Question:Assembly bill 1934 will require nearly all cats ans dogs in California to be spayed or neutered by the time they are 4 months old. Owners who don't sterilize their pets will face a $500 fine,possible criminal penalties,and will have there pets impounded.
Backers of AB 1634 are either unaware or simply ignore the fact that across the nation, similar forced sterilization law have been a complete failure and subsequently repealed following a sharp increases in shelter intake,euthanasia rates,animal control expenses znd noncompliances with pet licensing.
NO MORE MUTT BY LAW
Only registered pure-breed dogs and cats would be permitted to breed ,but only as long as selected owners can qualifies for an exemption permit,pay a hefty annual fee,and meet certain criteria that is arbitrarily and illogical.There is no permit for mix breeds.if AB 1634 works as intended ,all mutts in califorina will be eliminated.
WHAT THEY DON'T MENTION
Euthanasia rates for dogs in California have been falling steadily for decades -down 86% from the mid 1970s because local agencies fund what works:education,leash laws,so on
TAKE A GIANT STEP -BACKWARDS
AB 1634 will set us back decades by taking scares funds from proven effective programs to pay for the laws administration ,permit processing,and costly enforcement.Many jurisdictions have already repealed such a law after experiencing
a dramatic increase in shelter intakes and euthanasia rates.
A ONE BILLION DOLLAR UNFUNDED MANDATE
increase intakes and euthanasia rates at animal shelter, additional law enfocement
services,and a loss of pet license revenues will end up costing taxpayers $1 billion
if AB 1634 becomes a law. Losses to California's overall economy could top $5billion
from lost sales tax for pet products,a loss of tourism revenue from dog and cat shows, and a devastated cattle and agriculture industry.
PROVEN TO BE COMPLETELY UNSUCCESSFUL
SAN MATEO COUNTY CA:Dog euthanasia rated more than doubled, cats increased 86% dog licensing fell 35%
Montgomery County ,MD: Repealed its spay/neuter law after euthanasia rates declined slower than before the law was enacted and licensing fell by more than half
LOS ANGELES CA:Animal control expenses rose 26% from $6.7 million to $18 million
licensing fell
Answers:
Laws that are or would be effective:
1. free or very low cost license fees for spayed/neutered pets. High fees for animals that are not sterilized (and have no age or medical issues)
2. Banning backyard breeders who don't have proper zoning/facitilies to be breeding and selling animals.
3. Require a permit and inspections for commercial breeders. Require them to pay state, local and federal taxes on their sales and be subject to routine inspection.
4. Free government sponsored spay/neuter to anyone who wants it (This is cheaper than the costs of animal control enforcement in handling/euthanizing unwanted animals.
5. State funded educational programs/ public service announcements on responsible pet ownership.
6. Ban "no kill" shelters from advertising themselves as "no kill" unless they prove they can take and and properly care for (not just warehouse) every unwanted animal in their communities. Promoting the "no kill" slogan just allows irresponsible people to justify irresponsible breeding and dumping of their animals. They say they are no kill and the government shelters are kill shelters but they don't mention that the government shelters have to take in every animal they have refused to take. "No kill" is just a fund raising strategy.
7. Governments should work with feral cat colony owners to assist them in TNR programs to keep cat colony populations healthy and under control instead of trap and kill.
8. Prohibit apartments and condominiums from banning pets owned by responsible pet owners and from seeking excessive deposits, etc.
9. Give tax credits to those who have sterilized animals or adopt from a legitimate shelter.
The fact that we are spending millions to kill unwanted animals in our advanced society is shameful and there is no excuse. If all non profits, government shelters, legislators and everyday citizens cooperated on this issue, it would be solved.
i really dont think its right
i think that they should try to get MOST dogs and cats spayed and neutered but ALL..
this means if people want a new pet that it will be harder to find.
and i know you can get dogs from breeders but pure breeds end up having many health problems in the future
They changed it. I read the changes in Pet connection.com.
The age to be spayed and neutered is now at 6 months and not at 4 months. People will be able to let their cat or dog have a least have 1 litter of kittens or puppies. I hope this will not pass. I will make it harder to find the right kind of pet that you would want. It would not want a pure breed cat I would want to get a mixed breed.
I read in an article that there was a pug dog and they had to recall it because it had too many health problems that people were bring back the dog to the breeder.
I don't think it's right. I admire that they are trying to reduce the number of unwanted pets, but what about the breeders out there? This law will just up the number of crime, with people who breed illegally and/or can't afford to get their pet spayed/neutered.
that bill if passed will possibly result in more animals not getting the necessary vet care needed to keep them healthy and possibly not getting emergency care either because of the fine. spaying or neutering by four months of age is considered pediatric here (Vancouver Island, BC) and isn't done by most vets unless you have a reason that warrents it right away.
It's good in theory but not likely to work on a statewide scale. People will continue to get pets that they cannot afford to spay or neuter and will turn them onto the street when they realize that they cannot pay for the surgery or the fine. Animals will continue to breed no matter how strict the laws are, b/c after all, they are animals and they will always do what is natural.
This might be a good law, but I think that the polititions out there are dreaming if they really believe that it's enforceable. People are going to find ways around it, no matter what the people in Sacramento decide to do. Just a thought.
I think it should be the choice of the owner.
More Questions & Answers...