Bob Barker is Winning!

[Poke]

---

Members don't see this ad.

...one city at a time.

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif]Pet Sterilization Becomes Law in LA.

 

[banditalfi]

Iiiiiiiinteresting. I'm kind of all for it... thoughts?

 

[VAgirl]

"First-time offenders will receive information on subsidized sterilization services and be given an additional 60 days. If they still fail to comply they could be fined $100 and ordered to serve eight hours of community service. A subsequent offense could result in a $500 fine or 40 hours of community service."

The money should go to the shelters and the community service should be volunteer hours in a local shelter. Ideally, the person doing the community service because they neglected spaying/neutering their own animal actually would see the healthy, happy, adoptable animals euthanized simply because there wasn't a home for them. Sort of a "scared straight" kind of experience. (Edit: Not that those animals should be euthanized for educational purposes, but that people should have to witness this with animals being euthanized anyway.)

Hmm...in fact, maybe that sort of shelter exposure should be a required part of getting an animal (especially if the animal is purchased/adopted around holiday times of the year).

 

[SweeTeaPie]

What about people interested in becoming responsible breeders though, or perhaps people who want to start showing? You certainly don't show dogs younger than 4 months; you can't even really tell weather a dog is show worthy at that young of an age... as far as I know; I might be wrong though.

Interesting idea, but it's a tough call. I think there might need to be a few modifications.

On a side note, I'll give an example of why sometimes forced neuterings are a little bit annoying. We adopted an English Springer Spaniel from the local SPCA for my father to use as a hunting dog. Turns out that he's really excellent in the field and he has some pretty darn good bloodlines. He's not your typical American bench dog; in other words he's not just a pretty dog that can't do anything. He's obviously comes from working dog stock, and that's not always easy to find. He porbably would have made an Excellent sire, but we were forced to neuter him by the SPCA.

I understand that this is probably a rare exception, and I can understand why it's done. But to force EVERYONE to sterilize their dog with only a few exeptions? I'm not so sure that's the best idea...

 

[Mark G]

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Tuesday signed one of the nation's toughest laws on pet sterilization, requiring most dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered by the time they are 4 months old.

Anyone think 4 months is too young for the mandated alteration date? I know it's not too young to spay/neuter your pet, and they also mention a 6 month date with a note from a Vet, but it still seems strange to pick 4 months as the date.

My clinic's Vets recommend spay/neuter at 5-6 months in most cases. This law would require them to do a lot of note writing.

 

[MikeMisho]

What about people interested in becoming responsible breeders though, or perhaps people who want to start showing? You certainly don't show dogs younger than 4 months; you can't even really tell weather a dog is show worthy at that young of an age... as far as I know; I might be wrong though.

Interesting idea, but it's a tough call. I think there might need to be a few modifications.

I live in So. Cal and heard the news on the radio. They said that registered breeders and people who show dogs (registered or can show proof, I assume) can be exempted. They also mentioned that some people aren't happy about the law citing that 4 months is too young (can lead to medical problems later on).

 

[turnandburn]

Our clinic recommends 6 months as well.

Overall I think this law is an excellent idea.

I wonder how it's going to affect very low income families though. Are places offering services for very reduced cost to VLI familys?

 

[pressmom]

I have an issue with 4 months too. My small dog got neutered at 6 months because he needed 7 deciduous teeth pulled and we wanted to wait so we could do the whole thing at once.

 

[BobDog]

I am always a little scared by any government mandated programs like this. I think the intent is great, but how it actually plays out will be interesting to see. Something needs to be done, but I am not sure this is the way to do it. On the other hand, I don"t have any great suggestions so....

 

[VAgirl]

I am always a little scared by any government mandated programs like this. I think the intent is great, but how it actually plays out will be interesting to see. Something needs to be done, but I am not sure this is the way to do it. On the other hand, I don"t have any great suggestions so....

Is it any different to you than the gov't mandating rabies vaccinations? To me, it isn't. I think both programs are great.

Though I do agree 4 mo seems a little young. And if this ends up creating more headache for local vets (as someone said, lots of notes to get the exemption for animals until 6 months), it might not garner as much support from the vet community. That support from vets will be an important step in getting the public to buy off on it, I think.

