[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by Captbob

And maybe you should research the benefits of S/N on the animals health and longevity.

Well obviously there are health benefits to spay/neuter, but there are also health risks to the procedure itself and to having that procedure done this early. Spay/neuter at four months is NOT a simple cookie cutter answer for all dogs and I think you fail to see this. I should be able to weigh the health risks and benefits (and yes there are benefits to leaving a dog intact too) and decide what is best for my dogs.

I'll say it again- I am NOT anti spay/neuter of pet dogs as you would like to make me out to be.

[Orange County Ca]

I also, as a California resident, an getting incensed at our government butting into our lives and that alone is sufficient reason to oppose this type of law.
Since the taxpayers are paying to have all those animals killed lets use that money to s/n all animals for free, walk in, no questions asked, 20 at a time if that's how many you bring in.
Intially we would spend more money, s/n ing and kill ing simultaneously. As the s/n effect took over we should save money. Even if our costs then returned to what it used to be think of all the killing and suffering avoided.
Educate and eliminate cost and I'll bet 99+% of the un s/n animals would disappear. And like the counties already trying it we would notice the differenct in a year.

[DogueEdaddy]

Originally Posted by Jen D

Larger breeds can be fixed at about five months without a problem, smaller breeds yes I agree with you it could be dangeous for them.

Jen,

I respectfully disagree. When I had my Boxer; my Vet refused to neuter him before 6mos. He definately recommended neutering due to propensity of Boxers for cancers, but stated that it shouldn't be done before 6mos due to growth issues (displaysia, joint forming, etc). When researching my Dogues, it is definately not recommended before 1yr due to joint/bone/displaysia issues. All Dogue De Bordeaux breeders (reputable) who sell with s/n contracts for pets, specify to be done by 1yr.

God Bless......Stan

[cshellenberger]

That's right Stan, it's the same for Mastiffs, Great Danes, St Bernard's ect. BTW, many of these Giants don't come into season until 10 months to a year. For them it's equivelent to giving an 8 year old a histerectomy

[Laurelin]

I wouldn't put my papillons under until they are fully grown, or as close to being fully grown as possible. (Obviously that isn't true in emergencies) . Anaesthesia is very hard on toys and can be fatal more often than in other breeds. It's not a light decision every time you put a toy under.

So there are several reasons you might opt to let a dog fully mature before neutering.

[Snowshoe]

I think that certain aspects of this thread are somewhat ridiculous, so I'm bowing out.

To those of you who are against this law because it's silly...I'm on your side.

To anyone else, namely those who pick and choose which comments they respond to, only to deliver an attempt at a witty one liner that has nothing to really do with the argument at hand, I would consider how what I'm saying may affect how other people view my argument. Especially if it was an argument that I really cared about.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

http://www.ab1634.com/Files/BILL_ANALYSIS_4-23-07.pdf

Yes, this is a great law. A law that's written such that industrial breeders are exempt? Does this make any sense to anyone. If the goal is to "reduce" s/n incidents, why aren't industrial breeders included in this bill? Do you know that a puppy mill is an industrial breeder. IF breeders are the problem (which I still believe we're wagging the dog with the tail), why aren't there stricter provisions for the worst offenders? IF euthanasia is so expensive to the state (yes, it's about cost, not lives), why not control owners. How is this law going to be enforced when local jurisdictions can't even enforce thier current licensing laws?

Could you please cite the section of the bill that exempts commercial (industrial?) breeders?

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

Quincy,
There are certain breeds that indeed 4 months is WAY too young. All the large and giant breeds mature much more slowly and early spay nueter puts the dogs at risk of complications such as spay incontenence.

Also, this law is nearly unenforceable. The majority of people who wish to Back yard breed will simply NOT register their dogs. AC would have to prtty much go door to door to enforce this. Better laws need to be written with the involvement of responsible breeders to target Puppy Mills and BYB. Starting with a law that makes it illegal to sell dogsn and cats in Petstores and swap meets, but allows for 501c3 rescue adoptions in the stores and at adoption fairs. THAT would effect change.

I believe there is a section of the bill that allows exemption to anyone who has documentation from their vet that the puppy is too young to alter. If a giant breed matures more slowly, then surely the owner's vet would be aware of that and give such documentation.

Are you against other unenforceable laws, like speed limit laws?

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

Could you please cite the section of the bill that exempts commercial (industrial?) breeders?

(1) The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or her
business license and federal and state tax number, or by other
means, as determined by the local entity authorized to issue
permits, that he or she is doing business and is licensed as a
breeder by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal
control agency. proof, as requested by the local
jurisdiction or its authorized animal control agency, that he or she
is doing business and is licensed as a breeder at a
location for which the local jurisdiction or its authorized animal
control agency has issued a breeder permit.

It's implied by the wording. Pet stores are not licensed as breeders, therefore, they can purchase out-of-state puppies and sell them intact, without control. Ultimately it becomes the owner's responsibility to have the puppy s/n. Fine, however, out of state breeders, industrial breeders in Missouri, are exempt simply because they are out of state.

