# LA Cty. Passes Mandatory Spay/Neuter!



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

This is a link to an article from AKC (was registering my pup finally online):
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2870


----------



## Alicia Mertz (Mar 28, 2006)

Wow. Thanks for the link. I wonder what you have to do to qualify as a "competition" dog?


----------



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

Probably what they're doing in Sacramento. You have to attend two shows a year and be a member of a breed/kennel club AND your dog has to be registered. :evil: 
Why is there no love for the dog's that can't be registered with AKC?


----------



## Stacia Porter (Apr 8, 2006)

Sarah Hall said:


> This is a link to an article from AKC (was registering my pup finally online):
> http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2870


I don't see this "law" holding up. I don't think you can legally require the surgical alteration of animals other than those "registered" or who "compete." If this were to go to court, I doubt it would hold up.

Another shining example of lawmakers sitting in a comfy little building making up laws that sound good but aren't in reality.


----------



## Rashmi Kumar (Apr 7, 2006)

I agree with Stacia here.

This is insane. :evil: :evil: 

Rashmi


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Stacia Porter said:


> Sarah Hall said:
> 
> 
> > This is a link to an article from AKC (was registering my pup finally online):
> ...


This is the law in *many* areas.....for example, a county in Northern California. Many of them.

It is extremely easy here to get a waiver in these NoCal counties (breeding, competition, special training). And according to the three local shelters, if they discount the Katrina animals they took in, their PTS rate has decreased by 35% (despite the constantly-increased population) since the ordinance went into effect.

I am NOT stating my own views here; just want to throw out another point of view for discussion purposes.


----------



## Stacia Porter (Apr 8, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Stacia Porter said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah Hall said:
> ...


Hmmm....do you happen to know what the compliance rate of this law in the area is? In other words, are the residents actually speutering in accordance with the statutes?

Don't get me wrong: I really think the average pet owner needs to alter their animals. I've run into WAY too many people with numerous "oops" litters on their hands lately to think otherwise (I'm still chuckling over the bullabrador dude). I just wonder if a law like this won't hurt some breeds in the long run by making it harder to breed animals? I'm sure the whole thing's also aimed at puppy mills and breeders who don't bother to show/work/medically test their "breeding stock." Just not sure you can legally require pet owners to have surgery performed on their dogs.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Stacia Porter said:


> ....Hmmm....do you happen to know what the compliance rate of this law in the area is? In other words, are the residents actually speutering in accordance with the statutes? ....Don't get me wrong: I really think the average pet owner needs to alter their animals. I've run into WAY too many people with numerous "oops" litters on their hands lately to think otherwise (I'm still chuckling over the bullabrador dude). I just wonder if a law like this won't hurt some breeds in the long run by making it harder to breed animals? I'm sure the whole thing's also aimed at puppy mills and breeders who don't bother to show/work/medically test their "breeding stock." Just not sure you can legally require pet owners to have surgery performed on their dogs.


It is definitely aimed at pet dogs. Licensed breeders, working dogs, show dogs, all specially-trained dogs, all eligible for exemption. 

Naturally, there is some non-compliance. 

There were definitely some court battles in the beginning, but the ordinances prevailed, and it's been a few years now.

Here's who I think it affected most: Fairly responsible pet owners who had no idea of the horrendous unwanted-pet problem and who would otherwise have gone on their merry way, happy and ignorant. Now they go on their happy and ignorant way until the dog's first vet visit. (There are also clinics, cheap shelter-financed programs, sliding-scale fees, and other inexpensive ways to get pets altered.) 

But even if this was the *only* segment of the population who complied -- in this area it's also quite possibly the segment that was most contributing to the problem. 

The legal precedent, etc., I know nothing about. This is just what I think might be the practical effect, when the law has built into it the exemptions I mentioned.

