PDA

View Full Version : SB250 - Dogs and cats: spaying and neutering


Corky43
09-02-2009, 1:28 PM
Just received this from AKC. A must read for anyone having hunting dogs.

California Senate Bill 250 – You May Never Own an Intact Dog Again!
California Senate Bill 250 is before the full Assembly for a vote this week and we need your help. Please contact your state Assemblymember and Senator immediately and ask him/her to oppose SB 250.

The bill will force sterilization of an unlicensed, intact animal if it is impounded (even once!) or violates any one of a variety of animal control ordinances that are not related to an animal's reproductive status. This legislation will not improve the lives of cats and dogs, will negatively impact responsible owners and breeders, and by placing additional burdens on owners of intact animals, may lead to an increase of animals in shelters.

The bill will prohibit an owner who has had an intact dog license revoked from owning any intact dog, so if you have one problem animal you would be banned from ever owning an intact dog again! This is completely unreasonable.

The AKC encourages owners who do not want to engage in responsible breeding programs or compete with their dogs to spay and neuter their animals. We object to forced sterilization of dogs for minor animal control violations. With the confusion of overlapping jurisdictions and a high number of people being forced to move due to foreclosures, it is easy to see how an owner could overlook pet licensure. Instead of encouraging these people to come into compliance, SB 250 penalizes them by requiring sterilization, even for a single offense. By requiring an expensive elective surgery in addition to fines to reclaim their animal, some owners will be forced to make the heart-wrenching decision to abandon a family pet.

Existing state law already requires that owners of intact animals pay a license fee that is at least double that of the fee for sterilized animals and provides for enhanced and graduated fines for owners whose intact dogs are impounded. These statutes are sufficient to incentivize owners to sterilize their animals and to address animal control concerns with specific intact animals who are impounded. If local governments feel the need to adopt further ordinances, it is within their power to do so.

This bill is currently on the Assembly floor and will likely be voted on in the next few days. If it passes the Assembly it will return to the Senate to enable the Senators to vote for or against the changes made in the Assembly. Please contact both your Assemblymember and Senator immediately! Passage of SB 250 will make it much harder to obtain a locally raised purebred dog in California!


Here is a list of the Assembly members who voted for this bill:



De Leon - Angelino Heights, Atwater Village, Chinatown, Cypress Park, City Terrace, Echo Park, El Sereno, Elysian Valley, Glassell Park, Highland Park, Historic Filipinotown, Hollywood, Ramona Gardens, Silverlake, Temple-Beverly & Thai TownAmmiano - East Bay, Oakland; Hayward; Santa ClaraCoto - Santa Clara County, including Alum Rock, East Foothills, Seven Trees, Sunol-Midtown and 44.4% of San Jose.Fuentes - Arleta, Mission Hills, Pacoima, Panorama City, Sun Valley and Sylmar.John A. Perez - Los Angeles County and includes the entirety of the cities of Huntington Park, Maywood, and Vernon, and 14.79% of East Los Angeles, 34.4% of Florence-Graham, and 7.98% of Los AngelesSkinner - Alameda and Contra Costa County. The district includes Albany, Berkeley, Canyon, East Richmond Heights, El Cerrito, El Sobrante (part), Emeryville, Kensington, Lafayette, Moraga, Oakland (part), Orinda, Pleasant Hill, Richmond, Rollingwood, San Pablo, and Waldon (part).Solorio - Santa Ana, Anaheim, Garden GroveTorlakson - Contra Costa County, including the cities of Antioch, Clayton, Concord, Hercules, Martinez, Pinole, Pittsburg, and the CDPs of Bay Point, Bayview-Montalvin, Clyde, Crockett, 77.98% of El Sobrante, all of Mountain View, Pacheco, Port Costa, Rodeo, Tara Hills, and Vine Hill.Hill - Belmont, San Mateo, Foster City, Burlingame, Hillsborough, Millbrae, San Bruno, South San Francisco, Brisbane, Daly City, Half Moon Bay and coastal San Mateo County from Pescadero to Pacifica.

tankerman
09-02-2009, 6:19 PM
This has been coming for a while. The lib's want to do away with pure bred dogs first, then move then towards a total pet ownership ban in the future.

