Required spaying and neutering?

[ariastar]

Required spaying and neutering? (http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/CA_action_center.cfm)

Assembly Bill 1634, the California bill that will require any dog or cat over the age of four months to be spayed or neutered will be revised with even more burdensome requirements. The bill still does not make any provision for animals in the state only for a short time or those who are competing in a dog show or event. It is imperative that clubs, fanciers and responsible dog owners work together to oppose this legislation.

AB 1634 will be heard by the Assembly Business and Professions Committee on April 10th. Letters need to be sent to the committee to ensure that your opposition is noted for the official bill analysis. Please click here to be taken directly to the contact information for the committee consultants. If you have already submitted a letter you do NOT need to send an additional letter addressing the amended version.

The NEW REQUIREMENTS would allow an owner to purchase an intact animal permit (for an unspecified amount) only if one of the following conditions is met:

* The breeder is licensed by the local jurisdiction, including proof of a business license, Federal and State tax number or other valid information as determined by the local jurisdiction.
* The owner provides proof of EACH of the following:
o The dog has competed in at least one legitimate dog show or sporting competition in the past two years, as determined by the local jurisdiction.
o That the cat or dog is of a valid breed as recognized by a registry approved by the local jurisdiction.
o The dog has earned or is in the process of earning a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working or other title from a purebred registry as recognized by the local jurisdiction.

* The dog is or is being trained for use by law enforcement agencies or meets the definition of a service dog, guide dog or signal dog as defined by the California State Penal Code.
* The dog is trained and used by law enforcement agencies as a search and rescue dog.
* The owner provides a letter for a licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, health, or illness it is unsafe to spay or neuter the animal. The letter must include the veterinarian’s license number and the date by which the animal can by spayed or neutered if at all possible.

This draconian legislation would drastically restrict the rights of responsible dog owners and will lead to conflicting ordinances all across the state. A registry that is accepted in one city may not be accepted by the neighboring county. The requirements for a breeder license may also differ from place to place.

[rabidbadger]

Everything about this is stupid. Stupid, stupid.

[ryudo]

All idiot humans should be spayed or neutered:p

[comhcinc]

cool with me

[ariastar]

My thoughts

I can understand needing to reduce the number of animals in shelters, but the only way to enforce a law like this will be when animals are registered. Basically it will end up punishing those following the law. If someone won't spay or neuter, that person just won't register. So really, the law-abiding people are the ones who will have to pay.

Purebreeds will be driven to the black market. Animals born will be so inferior because the breeders won't be taking the animals in for regular check-ups and vaccinations. In fact, because it's so easy to tell that a male hasn't been neutered, the rate of vaccinations will drop among males even more than females, and a rabid dog biting someone wouldn't be a good, thing, and is even worse when an easy vaccination would have prevented it.

A better idea would be a tax break for spaying and neutering, or having the cost of having it done be a tax rebate. It's be cheaper than dealing with opening more shelters. This is a far more attractive idea than forcing people and threatening them with heavy fines.

[electricalburn]

everything is all about money

[tokenuser]

As a longtime dog owner (I have had a pure bred dog of one breed or another since 1974), I see NOTHING wrong with the proposed legislation.

Unwanted puppies/kittens are often just dumped. Anything to stop that practice.

o The dog has earned or is in the process of earning a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working or other title from a purebred registry as recognized by the local jurisdiction.

My sister shows dogs (agility training - her dogs aren't exactly pure bred :) they are cattle dogs and love to play), has worked in vet surgeries, and is a volunteer for a wildlife rescue group (she specialises in bats - kinda creepy). Access to the dog club is pretty easy, requirements are pretty lax - but membership to groups like that (and a lab would LOVE the environment) is pretty easy and would satisfy the obedience/agility criteria.

If you plan on breeding pure bred, then you would need to be registered with the kennel club, so that is another avenue to certify that you are OK.

[rabidbadger]

All idiot humans should be spayed or neutered:p

Well then who would I talk to here other than Aria? Jeepers.

