might the light shine in california?

[DKSuddeth]

No, the article isn't about guns, but the idea behind this legislation is the same. Will california legislators get the hint? Will the people get the hint?

http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_6218465?source=rss

Legislation would require pet owners spay or neuter most cats, dogs
By Barry Witt, MEDIANEWS STAFF
Article Last Updated: 06/24/2007 02:46:05 AM PDT


It's not universal health care, and it's not gay marriage, but the bill that may get the biggest rise from Californians this year — mandatory sterilization of dogs and cats — took center stage Saturday at a public forum in Palo Alto.
State Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, who convened the meeting, said he wanted to hear from people on both sides of the debate before the bill reaches a committee on which he serves, possibly next month. He realized how impassioned his constituents were, he said, when they kept approaching him with their thoughts during his "sidewalk office hours," held at local farmers' markets.

"This is not an issue that I've had a lot of experience with," Simitian said to the crowd of about 300 people before listening to speakers for more than four hours in the Palo Alto City Council chambers.

Assembly Bill 1634, by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, would prohibit possessing dogs or cats older than 4 months that have not been spayed or neutered. The bill offers exceptions for licensed breeders, show animals, working dogs and animals for whom a veterinarian has determined sterilization would be harmful.

Scores of animal adoption organizations have lined up in support of the bill, hoping to reduce the number of cats and dogs euthanized in shelters every year, while a like number of dog owners and breedergroups are fighting the measure.

"We kill a half-million animals every year and spend a quarter-billion dollars doing it," said Sarah Eryavec, adoption supervisor at the Santa Cruz County SPCA shelter, referring to statewide estimates.

Santa Cruz County has enforced a mandatory spay/neuter law since 1995, and shelter workers and animal control officers say they have euthanized fewer animals as a result.

But opponents say euthanasia rates have already been decreasing statewide. They say improved education on the benefits of having pets spayed or neutered — combined with low- or no-cost clinics to perform the procedure for low-income people — will continue that trend.

"AB1634 will do for dogs what Prohibition did for alcohol," said Andrea Sanfilippo, a dog groomer in Campbell, arguing that elimination of "hobby breeders" — those who occasionally breed their dogs at home but not as a business — will lead to more purchases from abusive "puppy mills."

Several speakers at Saturday's forum argued that the only people who would comply with the law were responsible animal owners who wouldn't let their pets produce unwanted litters to begin with. Irresponsible owners won't comply and will continue to be a problem.

But Todd Stosuy, Santa Cruz County's animal control manager, said the ordinance he enforces "does work." He says it gives him the means to shut down bad operators while leaving responsible breeders alone.

The Assembly narrowly approved the bill earlier this month, 41-38. The first hearing on the bill in a Senate committee has not yet been scheduled.

This could almost be an exact replica of a gun bill issue.

 

[Noxx]

Wow.

Both of my pups are fixed (the younger is still in sutures, AAMoF) but I don't see how on earth it's an issue for state regulation.

We spend plenty of money of indigent families too, I wonder if they're next for state sterilization.

 

[ArmedBear]

It's not just that.

Spaying or neutering before 4 months is BAD for the animal.

We have a dog, born in a shelter, who was spayed too early. She's got urinary tract problems that will last for the rest of her life, since she never got a chance to develop down there. She may someday die of complications, and in the meantime, we have to have her tested for bladded infections and give her two pills a day to control her urine.

We also have an unfixed purebred puppy. The breeder said he surely doesn't oppose spaying or neutering dogs that aren't intended for further breeding, but mandating it earlier than 4 months is TERRIBLE for the dogs.

Another thing...

The vote on this was straight party-line, R's against, D's for.

For those who don't think I should support Republicans, there's a reason why I (sometimes) do. What Republicans do in Virginia is not my problem; I generally support them here, because of what they do HERE.

 

[Zoogster]

Another thing...

The vote on this was straight party-line, R's against, D's for.

Politicians are never perfect. However the dems on average at least in CA tend to be more about increased restrictions, additional laws, and more government programs and government bureaucracies (which costs a lot of taxes and money to support.)

However as we all know government has less incentive to be thrifty with our dollars than we would be. So even though most of what the dems want to do may sound like "good ideas" to the masses, it decreases freedom and productivity, creates more bureaucracies that fight hard to never go away or shrink in size. After all they hire employees that work for them, depend on them for a living, create retirement plans etc and will fight hard to create reasons to keep sucking tax payer money even if in reality thier usefulness is gone. So government gets bigger and more expensive, but strongly resists getting smaller.