 

[StealthDog]

I am always a little scared by any government mandated programs like this

Agreed. Even if spaying/neutering seems routine, it should be a decision made between and animal's owner and his vet. There are too many variables involved to make a blanket requirement.

And USDA-licensed breeders are exempt. Who gets licensed by the USDA? Not small-scale hobby breeders who show, but large-scale operations that sell to pet stores.

PetConnection has been covering this really well... Most recent post here: http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/11/02/does-the-hsus-support-licensed-puppy-mills/

 

[ri23]

Is it any different to you than the gov't mandating rabies vaccinations? To me, it isn't. I think both programs are great.

Though I do agree 4 mo seems a little young. And if this ends up creating more headache for local vets (as someone said, lots of notes to get the exemption for animals until 6 months), it might not garner as much support from the vet community. That support from vets will be an important step in getting the public to buy off on it, I think.

It is very different than mandating rabies vaccinations. Rabies vaccinations is for public health reasons, whereas this is for animal control reasons.

 

[monkeypants]

Although I have never seen it, I have read that cats can have their first heat cycle as early as four months. I'm not sure if the same holds true for dogs, though.

 

[VAgirl]

It is very different than mandating rabies vaccinations. Rabies vaccinations is for public health reasons, whereas this is for animal control reasons.

Don't you think public health is related to the numbers of a population? What about feral cat colonies and homeless dogs (not those in shelters)? Doesn't that population of unvaccinated, uncontrolled animals affect the health of pet animals? It certainly could affect indoor/outdoor cats, for example, who will likely have exposure to those animals.

Also, the health of animals in shelters is intimately tied to population control measures. Don't they count? I think saying animal control measures are unrealted to public health is too narrow a view of what public health is.

Edit: I guess it's important to also say that I'm viewing public health not strictly in terms of human public health, but in terms of the health of the animal populations, too.

 

[alliecat44]

Don't you think public health is related to the numbers of a population? What about feral cat colonies and homeless dogs (not those in shelters)? Doesn't that population of unvaccinated, uncontrolled animals affect the health of pet animals? It certainly could affect indoor/outdoor cats, for example, who will likely have exposure to those animals.

Also, the health of animals in shelters is intimately tied to population control measures. Don't they count? I think saying animal control measures are unrealted to public health is too narrow a view of what public health is.

Edit: I guess it's important to also say that I'm viewing public health not strictly in terms of human public health, but in terms of the health of the animal populations, too.

And don't forget ALL of the many zoonotic diseases carried by feral cat/stray dog populations. Not just for the "public health" of the animals. 🙂

 

[VAgirl]

And don't forget ALL of the many zoonotic diseases carried by feral cat/stray dog populations. Not just for the "public health" of the animals. 🙂

A very good point. Public health encompasses quite a lot.

 

[PrimalMU]

Even though I plan on having all of my animals spayed or neutered, I'm not a fan of the government telling me that I HAVE to have my pets altered. However, in traditional Californian style, thats exactly what is happening. All I can hope is that such a law never goes into effect where I live.

 

[BigGreenVet]

Although I have never seen it, I have read that cats can have their first heat cycle as early as four months. I'm not sure if the same holds true for dogs, though.

Yup! My roommate's kittens went into heat at about 4 months - I was shocked. I guess when they're well fed and cared for, they can go into heat early... kinda like human puberty has gotten earlier and earlier. A lot of the kittens we spay at the clinic I work at have gone through a few heat cycles (or are in heat) by 6 months.

 

[MnInIl]

Completely from a bystander perspective, I think the law is great....we have waaaay too many strays in Chicago, one problem that I've seen being that unfortunately some people bring them into their home with existing animals who are then at risk for any diseases the stray may have.

Anyway, the question I have about this law is who enforces it? I would think the easiest enforcement would be us (when we become vets, of course) because we're the ones that 1) see the animals on a hopefully regular basis and 2) can determine whether or not the animal has been altered. But oh my goodness, who wants to be in that position??? Does anyone know if there are any penalties in this law for vets who don't report unaltered animals? I know we see a lot of non-rabies-vaccinated animals and explain to the owners what the law is, but some still refuse to vaccinate and as far as I know that's where our involvement ends.