[ariastar]

Oh, last night a lady on the news said, "Animals are animals, and what they are supposed to do is grow up and have puppies and kittens." I wanted to smack her. People like her are the ONLY reason that this law doesn't sound strict ENOUGH. I wonder how many kids she has. Humans were also meant to have babies, but we use BIRTH CONTROL.

[ariastar]

Well then who would I talk to here other than Aria? Jeepers.

YOU ROCK!!

FWIW, I'm almost the equivalent of spayed anyway, which is part of why animals are so important to me and even dressed up like babies.

[acidburn]

It does sound like this law is on the right track but needs some revision.

Pets should be spayed or neutered if the owner has no intention to breed their pet. Shelters can help with this too. The place where I got my puppy does not adopt out any animal until it had been altered, no exceptions.

I'm sure that this regulation is also trying to combat the problem irresponsible pet ownership in the form of people owning aggressive large breed dogs without spaying or neutering the animal. I don't think a month goes by with hearing a news story about a pit bull or other similar dog attacking a child or adult. Spaying and neutering cuts down on aggressive behavior.

Right idea, but execution needs some reworking.

[tokenuser]

YOU ROCK!!

FWIW, I'm almost the equivalent of spayed anyway, which is part of why animals are so important to me and even dressed up like babies.Do you have the little "Slashed F" tattoo on your ear as well? How about the tracker chip in the scruff of your neck??

[masherscf]

All idiot humans should be spayed or neutered:p

I know you were joking. But I want to respond anyway.

I would agree with you if brilliance were merely genetically linked. A fair amount of people with "humble genealogy" have made great contributions to human society.

I find the idea of compulsory sterilization of humans based on guidelines of intelligence or social acceptability a pretty monstrous idea. Even in jest.

However, I think that dogs and cats should be sterilized as a condition of getting a pet license like the proper shots. I think that dogs and cats in shelters that are not destroyed should be sterilized with public money.

In addition, I think there should be an accreditation process for breeders. The accrediting agency can be peers is doesn't need to be state run, just state recognized. Anyone receiving accreditation can register a dog or cat as a "breeder" on a animal-by animal basis. As part of the registration the dog or cat would need to have regular health inspections by a vet in order keep the registration valid. The accrediting agency could pull the accreditation of the breeder or the state could suspect the registration of the animal for breeding. In any case, there would have to be a system of protecting animals with valuable and healthy geology from being automatically sterilized. However, practices like close breeding would need to be closely monitors in order to spot genetic defects.

[ariastar]

My sister shows dogs (agility training - her dogs aren't exactly pure bred :) they are cattle dogs and love to play), has worked in vet surgeries, and is a volunteer for a wildlife rescue group (she specialises in bats - kinda creepy). Access to the dog club is pretty easy, requirements are pretty lax - but membership to groups like that (and a lab would LOVE the environment) is pretty easy and would satisfy the obedience/agility criteria.

If you plan on breeding pure bred, then you would need to be registered with the kennel club, so that is another avenue to certify that you are OK.

Just being registered with the AKC isn't enough to satisfy that requirement. In case you overlooked it, one must do ALL of the following:

o The dog has competed in at least one legitimate dog show or sporting competition in the past two years, as determined by the local jurisdiction.
o That the cat or dog is of a valid breed as recognized by a registry approved by the local jurisdiction.
o The dog has earned or is in the process of earning a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working or other title from a purebred registry as recognized by the local jurisdiction.

Getting into the golden retriever club around here is not so easy, nor does it fill any requirement anyway.

[ariastar]

Do you have the little "Slashed F" tattoo on your ear as well? How about the tracker chip in the scruff of your neck??

Actually, I'm not kidding. When spaying, the ovaries are removed and the animal can no longer have babies. I lost an ovary a few years ago and the tube to my remaining ovary is blocked. (I also have a severely bicornuate uterus.) The news of the blockage and bicornuate was devastating to me. Not even fertility treatments can help.

[rabidbadger]

As a new "uncle," (friend, not family) and a dude who will never be a dad, even though I could:

"Cry"

[ariastar]

However, I think that dogs and cats should be sterilized as a condition of getting a pet license like the proper shots. I think that dogs and cats in shelters that are not destroyed should be sterilized with public money.

Animals in shelters already are sterilized on public money.

