Click here to Register

K9Mania.com - Forums By Dog Lovers for Dog Lovers > Other Issues > Legislative and Regulatory » You May Never Own an Intact Dog Again!‏
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-03-2009, 12:53 AM   #1
Jr_K9_Expert
Been Around A While
 
Jr_K9_Expert's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: California, USA
Posts: 4,285
Send a message via AIM to Jr_K9_Expert
You May Never Own an Intact Dog Again!‏

This is a bit long but bare with me, its important. Recieved it from the AKC newsletter:


California Senate Bill 250 You May Never Own an Intact Dog Again!
California Senate Bill 250 is before the full Assembly for a vote this week and we need your help. Please contact your state Assemblymember and Senator immediately and ask him/her to oppose SB 250.

The bill will force sterilization of an unlicensed, intact animal if it is impounded (even once!) or violates any one of a variety of animal control ordinances that are not related to an animal's reproductive status. This legislation will not improve the lives of cats and dogs, will negatively impact responsible owners and breeders, and by placing additional burdens on owners of intact animals, may lead to an increase of animals in shelters.

The bill will prohibit an owner who has had an intact dog license revoked from owning any intact dog, so if you have one problem animal you would be banned from ever owning an intact dog again! This is completely unreasonable.

The AKC encourages owners who do not want to engage in responsible breeding programs or compete with their dogs to spay and neuter their animals. We object to forced sterilization of dogs for minor animal control violations. With the confusion of overlapping jurisdictions and a high number of people being forced to move due to foreclosures, it is easy to see how an owner could overlook pet licensure. Instead of encouraging these people to come into compliance, SB 250 penalizes them by requiring sterilization, even for a single offense. By requiring an expensive elective surgery in addition to fines to reclaim their animal, some owners will be forced to make the heart-wrenching decision to abandon a family pet.

Existing state law already requires that owners of intact animals pay a license fee that is at least double that of the fee for sterilized animals and provides for enhanced and graduated fines for owners whose intact dogs are impounded. These statutes are sufficient to incentivize owners to sterilize their animals and to address animal control concerns with specific intact animals who are impounded. If local governments feel the need to adopt further ordinances, it is within their power to do so.

This bill is currently on the Assembly floor and will likely be voted on in the next few days. If it passes the Assembly it will return to the Senate to enable the Senators to vote for or against the changes made in the Assembly. Please contact both your Assemblymember and Senator immediately! Passage of SB 250 will make it much harder to obtain a locally raised purebred dog in California!

What You Can Do

Contact your Assemblymember and Senator and ask him/her to oppose SB 250. A sample letter for you to personalize is available here. To find out who represents you in the California State Legislature, please click here.

What are your guy's thoughts on this? Too Tough? Just Right?
-Steven



My dog article site - K9Domain
My dog blog - Dog Notes
Jr_K9_Expert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 01:19 AM   #2
6dogmom
Been Around A While
 
6dogmom's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,617
Send a message via AIM to 6dogmom Send a message via MSN to 6dogmom
The first paragraph is great. I am sorry but if I let my dog get out of my enclosure and he is an intact male and they have to pick him up, then by all means yes they should have the right to say that my dog needs to be neutered because if I can't even keep him in my yard then how the hell can I be responsible for a proper breeding program.
Second paragraph. I don't know, but if I can't be responsible for one intact dog then how can I be resposible for another. The only disagreement I have with that is the time. I think like a five year time limit or something should be on that.
ok, the third on gets me. I think the AKC should go both ways on that one. If I wanted to show my fixed dog then I should be allowed if I just wanted to show and not breed. It's almost a contradiction to itself. I again still agree with forcing sterialization if need be. I know so many people that are much more well off then me and there dogs pop out babies all the time. They choose to spend there money on something else, not there dog. To me if you can't be resposible then do have it. Sorry to be so harsh but I don't make millions and I manage to fix all the ones I need fixed, vet bills food and all that and trust me it's not as bad as everyone thinks. You just need to prioatize your stuff.
I also think that vets should have to be reporters of unlicensed dogs. Like the abuse laws and children. It should make vets liable if they do not report such things.
I may breed but I sure am an advocate for spaying and neutering. At one time when I was 19 years old, I had just had my daughter, was young also had six cats and two dogs, every single last one of them was fixed and we had no help programs in my area, we had to pay a vet to do them all. So my beleif is that no one can say they can't do it. Especially now, you can have it done so cheap.
Save five dollars a week and you can get a male neutered, two more weeks and you can do the female. It's all a matter of do you want to.
That's just my opinion. Sorry in advance if I offended anyone.
6dogmom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 02:17 AM   #3
ann_hawes
Been Around A While
 
ann_hawes's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kokomo, Indiana USA
Posts: 1,949
I've had dogs of my own, dogs I was responsible for, for 34 years. I've lived in city limits, suburbs, and for a few years way out in the country. With the exception of one or two years, I've had multiple dogs, at one time as many as 11 living here, although two were fosters. Not once have I ever had one of my dogs picked up for running loose. I've had gates left open by meter readers, I've had a fence come down in an ice and wind storm. I go out with my dogs and we come in together. I look at the fences while I'm out and walk the entire perimeter at least once a day to check for problems. My dogs are already altered. I would be more upset about one of my dogs out unsupervised, in danger of being hit by a car, than I would be of any legislation trying to reduce the number of unwanted dogs being born.

