Alert - California - Mandatory Spay/Neuter

[Rene Allegrini]

Calling All Dog Lovers - Please Call L.A.City Council Now - it doesn't matter if you're not from CA!

URGENT - Please Call L.A.City Council Now

Ask them to OPPOSE the mandatory Spay & Neuter ordinance.

According to someone in one of the Council members office so far there're More calls in Support than Oppose!!

Contact info:

Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa Phone: 213-978-0600 Fax: 213-978-0750
Richard Alarcón Phone: 213-473-7007 Fax: 213-847-0707
Tony Cardenas Phone: 213-473-7006 Fax: 213-847-0549
Eric Garcetti Phone: 213-473-7013 Fax: 213-613 0819
Wendy Greuel Phone: 213-473-7002 Fax: 213-680-7895
Janice Hahn Phone: 213-473-7015 Fax: 213-626-5431
José Huizar Phone: 213-473-7014 Fax: 213-847-0680
Tom LaBonge Phone: 213-473-7004 Fax: 213-624-7810
Bernard Parks Phone: 213-473-7008 Fax: 213-485-7683
Jan Perry Phone: 213-473-7009 na
Ed Reyes Phone: 213-473-7001 Fax: 213-485-8907
Bill Rosendahl Phone: 213-473-7011 Fax: 213-473-6926
Greig Smith Phone: 213-473-7012 Fax: 213-473-6925
Jack Weiss Phone: 213-473-7005 Fax: 213-978-2250
Herb J. Wesson, Jr. Phone: 213-473-7010 Fax: 213-485-9829
Dennis P. Zine Phone: 213-473-7003 Fax: 213-485-8988

[moondog]

Originally Posted by Rene Allegrini

Calling All Dog Lovers -

Ask them to OPPOSE the mandatory Spay & Neuter ordinance.

I'm not inclined to jump on someone's bandwagon just because they've said I should.

If one is not opposed to the proposed ordinance, does that mean one is not a dog lover? Do you mind telling us why?

[Rene Allegrini]

Originally Posted by moondog

I'm not inclined to jump on someone's bandwagon just because they've said I should.

If one is not opposed to the proposed ordinance, does that mean one is not a dog lover? Do you mind telling us why?

Good grief. . . I don't think that anyone is suggesting that you or anyone else that is "in favor" of mandatory spay/neuter is not an animal lover.

If you feel that all animals; cats, dogs, whatever, over the age of four months should be sterlized, then by all means that's your right.

I was merely passing along a request from a concerned group of dog fanciers that feel mandatory spaying and neutering of animals is not necessarily the best way to handle pet over population.

[moondog]

Originally Posted by Rene Allegrini

Good grief. . . I don't think that anyone is suggesting that you or anyone else that is "in favor" of mandatory spay/neuter is not an animal lover.

If you feel that all animals; cats, dogs, whatever, over the age of four months should be sterlized, then by all means that's your right.

I was merely passing along a request from a concerned group of dog fanciers that feel mandatory spaying and neutering of animals is not necessarily the best way to handle pet over population.

Well, you DID call for ALL dog lovers to follow your directive....it's implied by default that anyone who doesn't must not be a dog lover.

And Oh, good grief....so you haven't even READ it?

According to the proposal, anyone who complies with ONE of the following can receive an exemption:

A. The dog or cat is a breed approved by and is registered with a
registry...and the dog or cat is actively used to show or
compete. (translate - purebred with AKC registration)

B. The dog has earned, or if under three years old, is actively being
trained and in the process of earning, an agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, hunting, working, or other title from a registry or association approved. (translate - you're got 3 years to earn a title in anything)

C. The dog is being, or has been appropriately trained and is actively
used in a manner that meets the definition of guide, signal or service dog

D. The dog is appropriately trained or is in the process of being trained
and is actively used by law enforcement agencies or the military

E. The owner of the dog or cat provides a letter to the Department
from a licensed veterinarian certifying that the animal would be best served by spaying after a specified date...This letter shall include the veterinarian's license number with the date by which the animal may be safely spayed or neutered (translate - I can take studies on early spay/neuter to my vet and convince him/her by virtue of these studies that my dog needs to mature prior to any spay/neuter)

F. The dog or cat has a valid breeding permit issued to the owner

So, Rene, if I see no problem with all these potential exemptions, how exactly does that make ME in favor of early spay/neuter......please explain that to me.