Scumbags.

OlderThanDirt
09-02-2009, 7:31 PM
It would be fun to write and submit a ballot initiative called the "Healthy Politicians Act." Similar to the Healthy Pets Act, it would require sterilization within six months of a politician taking office. The world would be a much better place without a bunch of little politicians walking around creating problems. It could even be retroactive in the case of Fabian Nunez and his model citizen of a son.

Merle
09-02-2009, 8:33 PM
Why not license the animal and avoid the issue?

Right now, I'm leaning in support of this bill as I've taken soooo many animals to the SPCA (>19 so far this year) and it's always disheartening to see the number of animals waiting for a good home.

bwiese
09-02-2009, 8:35 PM
This has been coming for a while. The lib's want to do away with pure bred dogs first, then move then towards a total pet ownership ban in the future.

Scumbags.


Yes, and this isn't about the dogs. This is about attacking hunters thru their dogs.

Hogxtz
09-02-2009, 8:51 PM
Why not license the animal and avoid the issue?

Right now, I'm leaning in support of this bill as I've taken soooo many animals to the SPCA (>19 so far this year) and it's always disheartening to see the number of animals waiting for a good home.


Really?? I don't think the bill is about what you think. Its a way to start the tear down of hunting. The NRA is against it also.

gunsmith
09-02-2009, 8:58 PM
I volunteer when I can to walk dogs and pet cats and stuff, I care a lot about the issue.
I don't like the gov't intrusion & doubt this will pass

ETD1010
09-02-2009, 9:17 PM
Register the dog and be done with it. No harm done. Honestly, i think this bill IS about dogs. Every unattended escaped dog is one extra dog to impregnate another unattended escaped dog, and then there are more dogs that end up either on the streets or put down.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of the government telling me what to do with my dog, but if the only condition is to make sure it's licensed, then what's the hassle?


edit: Come to think of it... what does hunting have anything to do with a dog that's spayed/neutered? I mean, it seems that any bill that is introduced that involved animals is somehow an assault on hunters. I don't get it. But like I said, I'm still against most all cases of government intervention. I do, however, believe in the issue at hand.

rabagley
09-02-2009, 9:59 PM
I'm for fewer feral dogs and cats being destroyed, and I have been in support of these sorts of laws when they were local to a city.

I had no idea that this issue could be construed as anti-hunter. I guess I can see how rural hunters make some money back from breeding their hounds, pointers and retrievers, so that makes some sense, but the issue of feral animals is a real issue all by itself.

I am in support of neutering of non-breeding dogs and cats in urban areas, but I don't see the point in rural areas.

dantodd
09-02-2009, 10:45 PM
I had no idea that this issue could be construed as anti-hunter. I guess I can see how rural hunters make some money back from breeding their hounds, pointers and retrievers, so that makes some sense, but the issue of feral animals is a real issue all by itself.

Not so much making money selling their offspring but being able to breed their best dogs to reinforce good hunting skills for the next generation of dog. They don't want to have to pay a breeder every time they add a dog to their pack.

truthseeker
09-02-2009, 10:58 PM
The reason why it is against hunters is it leads to "fee's" for this and fee's for that. Ultimately making owning a animal a pain in the ***, kind of like owning a firearm.

You see, every politician in office has to create NEW laws so that they can justify their existence. Which leads to more and more complicated and restricting laws which are ambiguous and nearly impossible to navigate.

I will vote NO on ANY laws which "infringe" on my right to be a "free man" (meaning free from government intrusion into mine or my families lives)!

H Paul Payne
09-02-2009, 11:01 PM
Yes, and this isn't about the dogs. This is about attacking hunters thru their dogs.
This is EXACTLY what this issue is about!!!!!

Please don't be distracted by the other excuses used by animal lovers. Most of us love our pets, but this kind of legislation is not about pets. It's about control of people.

Paul

cousinkix1953
09-02-2009, 11:25 PM
Lets spay and neuter our stupid politicians. Those idiots won't be able to produce off-spring even dumber than the parents any more. We could get rid of those power hungry dynasties like the Kennedy's, Bush's and Alioto's...

rabagley
09-02-2009, 11:48 PM
Not so much making money selling their offspring but being able to breed their best dogs to reinforce good hunting skills for the next generation of dog. They don't want to have to pay a breeder every time they add a dog to their pack.