The way this law is written, only changes the source of the dogs that appear in shelters.

[cshellenberger]

Speed limits are enforcable without door knocks or illegal searches.

I'm against the government making decisions for me regarding my houshold. I believe this law goes too far on the part of pet owners and does little to solve the problem of overbreeding pets by puppy mills and Back yard breeders.

There are other ways to reduce the pet overpopulation. The city of Chula Vista has done a fine job by making spay nueters very affordable and bringing the doctors to the people with their Nueter Scooter. Spay is 45, nueter is 35 and either for a Pitbull type is $5.00!!!!! They have reduced their intake by 1/3 with this program and have fewer Pitbulls in comparison with the other San Diego area shelters. They also run education seminars in the Public schools there. They have an excellent working relationship with Rescues and though they aren't completly no kill, they have reduced their kill rates to only dogs that aren't adoptable for medical or temperment reasons. They have the lowest adoption fees and the highest successful adoption rates. The Bulldog you see in my avatar was adopted from there and I've pulled dogs from there for English Mastiff and Neo Mastiff rescue, they call me anytime one of these breeds comes in that is adoptable because of the difficulty they have placing such huge animals. I wish more shelters were like them.

[Laurelin]

It would also be of note in my opinion that many countries where there are so few unwanted dogs and no overpopulation problems, it is not common to have pets spayed or neutered. They simply place a different value on dogs there.

Mandatory spaying and neutering is not going to solve the shelter situation here as long as people see dogs and cats as disposable commodities that they are free to allow to wander and breed with whomever or free to dump or free to see as a problem to give to someone else.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

It would also be of note in my opinion that many countries where there are so few unwanted dogs and no overpopulation problems, it is not common to have pets spayed or neutered. They simply place a different value on dogs there.

Mandatory spaying and neutering is not going to solve the shelter situation here as long as people see dogs and cats as disposable commodities that they are free to allow to wander and breed with whomever or free to dump or free to see as a problem to give to someone else.

Wihich countries are these, and where did your get the statistics to back up your claim?

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by Captbob

Wihich countries are these, and where did your get the statistics to back up your claim?

I was actually discussing Sweden and Norway as I know a few people that live over there. They have virtually no overpopulation problems with dogs, though I think Sweden has problems with cats. It is very rare from what I've heard to alter a dog there other than for a medical reason and it is very expensive. I've also read this in many discussions when talking about the US overpopulation problem.

I have no statistics, but I'll look them up for you. (Even though no one pulled out studies for the Santa Cruz statistics when I asked for them, I'll be nice)

This one discusses Sweden and Norway on page 19-

http://www.acc-d.org/ACCD%20docs/2002%20Sym

Swedish dog demographics:
http://www.actavetscand.com/content/42/1/71

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract

I'll get back to you about the rest. I'm talking to the people I know from Sweden because I know I've seen the stats from them. We've had this discussion many a time.

[lovemygreys]

If I am not mistaken, I think we live in a Democracy. That means that the people get together and decide what laws they want to be governed by, as opposed to a dictatorship , where one person decides. That is why we elect officials and vote on different laws that may be enacted, If the people in California decide that they want to make S/N mandatory ( which I am certain they will) , then that is what will happen. Some people will not like it, but if that is what the majority decides, they will have to live with it. If people don't like this system, I am sure there are plenty of places in the world, where they could relocate to.

Actually, we live in a constitutional representative republic, NOT a democracy. Also, we do not live by majority rule. We are a country governed by law, not the whims of any nutcase out there...even if there are a lot of them.

By your reasoning, if the majority of people voted to jail all people who use the screen name Captbob and confiscate all their property...you'd pretty much be SOL, wouldn't you? And of course, that's ridiculous...but only because of it's extremity. It would never happen b/c we have LAWS in place to protect the rights of people and we DON'T live by majority rule.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

Of the organizations that registered support or opposition, 267 organizations resgistered support, where 339 registered opposition. The split was clearly defined by rescue versus club.

It's not unusual that breed clubs would be against it. Breed clubs have traditionally been against any legislation that would limit or regulate breeders. It never seems to be a concern to them that dogs continue to die in shelters so that breeders' hobbies won't be affected.

Life? Hobby? Which is more important? I choose life.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

It would also be of note in my opinion that many countries where there are so few unwanted dogs and no overpopulation problems, it is not common to have pets spayed or neutered. They simply place a different value on dogs there.

Mandatory spaying and neutering is not going to solve the shelter situation here as long as people see dogs and cats as disposable commodities that they are free to allow to wander and breed with whomever or free to dump or free to see as a problem to give to someone else.

I agree that our throw-away society is a big part of the problem, but I also think that a spay/neuter law will reduce the numbers and make dogs less disposable. Gold is valued over sand because it's less prevalent. If responsible breeders were the only ones producing dogs, then potential dog owners would be screened and the quality of homes would improve. Quality homes don't view their animal companions as disposable commodities. On the other hand, how much more disposable can you get than having someone give away their unwanted puppies in front of a supermarket to anyone that has an impulse to take one because it's cute? What are the odds the latter will be a quality lifetime home?

