# California Spay / Neuter Law



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Will this pass? Will it pass in your state????

Look and see who is for and against this law at the end.

I tried to post the written law but it is too long so I'll post the link so you can see for yourself.


http://tinyurl.com/34yvcy


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Jerry Lyda said:


> Will this pass? Will it pass in your state????
> 
> Look and see who is for and against this law at the end.
> 
> ...


It failed to clear its first key legislative hearing yesterday.

It passed in my county about ten years ago, though. Exempt: working dogs, pure breeds, breeders' dogs, PSDs, etc.


----------



## David Ross (Nov 24, 2006)

Curious. Just hoping this hurts backyard breeders who breed mutt breeds.

Do these type of laws force mutt breeds to be altered even if they're registered with the Hybrid Kennel Club? I wonder if this was the entire reason of the hybrid kennel club.



Connie Sutherland said:


> It failed to clear its first key legislative hearing yesterday.
> 
> It passed in my county about ten years ago, though. Exempt: working dogs, pure breeds, breeders' dogs, PSDs, etc.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

I think the amendment was poorly written but I don't think those who wrote it had bad intentions as some have argued. UScA wrote a great letter in protest of the amendment. If you go to their website you will see it. Apparently the author of the amendment is going to make changes so it can be presented again. I think I read that if it does not pass before the end of the month it will die (for now).


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

The problem is, this law like other AC laws will only be selectively enforced. It will hurt the law abiding people, who already license their dogs, keep them on leash, keep them contained, etc. It will not effect people who already let their dogs run loose to breed, terrorize others, etc. 

What it will also do is lessen the number of people who will bail Fluffy out of the pound. Right now if your dog gets loose you go pay a fine, get the dog licensed if it isn't, and you are done. They press you to alter your dog, but you don't have to. Now if Fluffy gets loose and hasn't been altered, and you go to bail them out, you are facing a very hefty fine and possible criminal charges. How many people will bother getting Fluffy out?

The law is also written as if it has excemptions for working/show/performance animals. But in reality the vast majority don't qualify for those exceptions. Not to mention it's up to the local AC if they want to allow the excemptions. For example, your dog qualifies for an excemption from being altered if it's been entered in a competition in the last year.  Sounds fine. Except all dogs without excemptions have to be altered by 4 months. And most competitions don't allow dogs to be entered until at least 6 months old, and some require the dog to be a year or more. So when Rover is 4 months old and you need to prove it meets the excemptions so you can keep him intact, he doesn't. And you either hide him out for a few months until he does, and hope they won't try to retroactively enforce the law when you go to get your exemption, or you are forced to alter him/her. Or hope like heck the local conformation clubs start to allow puppy entries at 3 months, so you can get your competition excemption. Cause I can't think of much else I could enter a 3-4 month old puppy in. 

The other group that has excemption, USDA breeders. So gee, people will still be able to get dogs, from a puppymill/petstore. You just won't be able to get a dog from most responsible breeders. You will be able to for a few years, while their current dogs are still producing, but how are they supposed to get any future generations? Lots of luck finding your next working dog at a pet store.


----------



## Sam Trinh (Jul 31, 2006)

http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2007/04/03/opinion/columnists/priest_julia_070403.txt

a decent article on the issue.


----------



## Trish Campbell (Nov 28, 2006)

I know on the USA list that there are names, phone numbers, fax numbers for the represenatives for people to voice opposition to this proposed bill. IMO it will hurt many reputable hobby breeders if passed.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

What most fail to recognise is this is the elimination of any sales of puppies by eliminating the vast majority of breeders who won't deal with this gestapo tactic. Who benefits. Animal control. Local animal controls even now are the biggest peddlers of substandard dog flesh in every county, in every state, in this country. If they pass this bill, the local animal controls will have the sales of puppies and dogs locked up. In Madera County, a rural county with a small population by comparison to much of the state, the animal control peddles about 700 dogs a year right now. There is an estimated 30,000 dogs in this county(their figures which may be grossly inflated to substantiate the claim). Out of that, they have only 1800 dogs that are registered. This tells me the only licensed dogs are the dogs sold by the animal control. These agencies are poorly run and are always in the red so they say it is costing for the program. If they did their jobs and got the other estimated 28,200 dogs licensed they would have the money to support the program. They have never required licensing of cats and there is the revenue, but, they might have to work to get it. Cats have always gotten a free ride and the dog owners have to pay the price. Seems the answer might be to have the breeders collect the license fees and turn them into the state so they can be distributed to the correct county. Pain in the butt but better and more effective than what they are proposing. Major income would be gained in licensing cats. and the persons/store selling the animal collects the license fee. The increases revenue would be phenomenol. If an animal is sold out of state, no fee is collected....like sales taxes.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Theres no getting around the fact that california animal shelters are overcrowded. I don't think anyone would argue that killing unwanted dogs is the best solution to the problem. There has to be a better way! Connie, I was wondering if you could provide a link to your county's spay neuter ordinance. Also, can you tell us how it has been working? Is there anything you would change about the county ordinance as it stands today where you are?