Sure, that makes even more sense. And it reinforces my view that this rule might make sense in urban areas, but make absolutely no sense in rural areas.

jaymz
09-03-2009, 7:24 AM
Register the GUN and be done with it. No harm done. Honestly, i think this bill IS about GUNS. Every unattended escaped GUN is one extra GUN to impregnate another unattended escaped GUN, and then there are more GUNS that end up either on the streets or put down.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of the government telling me what to do with my GUN, but if the only condition is to make sure it's licensed, then what's the hassle?


edit: Come to think of it... what does hunting have anything to do with a GUN that's spayed/neutered? I mean, it seems that any bill that is introduced that involved GUN is somehow an assault on hunters. I don't get it. But like I said, I'm still against most all cases of government intervention. I do, however, believe in the issue at hand.

I took the liberty of fixing your post for you. It doesn't make perfect sense, but you do get the idea, right? If not, then I am compelled to ask - "WTF is the matter with you"?

cheese
09-03-2009, 8:01 AM
I believe this passed yesterday. Anyone have an update?
This bill was written by animal rights nuts. These people are way too influential when it comes to laws concerning pets. Groups like ALF are behind bills like this and they are all about "liberating" animals. How do you liberate a pet? You get rid of them. PETA and the Humane Society all have direct links to ALF and have donated money to ALF members who have bombed animal testing labs. These people are terrorist.

Aldemar
09-03-2009, 8:33 AM
Lets spay and neuter our stupid politicians. Those idiots won't be able to produce off-spring even dumber than the parents any more. We could get rid of those power hungry dynasties like the Kennedy's, Bush's and Alioto's...

Unfortunetly, most of these folks have already produced their evil spawn prior to being elected. Perhaps a law needs to be passed whereby no relative could ever run for any office......anywhere.:rolleyes:

OlderThanDirt
09-03-2009, 9:10 AM
I see no need to license my dogs. I don't let them drive the car. Besides, they have both been "fixed" and micro-chipped. They reside in a locked yard and won't leave the area anyway. These *****s in Sacramento need to solve real problems and not perpetuate the agenda of extremist groups.

Sam .223
09-03-2009, 10:12 AM
[QUOTE=ETD1010;3010645]Register the dog and be done with it. No harm done. Honestly, i think this bill IS about dogs. Every unattended escaped dog is one extra dog to impregnate another unattended escaped dog, and then there are more dogs that end up either on the streets or put down.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of the government telling me what to do with my dog, but if the only condition is to make sure it's licensed, then what's the hassle?

have you seen the cost to license an intact dog.. in my area its 10.00 per pound every year, if you have anything with any kind of size it get expensive really fast and most people don't have just 1 dog, i'm leaving cats out because i don't own one and never looked into their costs. but for my 2 dogs it would cost me a total of 1200.00 per year, not exactly affordable especailly when its only like 40.00 per year for both of them if they were fixed. i'm getting one fixed and probably the other down the road a ways but this IS and SHOULD ALWAYS BE my choice.

ETD1010
09-03-2009, 12:50 PM
I took the liberty of fixing your post for you. It doesn't make perfect sense, but you do get the idea, right? If not, then I am compelled to ask - "WTF is the matter with you"?

apples and Oranges my friend. Like I said, I still disagree with regulation, but I don't think it was about guns or hunters when they wrote it up.

Glock22Fan
09-03-2009, 2:34 PM
apples and Oranges my friend. Like I said, I still disagree with regulation, but I don't think it was about guns or hunters when they wrote it up.

Then you are somewhat naive my friend.

Really, I don't take kindly to the animal control gestapo creeping into my backyard and counting cats and dogs through the windows (yes, that has happened.) These days, the backyard gates are locked and at the front door, all they will get is a "mind your own business." If they do go to the prouble of getting a search warrent, they will find that our cats and dogs are are fixed and are licensed, but I deeply resent the need.

$10/lb would be a lot of money when my lightest dog is over 90 lbs and my largest is 130.

Merle
09-03-2009, 2:36 PM
Is the resistance against the bill due to a) the cost of licensing and b) having a rambunctious pet?