 

[VAgirl]

Even though I plan on having all of my animals spayed or neutered, I'm not a fan of the government telling me that I HAVE to have my pets altered. However, in traditional Californian style, thats exactly what is happening. All I can hope is that such a law never goes into effect where I live.

If you plan on spaying and neutering anyway, and there are reasonable exemptions allowing people with legitimate reasons not to do so, what is the objection to having it be required? It has zero impact on what you actually would do. It also seems to me to have zero impact on what you could theoretically do. Want to show and breed your dog? There's a way to get an exemption. Now, if you're concerned that the exemptions aren't robust enough, sure, that could be. But to just be against the law because it feels weird to be told to do something, I don't understand that. Especially when that thing you're being required to do is something that you feel is right and would do anyway.

 

[LVT2DVM]

Agreed. Even if spaying/neutering seems routine, it should be a decision made between and animal's owner and his vet. There are too many variables involved to make a blanket requirement.

And USDA-licensed breeders are exempt. Who gets licensed by the USDA? Not small-scale hobby breeders who show, but large-scale operations that sell to pet stores.

PetConnection has been covering this really well... Most recent post here: http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/11/02/does-the-hsus-support-licensed-puppy-mills/

My concerns exactly! Id be interested to know how they are going to distinguish "professional" breeders from BYB? Ive been a proponent for a long time that you shouldnt be able to breed animals without some form of license, but the question always comes up..how do you qualify for and maintain licensure? That cost money. Most want to describe a breeder as someone who produces so many litters a year. Well, thats not good practice. Most great breeders I would recommend may only produce a litter once a year or every other year. And they definately do not produce for the money. Most actually lose money if they are doing all the right things..nutrition, vet care, training, ect. So seems like the only people who are going to be able to qualify are puppy mills?

At first glance I like the idea, and I agree that this seems like a step in the right direction. But Im not sure if they've thought this whole process through...O but thats right it the government!

 

[LVT2DVM]

Completely from a bystander perspective, I think the law is great....we have waaaay too many strays in Chicago, one problem that I've seen being that unfortunately some people bring them into their home with existing animals who are then at risk for any diseases the stray may have.

Anyway, the question I have about this law is who enforces it? I would think the easiest enforcement would be us (when we become vets, of course) because we're the ones that 1) see the animals on a hopefully regular basis and 2) can determine whether or not the animal has been altered. But oh my goodness, who wants to be in that position??? Does anyone know if there are any penalties in this law for vets who don't report unaltered animals? I know we see a lot of non-rabies-vaccinated animals and explain to the owners what the law is, but some still refuse to vaccinate and as far as I know that's where our involvement ends.

I like your thought process. Just this year many cities in VA have passed local ordinances that require licensed veterinarians to send a monthly computerized printout to the local animal authorites (ie Animal Control or Shelter depending on locale) and then AC compares the list to their database of persons who have applied for a city animal license. If your have a RV but didnt get a license then they come after you. Not a bad idea, but we were all standing around the clinic dumbfounded saying "Okay, well lets punish the people who actually got their animals RV by harrassing them to get a city license. When what we actually should be doing is sending in reports of clients who have refused a Rabies vaccination and AC should be tracking those people down." When this question was posed to a animal control officer, they had no comment.

Sorry to digress, but thought that was interesting and explains my frustration with government thinking.

 

[BobDog]

Mandating spay/neuter is different from mandating vaccinations for a number of reasons. One of the big reasons is that there is inherent risk in any surgical procedure, and I just don't see how we can force someone to put their animal at risk. The risk may not be great, but it is still there. Most people understand this and consent anyways, but it should be their decision. I understand that we have to find a way to hold pet owners responsible for their animals, but I am still not sure that govt mandated spay/neuter is the way to do it. This program probably won't even work due to enforcement issues. The feral cat colonies you are speaking of won't be affected by this law since they are out there reproducing outside of the mandate of the govt anyways. Law breakers!!!!! =o)

 

[akitavet]

Even though I plan on having all of my animals spayed or neutered, I'm not a fan of the government telling me that I HAVE to have my pets altered. However, in traditional Californian style, thats exactly what is happening. All I can hope is that such a law never goes into effect where I live.

I TOTALLY agree!

 

[StealthDog]

Let's not forget that the number one reason for animals ending up in shelters is behavioral problems, not unwanted litters.

