Pet Sterilization Becomes Law in LA

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Pet Sterilization Becomes Law in LA (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080227/D8V2BEM00.html)
LOS ANGELES (AP) - 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.

The ordinance is aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating the thousands of euthanizations conducted in Los Angeles' animal shelters every year.

"We will, sooner rather than later, become a no-kill city and this is the greatest step in that direction," Councilman Tony Cardenas said as he held a kitten at a City Hall news conference.





Hmm, every pet a wanted pet right? Forced sterilization hinders the animals reproductive rights ... I would think LA would want to provide abortions for animals instead. I'm really surprised NOW and PETA haven't banded together over this one.

The government, all governments, needs to get out of private affairs. I don't agree with this type of lawmaking.
I DO agree with getting pets neutered, but it should be the owner's choice, or the shelter's (if they are providing the animals) not the government's place to mandate it.

[jayson]

The government, all governments, needs to get out of private affairs. I don't agree with this type of lawmaking.

Bingo, we agree.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Bingo, we agree.

Probably on more things than you'd imagine (just not on Ron Paul, :smirky:)

[Rhino]

There are two sides to that story. With the number of abused, starved and abandoned animals that the local governments have to deal with, the issue is definitely not limited to private affairs. Given that, I don't really have much problem with that, at least in principle, excepting the fact that private people should be allowed to breed their pets if they specifically wish. I'm curious as to how they'll enforce this though. Then there's the issue of paying for it, but I imagine that it would be cheaper than what they spend now, in the long run.

[Wolfcounsel]

I see Los Angeles is turning into a dictatorship. This should prove interesting. The mayor reminds me of Chavez.

[PrezLeefun]

I like that sentiment but I dont like it being written in to laws. It this is privacy and property being invaded.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

There's a difference between the sterilization of animals picked up by the local governments (strays and/or those offered for adoption) and privately owned animals. The law doesn't affect those who abandon, abuse, or starve their animals, it affectively punishes law abiding citizens for owning an unneutered animal. IMHO the government has no business dictating the pet ownership of law abiding citizens.

[Rhino]

Let's play the other side for a moment. Although far from a PETA advocate, I am a devout animal lover, and I regularly see the immense suffering of animals, mainly due to owners who refuse to control their pets. I've rescued quite a few of them over the years, but there are multitudes more for every one that I've saved, and I simply can't save them all when I see them. Just visit a local animal shelter, and realize that what you see there is only a fraction of the total, because those that suffer the most never see the shelter, or are too far gone to ever be displayed for possible adoption. I simply can't abide the suffering these animals go through. So, although I abhor government intrusion just as much as the rest of you, absent such laws, how do we effectively deal with this problem?

[Suzie]

Next on the list ... breeders licenses, so they can tax you even more.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Let's play the other side for a moment. Although far from a PETA advocate, I am a devout animal lover, and I regularly see the immense suffering of animals, mainly due to owners who refuse to control their pets. I've rescued quite a few of them over the years, but there are multitudes more for every one that I've saved, and I simply can't save them all when I see them. Just visit a local animal shelter, and realize that what you see there is only a fraction of the total, because those that suffer the most never see the shelter, or are too far gone to ever be displayed for possible adoption. I simply can't abide the suffering these animals go through. So, although I abhor government intrusion just as much as the rest of you, absent such laws, how do we effectively deal with this problem?

I absolutely understand where you are coming from and I ABSOLUTELY think pet owners should be responsible, should spay/neuter their pets, but ultimately they are still THEIR pets, not the government's. Forcing pet owners to spay/neuter STILL doesn't prevent abandoned, starved, or abused pets. The government would STILL be responsible for those eventually, running the streets, reported by neighbors, winding up in the shelters.

Let's make it a little more personal ... suppose I lived in LA -- Right now I have two dogs, one neutered, one unneutered. The neutered one we got from a shelter (a month ago) and it was a requirement of adoption that he be fixed. We AGREED with and to that when we paid the cost for his adoption. I have NO PROBLEM with that whatsoever. The other dog, however, we got from family who owned both the (purebred) parents. We got him and his brother at the same time, but his brother was killed (at at 18 mos) by a hit and run driver. We made the decision we want another dog from his line because these are WONDERFUL dogs. Had we been forced to get them both neutered (we got them at 5 weeks old because mom was unable to feed them due to medical condition), and of course the owners of the parents would have been forced to do so also, we wouldn't have the option of getting another dog from this line. Why should we be punished for the abuses of others? And how is spaying/neutering our pets going to prevent the abandonment, abuse, and starvation of somebody else's pets?