If ALL animals were sterilized, we would end up with either no animals after just 20 years (cats and dogs typically do not live that long) or they will be at even more of a premium because breeders must go through hoops just to breed puppies.


In addition, I think there should be an accreditation process for breeders. The accrediting agency can be peers is doesn't need to be state run, just state recognized. Anyone receiving accreditation can register a dog or cat as a "breeder" on a animal-by animal basis. As part of the registration the dog or cat would need to have regular health inspections by a vet in order keep the registration valid. The accrediting agency could pull the accreditation of the breeder or the state could suspect the registration of the animal for breeding. In any case, there would have to be a system of protecting animals with valuable and healthy geology from being automatically sterilized. However, practices like close breeding would need to be closely monitors in order to spot genetic defects.

The "accreditation process," as proposed, would require things like a business license and federal tax registration.


What this does not hit on is that only those who register would even be penalized. The ONLY way to enforce this across the board would be if the AKC stopped registering dogs born in California to un-registered-by-the-state breeders. They WILL NOT deny registration. The AKC is fighting this. SO what this means is that people can just not register their dog with the state, still breed, and the puppies can still be registered with the AKC. The only people who will be punished and have to pay are those who are already following the law and registering to begin with. If anything, people will STOP registering their dogs.

I will NOT register mine if I have to spay her to register. Purebreeds need to be excluded. What do they want, for all dogs to end up the same mixed breed because purebreeds are basically illegal?

[ariastar]

As a new "uncle," (friend, not family) and a dude who will never be a dad, even though I could:

"Cry"

The adoption process is a *****. Apparently, only those who can afford $50k+ out of pocket would be good parents. People like me, who could more than afford to raise a child, but who doesn't have that much cash on hand, should apparently not be able to have a child. The system sucks, and I know you face even more discrimination.

[xibalba]

Said you got one ovary though its block if they could get a egg just would need someone to carry? or is surrogacy not an option either?

[rabidbadger]

deleted cause I wasn't thinkin straight...

[ariastar]

Said you got one ovary though its block if they could get a egg just would need someone to carry? or is surrogacy not an option either?

I can not have children in the sense that I can not conceive nor carry. I'd rather adopt than go through the hassle of surrogacy and bringing another life into this world when there are already enough children out there. Surrogacy just might be the more "affordable" option, assuming my future husband wants to be a father.

[rabidbadger]

Wow, are we on a different subject now...

Pet question? Do you have to register cats in California?

[ariastar]

Pets should be spayed or neutered if the owner has no intention to breed their pet.

This is common sense. And only purebreds should even be bred.


Shelters can help with this too. The place where I got my puppy does not adopt out any animal until it had been altered, no exceptions.

I don't think any shelter out there releases any animals without doing this.


I'm sure that this regulation is also trying to combat the problem irresponsible pet ownership in the form of people owning aggressive large breed dogs without spaying or neutering the animal. I don't think a month goes by with hearing a news story about a pit bull or other similar dog attacking a child or adult. Spaying and neutering cuts down on aggressive behavior.

Irresponsible pet owners don't register, and that will be the primary form of enforcement. So the ones who don't register will fly under the radar and those who are responsible and do register will be the ones tagged.

The problem with pits is that some idiots like to breed the aggressive ones for fighting, so the strain that's emerging is violent. Proper breeding, including breeding only those with calm temperaments, could restore this breed to a great family breed.

[masherscf]

The "accreditation process," as proposed, would require things like a business license and federal tax registration.

I think a private agency can to the accreditation. A bet that AKC already has some sort of certification for breeders

I will NOT register mine if I have to spay her to register. Purebreeds need to be excluded. What do they want, for all dogs to end up the same mixed breed because purebreeds are basically illegal?

Why is important to you that your dog be able to reproduce unless you plan to breed her?

Not all purebreds should be bred. In fact, it's the artificial inbreeding of dogs for arbitrary characteristics that are destroying dog breeds. The domestic dog population would be much healthier if this kind of breeding where out-lawed.


Enforcement is easy...euthenize unregistered pets.

The biggest problem with dogs is that people buy them based on the look of a breed with absolutely no clue about facets of that breed.