The Democrats tend to be more in favor of this. So they directly contribute to less freedom, and more costs. More of societies dollars being spent in government means less is being used in our society where it betters all our lives. This applies not just to those in higher tax brackets, but everyone as more productivity in circulation means more options for all (what to purchase, where to work etc, what you are actualy allowed to do)
Even programs created to help people, which are run by the government, tend to get corrupted or become inneffecient due to the bureaucracy they are run by, which becomes a livlihood for the people that run it and work for it, who lose sight of its intended purpose. When every dollar intended to go to some program costs 2+ dollars to get there, and there is never real incentive to cut costs in a way that leads to productivity, and you create more and more such programs, you end up with a failed system. It would be like a business that does not care about profit, of course it would be a failure. Profit is the accountability. When a private citizen or business wants a $ to get somewhere, its gets there, when government wants a $ to get someplace, it costs multiple $ to accomplish it.

The republicans seem to have less "great ideas" and be more concerned with the pockets of thier special interests, namely lower taxes for businesses and that part of society that gets screwed the most from a progressive tax system. This sounds like a bad thing to the masses (unless you are part of that percentile), but it is actualy great. It means they on average are less likely to expand government thus create more of a burden on society, and will keep government smaller, which means more freedom as well. It means less "good ideas" will have a budget. Which means you don't end up with as many bureaucracies like some new government agency, with employees costing millions per year to oversee mandatory spaying and nuetering of animals that grows in size and cost every year, increases its authority through new laws needed to allow them authority to enforce thier job. These new laws giving them increased authority to carry out thier work inevitably mean less freedom, privacy, or liberty for individuals who come to accept that as more of the norm, which creates a mindset that allows for new laws and further erosion of liberty.

There are obviously notable exceptions to the rule like our president, who is responsible for the Patriot Act and creating entire new large branches of government under the "anti terrorism" pretense. Larger government expansion than most dems could have ever dreamed of in the same time span, and reducing freedom and liberty for all Americans at the same time. Obviously not a good poster child for the Rep. party or smaller government.

However on average, dems = larger quickly growing more controlling government, rep= slower growing, less invasive government. Neither is ideal, but one is obviously a lot better at keeping America what has made it such a great place for longer.

Whether it is a new bureaucracy about controlling your pets, or a new bureaucracy about controlling your guns, or a new bureaucracy about controlling some other aspect of our lives, and then paying for it as a society through higher taxes and less productivity, I want none of it. Down with "good idea" legislation. Lets keep government to the minimum of what is required, and all enjoy the increased freedoms and productivity.

 

[wolfman01]

You don't even want to get me started on this issue. I have had intact dogs, as well as neutered ones. The procedures do nothing to alter their behaviour. I had one neutered who broke chains rated at triple his weight. Another one walked on three legs marking everything. The male cancer rates are statistically irrelevent, and the breed I have can have sensitivity issues to the anastesia. I've left him intact, and have had no issues with him. Female dogs do show real tangible statistics from being spayed, and my female is.

This is just another nanny government, meddle in the peasants buisness bill. Of course, this being California, such a bill is no surprise.

 

[macp]

Here in CA it's believed that what sparked this issue is the large numbers of dogs kept by "new arrivals to our country" who never spay or neuter them. These animals are often not cared for and they run wild; they breed and they are a burden on the animal control people.

 

[vynx]

Today its the gov't making you fix dogs and cats.

Tomorrow its people.

The day after that its soylent green and you'd better like it!


And I demand an apology for that remark.

 

[MechAg94]

So I guess people who spend extra money for a registered pure bred dog lose the potential breeding value of the dog.

 

[ServiceSoon]

This could almost be an exact replica of a gun bill issue.

I noticed that too!

It appears to the casual observer that the majority of the people in California aren't worried about liberty or freedom, but instead worried about being required to sterilize their animals.

 

[DKSuddeth]

It appears to the casual observer that the majority of the people in California aren't worried about liberty or freedom, but instead worried about being required to sterilize their animals.

I think what it's more indicative of, is that californians feel that their fellow citizens are incapable of self governance and therefore must be told what they can and cannot do.

 

[obxned]

From what I read in the news, it is not the cats and dogs of California that need to be neutered.

 

[macp]

Like I said, the explosion in the dog population is chiefly due to illegal aliens.

 

[Michael Zeleny]

Jewish law prohibits castrating males of any species (Leviticus 22:24). This will not stand on Constitutional grounds.

 

[macp]

Jewish law prohibits castrating males of any species (Leviticus 22:24). This will not stand on Constitutional grounds.

Well, maybe if it was in Israel...

 

[gunsmith]

so what happens if you are visiting?

I had a rottie/lab mix that was a great dog, will they just grab your dog and ...snip snip?