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

susan tuck said:


> Theres no getting around the fact that california animal shelters are overcrowded. I don't think anyone would argue that killing unwanted dogs is the best solution to the problem. There has to be a better way! Connie, I was wondering if you could provide a link to Santa Cruz's spay neuter ordinance. Also, can you tell us how it has been working? Is there anything you would change about the county ordinance as it stands today where you are?


Oops, edited you by mistake instead of replying.... sorry.


It has worked pretty well for a decade, IMHO, from the viewpoint of a shelter volunteer. The dogs who can be exempted (VERY easily) are: all working dogs, all pure breeds, PSDs, and breeders' dogs, as well as any dogs whose vets say they cannot be altered without a health risk.

I totally understand the protests about government intrusion. I do, however, see the results of this ordinance, along with the catch, neuter, and return program for the feral cat population.

This went through the grinder a hundred times when it was being considered in the 90s, and everyone who had a reason to leave their dog(s) unaltered past reproductive age was heard. Basically, the ones left without a way out (unless the dog is at a health risk) are pet mutts and shelter dogs.

Three years after in passed in 1996 (I think it was) there was drop from 10,000 to 6,000 of animals entering shelters in the county.

I haven't monitored it since that year, but I will check.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

I forgot to say that it's not 4 months here where I live; it's 6 months.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Now if Fluffy gets loose and hasn't been altered, and you go to bail them out, you are facing a very hefty fine and possible criminal charges. How many people will bother getting Fluffy out?


Here, there's a 30-day period to go get it done before being fined.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> I haven't monitored it since that year, but I will check.


I checked.

Shelters here were taking in an average of 16,000 animals a year from 1990 to 1995. For the decade after the law passed (1996 to 2005) they averaged 5,000 animals a year. (Figures from the SPCA)

P.S. I fully realize that I am reporting only one effect. There are probably many undesirable effects too. This is the only one I can quantify personally.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Both USPCA (United States Police Canine Association) and NAPWDA (North 
American Police Work Dog Association) have joined the fight against this bill. 

DFrost


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Both USPCA (United States Police Canine Association) and NAPWDA (North
> American Police Work Dog Association) have joined the fight against this bill.
> 
> DFrost


Do you know why?

Here, at least, PDSs are a blanket exemption.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Personally, I've not read the bill. The reasoning in the annoucement was; this bill is detrimental to all police K9. Since I basically think the left coast, in general, is a bubble off plumb, and the 9th Circus (circuit court) is definately a fry short of a happy meal, I don't pay it much mind.

DFrost


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Personally, I've not read the bill. The reasoning in the annoucement was; this bill is detrimental to all police K9. Since I basically think the left coast, in general, is a bubble off plumb, and the 9th Circus (circuit court) is definately a fry short of a happy meal, I don't pay it much mind.
> 
> DFrost


Well, yeah, can't argue with a lot of that. lol

Well, some, anyway.


----------



## Lynn Cheffins (Jul 11, 2006)

Well - they gotta start somewhere....

Aug 1988 "I don't use the word 'pet.' I think it's specieist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding ... as the surplus of cats and dogs declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship - enjoyment at a distance." - Ingrid Newkirk, in Harpers Magazine


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Lynn Cheffins said:


> Well - they gotta start somewhere....
> 
> Aug 1988 "I don't use the word 'pet.' I think it's specieist language. I prefer 'companion animal.' For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding ... as the surplus of cats and dogs declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship - enjoyment at a distance." - Ingrid Newkirk, in Harpers Magazine


I guess that's a possible driving force.