If licensing costs are too high, then yeah, I could understand that. But those costs are generally plowed back into county shelters and animal control. Reducing the licensing costs would address this (unless you have a few hundred animals and/or a breeder.

If it's due to violations of the animal code, then control of the animal on the owners part would seem to be due dilligence. Even then, it seems it's reviewed before spaying/neutering is decided.

I'll rant on against higher taxes, but at some point, there are a lot of reckless owners out there and it's not them who suffer - but the animals. There are a *lot* of animals who are just let go, or wander off. Sometimes the consequences are unseen (animal hit by a car and crawls off to die) and other times, it's very visible (dogs attack an older couple killing them).

I currently think a program to spay/neuter >95% of pets out there is a good thing.

I've paid "registration" costs for my guns (DROS/CADOJ) and because it's reasonable ($25) I don't mind. I also license my animals, but am not a breeder so could see a requirement for an exception for someone with many.

So, help me understand: how this is anti-hunter or anti-pet?

I'm not trying to be a contrarian here but would like to understand the arguments against the bill.

Aldemar
09-03-2009, 2:57 PM
I believe this passed yesterday. Anyone have an update?
This bill was written by animal rights nuts. These people are way too influential when it comes to laws concerning pets. Groups like ALF are behind bills like this and they are all about "liberating" animals. How do you liberate a pet? You get rid of them. PETA and the Humane Society all have direct links to ALF and have donated money to ALF members who have bombed animal testing labs. These people are terrorist.

No lie. A group of the ALF idiots came through a dog show in Santa Rosa a few years back. They opened as many kennels and exercise pens as they could before they were stopped. I managed to stop two of them from letting my dogs out but many others were not so lucky.

For those of you not familiar with dog shows, all dogs and b*****s MUST be intact, and b*****s in season may be shown. I don't know if there were any accidental ties but there must have been over 100 dogs loose. Their reasoning was that the animals deserved to be free. As I recall one was hit by a car in the parking lot.

As I said...Idiots.

jaymz
09-03-2009, 3:59 PM
apples and Oranges my friend. Like I said, I still disagree with regulation, but I don't think it was about guns or hunters when they wrote it up.

Doesn't matter if it's about hunting,dogs or guns. Doesn't matter if it's about peanut butter. What matters is that the .gov is telling me what I can or can't do with MY property. It's total commie BS any way you slice it.

cousinkix1953
09-03-2009, 4:08 PM
[QUOTE=ETD1010;3010645]Register the dog and be done with it. No harm done. Honestly, i think this bill IS about dogs. Every unattended escaped dog is one extra dog to impregnate another unattended escaped dog, and then there are more dogs that end up either on the streets or put down.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of the government telling me what to do with my dog, but if the only condition is to make sure it's licensed, then what's the hassle?

have you seen the cost to license an intact dog.. in my area its 10.00 per pound every year, if you have anything with any kind of size it get expensive really fast and most people don't have just 1 dog, i'm leaving cats out because i don't own one and never looked into their costs. but for my 2 dogs it would cost me a total of 1200.00 per year, not exactly affordable especailly when its only like 40.00 per year for both of them if they were fixed. i'm getting one fixed and probably the other down the road a ways but this IS and SHOULD ALWAYS BE my choice.
The weight of your dog has nothing to do with it's ability to make 4-6-8 puppies annually. Any breed can reproduce or make some mongrels...

Aldemar
09-03-2009, 4:13 PM
[QUOTE=ETD1010;3010645]Register the dog and be done with it. No harm done. Honestly, i think this bill IS about dogs. Every unattended escaped dog is one extra dog to impregnate another unattended escaped dog, and then there are more dogs that end up either on the streets or put down.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of the government telling me what to do with my dog, but if the only condition is to make sure it's licensed, then what's the hassle?

have you seen the cost to license an intact dog.. in my area its 10.00 per pound every year, if you have anything with any kind of size it get expensive really fast and most people don't have just 1 dog, i'm leaving cats out because i don't own one and never looked into their costs. but for my 2 dogs it would cost me a total of 1200.00 per year, not exactly affordable especailly when its only like 40.00 per year for both of them if they were fixed. i'm getting one fixed and probably the other down the road a ways but this IS and SHOULD ALWAYS BE my choice.