[Wolfcounsel]

"Let's play the other side for a moment." --Rhino

Let's not. Not to derail the topic, but the last time the other side was played, the baby murderers won big time.

[Rhino]

We made the decision we want another dog from his line because these are WONDERFUL dogs. Had we been forced to get them both neutered (we got them at 5 weeks old because mom was unable to feed them due to medical condition), and of course the owners of the parents would have been forced to do so also, we wouldn't have the option of getting another dog from this line. Why should we be punished for the abuses of others?You shouldn't. As I noted above, that's one change I would want to make, to allow private breeding where the owner specifically desires that option. I only oppose the 'accidental' breeding cause by owners who refuse or neglect to fix their pets, even though they don't intend to breed them. That's where almost all unwanted pets come from.

And how is spaying/neutering our pets going to prevent the abandonment, abuse, and starvation of somebody else's pets?It actually does work. It doesn't eliminate the problem entirely of course, because there's always people who ignore the law. But it has shown to significantly reduce the problem. It's amazing how many owners actually have good intentions and want to comply, but never do out of sheer laziness. But for those who simply don't care, I agree that it won't do much for them, unless the enforcement is good. This country is far too lax on animal cruelty laws in general. That should be changed too.

[Air Force Guy]

There are two sides to that story. With the number of abused, starved and abandoned animals that the local governments have to deal with, the issue is definitely not limited to private affairs. Given that, I don't really have much problem with that, at least in principle, excepting the fact that private people should be allowed to breed their pets if they specifically wish. I'm curious as to how they'll enforce this though. Then there's the issue of paying for it, but I imagine that it would be cheaper than what they spend now, in the long run.People, it's easy to sit in your home (outside L.A.) and scoff at the notion of a need for pet population regulation. I lived there for a while. The strays are like a silent army looking for a sci-fi movie company to build a massive horror story around them.

Shrug if you like, their problem is at the horrendous stage now. When the mayor is speaking of the euthanasia problem, he's neglecting to talking about the legions that never get caught--and reproduce like cockroaches year in and year out.

On the flip side of the argument--During apocalyptic times, the strays there will be food for the remnant of human civilization.

[Rhino]

People, it's easy to sit in your home (outside L.A.) and scoff at the notion of a need for pet population regulation.I'm curious as to why you say that after quoting my post, since I was the only one who was not scoffing at the idea. Or were you just reinforcing what I was saying?

[Air Force Guy]

Reinforcement of your thoughts.

[Rhino]

Got it. Carry on.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

You shouldn't. As I noted above, that's one change I would want to make, to allow private breeding where the owner specifically desires that option. I only oppose the 'accidental' breeding cause by owners who refuse or neglect to fix their pets, even though they don't intend to breed them. That's where almost all unwanted pets come from.

Average pet owners don't have the right to decide if and when they want to breed their pets? Or we would then need to predict whether we want to breed our pets and at what time, and get prior approval/waiver from the government? This law mandates:

From the article cited:
"The average pet owner, however, must have their dog or cat spayed or neutered by the time it reaches 4 months of age (as late as 6 months with a letter from a veterinarian). People with older unneutered pets and newcomers to the city with animals also have to obey the law."

We did not decide to breed our dog until after 18 mos of age when his brother was killed. Had we been under that law the option would not be available to us, because we would have been forced to fix both of the pups prior to 4mos. We could not have predicted that one would be killed and the mother would be fixed because of medical concerns.

We did not neuter our dog, not because we wanted to use him as stud, nor because we thought it cruel, we didn't do it because it wasn't necessary. We are responsible pet owners, i.e. they do not run loose, they are completely fenced and monitored, they get regular medical attention, etc., as are many. I still don't see any reason a responsible pet owner should be FORCED to fix their animals when THEY aren't the problem.

I agree with mandating forced sterilization for animals provided by shelters and government run facilities, but not private. If a person chooses to get an animal from a shelter/government pound they are making a conscious choice to accept the rules. If a person chooses an animal from a private breeder, or just gets one from a friend whose dog had pups, that's their business, and it's none of the government's to tell them what to do with their own pets, afaic.

It actually does work.

At the expense of infringing upon the rights of others who are responsible.

It doesn't eliminate the problem entirely of course, because there's always people who ignore the law. But it has shown to significantly reduce the problem.

Again, reducing the problem at the expense of those that do not abandon, abuse, or stave their pets.