In my own experience, the people who are in favor of the local ordinance are people who own companion and working animals, and who see the problems inherent in the law(s), but who don't know how else to make any significant reduction in the shelter misery..... the four million dogs who enter shelters in this country each year. I very sincerely wish someone would/could come up with a solution.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Do you know why?
> 
> Here, at least, PDSs are a blanket exemption.



This is probably part of it

States that this bill shall not prohibit a local jurisdiction 
from adopting and enforcing a more restrictive spay and neuter 
program provided that the program allows for the temporary or 
permanent exemption from the spay and neuter requirements for 
law enforcement dogs.


[kadi] NOTE the words TEMPORARY. It won't prohibt a local jurisdiction from adopting something even more restrictive, as long as they allow for a temporary exemption. So they could implement a more restrictive program, and give PSD's a 1 month exemption, which means get your PSD out of the are within a month, or get it altered.



Requires all cats and dogs in the state over four 
months old to be spayed or neutered unless the owner has been 
issued an intact permit, as defined, allowing the animal to 
remain unaltered.

c) The dog is appropriately trained and meets the 
definition of guide dog, service dog or signal dog;

d) The dog is trained for use by law enforcement agencies 
and is currently used by those agencies for law enforcement 
and rescue; or, 

[kadi] this sounds like it will exempt PSD's, but I don't know of any 4 month old dogs who are already trained/certified as PSD's. So before your dog can even prove it's capable of doing the work, it will already have to have been spayed/neutered. Which means no more getting dogs that were born/raised in the state, all PSD's will have to be imported from out of state as adults, if the PD's want intact K9's.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

The pure breed exemption -- wouldn't it alleviate that concern?

Maybe it's not built into the proposed state law.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Seeing the local shelter entry figures lower does influence the way I view this.

But I really want to see this from all sides.


----------



## Lacey Vessell (Nov 18, 2006)

IMHO this law will once again "punish" the law abiding and reputable breeders in CA . I'm definitely against this law as written. Guess I'm just a pessimist.... but the puppy mills and backyard breeders will find a way around things...anything to make a buck. Definitely concerned that if this passes in CA, our (NC) politicians could jump on the band wagon. 

Even with a purebred exclusion - who's gonna determine if the dog is purebred? AKC? that's a scary thought right there. AC determining anything is an even scarier thought.

My county does not have a license/permit fee - they should...for all animals. I'm more then willing to pay for the privledge to own a dog(s) but here they can't/won't even enforce the required rabies vaccination until a dog bites someone. A very high percentage of our "shelter dogs" come from the military personnel who reside in this county....who would probably get an exemption from such a law.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

I totally see that point.

I am thinking that maybe the relative success in one county (a small county, by California standards) is not a perfect yardstick.

Even though it's a partly rural and farming country, the fact is that it would be extremely hard to be a breeder and fly under the radar of the vets, L.E., neighbors, etc. It is probably much different from the way it would be in a huge and sparsely populated area..... of which there are many in the state.

That speaks to the point of view of leaving such issues up to local government, maybe.

Here's to reasoned arguments! :>)


----------



## Lynn Cheffins (Jul 11, 2006)

from Jerry's original link - 


quote- b) The owner sufficiently demonstrates that his or her 
animal is: a valid breed recognized by an approved 
registry; used to show or compete and has done so in at 
least one show or competition within the last two years; 
and, has earned, or if under two years old, is in the 
process of earning, a title from an approved purebred 
registry or association; - unquote


Many working animals are not dogs used for competition or show - or from an "approved" (approved by whom?) purebred registry and there are no "titles" involved. The legislation as proposed in the original post seems very open ended and unclear - leaving everything up to "the jurisdiction". I think the money that is spent on trying to ram thru this type of legislation would be better spent on education.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Connie Sutherland said:


> The pure breed exemption -- wouldn't it alleviate that concern?


There is no purebreed exemption. These are the exemptions, which in other areas of the bill can be overridden by local AC at will. So even if your dog actually met ALL of these excemptions, your local AC could implement even tighter rules and still refuse to give you a permit. Or make the cost of the permits so prohibitive that people couldn't afford them, since each local AC also gets to decide what to charge.