I will give the same reply I gave in another thread regarding this topic...perhaps you can shed light on something I've misinterpreted that nobody else seems to want to do:

Originally Posted by moondog

There are so many ways for responsible dog owners to be eligible for exemption, I honestly don't see what the problem is.....is everyone worried about a slippery slope, is that it?

If you show your dog, if you train your dog, if your vet says the dog would be better served if neutered/spayed at a later date, etc. etc., then you can qualify for the exemption. Seems to me the only owners that can't meet one of those requirements would be those who should spay/neuter in any case.

Since it appears you haven't read the proposal, you can find it here:

http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/bre...-nj-again.html

[Rene Allegrini]

Originally Posted by moondog

Well, you DID call for ALL dog lovers to follow your directive....it's implied by default that anyone who doesn't must not be a dog lover.

And Oh, good grief....so you haven't even READ it?

According to the proposal, anyone who complies with ONE of the following can receive an exemption:

A. The dog or cat is a breed approved by and is registered with a
registry...and the dog or cat is actively used to show or
compete. (translate - purebred with AKC registration)

B. The dog has earned, or if under three years old, is actively being
trained and in the process of earning, an agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, hunting, working, or other title from a registry or association approved. (translate - you're got 3 years to earn a title in anything)

C. The dog is being, or has been appropriately trained and is actively
used in a manner that meets the definition of guide, signal or service dog

D. The dog is appropriately trained or is in the process of being trained
and is actively used by law enforcement agencies or the military

E. The owner of the dog or cat provides a letter to the Department
from a licensed veterinarian certifying that the animal would be best served by spaying after a specified date...This letter shall include the veterinarian's license number with the date by which the animal may be safely spayed or neutered (translate - I can take studies on early spay/neuter to my vet and convince him/her by virtue of these studies that my dog needs to mature prior to any spay/neuter)

F. The dog or cat has a valid breeding permit issued to the owner

So, Rene, if I see no problem with all these potential exemptions, how exactly does that make ME in favor of early spay/neuter......please explain that to me.

I will give the same reply I gave in another thread regarding this topic...perhaps you can shed light on something I've misinterpreted that nobody else seems to want to do:



Since it appears you haven't read the proposal, you can find it here:

http://www.rottweiler.net/forums/bre...-nj-again.html

It appears you haven't bothered to read my reply, "I was merely passing along a request from a concerned group of dog fanciers that feel mandatory spaying and neutering of animals is not necessarily the best way to handle pet over population."

Get over it already!

[fbkeays]

What if a person has a rare breed? A breed that isn't AKC registered? Take a look at the Rarities list of breeds. I would have sworn a number of them were made up names, but they are real breeds with real pedigrees. I seriously doubt that AC is going to try to figure out what registries are real and which ones are not so real (ie the difference between CKC and the CKC). As any government paperpusher will tell you, it is whatever they decide and if you don't fit into their narrow little box, you are out of luck.
This bill removes some very basic freedoms that as Americans, I would hope that we all hold dear. Being able to own the breed of dog that best suits us and be able to determine their destiny without interferance from the uneducated government officials.
Frankly I am glad I don't live there. I am very much afraid of AB1634. My dogs would no doubt be able to qualify for the so-called exemptions, but I don't care that *I* would be "safe" and to he** with the rest of the world and their dogs. It is none of the government's business to know what kind of dogs I have and what their reproductive status is. Should I breed my bitch, Iwould be required to inform the government who my customers are and where they live. I am not selling WMD, I am selling dogs.
You have read the studies that show that spaying and neutering at such a young age is not always in the best interest of the dog's long term health. If you read the bill closely you will see that what the vet has to decide is if the dog can survive the actual procedure, ie being put under and cut into. Not that they will have a higher rate of contracting a cancer some years down the road. If your dog doesn't have SAS, vWD or other serious conditions will not qualify for that exemption.
This is a serious intrusion into my right to privacy. My right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. My right to be safe in my person and papers. This is against my right of due process and certainly against being treated equal. This bill will make some dogs more equal then others.

