California Mandatory Spay/Neuter Legislation Devastating For Dogs

erica1989

corgipower

Puppies sell, puppies get adopted.

And puppies grow into adult dogs that are no longer wanted. Stop the mass-production of puppies from "oops" litters and other people that have intact animals, and you will cut down on the number of adult dogs in shelters.

There will still be cases where owners just let their dogs roam, and also there will be cases where dogs escape from homes through left open doors or gates or where dogs dig under or jump over fences. Enforcing leash laws helps to address problems to a degree.
 
Education also helps to address problems to a degree. Around the world I've had a look at what education programs were being applied and what the results were. Say like this one where a Council and their local Training Club conduct FREE COURSES, and an additional incentive to those who complete the course their Council has agreed to allow a REBATE on the dog license/registration fees, see details of this via this link:-
http://www.egipps.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=160&h=0
Read here to get some idea of what occurs in the RDO Program at the Training Club:-
http://www.eastgippsland.com/dogobedience/rdo.htm
 
Door knock campaigns by their Community Laws Officers also helps to address problems to a degree, such as that Council did and see via these links:-
This one in 2007:-
http://www.egipps.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=1086&h=1
This one in 2006:-
http://www.egipps.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=828&h=1
This one in 2005:-
http://www.egipps.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=694&h=1
 
They did other things like even this audit of "Working Dogs", see via this link:-
http://www.egipps.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=520&h=1
 
They have even started spay neuter (desex) programs, see here:-
http://www.egipps.vic.gov.au/Page/page.asp?Page_Id=679&h=1
 
Their State Government collects $1 from every cat and dog license/registration, and that pays for this education see via this link:-
http://www.pets.info.vic.gov.au/01/tres.htm
 
With all the above and if their problems persist in their shelter I feel they will impose mandatory spay neuter laws. There are Councils in that State who already have, or are already in the process of starting, mandatory spay neuter laws, this to help address their problems.
Example - note with this Council's compulsory desex (spay neuter) question in this community survey, and they are seriously considering such ordinances:-
http://www.knox.vic.gov.au/Page/Forms.asp?Form_Id=19
Example - with this other Council that they already have imposed compulsory desex (spay neuter) laws:-
http://www.mornpen.vic.gov.au/Documents/SE/EP/Animals/Desex%20website%20brochure.pdf
 
I wonder what are the answers are in addressing problems, and from what I've seen around the world is that each part be it enforcement, education, desexing, each helps to a degree in addressing problems, and the US is not the only place that has problems.
.

I could not agree more.

AuroraLove

.if your dogs isnt proven then WHY exactly shoudlnt it be fixed?

If it's not disproven does that mean your dog is broken?

I was once an advocate for spay/neuter.  But I'm not any longer.  I'm an advocate for responsible dog ownership.  A quick survey of genetic problems in each breed would show you what a shallow gene pool does for the collective health of dogs.

I don't advocate BYBs, nor puppy mills-but I also KNOW for a fact that not all hobby breeders care about inherent genetic maladies, nor inherent temperment issues.  The AKC has created some dreadful breedings and some dreadfully unhealthy breeds.  Do you wonder why all these health tests are being done on dogs now?  It's because in the past unhealthy dogs were bred to unhealthy dogs.  Perhaps these dogs weren't visibly unhealthy, perhaps they were-I don't know.  What I do know is that there are common issues in breeds now that weren't so common 100, 50 or even 30 years ago.  And yes, that includes show stock.

Working stock is another matter entirely.  I don't know enough about working dogs to be specific but I do know that certain breeds do not blossom until 3 or 4 or 5 years old.  Livestock Guardians are another working dog that, from what I've heard, need to be seasoned at least a year or two to find out if they are "good" at their job.  

Sorry, but I don't want the government telling me that my dog's testicles and reproductive status are breaking the law.  But even if they were, who would enforce the laws?  The vet?  Do you want to pay your vet an extra $15 per visit even if you abide by the law?  Do you think that's fair to those that have their dogs "fixed," as you put it?  Do you want your vet to be a spy for the government?  If not the vet then would you add more responsibility to your Animal Control Police?  So now it's not enough that they've got stray dog calls.  Now neighbor #1 can tattle on neighbor #2 for having an intact animal. 

Sorry, this is just a knee jerk reaction that will not solve the problem. 

Educate people on responsible dog ownership.  Guide them on how to care for, train and maintain their animal responsibly.  Punish irresponsible dog owners within the extent of the law.  Leave my dogs' ovaries, and testicles out of this. 
 