4)Allows an intact permit to be issued if any of the following conditions are met: 

a) The owner demonstrates through specified means that he 
or she is doing business and is licensed as a breeder by 
the local jurisdiction; 

[Kadi - licensed means USDA licensing, local jurisdiction gives out kennel licenses, but not breeder licenses, the average reputable hobby breeder does NOT qualify for a USDA license, just whelping a litter in your kitchen or letting them run around your living room disqualifies you]

b) The owner sufficiently demonstrates that his or her 
animal is: a valid breed recognized by an approved 
registry; used to show or compete and has done so in at 
least one show or competition within the last two years; 
and, has earned, or if under two years old, is in the 
process of earning, a title from an approved purebred 
registry or association; 

[Kadi - dogs have to be altered by 4 months of age. So this exemption is useless, you can't even enter them in shows until 6 months so it can't meet the "and has done so in at least one show or competition within the last two years. They also have to approve the "registry or association" Considering the current political climate I suspect USA, DVG, NARA, USMRA, etc will NOT be on that list of approved associations. Which means any training/titles/competitions through those organizations would not qualify for an excemption. Not really an issue for me since I also do AKC events, but we'll see a lot of Sch and FR people needing to go out and earn AKC titles to qualify. Which takes us back to the "can't be intact after 4 months with a show entry - can't be under 6 months to enter a show" issue. And if they did actually accept Sch/FR/MR titles, those organizations have even higher age ranges needed for competition.]

c) The dog is appropriately trained and meets the 
definition of guide dog, service dog or signal dog;

d) The dog is trained for use by law enforcement agencies 
and is currently used by those agencies for law enforcement 
and rescue; or, 

[Kadi - c & d would be awfully hard to prove with a 4 month old pup]

e) The owner provides a letter from a California licensed 
veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or 
illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the animal.

[Kadi - now this one I'd love to do, I wonder if I could get my vet to provide a letter stating that due to age (under 4 months of age) he feels it's unsafe to alter my animal LOL.

The only way I see of being able to meet an excemption, assuming my local AC doesn't implement stricter criteria, which the bill allows, is to send any pups I keep out of state the day they turn 4 months old, and not bring them back home until they are over 6 months of age and can be entered in a local dog show. Bring them back, show them, then apply for the excemption.

If this law passes, I will probably end up moving out of state. I can get excemptions for my current dogs since they are all 5 months or older and I can easily enter the pup in an AKC show before this bill goes into effect. But that's assuming they put a reasonable price on the excemptions, they could easily decide they want to charge 500+ per dog, under the misguided idea that "breeders make lots of money, so this isn't any big deal"

Course they are also under the misguided idea that spay/neuter is cheap. My vet charges approx 300.00 for a neuter, and a spay runs around 400. And you better hope there are no complications, last dog I neutered (at a different vet) was almost 700.00 because he licked his stitches out. There are some low cost spay/neuter places in the area, but many of them want proof of income. Other's don't, and charge about 150 for a spay or neuter. However, I've used low cost places twice, and both times had problems that required emergency hospitalization afterwards due to excessive bleeeding, so "low cost" quickly because "extremely costly".  I prefer to use my own vet, who I know, trust, and who will even let me observe the surgery.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Now I understand completely what people are saying about how poorly the bill is written. :sad:


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

That's why I was wanting a link so I could see the difference between a bill that is obviously working and this poorly written one proposed for the whole state.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

This is a local ordinance that's been in effect for 11 years. It is for dogs over 6 months old (not 4), and there is no titling mentioned.

The following animals are exempt from the provisions of this section:
1.	Dogs documented as trained for and used by public law enforcement agencies for law enforcement activities; dogs designated as breeding stock by an appropriate agency or organization approved by the director of animal control services after consultation with knowledgeable professionals;
2.	Dogs documented as trained for and used as a service dog such as a guide dog, hearing dog, assistance dog, seizure alert dog or social/therapy dog; dogs designated as breeding stock by an appropriate agency or organization approved by the director of animal control services after consultation with knowledgeable professionals;
3.	Dogs documented as trained for and used by search and rescue agencies for search and rescue activities; dogs designated as breeding stock by an appropriate agency or organization approved by the director of animal control services after consultation with knowledgeable professionals;
4.	Dogs or cats certified by a licensed veterinarian as having a health reason for not being spayed/neutered;
5.	Dogs which are appropriately trained and actually being used for herding of other animals, or as livestock guardian dogs, or dogs designated as breeding stock by an appropriate agency or organization approved by the director of animal control services after consultation with knowledgeable professionals;
6.	Dogs or cats boarded in a licensed kennel or a business which boards such animals for professional training or resale. 

Others:

Unaltered animal certification; administration.