The less dogs there are, the more they will be appreciated, and the only way to assure that is to stop trying to educate those that don't care and don't want to listen. No dog should be born without a lifetime home waiting for it. Responsible breeders make sure of this. Most of the dogs produced today, whether pure or mixed, are not bred by responsible breeders. And it's these irresponsible breeders we need to stop.

What I don't understand is how responsible breeders prefer to promote paranoia about limitations on their hobby instead of realizing that we need laws to require irresponsible breeders to be as reputable as the responsible breeders are.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Orange County Ca

I also, as a California resident, an getting incensed at our government butting into our lives and that alone is sufficient reason to oppose this type of law.
Since the taxpayers are paying to have all those animals killed lets use that money to s/n all animals for free, walk in, no questions asked, 20 at a time if that's how many you bring in.
Intially we would spend more money, s/n ing and kill ing simultaneously. As the s/n effect took over we should save money. Even if our costs then returned to what it used to be think of all the killing and suffering avoided.
Educate and eliminate cost and I'll bet 99+% of the un s/n animals would disappear. And like the counties already trying it we would notice the differenct in a year.

How do you propose that initial increase in cost would stem from? Who pays that bill? In my town, it was decided that it was more important to beautify the median strip on the freeway with plants than to do anything about shelter issues. Shelters (pounds) are a place where our problems disappear, and it's done at minimum cost - even to the point of giving the contract to the shelter managers that can do it the most inexpensively. And how do you get past the complaint that those taxpayers who haven't contributed to the problem don't think they should have to pay for the solution? Why is it okay to throw money at the problem from a non-descript source (the government) rather than making those creating dogs, and those potential puppymakers (the unaltered dog's owner) pay for the problem?

And all this under the guise of wanting the FREEDOM to be irresponsible? Such a lofty goal.

[Laurelin]

I agree with you on a lot of that, except I can't see this law as helping due to about everything anyone's said.

Oh and to Captbob, my intent on bringing up other countries was not to say that them not spaying and neutering was a good thing, simply to point out that they can control population without bans and mandatory s/n.

It just comes down to the society, it's values, and what they believe they are responsible for. Unfortunately in the US, too many people don't feel much responsiblity when it comes to pets. People here want something when they want it and when it is convenient for them. then they expect other people to deal with their problem.

[DogAdvocat]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DogAdvocat
Could you please cite the section of the bill that exempts commercial (industrial?) breeders?

Quote:
(1) The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or her
business license and federal and state tax number, or by other
means, as determined by the local entity authorized to issue
permits, that he or she is doing business and is licensed as a
breeder by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal
control agency. proof, as requested by the local
jurisdiction or its authorized animal control agency, that he or she
is doing business and is licensed as a breeder at a
location for which the local jurisdiction or its authorized animal
control agency has issued a breeder permit.

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

It's implied by the wording. Pet stores are not licensed as breeders, therefore, they can purchase out-of-state puppies and sell them intact, without control. Ultimately it becomes the owner's responsibility to have the puppy s/n. Fine, however, out of state breeders, industrial breeders in Missouri, are exempt simply because they are out of state.

The way this law is written, only changes the source of the dogs that appear in shelters.

I think this is debatable. IMO, implied by the wording is the idea that the owner (pet store in this case) must be licensed as a breeder in the local jurisdiction. That would mean in CA, IMO. But for the sake of argument, let's say you're right. Do you really think that PIJAC wouldn't create a huge fuss and do anything they could to stop a bill that would prohibit pet stores from selling dogs and cats? This is personal property, a commodity, an object not unlike all the other commodities sold in stores. Under what legal theory could it be stopped, especially when there are no real industry guidelines? And of course if we tried to mandate industry guidelines, the breeders would fight it because it might somehow inhibit their hobby.

One of the things about proposing a bill is that it has to have a chance of getting past the opposition. The more restrictions put on a pet store, the bigger the fight by the pet industry.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

I agree with you on a lot of that, except I can't see this law as helping due to about everything anyone's said.

Oh and to Captbob, my intent on bringing up other countries was not to say that them not spaying and neutering was a good thing, simply to point out that they can control population without bans and mandatory s/n.

It just comes down to the society, it's values, and what they believe they are responsible for. Unfortunately in the US, too many people don't feel much responsiblity when it comes to pets. People here want something when they want it and when it is convenient for them. then they expect other people to deal with their problem.

I have nothing to back this up, and I'm too lazy today to go looking for it, but it's my understanding that some European countries have a system where those planning on breeding their dogs are required to seek approval by the officiating registry. This prevents too many dogs from being bred, as well as polices the type of breeding done. If memory serves, Germany is one of the countries that has this. It is common for some of the breeders in these countries to restrict sales of their dogs to Americans because of our reputation for homeless dogs and the shelter death rates we have. It's been several years since I read a discussion on this, but I remember thinking it's too bad that we don't follow their example.