Wow. Thanks for the link. I wonder what you have to do to qualify as a "competition" dog?
LA Cty. Passes Mandatory Spay/Neuter!
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
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2870
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
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?
Why is there no love for the dog's that can't be registered with AKC?
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.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
Another shining example of lawmakers sitting in a comfy little building making up laws that sound good but aren't in reality.
I agree with Stacia here.
This is insane. :evil: :evil:
Rashmi
This is insane. :evil: :evil:
Rashmi
This is the law in *many* areas.....for example, a county in Northern California. Many of them.Stacia Porter said: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.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
Another shining example of lawmakers sitting in a comfy little building making up laws that sound good but aren't in reality.
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.
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?Connie Sutherland said:This is the law in *many* areas.....for example, a county in Northern California. Many of them.Stacia Porter said: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.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
Another shining example of lawmakers sitting in a comfy little building making up laws that sound good but aren't in reality.
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.
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.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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
(1) Persons who own or harbor service dogs or police work dogs;
(2) Individuals who are non-residents of the county and reside temporarily therein for a period not to exceed 30 days;
(3) Animal shelters and veterinary hospitals; and
(4) Persons who own or harbor a dog or cat and who are in possession of a certification signed by a licensed veterinarian stating that such animal is unfit to be spayed or neutered because such procedure would endanger the life of such animal.
(Ord. No. 03-12-16, § 1, 12-2-03)
Sec. 6-64. Obtaining an unaltered animal permit.
Applicants must apply for permits required by section 6-63 above, with the director of animal services. The fee for an unaltered animal permit shall be $100.00. A tag will be issued identifying the animal as an unaltered animal and must be displayed at all times.
Note: Effective date February 1, 2004. For 60 days after the effective date, warning citations will be issued for unaltered animals without a permit. After April 1, 2004, citations will be issued to owners of unaltered animals not holding a permit. If the animal is altered within 30 days, the citation will be waived. A citation will only be issued under this section if the animal is in violation of another provision of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 03-12-16, § 1, 12-2-03)
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: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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Plus, if it passes, would this mean no working on the poll at sch, etc. practice? :roll:
jeez louize, I mean pole not pole :roll:
My fingers aren't working, sorry. Pole not poll
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?
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.
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.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 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......
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Working Dog Forums
A forum community dedicated to working dog owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about breeding, health, behavior, housing, adopting, care, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
alexsrentier
2 Replies
Jonathan Lee
1 Reply
Justin Donahu
1 Reply
Recommended Communities