There are many breeds of dogs that just don't make good pets.

I see no problem with breeding proper working dogs. But choosing some of these dogs for domestic life is just plain idiotic. The result is unwanted dogs.

There are people that are breeding dogs to make a fast buck and don't care about the health of a population.

[rabidbadger]

My problem with laws like this is less about the critters and more about my rights as a free citizen to make my own decisions about my property. (pets are property, beautiful, wonderful, unconditional love-filled property.)

I am tired of the govt making laws about every aspect of my personal life. there is always some fellow citizen with an opinion and phone call to their local rep who wants to make a law about some silly little blight upon their otherwise spoilt american precious little lives.

And here we have some of us wanted to make exceptions for "pure breds" (read: inbreds) but not for all the beautiful mongrels and rescued ferals that have always been my best companions.

Well, screw the folks who call their money making accouterments "pets."

[ariastar]

Wow, are we on a different subject now...

Pet question? Do you have to register cats in California?

It's optional.

[rabidbadger]

It's optional.

But dogs? Why have a cat registration if it's optional? What problem does it solve?

[ariastar]

I think a private agency can to the accreditation. A bet that AKC already has some sort of certification for breeders

Nope.


Why is important to you that your dog be able to reproduce unless you plan to breed her?


Not all purebreds should be bred. In fact, it's the artificial inbreeding of dogs for arbitrary characteristics that are destroying dog breeds. The domestic dog population would be much healthier if this kind of breeding where out-lawed.

Because I will not rule out that option until she is an adult. If she were to develop a hereditary condition or something, then she gets spayed. No, not all purebreds should be bred, just those that are great examples of the breed and have good dispositions. I do not believe the AKC will register puppies who are siblings because of the problems inherent with inbreeding.


Enforcement is easy...euthenize unregistered pets.

NO.


The biggest problem with dogs is that people buy them based on the look of a breed with absolutely no clue about facets of that breed.

There are many breeds of dogs that just don't make good pets.

There are many breeds that make excellent pets for the right situation. Certain breeds to best with one or two people only rather than a family (such as the chow chow), and some do best with lots of people around (like labs). There are no breeds that just flat-out make bad pets across the board. The problem is exactly that people often buy on looks rather than temperament for the situation.


I see no problem with breeding proper working dogs. But choosing some of these dogs for domestic life is just plain idiotic. The result is unwanted dogs.

There is an importance in breeding. With mutts, you take a gamble. If someone has the ability to deal with anything that comes along, fantastic. If someone is in a place where they can keep a dog that grows larger than expected, super. (My aunt got a dog from the pound expected to be about 20 pounds. He's 60.) More can be predicted, such as their activity level. Someone always on the go shouldn't have a sedentary dog, and those who don't get out much shouldn't have an active dog. Purebreeding allows people the ability to pick a dog right for their situation and lifestyle, lessening the risk of a dog going to a shelter for being too shy, too outgoing, too lazy, too hyper, etc..


There are people that are breeding dogs to make a fast buck and don't care about the health of a population.

Those people should be euthanized. I know one girl who loves her dog so much that she wants to breed her dog because she says the genetics should live on, though her dog, despite being sweet, has characteristics not complimentary to the breed. She's going to give the puppies away, but this is also irresponsible.

And pet shops are HORRIBLE places to buy dogs. Most legit breeders will make very little, assuming they even break even, after each litter when taking into consideration time, vet bills from having the parents inspected before each breed, de-worming puppies and their first shots, etc..

[ariastar]

But dogs? Why have a cat registration if it's optional? What problem does it solve?

It doesn't. In fact, if any animal should have a required sterilization, it should be cats not purebred. Purebreeding with cats is usually reserved for major enthusiasts. Most cats are mixed, and I would only support this with cats because there is NO WAY to contain them when outside short of caging them. No containment = lots of feral kitties.

[rabidbadger]

Like my beautiful Bitmap and Vector, who are scampering about my house as we speak. Darling little (un-papered) bastards.

[ariastar]

My problem with laws like this is less about the critters and more about my rights as a free citizen to make my own decisions about my property. (pets are property, beautiful, wonderful, unconditional love-filled property.)