It's amazing how many owners actually have good intentions and want to comply, but never do out of sheer laziness.

And that's the fault of those that are responsible? Punish the offenders not those that haven't contributed to the problem.

But for those who simply don't care, I agree that it won't do much for them, unless the enforcement is good. This country is far too lax on animal cruelty laws in general. That should be changed too.

On this we both agree. Anyone who is cruel to an animal has a higher propensity for cruelty to humanity, and they should be dealt with decisively and with force of punishment (and I'm not talking fines).

[Rhino]

Again, the exception I mentioned would not punish owners who want the breeding option, so what I proposed would not infringe on that right. In the one locale long ago where I've heard of this working (don't remember where), it was done with the pet licensing/rabies vaccination program. To get a pet license/rabies vaccination, the owner either had to fix the pet, subsidized by the local government so it was really cheap, or sign a waiver form saying that they wanted to preserve breeding rights and that they accepted the responsibility for those rights. They then increased the animal control budget and strictly enforced the licensing laws. Large fines were imposed for noncompliance, and even larger fines were imposed if an owner who signed a waiver form was later found to be responsible for an unwanted pet as a result. Their unwanted pet population dropped dramatically, and the eventual reductions in expenditures in animal control and revenues from fines more than paid for the money spent fixing the pets. And with all of this, the rights of owners who wanted the option to breed their pets were not infringed. What is wrong with that?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Again, the exception I mentioned would not punish owners who want the breeding option, so what I proposed would not infringe on that right. In the one locale long ago where I've heard of this working (don't remember where), it was done with the pet licensing/rabies vaccination program. To get a pet license/rabies vaccination, the owner either had to fix the pet, subsidized by the local government so it was really cheap, or sign a waiver form saying that they wanted to preserve breeding rights and that they accepted the responsibility for those rights. They then increased the animal control budget and strictly enforced the licensing laws. Large fines were imposed for noncompliance, and even larger fines were imposed if an owner who signed a waiver form was later found to be responsible for an unwanted pet as a result. Their unwanted pet population dropped dramatically, and the eventual reductions in expenditures in animal control and revenues from fines more than paid for the money spent fixing the pets. And with all of this, the rights of owners who wanted the option to breed their pets were not infringed. What is wrong with that?

Okay, that sounds a bit more reasonable. I'm sorry, my bad for not understanding what you were saying. I am just drawing from personal experience -- when we first got our two pups, we had no intention of breeding them, but we didn't fix them 1) because it wasn't medically necessary and 2) because we wanted the option open if we decided to later. Perhaps making that decision on a year-by-year basis at the time we have to get new licenses could be a valid option.

I wasn't trying to be argumentative for argument's sake, it's just I have concerns over governmental control issues. Allowing the government in a little bit can potentially open the door for a lot. If I have to provide an "acceptable reason" for retaining breeding rights to a pet that I legally own, who's to decide what's acceptable? If it's just a general exemption, i.e. checking a box to maintain the option to breed, I guess that's somewhat reasonable. I completely agree with being responsible for the consequences of not fixing one's pet.

[Valerie]

Hello all, first time poster here.

This issue is a big deal here in California, especially in the county where I live (Kern County).

There's a bill being proposed in our state legislature to implement this law throughout the state:

http://www.cahealthypets.com/ca-healthy-pets-ab-1634-home.php

I found this part which may be of interest to you:

"The bill provides 20+ clear exemptions for animal breeders, police dogs, working dogs, show dogs, law enforcement animals and for family pets too old or ill to be altered. Pets are also allowed one litter if their family chooses."

I always spay/neuter my pets, but there's so many folks who won't who live in my county that I don't know how else to handle the issue.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Hello all, first time poster here.

This issue is a big deal here in California, especially in the county where I live (Kern County).

There's a bill being proposed in our state legislature to implement this law throughout the state:

http://www.cahealthypets.com/ca-healthy-pets-ab-1634-home.php

I found this part which may be of interest to you:

"The bill provides 20+ clear exemptions for animal breeders, police dogs, working dogs, show dogs, law enforcement animals and for family pets too old or ill to be altered. Pets are also allowed one litter if their family chooses."

I always spay/neuter my pets, but there's so many folks who won't who live in my county that I don't know how else to handle the issue.