How about mandatory obedience or animal behavior courses for all pet owners?

 

[LVT2DVM]

Mandating spay/neuter is different from mandating vaccinations for a number of reasons. One of the big reasons is that there is inherent risk in any surgical procedure, and I just don't see how we can force someone to put their animal at risk. The risk may not be great, but it is still there. Most people understand this and consent anyways, but it should be their decision. I understand that we have to find a way to hold pet owners responsible for their animals, but I am still not sure that govt mandated spay/neuter is the way to do it. This program probably won't even work due to enforcement issues. The feral cat colonies you are speaking of won't be affected by this law since they are out there reproducing outside of the mandate of the govt anyways. Law breakers!!!!! =o)

Man, Bobdog. Im embarrassed that I didnt think of this angle (ie surgical risk). You are totally right. I can see a lawsuit in the works as we speak!

 

[LVT2DVM]

Let's not forget that the number one reason for animals ending up in shelters is behavioral problems, not unwanted litters.

How about mandatory obedience or animal behavior courses for all pet owners?

I second that motion!

 

[VAgirl]

Mandating spay/neuter is different from mandating vaccinations for a number of reasons. One of the big reasons is that there is inherent risk in any surgical procedure, and I just don't see how we can force someone to put their animal at risk. The risk may not be great, but it is still there. Most people understand this and consent anyways, but it should be their decision.

To continue the friendly debate😀 vaccinations are not without risk. In addition to the side effects that can sometimes (though rarely) take place, there are also issues like sarcoma formation in felines with certain vaccinations. I'm not sure if rabies vax is the number one culprit, but I've certainly read about it being one of the vax that is linked to sarcomas. Still, regardless of risk, rabies vax is required by law. And for good reason.

The feral cat colonies you are speaking of won't be affected by this law since they are out there reproducing outside of the mandate of the govt anyways. Law breakers!!!!! =o)

I didn't really think the law would apply to them. 😉 Rather, that they are a part of the overpopulation issue and that they certainly play a role in public health. But you're right...those law breakers. Maybe they'll start ticketing stray cats in LA.

 

[LVT2DVM]

The feral cat colonies you are speaking of won't be affected by this law since they are out there reproducing outside of the mandate of the govt anyways. Law breakers!!!!! =o)

[laughing hystericall] After reading this I immediately pictured a police officer writing up tickets as he stands over a bunch of handcuffed feral cats. Officer saying "Okay your being charged with failture to be altered, indecent exposure, lack of rabies vaccination and resisting arrest." Wow I just wish I could draw a editorial...a picture would be funnier.

 

[destiny1325]

I personally think this seems like a good idea but is there the possibility that people who resent this law will stop seeing their veterinarian on a regular basis for fear that their veterinarian will turn them in?

Also, does anybody know how the veterinarians in that area feel about this law? I feel like I read an article in DVM magazine about many of them being against it, but I might be completely off base with that one. I don't have any of the magazines at college with me right now.


Here we go I found it with google: "DVM Newsmagazine reports that the CVMA withdrew support for a mandatory spay/neuter law because of opposition from CVMA member veterinarians and the veterinary community, and: A poll of regional veterinary medical associations throughout the state [of California] revealed a majority opposed the pet-sterilization mandate and CVMA's sponsorship of the initiative."

 

[pupsforseeing]

While I am all for spaying and neutering, I must play devil's advocate here as this law affects me personally. I am very involved with a guide dog organization in Los Angeles county (and therefore subject to this law) that has its own breeding program. I know someone is going to jump at me and say we should use shelter dogs...let me nip that in the bud and tell you that we've tried, it's more expensive in the long haul (the pass rate is just about nil) and to turn on consistently healthy, temperamentally sound working dogs, it is imperative we breed our own. With this law going into effect, we now must pay a large sum of money (I can't remember what it is off the top of my head) to keep our dogs intact. The majority of our dogs need to be left intact past the age of 4 months so they can be evaluated as possible additions to our breeding program. This change will amount to 10's of thousands of dollars for our school. As a non-profit organization that receives zero federal funding, we simply cannot afford that. It was speculated that if this bill passed, the end of our breeding program (sans a HUGE donation!), but only time will tell how this will play out. It's really a shame because this breeding program is responsible breeding if there ever was such a thing--obviously not what this bill is intending to put an end to.