Xerxes

I don't advocate BYBs, nor puppy mills-but I also KNOW for a fact that not all hobby breeders care about inherent genetic maladies, nor inherent temperment issues.  The AKC has created some dreadful breedings and some dreadfully unhealthy breeds.  Do you wonder why all these health tests are being done on dogs now?  It's because in the past unhealthy dogs were bred to unhealthy dogs.  Perhaps these dogs weren't visibly unhealthy, perhaps they were-I don't know.  What I do know is that there are common issues in breeds now that weren't so common 100, 50 or even 30 years ago.  And yes, that includes show stock.

In regards to State Legislation here is a world first regarding Hereditary Diseases, and who knows maybe comming your way in years to come:-
http://www.dogsvictoria.org.au/assets/buying%20a%20healthy%20puppy.pdf
 
Currently 5 Hereditary Diseases are listed for dogs but in time more could be added/amended into this State Legislation, and Clubs and Breeders had meetings to coming to grips with this new State Legislation:-
http://www.dogsvictoria.org.au/assets/pocta-seminar-notes.pdf
.

Quincy

In regards to State Legislation here is a world first regarding Hereditary Diseases, and who knows maybe comming your way in years to come:-
http://www.dogsvictoria.org.au/assets/buying%20a%20healthy%20puppy.pdf

There are many of these "defects" that are not noticeable until a dog reaches a certain age.  Case in point: Our family Akita was diagnosed with sebaceous adenitis at the age of 3 years old.  This malady only occurs in 3 or 4 breeds and then only one dog in several thousand.  Hereditary?  Certainly.  Common?  Certainly not.  To legislate against this is asinine and unenforceable.

Quincy

 
Currently 5 Hereditary Diseases are listed for dogs but in time more could be added/amended into this State Legislation, and Clubs and Breeders had meetings to coming to grips with this new State Legislation:-
http://www.dogsvictoria.org.au/assets/pocta-seminar-notes.pdf

Again the terms "intentionally and "recklessly" are used.  All a breeder would have to say is that the breeding was unintentional.  It's a very tricky pursuit to prove intent, especially in the past tense.

 Again I say that legislation is NOT the answer, education is the answer.
 

In the State Legislation Tables there are only 5 Hereditary Diseases listed for dogs, in time more maybe added/ammended in but currently only 5 are listed for dogs, they are:-
Von Willebrand Disease (VWD)
Progressive Retinal Atrophy (PRA)
Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis (NCL)
Collie Eye Anamoly (CEA/CH)
Hereditary Cataract (HC)
 
Example of how this maybe applied:-
Some time down the track a pet owners dog goes blind, their veterinarian suggests a DNA test, the test result comes back for one of the above. The pet owner then goes to the authoraties and reports to them who the breeder was for their dog and what the DNA tests revealed. The authoraties then must investigate and where the breeder could be issued with a summons to appear in court for breaking a State Law. DNA evidence certainly can be used in court, and DNA maybe even be used to prove who the parents of that dog were. If the breeder is found guilty in court then there is a penalty of $6,840 for an individual, and $34,200 for a body corporate, plus there would be court costs on top of this and also a conviction will be recorded. Where State Laws are involved then State Police could be involved with investigations.
 
The State Law got passed in December 2007, but the effect date has been delayed. The Minister involved with Animal Welfare has sent a "Code Of Practice" to Dog Clubs, and where their members can comment and even can suggest amendments to that "Code Of Practice", and it must be received back to the Minister by the end of this month. I think some time after that we will hear in the media all about this New Law and the effect date.
 
Where hereditary testing exists and is accessible to a breeder but they decide not to use such testing before deciding to breed, then if affected offspring are bred then a court may decide the breeder was intentionally or recklessly breeding affected offspring. When it comes to courts a probable defence is to show all reasonable efforts have been made to avoid hereditary diseases. If there is a recognised test of an hereditary disease and a breeder does not use the test but sells a puppy which late develops that disease, then it is hard to see how the breeder has a legal defence, this is especially so where a DNA test is involved.
 
Well in time we will see what happens, and if later on people are convicted and penalised in court by this new law then I think news of it will spread far and wide.
.

AuroraLove

But seriously....if your dogs isnt proven then WHY exactly shoudlnt it be fixed?

 Proven how? Who determines what "proven" is? How long should it take to "prove" a certain dog? If a dog doesn't have a certain title that does mean they have nothing of value to offer the breed? As was mentioned - some breeds really can't afford to have their populations cut further. In some low number breeds, even pets are sold with the agreement the dog will remain intact and available for breeding for a set period of time.

Besides all that, I don't think the goverment should make the choice as to if and when my animals will be altered. One can choose to keep intact animals as pets and still be a responsible owner. No one should HAVE to spay or neuter their pet. It is an elective surgery and it comes with the risks of surgery such as infection and complications. Also like many things altering has both pros and cons, some owners feel the pros outweight the cons and some do not but that should remain an individual choice.

There are provisions for exemptions, which breeders could utilise to keep the pets that they sell sexually entire, and where I feel they should really have a good read and understand the proposed legislation. Under the Californian Bill even pet crossbred dogs can be kept entire and be bred, see part 122336.21.
.