[moondog]

Originally Posted by Rene Allegrini

Get over it already!

Get over what? Your original post doesn't say anything about you posting for someone else and I'd think the very least you could do is understand what it is you're posting about well enough to answer simple questions about it....especially in light of the stated urgency.

Instead, all you can do is try to paint me with your "supports early spay/neuter" brush because I have the gall to question it? Such ignorance is unbecoming.

Originally Posted by fbkeays

What if a person has a rare breed? A breed that isn't AKC registered?

This argument has merit.....what has been the response from the city council regarding these - does anyone know?

Originally Posted by fbkeays

I seriously doubt that AC is going to try to figure out what registries are real and which ones are not so real (ie the difference between CKC and the CKC).

It sounds to me like an approved registry is something that will be decided beforehand and not applied arbitrarily. Is there a registry for rare breeds that is authentic?

Originally Posted by fbkeays

You have read the studies that show that spaying and neutering at such a young age is not always in the best interest of the dog's long term health. If you read the bill closely you will see that what the vet has to decide is if the dog can survive the actual procedure, ie being put under and cut into. Not that they will have a higher rate of contracting a cancer some years down the road. If your dog doesn't have SAS, vWD or other serious conditions will not qualify for that exemption.

I read it differently, but assuming your interpretation is correct and dogs that are not too young, too old, or too sick to qualify for this exemption can still be exempted....all they have to do is have or be actively training and working towards titles, or be a service dog, or a police or military dog. Any dog with the basics in obedience should be able to obtain a Novice Rally title.

That in itself can do nothing but good for dogs of all breeds, and for those who are too lazy to get off their butts and train their dogs we at least will have confidence that they won't be procreating.

Originally Posted by fbkeays

This bill removes some very basic freedoms that as Americans, I would hope that we all hold dear. Being able to own the breed of dog that best suits us and be able to determine their destiny without interferance from the uneducated government officials.

Originally Posted by fbkeays

This is a serious intrusion into my right to privacy. My right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. My right to be safe in my person and papers. This is against my right of due process and certainly against being treated equal. This bill will make some dogs more equal then others.

Originally Posted by fbkeays

It is none of the government's business to know what kind of dogs I have and what their reproductive status is. Should I breed my bitch, Iwould be required to inform the government who my customers are and where they live. I am not selling WMD, I am selling dogs.

These last three quotes are what seems to me to be at the crux of the opposition to this ordinance.......and I have no doubt that every puppy mill, BYB, and animal abuser out there would heartily agree with you. I bet they go to sleep at night reciting precisely this to themselves about us trying to encourage them not to breed beyond their ability to nurture, not to breed their "nice" dog, and not to kick, hit, or chain their dog to a tree.

[JoJo]

What bothers me about this ordinance is one word "MANDATORY". Who the hell do these people think they are to tell me what I can and cannot do with my PROPERTY?!! Last I heard this still is a free country! They tried this down here in Florida also, it didn't fly. City of Key West to be exact.

I understand the motive behind all this, but it would only be the RESPONSIBLE owners who would abide by this ordinance. They still would have the multitude of unwanted animals being born and euthanized yearly as they do now for the irresponsible owners are the ones that are forcing our government to come up with these dictatorial mandates!! Who's going to enforce this law? At who's cost? Just another tactic to interfere in the lives of the people. It's all smoke and mirrors. Big Brother is moving in step by step and only if we let it! To me this is another form of BSL. Different story, but same page.

[fbkeays]

These last three quotes are what seems to me to be at the crux of the opposition to this ordinance.......and I have no doubt that every puppy mill, BYB, and animal abuser out there would heartily agree with you. I bet they go to sleep at night reciting precisely this to themselves about us trying to encourage them not to breed beyond their ability to nurture, not to breed their "nice" dog, and not to kick, hit, or chain their dog to a tree.