Silence is golden,
Duct tape is silver.
ann_hawes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2009, 04:43 AM   #4
Shara
Been Around A While
 
Shara's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Amarillo, Texas
Posts: 3,030
Send a message via MSN to Shara
I am confused...a bit...is the law saying if you get caught with a unlicensed dog or if your dog gets loose will HAVE to be sterilized?


OK if I get that right, I think this:

If your dog gets 'loose' you need to review the circumstances around it. If someone left a gate open other than the owners, I would say it wasnt their fault and shouldnt be penilized. If the owners dont have a fence up and let their dog run amock, thats a diffrent story.

I think all mutts should be sterilized personally, unless you are a "foundation stock" person who is trying to make a reconized breed. If your dog is just for "a pet" I think it should be sterilized for health reasons and for protection against accidents.

If you cannot afford it...I think you shouldnt own a dog...it isnt THAT expensive, and if you cant afford the surgury how are you going to afford food? It comes with getting a dog...

Its like adults are wanting to act like kids, who want something then never take care of it...sorry but the world needs to grow up.

I think its a little too strict, this law, and needs some refinement but I think its moving in a right direction of getting dog/cat populations undercontroll.
~Meredith
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥
"He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart. You owe it to him to be worthy of such devotion."
♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ♥
Shara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2009, 02:04 AM   #5
LoveMyLabs
Been Around A While
 
LoveMyLabs's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central Louisiana
Posts: 2,093
First let me say that I'm glad I don't live in California. They have a tendency to go overboard with laws of all kinds.

Second, I think if a dog is impounded (regardless of the reason) and no one claims it within 5 days it should be spayed/neutered. If the owner shows up after the fact then I guess they should have shown up sooner if they wanted an intact dog. If a mixed breed is picked up it should be sp/neutered within 3 days regardless of if the owner shows up or not. If the owner DOES show up the shelter could offer a reduced sp/neuter if the animal was picked up for anything other than aggression. If the animal was aggressive when picked up sp/neuter should be required. No good breeder will breed a dog with a poor temperament so that fixes one problem. If a dog is picked up and in poor condition, and the owner shows up, it should be sp/neutered.
I think all dogs that are brought to a shelter should be spayed/neutered unless the owner 1. shows up and 2. provides proof of their being a responsible breeder (stipulations to be decided).

All in all it's a good idea, but not all put together yet.
Tony, Kim, Gunner & Tira.
LoveMyLabs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2009, 06:21 PM   #6
ann_hawes
Been Around A While
 
ann_hawes's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kokomo, Indiana USA
Posts: 1,949
I really don't see any difference in allowing two mutts to breed vs. breeding two pet quality purebreds, which is exactly what most people do. With the number of dogs being destroyed every week, every month and every year, MOST dogs should be altered.

Silence is golden,
Duct tape is silver.
ann_hawes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2009, 08:02 PM   #7
Momto3
Been Around A While
 
Momto3's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,517
I'm not in California and it's easy for me to say I wouldn't mind the bill. I only have rescues and they are neutered. The thing should be aimed at people like this lady at work who never has the money to get her 5 dogs neutered and they keep producing pups. Same lady who cannot afford heartworm treatment but has money to go gambling tonight or her expensive vacation back in May. There ARE low/no cost clinics all over this state but she won't take the time to look into it much less follow thru...course her hubby absolutely will NOT have his little boy dethroned!

There's a similar plan going on in Florida and I say YAHOO! When the rescue I work with has only 10 dogs instead of the usual 125 waiting to find a home they can ease up on the restrictions. These are all mostly purebred Cocker Spaniels for pity's sake! I got the paperwork on three of them and someone paid dang good $$$ for my rescue boys when they were puppers! My other two boys were found running the streets so who knows...
Sharon - Mom to Mozart, Monte, Merlin and Mylee! my boyz!
Momto3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2009, 11:24 PM   #8
Labman
Been Around A While

 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 966
Momto3 makes some good points. The dog owning community, including the AKC, has failed to clean up its act. Something has to be done. Perhaps that isn't a good bill, but we already have plenty of other dumb laws.
Labman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2009, 01:17 PM   #9
6dogmom
Been Around A While
 
6dogmom's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,617
Send a message via AIM to 6dogmom Send a message via MSN to 6dogmom
The thing I think about is, that the AKC is all up in arms about this law, WHY? They should think this was a good thing. Less people to create messed up dogs because of overbreeding.
6dogmom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2009, 02:33 PM   #10
ann_hawes
Been Around A While
 
ann_hawes's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Kokomo, Indiana USA
Posts: 1,949
The AKC doesn't give a damn about the quality of dogs it registers. It's a multi-million dollar business that is desperate to keep those registrations coming, so desperate that they have no problem with registering dogs at puppy mills. They don't care if the dogs being bred have hip dysplasia or any inherited health problem, they don't care if puppies are inbred. What they care about is being the biggest and most powerful dog registry. That being said, it makes perfect sense that they would want to make it as easy as possible for people to continue to breed their dogs.

And it's not overbreeding that causes messed up dogs. It's breeders that don't see a problem with breeding any two pet quality dogs. There are millions of "messed up" dogs being bred and registered and sold as "quality" dogs simply because they have some sort of registration saying they're purebred.

Last edited by ann_hawes : 09-05-2009 at 02:43 PM.

Silence is golden,
Duct tape is silver.
ann_hawes is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

K9Mania.com - Forums By Dog Lovers for Dog Lovers > Other Issues > Legislative and Regulatory


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:44 AM.