Only to say that, while these things often seem good on the outside, the end effects can be hurtful to the common good in unintended ways.

Anyone else get annoyed when the gov't puts their nose where it doesn't belong? ;-)

 

[PrimalMU]

If you plan on spaying and neutering anyway, and there are reasonable exemptions allowing people with legitimate reasons not to do so, what is the objection to having it be required? It has zero impact on what you actually would do. It also seems to me to have zero impact on what you could theoretically do. Want to show and breed your dog? There's a way to get an exemption. Now, if you're concerned that the exemptions aren't robust enough, sure, that could be. But to just be against the law because it feels weird to be told to do something, I don't understand that. Especially when that thing you're being required to do is something that you feel is right and would do anyway.

I'm not going to answer this questions, not because I don't have an answer, but because I don't want this to turn into a political debate. But I just want to say that this law is right up there with breed specific bans, which I am also very much against.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I am against mandatory spay/neuter.

I encourage everyone to read this thread in another forum ....many responsible breeders and other individuals provide extremely relevant informations as to why such legislation, in reality, only hurts legitimate breeders and will likely not do anything to stop pet overopulation.

http://forum.dog.com/forums/t/74609.aspx

 

[StealthDog]

There's a way to get an exemption.

Yup, the way to get an exemption is to pay for it... Like Pupsforseeing demonstrated, that hurts responsible breeders. Responsible breeders, who are doing health checks, genetic testing, paying stud fees, paying for show registration fees, traveling, etc are not in this for the money. They don't have the additional funds to be paying for exemptions to mandatory spay/neuter.

The breeders who DO have extra money laying around are the breeders selling into the pet trade and not showing.

Which ones would you rather have producing pups?

 

[pupsforseeing]

Yup, the way to get an exemption is to pay for it... Like Pupsforseeing demonstrated, that hurts responsible breeders. Responsible breeders, who are doing health checks, genetic testing, paying stud fees, paying for show registration fees, traveling, etc are not in this for the money. They don't have the additional funds to be paying for exemptions to mandatory spay/neuter.

The breeders who DO have extra money laying around are the breeders selling into the pet trade and not showing.

Which ones would you rather have producing pups?

Well said, StealthDog 🙂 A non-profit organization producing, raising, placing and caring for well bred dogs does not have extra money laying around for extraneous fees to keep their dogs intact!

 

[PiddlingFish]

I'm thrilled about it.

 

[ri23]

Don't you think public health is related to the numbers of a population? What about feral cat colonies and homeless dogs (not those in shelters)? Doesn't that population of unvaccinated, uncontrolled animals affect the health of pet animals? It certainly could affect indoor/outdoor cats, for example, who will likely have exposure to those animals.

Also, the health of animals in shelters is intimately tied to population control measures. Don't they count? I think saying animal control measures are unrealted to public health is too narrow a view of what public health is.

Edit: I guess it's important to also say that I'm viewing public health not strictly in terms of human public health, but in terms of the health of the animal populations, too.

I was not referring to the public health of the animals, I was referring to public health of people. If we start making laws in regards to the public health of animals you are stepping on very dangerous animal rights/welfare issues. The reason rabies is required is because it is a very real threat to people.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I personally think this seems like a good idea but is there the possibility that people who resent this law will stop seeing their veterinarian on a regular basis for fear that their veterinarian will turn them in?

That's another big problem. The BYBs who aren't rolling in dough will simply ignore the law - and some that are, also.

Pet overpopulation comes mainly (not entirely, but largely) from two routes: BYBs and "oops" litters. BYBs and puppy mills can pretty easily get exempt from this mandatory spay-neuter, so it doesn't stop them.

One of the largest reason for keeping intact dogs and running the risk of an "oops" litter is because people are taken aback at the cost of spaying/neutering. Money and advertising needs to be going towards LOW COST SPAY AND NEUTER, period.

Responsible breeders, who only have one or two litters are year, do all their health testing, etc, will be able to get exempt, but remember that it is easier for a puppy mill to pay those fines than an average breeder. The average breeder does not proft, or if he/she does, marginally. But, being responsible people, they will cough up the money, while puppy mills will continue to produce at a fantastically higher rate. So basically, the number of dogs being produced does not decline. Also, the age is too young for certain circumstances. Large and giant breeds haven't fully developed by then (especially males). You need to have those sex hormones around for a bit longer.

