Working Dog Forums banner
1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,210 Posts
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
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
101 Posts
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.

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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,702 Posts
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).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,443 Posts
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.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,567 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,702 Posts
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?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,210 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,210 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,196 Posts
Both USPCA (United States Police Canine Association) and NAPWDA (North
American Police Work Dog Association) have joined the fight against this bill.

DFrost
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,196 Posts
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
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,210 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,256 Posts
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
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
20,210 Posts
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,443 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top