A.	The director of animal control services shall administer a certification program to allow for unaltered animals over the age of six months when the director of animal control services determines that the following conditions have been met:
1.	The animal is examined annually by a licensed veterinarian and is following the preventative health care program recommended by the veterinarian;
2.	The owner has not been convicted of one or more violations of the following offenses within the preceding twenty-four months:
a.	County Code Section 6.12.100 (harassment, threat or injury by dog),
b.	County Code Section 6.12.110 (dog killing domesticated animal),
c.	County Code Section 6.12.130 (dog threatening or injuring livestock or wild game),
d.	County Code Section 6.12.140 (unrestrained vicious animal),
e.	County Code Section 6.16.020 (failure to acquire permit for a kennel/pet shop),
f.	County Code Section 6.20.030 E (refusing demand to produce animal),
g.	County Code Section 6.24.060 (failure to provide requested information),
h.	County Code Section 6.24.080 (interference with director of animal control services),
i.	Health and Safety Code Section 121705 (concealing bite information),
j.	Penal Code Section 286.5 (sexual assault on animal),
k.	Penal Code Section 596 (poisoning of animal),
l.	Penal Code Section 597 (animal cruelty),
m.	Penal Code Section 597.5 (fighting dogs),
n.	Penal Code Section 599aa (seizure of fighting dogs),
o.	Penal Code Sections 487e, 487f, or 487g (theft of animal);
3.	The owner has not been convicted of two or more violations of the following offenses involving the dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought, within the preceding twenty-four months:
a.	County Code Section 6.12.010 (dog at large),
b.	County Code Section 6.12.020 (dog off leash);
c.	County Code Section 6.08.020 (vaccination required);
4.	Within the preceding twenty-four months, the owner has not received a director of animal control services order involving the dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought, pursuant to:
a.	County Code Section 6.04.100 A (quarantine a dog for biting a person),
b.	County Code Section 6.04.100 C (impounding a dog for nonconfinement),
c.	County Code Section 6.20.020 D (impounding a vicious animal without notice,); and such determination has not been expressly overturned by the animal nuisance abatement appeals commission;
5.	The dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought, has not been determined by the director of animal control services to be a "vicious animal" pursuant to County Code Section 6.24.070, unless such determination has been expressly overturned by the animal nuisance abatement appeals commission;
6.	The animal is properly housed and cared for as follows:
a.	The animal is provided sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water,
b.	The animal is provided shelter that will allow the animal to stand up, turn around, and lay down without laying in his/her feces. That the area where the animal is kept is properly cleaned and disinfected,
c.	If the animal is a dog, it must be fully contained on the owner’s property and be provided appropriate exercise,
d.	The animal owner otherwise complies with any applicable state law concerning the care and housing of animals;
7.	The owner furnishes the director of animal control services with a signed statement agreeing to the following conditions:
a.	The female unaltered animal will have no more than one litter per year, unless the owner furnishes the director of animal control services in advance of any breeding, a written statement from a licensed veterinarian recommending that the female feline be allowed to have up to two litters per year. This written recommendation may result from the annual examination required pursuant to subsection (A)(1) of this section,
b.	Offspring of the unaltered animal will not be sold or adopted until they are at least seven weeks of age,
c.	Records will be kept documenting how many offspring were produced and who adopted or purchased them;
8.	The dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought is currently licensed as required by Chapter 6.08 of this code.
B.	Any person advertising to the public, the availability of any dog or cat subject to certification pursuant to this chapter, for adoption, sale, barter or other transfer must prominently display his or her unaltered animal certification number in the advertisement. The certification number shall also be provided to any person adopting or purchasing any dog or cat subject to certification pursuant to this chapter, that is bred in the unincorporated area of the county.
C.	Any owner of an unspayed or unneutered dog or cat who has been cited for failing to obtain an unaltered animal certification shall have his or her citation dismissed if they are subsequently issued an unaltered animal certification, or if there is proof that the animal has been spayed or neutered within thirty days of the issuance of the citation.
D.	Any owner who is denied an unaltered animal certification or whose certification is revoked by the director of animal control services for failure to comply with the requirements of this section may appeal such denial or revocation to the nuisance abatement appeals commission pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 2.66 of this code.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Just a couple of points. You can't run around neutering all the 4 mo old males. They will forever look like puppies. The chests and heads or for that matter, the whole dog will never mature and develope properly. You can't title a dog every year to qualify to keep them intact. And, how are you going to tiutle 4 mo old pups that may be out of titled parents. Aside from being financially prohibitive, what if you have one of the best specimens in existence and it is beat out by another. That means one of the finest examples of a breed should be neutered. Then whole bill was penned by total idiots. These two examples are just the glaring problems. The whole bill is full of them but I don't have time now.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Money, or the lack of is a big part of this type of bill. This brings up a few questions. Why aren't cats licensed? Big revenue boost right there. Animal control will claim they don't know who the cats belong to(just as they do the dogs in Madera County). If this is the case, the cats will get another free ride because they just don't know who they belong to. It always falls back to the dog owner to foot the bill.