Again, I am keeping my personal views out of the discussion! :lol:


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

I live in L.A. County, which is where this new law applies. I am hoping that it is a simple matter to get a waiver on the spay/neuter thing. I am confused because of the rule about your dog must attend a show twice a year. My dog is a little over 5 months now, but obviously won't be competing in Schutzhund for a while yet!!!! I don't neuter my dogs, I also don't let them wander hither & thither to seek out females in season, which is what the authorities stated as one of the major problems this new rule is supposed to fix. Down here, we already have rules that state dogs can't run free, dogs must be on a 6 foot SUBSTANTIAL lead (who decides what SUBSTANTIAL is) & someone told me they have a law against flexi leads too. I really think this new law will just lead to more people not licensing their dog.

Also, the new law says you can get a waiver if your dog is a "licensed" service dog. If you read the Americans With Disabilites Act, a dog does not have to have a special license to qualify as a Service Dog. The Federal law overrides any State/City/County ordinance. 

The whole new ordiance thing is poorly written & I think in the long run, it will not be worth the paper it's written on.

By the way, we also have a law here about backyard breeders. They are not supposed to breed a female dog more than once in a 12 month period. Yeah, that's another law they really enforce. It is a good idea, but yet another rule nobody listens too. :roll: 

The road to hell is paved with stupid idiot politicians.


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

In Asheville, there is a similar type of 'law' that states that if you own an intact animal, you have to buy a permit every year for $100. The only way they can enforce this, though, is if they catch your animal running loose. Then they fine you the $100 and issue a warning about letting the animal run loose.



> Sec. 6-63. Spaying and neutering requirements; unaltered animals permit required.
> 
> No person shall own or harbor any dog or cat over the age of six months that has not been spayed or neutered unless such person holds an unaltered animal permit issued for such animal by the department of animal services, or any successor agency authorized by law to issue such a permit, except:
> 
> ...


----------



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

I just thought of something, how will they know if someone's dog isn't altered if they don't bring the dogs to the vet? I mean, it's obvious with males, but I still can't see an ACO out there on the sidewalk saying, "Excuse me, I just need to look between your dog's legs for a second". :lol:


----------



## Stacia Porter (Apr 8, 2006)

Sarah Hall said:


> I just thought of something, how will they know if someone's dog isn't altered if they don't bring the dogs to the vet? I mean, it's obvious with males, but I still can't see an ACO out there on the sidewalk saying, "Excuse me, I just need to look between your dog's legs for a second". :lol:


ROFL :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Isn't it pretty hard to tell with females? I know i was told they look for the staples on xray but is that even a good indicator? Do you have to register the spay/neuter with teh county? I am starting to wonder about the enforcability of such a law.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Stacia, that enforcability is something the politicians don't really think about when the're trying to get their name in the limelight with these rediculous laws.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

There is a bill currently going before the California Senate (SB1578) that will (if passed) prohibit tethering/fstening/chaining/tying/restraining a dog to a house/doghouse/tree/fence or other stationary object.

The people that did that HBO undercover documentary about that nasty class b dog dealer just sent a thing to my email, urging me to call/email my senator & tell them to pass this bill. 

Maybe I am too jaded, but I don't see how they are going to enforce this one either (if it passes). I would love to hear what ya'll think.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Plus, if it passes, would this mean no working on the poll at sch, etc. practice? :roll:


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

jeez louize, I mean pole not pole :roll:


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

My fingers aren't working, sorry. Pole not poll


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

Is that bill saying you cannot tether your dog to something at _all_, or is it saying that the dog can only be there for a specified amount of time as long as certain requirements are met?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

From what I read, it said you can't tether a dog to anything. I think the people they are intending to go after are those that chain dogs in yards.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

susan tuck said:


> Maybe I am too jaded, but I don't see how they are going to enforce this one either (if it passes). I would love to hear what ya'll think.


I think where it *could* be good is if you have an aggressive dog who is chained in a neighborhood AND people complain but there is no specific offense (yet); then there is an enforceable law. Of course that introduces a subjective element to law enforcement.

I can't see them having resources to go after the average person with a tethered dog until.....that dog becomes nasty due to being tethered all the time.

