Update on LA Spay/Neuter Law

[CanadianGolden]

http://clkrep.lacity.org/councilfiles/07-1212_ord_179615.pdf

Here is the full text of the law (PDF). It is not at all enforceable because it allows the owner to say that they will show their dog and thus be exempt--no proof required (and no way to prove it anyway). But it's much better than I thought. They actually RECOGNIZE that both breed *and* performance showers need an exemption. I'm still not totally in support of it, but I'm hugely impressed that they are acknowledging everyone who shows.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Steelmagghia]

Thanks for the update. My city is trying to get a law like this in place (we had a bunch of roaming pit bulls who attacked some miniature horses so it started the whole stupid "eek, save us from the terrible doggies!" crud again) and I really would like to be as well informed as possible about it. Of course, knowing my city, there will probably be no exemption for show dogs and all of the horribly irresponsible breeders will continue to breed their animals and nothing at all good will come of it.

 

[VAgirl]

It is not at all enforceable because it allows the owner to say that they will show their dog and thus be exempt--no proof required (and no way to prove it anyway).

Thanks very much for posting that. It was very interesting to read the actual text.

I'm not sure your comment above is correct, though. While I'll admit I don't know much about showing dogs so don't know what is realistically enforceable, the ordinance has language addressing that point and requiring proof:

"(2) No person, within the City of Los Angeles, shall own a dog or cat over the age of four months that has not been spayed or neutered, unless valid written documentation is provided to show proof that the animal is exempt from the requirement to be spayed or neutered by reason of one of the following:

A. The dog or cat is a breed approved by and is registered with a registry or association recognized by the Department through its Commission, whose program and practices are consistent with the humane treatment of animals, and the dog or cat is actively used to show or compete and has competed in at least one show or sporting competition hosted by or under the approval of the recognized registry or association within the last two years, or is being trained or groomed to show or compete and is too young to have yet competed.

B. The dog has earned, or if under three years old, is actively being trained and in the process of earning, an agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, hunting, working, or other title from a registry or association approved by the Department through its Commission."

From that, it sounds to me like someone could potentially claim they will show their dog without doing so, but that will only fly up to a certain age, beyond which it will be clear that they can no longer claim they're only not actively showing them because they're too young. I know that even so, enforcement will be hard. But I think that's very different from saying no proof will be required.

 

[akitavet]

"(2) No person, within the City of Los Angeles, shall own a dog or cat over the age of four months that has not been spayed or neutered, unless valid written documentation is provided to show proof that the animal is exempt from the requirement to be spayed or neutered by reason of one of the following:

Um AKC requires 6 months as the minimum age a dog can be shown. So there is a two month window when if you have a nasty neighbor who calls you in, you could lose your show prospect?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

[Pandacinny]

I think you missed the following part during your first read:"or is being trained or groomed to show or compete and is too young to have yet competed."
Also, back to what I said last time on enforcement - this is probably NOT the type of law where someone goes actively looking for unaltered animals (like police actively look for murderers or people who drive over the speed limit.) It's more like laws requiring you to have a driver's license. You can drive safely for years without a license and it makes no difference until you're caught (which means you've probably been pulled over for something else.) If you're dog's picked up by animal control for some reason (running at large, biting someone, etc) they'll fine you for having an unaltered dog (just like they'd already fine you for having an unlicensed dog or a dog who hasn't been rabies vaccinated.) So the law isn't unenforceable at all - it's enforced just like all the other laws out there about vaccination, licensing, and etc.

 

[CanadianGolden]

Right they can probably only maintain an exemption for a certain period of time, but that's certainly enough.

AKC requires breed dogs to be 6 months. They must be I think 9 months for obedience and 12 (gack, too young) for agility, but in USDAA they must be 18 months to compete in agility. Of course, the irresponsible people won't know that and might not bother to find out. But for people like me it is a big deal. I get to keep my dogs intact until a healthy age because I am responsible and compete and know the competition regulations.

 

[akitavet]

Yeah mine wont make height for conformation until about 7-7.5 months and ready for obedience?!?!?! Um well my soft, sweet bidable akita took me 2 years to train for Rally novice LOL. We are still not ready for off-lead work!

 

[VeganSoprano]

Seems like in the end the result of the law will be that any animal that's caught doing something it shouldn't be doing (running at large, etc) will be fixed. Any animal that's directly under the control of a responsible owner won't be on the radar screen of enforcement officials. It means that high-risk animals whose owners are not controlling their reproduction will be more likely to be sterilized because it will be enforced by law.

The law has the potential to be a tool in solving the overpopulation problem that exists with animals like DSH/DLH cats, mixed breed dogs, and pit bulls. It probably won't lead to more purebred, show quality dogs being altered, which is fine because those animals are generally not contributing to the overpopulation crisis under any circumstances.

The only issue will be funding. I worry about legislation for issues like this just because I fear that the city council may think "we've passed a law, what more do you want?" and funding for low-cost and free spay/neuter will be left out. If people can't afford sterilization - and let's face it, $250 or so for a dog spay at a private veterinary practice will be a strain on many people's budgets - then it's not going to happen without public funding.

I agree that it's only about as enforceable as rabies vaccine laws and licensing laws, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. It will be another tool in getting high risk animals sterilized. We'll have to see how it pans out, but overall I like it.