Quincy

Well in time we will see what happens, and if later on people are convicted and penalised in court by this new law then I think news of it will spread far and wide.

When the penalty for outright animal abuse is a $500 fine and a dozen hours of community service, I think the penalties for "reckless breeding" would be worth the risk for the BYB.

 Sorry, but in my opinion this law is worthless and unenforceable.
 

This may be an unpopular opinion here, but I don't think I should be forced to spay my own dog. Cadie is almost 8 and is not spayed. So if the legislation gets passed here in a couple years, I'm supposed to put my 10 year old dog through major surgery and thus endanger her life? Trust me, I'm all for preventing unwanted litters, I'm involved with the shelter here...but I think getting my dog fixed should be my decision.

And what age would the dog need to be fixed? If it's too late, well then it defeats the purpose - she could have puppies by whenever...2 years or any other age. If it's too young, it could be riskier and you can't always tell high quality show dog when it is at a certain age. Certain breeds, like Irish setters, take a lot of time to mature.

If responsibility could be legislated then why have laws which cover driving offenses failed to stop: driving under the influence, driving with out insurance and driving without a license or permit.

You can not get people to act responsibly through legislation.  The one potential outcome of such legislation is essentially an unfunded mandate.  Most communities can not even get people to comply with licensing of their dogs...how on earth are they going to get spay neuters enforced.

There is no doubt in my mind that most of this comes from the animal rights movement which has the end aim of no domesticated animals period. 

 BTW The chamber of commerce in Louisville will be receiving receipts for all the money I did not spend in their fair city while I attended the Louisville cluster. 

Responsiibility is a key issue. So is priority. A person decides to have a dog and balks at paying even a low fee at any of a dozen low cost spay/neuter programs in their area. But will plunk down a c-note for their favorite illicit drug. Similar to people that complain at the price of a steak but have no problems buying a case of beer.

I realize I'm skating close to the statement that you must have some certain amount of money to take care of a pet but that is a sliding scale. Many can afford basic care while a few can afford drastic care, such as extensive surgery, joint replacement, etc.  And there is always a low cost spay/neuter drive going on somewhere. I paid $60 for Shadow's and $90 for Jade's but that was at our regular vet. I could have spent less by going to a special deal like I am talking about.

So, the key to spay/neuter isn't cost, it's education. And you can't mandate people to be smart. It would be nice if it were that easy. OTOH, I agree, that no breeding should take place unless the dog is a proven specimen in his/her breed. Which means that (making up my own percentages) approximately 80 to 90 percent of all dogs should be spayed/neutered. And even the proven ones should be spayed or neutered after their prime breeding chances are over.

If laws were so effective, there wouldn't be as many mill puppies. In Missouri, there is a $1,000 annual fine for operating a puppy mill. A miller can sell one or two pups and pay that. It becomes just another business expense, rather than a true punishment and deterrent to over-breeding and bad breeding. And they would go out of business if people quit buying from them. And yes, a lot of puppies would die from being "surplus" if everyone quit buying from them. And so, yet again, another innocent pays the price for the sins of Man. Again, education would go farther than the law has. And in one or two generations,the number of dogs in shelters or pts for overcrowding would decrease dramatically. Provided that humans could step up to the plate and do what's right. Which is a tall order, indeed.

It's easy to pass a law. It's hard to change someone's mind.

Xerxes

When the penalty for outright animal abuse is a $500 fine and a dozen hours of community service, I think the penalties for "reckless breeding" would be worth the risk for the BYB.

 Sorry, but in my opinion this law is worthless and unenforceable.
 

Maybe your thinking of some other Legislation.
 
In the Legislation that got passed regarding "reckless breeding" I previously mentioned this:-
If the breeder is found guilty in court then there is a penalty of $6,840 for an individual, and $34,200 for a body corporate, plus there would be court costs on top of this and also a conviction will be recorded.
 
I will add - where there is a conviction then that could open the door to the pet owner to seek compensation, where the breeder could be held liable for ALL veterinary costs associated with that tabled hereditary disease.
 
Also it's yet to be seen what would be the court imposed penalty outcome if a number of dogs were sold that were affected by a tabled hereditary disease. Consider that Police investigators might take DNA samples from all the breeders dogs, and they also may ask the breeder to show them breeding records and who they sold pups too, and where more investigative information might also be presented in court. There are also Laws pertaining to cruelty to animals plus other things, and after investigations some cases might involve multiple charges.
 
Well in time we will see what happens, and if later on people are convicted and penalised in court by this new law then I think news of it will spread far and wide.
.

IrishSetterGrl

This may be an unpopular opinion here, but I don't think I should be forced to spay my own dog. Cadie is almost 8 and is not spayed.

We're on the same side.  =)