We had neighbors down the street with a nasty chained dog in a neighborhood we used to live in. Our kids were not allowed anywhere near the house and the dog almost ripped another kid's ear off -- strange -- the authorities took no action other than the mandatory 10 day hold -- 

These people were AWFUL; their idea of fun was to tie the rear legs of two cats together and throw them over a clothesline -- youngest kid was involved in sex crimes before he was 12. We were glad to move away - I feel bad for the kid (now grown if managed to survive to adulthood) and his future victims......


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Kristen

WOW Asheville has become much tougher than when we lived there

The "bad" neighborhood, BTW, was on Oakwood Rd off of Haywood Rd in West Asheville.

We did have to pay more for an intact dog license even in 1986 I *think* it was $25 then.

We were hoping to move back in a few years but the Western part of the SC upstate is looking more inviting for other reasons too.....


----------



## Kristen Cabe (Mar 27, 2006)

I'd stay in SC. The price just to live in the Asheville area is unreal. To be able to buy a decent house that isn't falling apart or on less than 1/4 of an acre, you have to make $200,000 a year. We just got lucky when we found our house. It is a 1200sq ft square block house, built in 1954, on a basement that is completely underground (and gets water in it when it rains really hard or for several days in a row) with just a walk-out door, on 1/2 an acre. It has a separate 2-car garage with storage in the loft. We paid $120,000 for it, and that was a deal because my aunt knew the seller. Take a look at what you can buy NOW for $120,000. Ratty old mobile homes and fixer-uppers mostly. The average price for a home in the Asheville area is $265,000, but jobs here don't pay enough to even qualify for that much. The reason for all of these big, fancy, expensive homes is wealthy retirees moving to the area. People who were born and raised here can't even afford to live here anymore.  

http://abr-nc.com/homestats.html

Plus, there isn't much here in the way of dogsports.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Kristen Cabe said:


> Plus, there isn't much here in the way of dogsports.


No, but you got a SAR team there that gets about 70 callouts a year.

(Actually if I moved I would stay on my team - the NC team has been very helpful to us )

I am thinking maybe we should of held onto our home in West Asheville 
1/2 acre built around 1920, we paid $35K for it in 1986 -- but the neighborhood was going down and it was hard to keep up with what was going on being in Charlotte.....


----------



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

Geeze, houses up there aren't as bad as those down here. My house sits on about a 1/4 acre, is 4 bedrooms and cost $237k three years ago. I just had it appraised by a real estate agent last week and it was up to nearly $500k (including most of my improvemnts). Thank goodness I've got a good, low mortgage payment through my mom's good credit. LOL


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Sarah Hall said:


> Geeze, houses up there aren't as bad as those down here. My house sits on about a 1/4 acre, is 4 bedrooms and cost $237k three years ago. I just had it appraised by a real estate agent last week and it was up to nearly $500k (including most of my improvemnts). Thank goodness I've got a good, low mortgage payment through my mom's good credit. LOL


From the newspaper in my town, reporting on May, 2006 home prices:
"The median home price for a single family home is $750,000 while the median price for a condominium averages between $400,000 and $550,000."

I have the extreme misfortune to live in one of the top spots (cost) in the country...... the saddest part is that there are several much higher!


----------



## Sarah Hall (Apr 12, 2006)

Wow. I've heard Cali is expensive. My home isn't even near the cost of other houses in nicer areas. It's kind of odd to think I pay $800 monthly for my mortgage on a HOUSE, and I pay $713 for a 2-bedroom apartment only 15 mi. apart. Different counties, though.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Sarah Hall said:


> Wow. I've heard Cali is expensive......


Mainly on the ocean, I think.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Sarah Hall said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. I've heard Cali is expensive......
> ...


Good thing there is not much of that in CA!!! :lol: 

And I think it's mainly expensive between the ocean and the desert.  :twisted:


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Woody Taylor said:


> Connie Sutherland said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah Hall said:
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------

