proof that he or she is doing business and is duly licensed as a

legitimate breeder by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency,

including providing proof of a business license and Federal and State tax number or other valid

information as determined by the local jurisdiction in which the intact permit is sought.

 
 
I don't know too many responsible breeders (breeding one litter every 2-4 years) who have a business  license.  (Gina?)  But I'm sure the Hunte corp does.
 
 
I really don't understand why the government is so intent on changing my lifestyle. 

personally...California could slip into the ocean tommorow and no big loss as far as I am concerned. Everytime you come across some whacky "save the or save that" movement that tramples your rights as an individual...it usually has started in California.
 
 
 

personally...California could slip into the ocean tommorow and no big loss as far as I am concerned. Everytime you come across some whacky "save the or save that" movement that tramples your rights as an individual...it usually has started in California.

Nice..... in truth many of the "wacky" ideas out of california have been adopted nationwide and had profound positive effects such as smoking bans in resturaunts/bars, car emission standards, etc. Some may be "wacky" in your mind, but they come from well intentioned people who do not deserve to "slip into the ocean". They already do charge a LOT more to licence your pet here in california if fido is unaltered and it doesn't work because there is not enforcement in this area. I would imagine that this law will not be enforced as well. I think PETA is evil as well and I'm sure they will support this, but they were not the people origionally behind this legislation.

Moderator speaking,
Please remain civil on this thread.
California is a state comprised of many people with many different points of views. Some of our nicest and most helpful members reside there...and I do not think such harsh comments or judgements need to be made. It is inflammatory, to say the least.
 
ETA: We can now leave the California bashing and California defending and revert to discussing the ACTUAL TOPIC...which was this bill. I include myself in this.