Please send a link with this ordinance. Never heard of this. Does the cost of the license vary depending wheather or not the animal has just eaten or taken a dump?

tankerman
09-03-2009, 4:13 PM
This is exactly ythe way gun banners think. Don't need guns in urban areas.

Take choices away from law abiding citizens, rather than expecting and demanding accountability from adults.
I'm for fewer feral dogs and cats being destroyed, and I have been in support of these sorts of laws when they were local to a city.

I am in support of neutering of non-breeding dogs and cats in urban areas, but I don't see the point in rural areas.

7x57
09-03-2009, 9:50 PM
Right now, I'm leaning in support of this bill as I've taken soooo many animals to the SPCA (>19 so far this year) and it's always disheartening to see the number of animals waiting for a good home.

You're a gun guy, and yet you can't think your way through the same logic on another subject? Boo.

People who obey the law also don't leave puppies all over the landscape. People who don't obey the law...won't obey this one either. Does this sound like a familiar situation? Ring any bells? Hellooooo.....

That doesn't even get us into the fact that this isn't where the abandoned dogs are coming from, so "dog control" isn't going to help anything...hey, wait. That sounds familiar too!

But the real problem here is that if there is any group more ready to give up their rights and everyone else's for do-nothing feel-good legislation so we can "do something, we MUST do something!"--it is animal people.

7x57

Whiskey84
09-03-2009, 10:01 PM
I've got a 4 month old Black Lab pup and they're out of their minds if they think they can make me sterilize her.

Merle
09-03-2009, 10:35 PM
You're a gun guy, and yet you can't think your way through the same logic on another subject? Boo.

People who obey the law also don't leave puppies all over the landscape. People who don't obey the law...won't obey this one either. Does this sound like a familiar situation? Ring any bells? Hellooooo.....

That doesn't even get us into the fact that this isn't where the abandoned dogs are coming from, so "dog control" isn't going to help anything...hey, wait. That sounds familiar too!

But the real problem here is that if there is any group more ready to give up their rights and everyone else's for do-nothing feel-good legislation so we can "do something, we MUST do something!"--it is animal people.

7x57

I think the analogy between guns and dogs is false:

guns don't do harm by themselves
guns don't breed and create masterless guns
guns can be tracked back to an owner
guns aren't explicitly protected in the constitution

I do think there is an analogy between pets and kids though (both in terms of the problems and the love)

*I* think there are too many animals roaming w/o homes. The shelters are full. This bill is an attempt to address that problem. There are too many animals (2 and 4 legged versions) breeding. Is euthanasia the only solution?

Is this 100% the best bill? No. I think there need to be exceptions for breeders and the licensing costs need to be reasonable, as does the relief for minor infractions (e.g. don't spay the dog if it takes a crap on someones lawn). Because it's not the "best" bill do we oppose it?

If it came down to sterilization or euthanasia, I'd rather prevent the problem. I just dropped off a cat to get euthanized (different thread) so my perspective is skewed I'd admit. But hopefully, I'm thinking clearly enough to understand and communicate counterpoints.

Merle
09-03-2009, 10:40 PM
I've got a 4 month old Black Lab pup and they're out of their minds if they think they can make me sterilize her.

With your animal licensed at a reasonable cost (e.g. <$20 for Pleasanton, Emeryville, Livermore, Dublin, Albany), you're not forced to sterilize her.

Is the problem with the licensing (e.g. Oakland is $100, ouch)? The concept of the government telling you what to do? The "whim" of a violation of a minor infraction forcing sterilization?

frankiejoe577
09-04-2009, 1:04 AM
Wait till they do this to guys, if you go to jail once, they snip you.

Corky43
09-04-2009, 6:24 AM
The bill will prohibit an owner who has had an intact dog license revoked from owning any intact dog, so if you have one problem animal you would be banned from ever owning an intact dog again! This is completely unreasonable.

It's little things like this that make this bill so ominous. If your dog bites an intruder, he sues and either way the court considers the animal a problem then "you" can never own another dog again.

Remember the "Saturday night special" handgun legislation? It started out as just requiring handguns to be tested (once). If they pass they go on a list of approved handguns. Now it is, test the gun every year, every model variation etc. and if they pass they stay on the list for only a year.