So just because I like to have my consitutional rights means that I am in bed with puppymills, byb, and animal abusers???? Is that what you are saying??? If so, I am highly offended. There is a reason why there is a US Constitution and why we have all of those amendments. There are reasons and those reasons are so that the government can not abuse their law abiding citizens.
I am just waiting for when they pass the law that says that you can not feed your animals anything but commerically produced dry and canned food. The SF area is a hotbed of AR types. I have read where they think home feeding animals is cruel. So when the law is passed saying that you can only feed Science Diet, I will be right there, standing next to you as you say that law is not fair and not constitutional. But until they pass a law that affects YOU personally, don't you think you should respect those of us that want to fight unconstitutional laws that affect others?
The only thing that spaying and neutering at 4 months is going to do is make PETA happy. This LA ordinance will be complaint driven. That is going to pit neighbor against neighbor. Not to mention uneven enforcement- they are going to pick and chose who they enforce and who they don't. That is discriminatory. Have you ever been discriminated against? I HAVE and it doesn't feel good. This thing screams of it.
I know people that have rottweilers that are only USRC registered. They don't like the AKC and only do USRC events. If they lived in LA, do you think they would be able to keep their rotts intact? Do you think the USRC is legit? How would you prove it was to the admin person that hates rottweilers to get their approval to get it on the holy approved list? What if you have a rare breed with a funny name. Do you think you would be able to convience that same person that your oddly named dog with the oddly named registery isn't something that they cooked up on their home computer?
This law is going to make people jump through all sorts of silly hoops to do something that really shouldn't be considered a criminal act. The whole crutch of the American Way is that people are innocent until proven guilty. This law assumes guilt by association- having intact animals.
Any Budists out there in LA? They don't believe in altering based on religious reasons- will they be able to be exempt?

[moondog]

Originally Posted by JoJo

What bothers me about this ordinance is one word "MANDATORY". Who the hell do these people think they are to tell me what I can and cannot do with my PROPERTY?!! Last I heard this still is a free country! They tried this down here in Florida also, it didn't fly. City of Key West to be exact.

LOL, the puppy millers, BYB's and animal abusers will heartily agree with you, too. Who are WE to tell THEM, anyway?

To me, this is like the pros and cons of installing a stop sign. It's literally a non-issue for those who have seen the dangers inherent in an intersection and slow or stop without needing a law to mandate it, and it's a stripping of rights for those who just want to blast through the intersection and have no concern for public safety (or even their own).

Then we have those, and you and Francis appear to be in this group, that object on principle alone without concerning yourself with the less than noble that will hang onto your coattails and cheer you on so they can continue on as before.

Originally Posted by JoJo

Who's going to enforce this law? At who's cost?

Geez, ferreting them out will be easy...all it will take is staff to pick up the for sale ads in print or online and the offenders will have made it easy and provided their contact info without any work at all.

Originally Posted by JoJo

Just another tactic to interfere in the lives of the people. It's all smoke and mirrors. Big Brother is moving in step by step and only if we let it! To me this is another form of BSL. Different story, but same page.

You're paranoia is showing, LOL. This is not at all any form of BSL - where is it breed specific? Oh, I guess you could consider it that if there are a higher number of BYB'ers or puppy millers breeding any particular breed, but that's a stretch at best.

I think the smoke and mirrors is in your head!

[JoJo]

Then we have those, and you and Francis appear to be in this group, that object on principle alone without concerning yourself with the less than noble that will hang onto your coattails and cheer you on so they can continue on as before.

I for one feel proud to be one of those in that group with Francis!! I am very much on principle for that is exactly what I would fight with everything I have to protect......MY FREEDOMS. You Moondog really need to take off your rose colored glasses and start smelling the lock-stepping that's coming down the road. We do not live in that perfect world that we all would so very much wish we had. There will always be BYB, puppy mills. There is one thing that even us RESPONSIBLE owners can't take away YET from these people and that's called CAPITALIZIUM!! In this country, we still are allowed to make a buck and keeping it.....even in the less then noble way possible. We can only stop the BYB'r and puppy mills by EDUCATING the general public. Maybe if our local governments would put money into education programs and promote those instead of wasting the citizens good tax payer dollars on dictatorial ordinances, we could stop all this BS.