I am tired of the govt making laws about every aspect of my personal life. there is always some fellow citizen with an opinion and phone call to their local rep who wants to make a law about some silly little blight upon their otherwise spoilt american precious little lives.

And here we have some of us wanted to make exceptions for "pure breds" (read: inbreds) but not for all the beautiful mongrels and rescued ferals that have always been my best companions.

Well, screw the folks who call their money making accouterments "pets."

Exactly!!!

[masherscf]

There is an importance in breeding. With mutts, you take a gamble. ... Purebreeding allows people the ability to pick a dog right for their situation and lifestyle, lessening the risk of a dog going to a shelter for being too shy, too outgoing, too lazy, too hyper, etc..

I'm agaist random pet breeding of any kind. I just think that making new dogs should be left to people who do it best.

I guess I'm not including ethical breeders in my broad statements.

However, knowing a bit about genetics, breeders don't have as much control over their result as you suggest.

Indeed, the obsession with eugenics is monstrous. Some people are literary in the business of improving the breed.

The trouble is that if you breed for a particular desired trait in a small gene pool you may also breed in an undesired trait. Genetics are not anywhere near an exact science.

However, if you take two nice family dogs and breed them, chances are good if you train the puppies properly... they're gonna be nice dogs. If you start with a healthy dog, you get better dogs by better training...not breeding.

That's just my opinion.

[rabidbadger]

Huzzah, to you too.

[ariastar]

Masher, yes or no. Do you believe we should banish pure breeding?

[tokenuser]

Legitimate pure breeding is OK, but the problem is that too many bloodlines are intermixed these days, and BAD breeders dont introduce new bloodlines to their breeding programs. The dogs dont care (puppy incest), but in the long term it is a detriment to the breed.

GOOD breeders will put a champion out to stud and strengthen bloodlines across a country, or around the world.

[masherscf]

Masher, yes or no. Do you believe we should banish pure breeding?

Of course not. I've already said that I don't want random breeding in dogs. I don't want domestic canines to die out.

I think dog breeding is an important laboratory for selective breeding of other animals with cows and horses.

Indeed, animal breeders in agriculture have lots of the same problems as dog breeders do. However, most horse and cattle breeders know that breeding fragile animals is a waste of time. Nevertheless flaws do creep in. Look at this horse Barbaro. Barbaro was bred for speed, but he wasn't a very hearty horse. One accident and he had to be put down.

Bad dog breeders just need to get the pup sold off. It'll be six months later went you discover that the poor dog's internal organs don't work properly. My dad the cutest little pure bred dog. The dog had impeccable paperwork documenting his pedigree. We also had a genetically linked epilepsy. The dog had to take phenobarbital for it's entire life. You can bet that the breeder was still pumping out those cute little spastic pups for the pet shop.

So, it's not dog breeding I'm against. I'm agaist people dabbling in dog breeding without knowing what they are doing.

The other thing I don't like the promotion of certain dog breeds to the public as household pets when those breeds have no business being in homes.

[ariastar]

So, it's not dog breeding I'm against. I'm agaist people dabbling in dog breeding without knowing what they are doing.

The only way to make sure that this never happens would be to regulate it and make people take tests. The last thing we need is something else to be regulated.


The other thing I don't like the promotion of certain dog breeds to the public as household pets when those breeds have no business being in homes.

There aren't bad dogs, just stupid people trying to ruin the breed, such as breeding aggressive pit bulls for fighting rather than the gentle ones.

[ariastar]

Legitimate pure breeding is OK, but the problem is that too many bloodlines are intermixed these days, and BAD breeders dont introduce new bloodlines to their breeding programs. The dogs dont care (puppy incest), but in the long term it is a detriment to the breed.

GOOD breeders will put a champion out to stud and strengthen bloodlines across a country, or around the world.

It's a good idea to check the parents' pedigree. Any breeder worth their beans will have pedigrees on both parents available. As the AKC will issue them for four generations back only, I asked the breeders of my puppy for copies of the parents' pedigrees so that I will have a copy of their fourth generations back, the fifth generation for my girl. It's easy to check to see how much interbreeding has happened in a bloodline.