You can't do an OFA cert at 4 mo - so responsible breeders who use OFA rather than Pennhip will be forced to pay and register ALL of their pups until time comes to see which have the best hips to carry on the lineage.

And like Bobdog said, it is forcing a person to put their animal at risk. What if an animal physically cannot undergo anesthesia for a medical reason? The owner will have to pay to keep that dog intact? It's too much of a quagmire to be swept away by one law.

Again, we need (1) puppy mill crackdown and limits on the number of litters per year, number of breeding dogs, etc and (2) increased availability of low cost spay and neuter plus education of the general public on these matters. Not mandatory speuter.

 

[chris03333]

Although I have never seen it, I have read that cats can have their first heat cycle as early as four months. I'm not sure if the same holds true for dogs, though.

FYI spaying BEFORE the first heat cycle is when you gain the most benefit.
Other than little dogs notorious for retained deciduous canines, 4 months is fine to spay/neuter. Tons of shelters spay/neuter at (or in some cases earlier) than that.

If the veterinarian is uncomfortable spay/neutering at 4 months they can make a standard letter, leave room fo the patient ID and their signiture. Definately not hard to do.

 

[SweeTeaPie]

I live in So. Cal and heard the news on the radio. They said that registered breeders and people who show dogs (registered or can show proof, I assume) can be exempted. They also mentioned that some people aren't happy about the law citing that 4 months is too young (can lead to medical problems later on).

Sure, that's fine for people who are ALREADY breeding, but what about people who are not necessarily established?

Like I've mentioned, I understand the intent, but it seems a tad on the fascist side to me...

 

[BartonVet87]

(1) puppy mill crackdown and limits on the number of litters per year, number of breeding dogs, etc and (2) increased availability of low cost spay and neuter plus education of the general public on these matters. Not mandatory speuter.

My thoughts exactly! Thank you for putting them into this post so eloquently. 🙂 I work at a clinic in a rural community and money is definitely an issue for roughly 50 percent of the customers.

 

[bakaduin]

When I was in 2nd grade a learned a lesson that has held true throughout my entire life. "The actions of few ruin it for many." Laws like this are needed for the same reason a rabies vaccination mandate is needed, people refuse to follow beneficial practices and police themselves. There are droves of great breeders whose life goal is to improve the seedstock of a breed and show their dogs to perfection. They painstakingly interview potential homes for their puppies and make sure they find responsible owners. I love those people, I wish everyone followed that line of thinking. But for every great breeder I can look in the Sunday paper classifieds and see ads upon ads of puppies for sale in Miami from backyard breeders. Breeders trying to make some quick cash on purpose, or by accident when some intact animals got together in the backyard. So its certainly a shame that a few good breeders may face some obstacles but in every beneficial circumstance you will have unwanted effects. Even this cuts down the animal population in LA by a few percentage points its still better than nothing.

To add pupsforseeing, I believe someone noted that you can have your vet write an exemption to not have your dog sterilized until 6 months so you wouldnt have to pay any extra money for that.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I understand the above arguement, but I have some questions about it

(1) How will mandatory spay/neuter stop BYBs and puppy mills, since they can simply get an exemption, and it won't break their bank considering the number of litters they pump out? These guys are the greatest contributors to overpopulation, and the law won't touch them.

(2) How are we going to enforce such a law? Employ vets to report unfixed dogs? People who cannot afford to spay/neuter will essentially have to hide their dogs, never take them to the vet - which is obviously bad for the dog. And unplanned litters will still happen.

(3) In addition to people who cannot afford/do not want to shell out hundreds for a sterilization, there are people who are opposed to fixing because they anthropomorphize their animals. Again...how are we going to enforce it? Search people's homes? Unfortunately, that's a constitutional right-breaker right there. They will simply stop taking them in for physicals.

 

[bakaduin]

I understand the above arguement, but I have some questions about it

(1) How will mandatory spay/neuter stop BYBs and puppy mills, since they can simply get an exemption, and it won't break their bank considering the number of litters they pump out? These guys are the greatest contributors to overpopulation, and the law won't touch them.