:wave: Hi Valerie, welcome to FC! We have a Members Lounge (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=16) where you can post an introductory thread if you like :)

I'm sorry if I came off as insensitive to what's going on in Cali -- it's a shame you have so many irresponsible pet owners there. I just have a problem punishing the responsible ones for the irresponsibility of the others. And I would hate to see that spread across the country -- we've had enough of that (like the Mass & Cali "gay marriage" ca-ca).

I'm not in favor of governmental solutions -- just feel there's usually a better private sector answer that hasn't been discovered yet.

For the record, every single one of our pets with the exception of the latest two pups (referenced in my posts) has been fixed (even our horses!). I am definitely a supporter of responsible pet ownership, I just feel it's not up to the government to mandate a private affair such as this.

[mkafrica]

Hello all, first time poster here.

Welcome!

This issue is a big deal here in California, especially in the county where I live (Kern County).

Kern County, eh? I like your cop cars... :D

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh205/mkafrica/KernCountyPoliceCar-1.jpg

[Rhino]

:lol:

[Rhino]

I wasn't trying to be argumentative for argument's sake, it's just I have concerns over governmental control issues.No problem. I knew what you were getting at.

As I recall (again, this was long ago), they even had citizen volunteers who provided free transportation to the vet for the fixing and other veterinary care, for those who could not afford it or otherwise arrange it. All in all, the county seemed very pro-pet and pro-pet owner. They just wanted to reduce the number of suffering animals, and apparently it worked quite well. I wish I could remember where that was or provide a link.

[Valerie]

:wave: Hi Valerie, welcome to FC!


Thanks so much!

Welcome!



Kern County, eh? I like your cop cars... :D

http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh205/mkafrica/KernCountyPoliceCar-1.jpg

And thanks to you, too, but I'm afraid I don't follow...I can't see the picture you posted...

:question:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

And thanks to you, too, but I'm afraid I don't follow...I can't see the picture you posted...

:question:

Valerie, it's a picture of a Kern County Sheriff's car, the side panel & door where it says:
We'll kick your @$$ and take your doughnuts too! :smirky:

[Rhino]

You may be able to see it at this link.

Origins: This is a tricky one to explicate. The picture displayed above is "False" in the sense that it has been manipulated - someone has added the "And take your doughnuts too!" legend with a photo editing program. But the picture is also "True" in the sense that at least two Kern County Sheriff's patrol cars did bear "We'll Kick Your Ass" decals back in 2003. Determining exactly who was responsible for the decals proved a bit difficult, though.http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/kern.asp

[Valerie]

Valerie, it's a picture of a Kern County Sheriff's car, the side panel & door where it says:
We'll kick your @$$ and take your doughnuts too! :smirky:



Aaahhh, thanks again!

Makes sense....Kern is a little different than what most think of California!

(We don't even have an opposition candidate running against our Republican Congressman...)

:biggrin:

[Beowulf]

Hm. Mexifornia complains about pet populations. I say this law should extend to Mexicans since they breed like rabbits to create anchor babies so as to guilt trip Americans to letting them stay.

[Kathy30]

This is one of those feel good laws that no one will pay attention to. It makes the lawmakers look like they are doing something.

Most people no longer even bother licensing their pets, and you imagine they are going to neuter them, just cause the gubbmint says so! HAH.

[Rhino]

Yep. Enforcement would be required.

[Taylor1]

Actually I haven't read the thread, mostly just the title and a few posts, this seems to be a good idea actually, otherwise. But it seems though as Kathy just said, its just more face time for them. Also you guys have some bad-ass cops eh?

[mkafrica]

I got that picture in an email where it stated that Kern County purchased their Sheriff's cars white, without any decals or anything on them, and had a local decal shop put them on... Supposedly, it was the decaler's last day, and he decided to pull a practical joke.

Can't verify the validity though, outside of the snopes link provided by Rhino.

[buckeyepete]

Oh, those poor, poor people with aquariums. What will they do?

Can you imagine spaying/neutering all those fish? And all those little leashes they will have to buy.

The expense will be enormous. (Wouldn't it kill a clam if it were opened up to preform a vasectomy or hysterectomy?)

Beekeepers have enough problems, what with the expense of medicating for mites, beetles, moths, and numerous diseases. 10's of thousands of bees per hive.

And your kids ant farm. Talk about some tiny leashes.

I think I need my meds..............on second thought, maybe another 'timeout' and a six-pack in my room.:confused:

[Kathy30]

Yep. Enforcement would be required.

Animal rights activists claim that enforcement will be by an army they say they have of 20,000 volunteers who will investigate individual pet owners, find out their address and turn them in.

Don't talk to strangers.