Just because you read the legislation overview, doesn't mean you know the aspects of that legislation.

The attack is not just on the gun front. It is in many other areas also.

Rocket propellant laws
Helmet laws
Motorcycle green sticker laws
Pet laws
on and on

Too many new laws and ordinances go undisputed because there overviews sound like they make sense, but when you get into the meat and potatoes of the legislations and ordinances, there is a whole lot more freedom being lost.

Californio
09-04-2009, 6:38 AM
SB250 and AB241 are companion Bills

My letter to the editor, they removed my Trailer Trash comment but these people are the cause not law abiding citizens on every issue.

NO on AB 241 (Nava), and SB 250 (Florez)

AB 241 is another bill that looks to deplete the rights of all Californians instead of specifically targeting the offenders. The American Kennel Club recommends a NO vote on AB 241 and SB 250 (forced spay/neuter).

Instead of establishing minimum Health and Welfare standards for breeders AB 241 picks an arbitrary number of dogs or cats, fifty (50 sexually intact animals) at one location. Next year AB 241 will be modified to twenty-five or less animals per location, its called creeping incrementalism.

A few bad seeds hamper modern Society, laws should be tailored to specifically rein in the negative behavior of the minority that cause the problems and not cast a net over the whole of society that lives in relative harmony.

AB 241 is another bad law that casts a prohibition on all breeders and does not specifically layout minimum ethical standards of animal husbandry.

Mr. Nava’s article mentions Palmdale in Los Angeles County, gee Mr. Nava, I was not aware Palmdale was in your district and does not Los Angeles County have zoning laws to deal with the problem? I know in the City of Santa Barbara I can have 3 dogs per household and in Santa Barbara County I can only have 2 horses per acre. Looks to me zoning laws are working.

We all want a kinder gentile society but absolute prohibition laws that do not specifically target the cancer (trailer trash) are an undo burden on the majority of law-abiding citizens.

Corky43
09-04-2009, 6:49 AM
We all want a kinder gentile society but absolute prohibition laws that do not specifically target the cancer (trailer trash) are an undo burden on the majority of law-abiding citizens.


Well said!

cheese
09-04-2009, 5:07 PM
apples and Oranges my friend. Like I said, I still disagree with regulation, but I don't think it was about guns or hunters when they wrote it up.

These people are accomplishing their goals in very round about ways.
They are very against pure bred animals in general. They protest dog shows and compare them to the kkk:rolleyes: They realize the easiest way to end pure bred animals is to try and pass these spay/neuter laws.
Ever since the whole Michael Vick thing they have had millions donated to their cause. The truth is they really didnt do anything in the Vick case except show up for pictures so they could get $$$$. The burden fell on the local shelters and they didnt recieve any money from the humane society. They use this money to push their agenda.
Now they are the authority on whos dog fighting. There is a 5000$ reward for turning in dog fighting. They walk onto peoples yards and take all the dogs and most of the time they euthanize all the dogs before there is even a trial. A majority of these caes are dropped because there is no evidence dog fighting has occured. They claimed one old man they arrested was the godfather of dog fighting. They came up on his property and took his dogs. Many of these dogs died of heat exhaustion in the back of the humane societies trucks. Not one of these dogs were scarred and all of them were in perfect condition. After years and thousands of dollars the case was dropped but all the dogs were already killed. This is just one case but it has happened many times. These folks are dangerous to all pet owners

leitung
09-04-2009, 6:44 PM
Man that De Leon is a real pain in the *** isnt he.. We need to vote him out...

ETD1010
09-04-2009, 10:24 PM
Wow, I've said it twice now.. but here's one more time. I DON'T LIKE the government mettling in my business.

I am just saying that I don't think this has ANYTHING to do with hunting, and that I agree there is a problem to be addressed (the massive amounts of dogs on the streets and those that end up being put down).

bwiese
09-04-2009, 11:29 PM
Wow, I've said it twice now.. but here's one more time. I DON'T LIKE the government mettling in my business.

I am just saying that I don't think this has ANYTHING to do with hunting, and that I agree there is a problem to be addressed (the massive amounts of dogs on the streets and those that end up being put down).