In reality, the person collecting the license fees for the animals should be the breeders or whoever is selling the animal....store, ranch, or whatever. Most all of my dogs go out of state but since I have the addresses of those in state, it would seem to be the place to collect license fees and turn them into the state for distribution to the local jurisdictions. Same with cats. Then the legal ramifications would be dealing with those that sold animals without collecting the license fees. This would ensure all animals are licensed coming from reputable breeders. Another thing that should be stopped is the selling of animals by the local animal control. Consider this, Madera county collected license fees for about 1800 dogs county wide out of an estimated 30,000 dogs in this county. Cats were not required to be licensed but should be as there are more cats than dogs and they breed freely like damn rabbits. to get a handle on it, euthanize every animal picked up without an ID collar with the owners name, address, and phone number on it. Let's see, there is a lot of revenue if just the license fees were collected by breeders and, since the local jurisdictions are to inept to figure a way to collect them, I guess it is up to some one else to do it for them. I personally am getting tired of taking the shaft and having to support cats and other dog owners that let their dogs roam the streets. I live in the mountains and don't "ever" let my dogs roam the streets.....but I am going to get caught up in this police action. Very reminiscent of criminals use guns so take everyone's guns. This is bullshit!


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Very good point about the cats, Don. At the local shelter, most of the dogs that are put down are because of behavior issues or because of health issues that are too costly or far gone to save. A sizeable chunk are still PTS because of space, but if you look at the same statistics for cats, many many more are PTS because of space and just too many kittens coming in.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Another thing the vets don't tell you. Vets make it seem like you are doing your dog(bitches) a disservice by not spaying to avoid potential cancer problems. Yes potentially, 3 out of 100 if I remember right, may develop cancer from not being spayed. What I have never heard a vet tell any one is that 30% of the females spayed will have some degree of incontinence. Lack of estrogen people. They need to be given estrogen tablets daily to make them continent and livable in the house or on the furniture or sleeping on the carpet. Veterinary practice has evolved from what was once a treat the problem business to a preventative medicine business for possible problems they are likely not to get anyway. If no one has noticed also, most spayed females are fat as little pigs. And they are trying to say spay everything at 4 mo.????


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

From what I read in a much cited paper a couple months back (it was in JAVMA and called something like "The Long Term Risks and Benefits of Early Gonadectomy" or something similar), it recommended waiting until at least 4 months to spay for the urinary incontinence thing. Can't remember the exact number, but something like 25% of intact females end up getting mammary tumors which aren't always benign. I always ovariectomy my female pet rats as nearly 50% get mammary tissues if kept intact. Castrating animals does often make them lay down some extra fat, but as it was estimated that 50% of pets in the US are overweight or obese, I think it's also because very very few dogs really get the exercise they need and because people think dogs have the same emotional need for food that we do and don't realize that an extra half cup of food a day packs on the pounds. My dogs are all neutered and all are lean and mean, but they are fairly well exercised and not overfed.


----------



## Sam Trinh (Jul 31, 2006)

I heard that the bill passed a prelim or something like that on a 6-2 vote. Not knowing the CA papers, I was wondering if this made the news, and what ppl's plans were if it does pass.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Sam Leinweber said:


> I heard that the bill passed a prelim or something like that on a 6-2 vote. Not knowing the CA papers, I was wondering if this made the news, and what ppl's plans were if it does pass.


There are still more steps to be taken before this goes into effect, but yes, it passed the first hurdle.

My plans are to continue to write letters and call people. If this does pass, I will move out of CA.


----------



## Sam Trinh (Jul 31, 2006)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> There are still more steps to be taken before this goes into effect, but yes, it passed the first hurdle.
> 
> My plans are to continue to write letters and call people. If this does pass, I will move out of CA.