Moondog, I know you are thinking of these animals who can't speak for themselves. We all want to help, but taking away my rights in doing so, I will not follow.

[moondog]

Originally Posted by fbkeays

So just because I like to have my consitutional rights means that I am in bed with puppymills, byb, and animal abusers???? Is that what you are saying??? If so, I am highly offended.

Save your breath and the energy wasted on being offended. You're just giving them a wagon to hitch themselves to.....your beliefs....whether you intend it or not.

They can just sit back and let you support their cause, they can cheer you on, and they can reap the benefits of your efforts....even if you disagree with their practices, because YOUR constitutional rights ARE ALSO THEIRS.

Originally Posted by fbkeays

I am just waiting for when they pass the law that says that you can not feed your animals anything but commerically produced dry and canned food..... But until they pass a law that affects YOU personally, don't you think you should respect those of us that want to fight unconstitutional laws that affect others?

Your paranoia is also showing. I'm affected by every law that you're affected by, why do you think laws would not apply to me?

Originally Posted by fbkeays

The only thing that spaying and neutering at 4 months is going to do is make PETA happy.

Unless you have something to back this up, this is nothing but your smoke and mirrors. Just your opinion, nothing more and nothing less and you happen to be clinging to PETA'S coattails by using that as an argument. It's SO messy!

Originally Posted by fbkeays

This LA ordinance will be complaint driven.

Perhaps among some it would be, but the vast majority of enforcement could easily be done without pitting neighbor against neighbor. All they'll need is the local papers and Google.

Originally Posted by fbkeays

I know people that have rottweilers that are only USRC registered. They don't like the AKC and only do USRC events. How would you prove it was to the admin person that hates rottweilers to get their approval to get it on the holy approved list?

If the USRC is legit, they should have no problem proving it - I'm not familiar with their registry, but they have a history to stand on that is verifiable, do they not?

Originally Posted by fbkeays

This law is going to make people jump through all sorts of silly hoops to do something that really shouldn't be considered a criminal act. The whole crutch of the American Way is that people are innocent until proven guilty. This law assumes guilt by association- having intact animals.

You've got quite a following with this, there's no doubt about it. My concern is what that following consists of. I'm not convinced the status quo is serving us well.

Originally Posted by fbkeays

Any Budists out there in LA? They don't believe in altering based on religious reasons- will they be able to be exempt?

If they train, show or compete their dogs they will.

[moondog]

Originally Posted by JoJo

You Moondog really need to take off your rose colored glasses and start smelling the lock-stepping that's coming down the road. ....We can only stop the BYB'r and puppy mills by EDUCATING the general public.

I completely agree that education is the ideal....but since I'm NOT wearing any rose-colored glasses, it's easy to see that education alone is not enough. Those who believe we need no laws, or law enforcement, are the ones who are wearing the rose-colored glasses. It's a sad thing, but true nonetheless.

Originally Posted by JoJo

Moondog, I know you are thinking of these animals who can't speak for themselves. We all want to help, but taking away my rights in doing so, I will not follow.

Yes, I am. And there will always be disagreement on the "best" way to approach a problem.

I have zero problem complying with the ordinance as written, and cannot for the life of me understand why whose who object to it can't see that they are championing the cause of the very ones we bitch and moan about ad nauseum.

[cerulean]

Rene.... NEVER ask me to sign something you haven't even read yourself.

Freedom, privileges and rights ?? It used to be considered a "right" to own slaves and beat wives. It used to be considered a "right" to run dogfights in a pit. It used to be considered a "right" to slaughter elephants for their tusks and leave the body to rot...... etc, etc, etc.

This legislation sounds to me like an effort to end the massive overpopulations of pet animals and our "right" to euthanize them when they are unwanted.