Some of the backers of this bill are indeed 'antihunting' (and by predictable extension, anti-gun).

It's targeted at hunters - or at least a blunderbuss is aimed somewhere near them by people who don't like them.

The NRA is opposing it because of these reasons. If this just involved cat spaying etc we wouldn't be talking about it here.

Alaric
09-05-2009, 12:37 AM
I think the analogy between guns and dogs is false:

guns don't do harm by themselves
guns don't breed and create masterless guns
guns can be tracked back to an owner
guns aren't explicitly protected in the constitution

I do think there is an analogy between pets and kids though (both in terms of the problems and the love)

*I* think there are too many animals roaming w/o homes. The shelters are full. This bill is an attempt to address that problem. There are too many animals (2 and 4 legged versions) breeding. Is euthanasia the only solution?

Is this 100% the best bill? No. I think there need to be exceptions for breeders and the licensing costs need to be reasonable, as does the relief for minor infractions (e.g. don't spay the dog if it takes a crap on someones lawn). Because it's not the "best" bill do we oppose it?

If it came down to sterilization or euthanasia, I'd rather prevent the problem. I just dropped off a cat to get euthanized (different thread) so my perspective is skewed I'd admit. But hopefully, I'm thinking clearly enough to understand and communicate counterpoints.

Is the part I bolded a typo or are you completely ignorant of the 2nd Amendment?

Assuming that you mean that pet ownership isn't protected by the Constitution, well, neither is the explicit act of breathing. Or other explicit acts, like sex and procreation. Should those be licensed and restricted by the .gov as well, since they're not explicitly called out in the Constitution? The founders intended all commonly practiced acts to be implicitly protected, without specifically calling them out. Since dog ownership, sans licensing and sterilization requirements were common among people in that time period, we can assume that they intended pet ownership to be among those implicitly protected freedoms.

I agree that yes the shelters are full (many are overflowing), and the needless slaughter of so many unwanted strays is a terrible commentary on the lack of responsibility pervasive among some in our society. However, this bill does nothing but further penalize responsible pet owners who would be likely to license their pets anyway. It does nothing to seek out and penalize irresponsible pet owners and breeders. In fact, I would argue that this is exactly the kind of nanny state legislation that leads to even less of an expection of individual responsibility among the population. It's the kind of legislation that smacks of Big Brother, and contributes to the mindset that people don't need to take care of themselves and their families, the .gov is there to do that.

Lastly, we don't need more laws, more cops, more policestate-ism of any kind. We have too much already, and it doesn't work. Has the massively restrictive gun control legislation in this state helped to reduce violence? No. our crime rate for violent crimes is around 20% higher than states with "average" gun control, while states that embrace unrestricted firearms freedom tend -20% lower crime rates than the average. So, you may think this is apples to oranges and still believe in the .gov's ability to legislate us out of every problem, but many of us see that very legislation as not fixing the problem, but exacerbating it or adding an entirely new problem as well.

If you really want to fix the problem of irresponsible pet ownership, maybe what we need is to fix a society that accommodates and encourages a pervasive culture of responsibility shifting from the individual to the state.

bruceflinch
09-05-2009, 6:24 AM
It would be fun to write and submit a ballot initiative called the "Healthy Politicians Act." Similar to the Healthy Pets Act, it would require sterilization within six months of a politician taking office. The world would be a much better place without a bunch of little politicians walking around creating problems. It could even be retroactive in the case of Fabian Nunez and his model citizen of a son.

Lets add the Welfare Rolls members & Illegal Immigrants to this bill as well!

cheese
09-05-2009, 7:15 AM
Wow, I've said it twice now.. but here's one more time. I DON'T LIKE the government mettling in my business.

I am just saying that I don't think this has ANYTHING to do with hunting, and that I agree there is a problem to be addressed (the massive amounts of dogs on the streets and those that end up being put down).

The Hsus is anti pets. Using dogs to hunt wild animals is the epitome of everything they hate. They look at pets as "slaves". The hsus does not operate a single shelter or give any money to shelters and if it was up to them they would kill every single dog to "put them out of their misery". But that wont win them fans so they say they are doing it for the well being of the animals. This has nothing to do with the well fare of animals.