(2) How are we going to enforce such a law? Employ vets to report unfixed dogs? People who cannot afford to spay/neuter will essentially have to hide their dogs, never take them to the vet - which is obviously bad for the dog. And unplanned litters will still happen.

(3) In addition to people who cannot afford/do not want to shell out hundreds for a sterilization, there are people who are opposed to fixing because they anthropomorphize their animals. Again...how are we going to enforce it? Search people's homes? Unfortunately, that's a constitutional right-breaker right there. They will simply stop taking them in for physicals.

Enforcement is certainly an issue and thats where I think their is a flaw in this law. My above post was mainly directed at opposition to such a law period.
As for your first point:

The article says

[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif] The ordinance does exempt some animals, including those that have competed in shows or sporting competitions, guide dogs, animals used by police agencies and those belonging to professional breeders..

So the question is what constitutes a professional breeder? I would doubt joe smo in his back yard with two unsterilized pets who constantly get it on with him selling the puppies will be included in that. If the difference is a license I doubt that some of the low quality backyard types will want to go through the trouble of time and money to get licensed and again wont fall under exemption.
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif].

 

[CanadianGolden]

How can a 4 month old puppy have competed in shows or sporting events? Puppies under 6 months of age aren't even allowed to ATTEND AKC events.

 

[doubled1st10]

Have not been on here in a while but figured I would comment on the topic.

I didnt see anyone say anything about developmental disorders (esp orthopedic) in dogs that have been spayed/neutered at an early age. There is a theory that altering large breed dogs to early affects the development of the tibial plateau and thus leads to increased chances of CrCL ruptures. I am not saying I am jumping on this ban wagon cause there is not enough data out there to back it up, but what if we discover down the road there is a link? What happens when 5-10 yrs down the road we see increased CrCL ruptures in dogs in S. CA? How will the govt respond when people start slapping lawsuits on them for requiring their pet to be altered at a young age and now it is linked to cruciate disease?

I think there is a pet overpopulation, but the solution may not be requirement but better yet education. Instead of having families go out and buy an expensive prue breed dog, go to the humane society and adopt one. Besides they usually have great personalities and less pathological problems down the road due to a vat of different genetic combinations.

Just my 2 cents 😀

 

[Poke]

Ideally, people would understand that there truly is a problem with overpopulation, BYBs do more harm than good, kids don't need to see birth to be able to understand the miracle of life, shelter dogs make great pets, and that owning animals isn't a right, it's a privilege, one that can cost a lot of money. In a perfect world, educating them all will solve all these problems. The ones causing the problems, however, aren't likely to listen. Some of them have heard it before, and truly just don't care. I'm not sure what I think about the ordinance. Good intentions, perhaps, but there may be a ton of difficulties with it. The problem is that education doesn't always work. I'm at a loss at how to solve this problem.

 

[ShelterGirl]

I agree with what others have said about enforcement being an issue. It is difficult enough to enforce and prosecute cruelty laws, for heaven's sake!

I've heard of places (a city or two in NC, I think?) where the enforcement point is the shelter - in other words, if your pet is lost and turns up at the local shelter, you must get them altered in order to reclaim them. Thoughts?

 

[pupsforseeing]

After reading this thread, I contacted some people more closely involved in the situation (going to school in PA, I sometimes don't stay up to date on all of the happenings at home in CA!). The original bill that would have affected service animals was pulled and this new one has an exemption written in for us. So, I am happy 🙂 While I still don't like the gov't mandating this, this caveat makes it much easier to swallow.

 

[bakaduin]

I agree with what others have said about enforcement being an issue. It is difficult enough to enforce and prosecute cruelty laws, for heaven's sake!

I've heard of places (a city or two in NC, I think?) where the enforcement point is the shelter - in other words, if your pet is lost and turns up at the local shelter, you must get them altered in order to reclaim them. Thoughts?

I think thats a great idea. I used to volunteer with a rescue group for a few years. We of course sterilized all our animals before adopting them out. One day we had a very nice purebred Pointer and a girl in her 20s came up to me and asked if it was fixed. I replied yes and she went on to say "Dang, thats a shame I would have adopted it you can make a lot of money selling pointer puppies around here". All I could think was that she really didnt understand the point of our program. Some people just arent going to control themselves.