Kadi, do you know what the general response is from the politicians who voted for this? The bill is so outrageous, I really wonder how (if somebody understands its implications) one could be in favor of it.


----------



## Sam Trinh (Jul 31, 2006)

Just saw this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113211/


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Gov Shwarzenegger is a weenie. [-X


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Now, instead of getting choked with pics of that scrawny blonde chick being sent back to jail, we'll be getting pics of Gov Arnold's dog's nuts. 


"On the 8th day the earth tilted and everything loose fell into California."


----------



## Amber Scott Dyer (Oct 30, 2006)

the reason that the majority of spayed/neutered animals are fat is that the majority of doting pet owners 'do the right thing' and have their pet altered. I'm 100% for this, simply because most pet owners may take good care of their animals, but have no business breeding. Point is, these same well meaning people overfeed their dogs to the point of obesity. For example, my husband's little dog is super overweight, but only because he thinks I 'starve' her by feeding her the recommended amount, and so he sneaks in extra food in her dish while I'm not looking. :-x She was fat before she was spayed, and hasn't gotten any fatter.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Hormones are really funny things and there are many things that doctors, vets, and scientists just don't know about how they all interact and in what age and what window of development and in what amounts. Doing shelter and rescue volunteer work and fostering for several years, the sheer amount of animals that are put to sleep for lack of space in animal shelters is staggering and I have no problem recommending pet owners spay and neuter their animals at the appropriate age (which would be past 3-4 months old in females for possible urinary incontinence issues and especially for canine athletes, after they are done growing). In fact, instead of having very difficult to enforce bill come to pass, I'd like to see a small tax break for folks who do spay and neuter their animals. After all, our tax dollars are going towards maintaining animal shelters and stupid owner decisions.

But you're absolutely right, Amber. At the end of the day, all other issues aside (and our research lab studies many), calories in and calories out is what it eventually comes down to. Way too many well meaning people set out a buffet of the equivalence of McDonald's every single day while thinking their little backyard is both treadmill and baby sitter for their dogs. I love that saying "if your dog is fat, YOU are not getting enough exercise." My dogs (all neutered/spayed) are all lean and I'm "intact" and need to lose a few. Whoops... :lol:


----------



## Lacey Vessell (Nov 18, 2006)

*Update:*

*Assemblyman withdraws bill that would have required pets be spayed*
(CNN) -- The assemblyman who proposed requiring that Californians spay or neuter their pets has temporarily withdrawn his proposed bill from consideration after becoming the object of personal attacks, he said Wednesday.
"I think we could have worked collaboratively toward a solution but instead it became a matter of name calling and everything under the sun to get people afraid of the measure and just finally created too much noise and too much fear," said Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys.
But Levine said he remains committed to the issue. In California, about half of the 1 million dogs and cats taken each year to shelters are euthanized at a cost to taxpayers of $300 million, he said.
"Both from a fiscal and a humanitarian viewpoint, that is just wrong," he said. "It's a failure here in California, and we need to do better. How we do it, I'm not sure."
Levine invited his opponents "to put down the rhetoric and come and help me and I think, together, we can solve the problem."
Levine said he made the decision to pull the bill on Tuesday afternoon after determining that the bill would not pass in a planned Wednesday vote, despite support from shelter workers and directors.
A spokesman for Levine said that, had the bill been defeated, Levine would have had to introduce a new bill next year. By withdrawing the current version, which has already passed the Assembly, he can simply tweak it and bring the modified bill to a Senate vote in January, the spokesman said.
Under the bill, owners who did not have their animals spayed or neutered by four months of age could have been ticketed and fined up to $500.
The bill is based on a Santa Cruz ordinance enacted in 1995. Officials say that, since then, the county shelter has seen a 2/3 drop in the number of animals, and none have been euthanized.
Opponents said dog owners should have the right to keep their dogs unaltered.
The bill would have exempted breeding, rescue, law enforcement, guide and show dogs. But critics said those provisions were not sufficient.
"Anything that restricts the gene pool at an earlier age may eliminate a particularly valuable dog form the breeding population before he or she is identified," said bill opponent Douglas Surber in an interview last month.
-- CNN's Chris Lawrence contributed to this story. (Poster 11:19 a.m.)

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/11/wednesday/index.html


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

The bill would have done no good even if it had passed. The dogs that are being bred & causing the over population problem are not those owned by the average person & these are the dogs targeted by the bill.


----------

