Spay/Neuter Bill in Oklahoma

[LavenderRott]

I just read this and thought that some of you might be interested.

Spay/Neuter Bill

It would require a license at a substancial fee for people who have unneutered animals living on the property. Just thought I would post it so that people could let their lawmakers know how they felt about it.

[Luvs]

Those fines seem a little steep to me. $100. just to keep your dog intact even if you are not breeding is outrageous. For those who have more than one intact dog in their house it could start to add up pretty quickly.

I have to admit I really don't like that bill at all and not because of the $$$.

[cryjay]

Where I live we do get charged more for not having animals that are spayed/neteured. Quite frankly, I do not htink it is completely fair because it costs so much now to get animals "fixed", that being forced to pay even more money is going to make for a lot more people to just dump their animals somewhere. What I think would be a really great idea, especially for those who can't afford the spay/neteur costs is to get some really good financial aid programs for such things and then I guarantee so many more animals would be "fixed". I personally know a lot of people who would "fix" their animals if it weren't so expensive and that is the only reason why they don't. Just a thought that's all...

[JeanT]

My town charges $3-4 more per year per unnneutered dog for a license. the money goes to a spay/neuter fund that (I believe) is a county level fund. Now I'm curious and need to look into it because the infamous Burl. Co. Shelter doesn't spay/neuter.

I think $100 a year for an individual dog who is intact because of show participation is way steep. I can see "show" as being an excuse for some people, so maybe proof of show participation where being intact is required could be an exception.

As to the other commercial/non-commercial breeders, I think it should be even higher!! It's really BYB and puppymills that will suffer. I was shocked and disappointed that the AKC position is that people should be "free" to breed their little darlings to give to family and friends. Maybe the AKC is concerned that there will be a decrease in revenue for registering all the BYB and puppymill products.

[angel girl]

JeanT-with the AKC everything is about revenue. Just look at their "High Volume Breeders" program, run hand in hand with the USDA for millers.

And it won't affect millers or BYBers. Millers pump out hundreds to thousands of puppies a year so $1000 will be nothing (and they will probably get subsidized by the government anyway) and BYBs will do what they do know and ignore any laws regarding the licensing, care, and sale of puppies and kittens.

The only ones it's going to affect are the reputable breeders who breed selectively one or two litters per year and are already not making any money off their breeding programs and most likely are losing money.

I personally do not believe making new laws that restrict breeding and ownership of dogs are necessary. There are many laws on the books that are intended to protect animals, there are many educational programs to show people the effects and consequences of irresponsible breeding. However, the laws aren't enforced and trying to re-educate a society's way thinking is a very tough job.

The pet-overpopulation crisis wasn't created over night, nor can it be fixed over night. Especially with punitive laws that attack decent, responsible people who are trying to help animals.

BTW-I don't know a single responsible breeder who doesn't rescue. In fact, that is part of my criteria for being a responsible breeder.

[JeanT]

Originally Posted by angel girl

The only ones it's going to affect are the reputable breeders who breed selectively one or two litters per year and are already not making any money off their breeding programs and most likely are losing money.

I hadn't thought of that at all, obviously.