Posted on 01/29/2009 10:00:27 AM PST by Roos_Girl
Sterilization of Dogs and Cats:
Requires sterilization of dogs & cats of specified age; provides exceptions; authorizes county or municipality to enact ordinances requiring licensure of dogs & cats that are not sterilized; requires DOACS to adopt rules for approval of breed registration organizations; provides penalties; conforms requirements for sterilization of dogs & cats in animal shelters & animal control agencies to changes made by act; deletes provision extending time for sterilization; authorizes county & municipal ordinances relating to sterilization of animals; authorizes county or municipality to collect surcharge on civil penalties.
If passed, the law would take away pet owners' rights to do as they believe is best for their animals. HSUS and the like just won't quite and move from state to state in different form to get their agenda passed, and our fantastic (D) officials help them.
Full text of bill is available at the link.
“the law would take away pet owners’ rights to do as they believe is best for their animals.”
That is rather broad. A pet owner who feels beatings are best for their animal is constrained by the law from carrying out the beatings.
Isn’t that appropriate?
I am in favor of mandatory sterilization, except in cases where the owner intends to breed the animal.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this bill. It only applies dogs/cats that are released to the public from shelters/rescue groups who by and large already have this policy in affect.
Parenting Not Parts
Now that’s taking Pelosi’s statement too far ... what? animals? cats and dogs? never mind! /Latella
Silly me for assuming that anyone reading or responding would have the common sense to know that statement didn't cover things like beating, fighting, bestiality, using a staple gun to attach "horns" on a cat for a cute picture at Christmas....
There are other reasons not to sterilize an animal other than just breeding. It is the opinion of many that animals used for hunting, competition of any kind, etc. are better at their jobs, if in tact, than sterilized animals are.
“There’s absolutely nothing wrong with this bill. It only applies dogs/cats that are released to the public from shelters/rescue groups who by and large already have this policy in affect.”
If that’s the case, I agree with you. I adopted two puppies from the Ft. Worth animal shelter last year, and neutering was a mandatory condition. Most vets will even give a discount for neutering adopted pets.
Not sure where you're getting the information that it only applies to animals from shelter/rescue? Exemption requires license purchase for allowing breeding of the animal and several other exemptions are allowed for performance, service, etc.
I have to be respectful of pet owners out there but hear my story, please. I am a volunteer with an Indiana based no kill rescue organization in Indiana. We in the rescue community know that you as a pet owner feel you know what is best for your pet. Most of the time, you do. However, you are victim to thousands of people who don’t. These additional pets strain volunteer services like ours and your local animal control. This adds to higher municipal costs to take care of all these excess animals and thousands of animals dumped in our communities.
These laws are not there to take away your rights. These laws are there to ensure that excess animals do not add to the burgeoning population already in the community! We are full right now ourselves! We even offer very low cost spay/neuter and rabies shot to encourage people to please get their animals fixed for the health of the animal and the health of their communities. Backyard breeders and irresponsible pet owners are also a health risk to their communities with their unsafe and irresponsible standards of breeding and care.
Instead of forcing people to spay or neuter would you be happy with heavily penalizing those who choose not to? Because either one would make me happy as a volunteer. Either you are forced to be responsible or you have to pick up the extra money it costs your community to police your irresponsibility.
No matter how you feel about legislative measures to correct behavior, I hope you at least agree with me something has to be done about this. Indiana only has a dog cat issue, what must poor Florida be going through with exotic pets running amok on occasion.
My male Rat Terrier "stud" was neutered at age 5 to preclude another litter of puppies. He developed lymphosarcoma within two weeks of the surgery and was euthanized after 6 months. We opted not to neuter any of the other males after that.
Our family had a male "tuxedo" cat. He was neutered and developed kidney disease within 6 months. He was also euthanized.
I'm in favor of suing anyone who forces me to perform unnecessary surgery on my pets that results in their untimely death.
It’s amazing how inept these folks are when it comes to implementing sound policy to run a state, and yet how impressed with their own ability to stoop to enacting laws like this, these folks are.
Good grief. Back away from the voting switch.
Go home. Get a life.
I’m sure I’ll get flamed for my opinion, but that’s okay. I love, love, love my animals; wouldn’t hurt a hair on their cute little bodies. And would probably do some serious harm to someone else that did try to hurt them. I am an animal lover in general. That said, I and no one else, should be forced to pay for someone else being irresponsible. (I’m sure this will be the flame part) I have no problem with the humane euthanization of unwanted animals. Am I sorry for the animals? Yes, it hurts my heart beyond belief! But maybe (probably not) people will wake up if they knew the true number of animals that would be killed. The way it is now it’s just another dime, quarter, dollar, whatever added to my taxes for the City/County to take care of for me.
I’d even be careful about neutering dogs/cats when they are rescued. Whenever it’s possible an owner may show up, they should refrain from any action on the pet for a period of time.
These folks are carve happy.
There is a right way and a wrong way to do this.
Allowing free breeding creates a public health risk, and it is extremely hard to find people to spend their whole day killing stray animals in shelters without having a nervous breakdown. And there are lots of crazy people like Michael Vick and little old ladies with a hundred cats in their house.
But like gun control, responsible, law abiding people and their pets are not the problem. So targeting a law at them is just as stupid.
Therefore, the law needs to be tailored to go after the people who create a public risk. For example, there are aggressive breeds of dogs that need to be properly raised to prevent them from becoming dangerous, or *perceived* to be dangerous, which also matters, because more and more police departments are developing unofficial “shoot on sight” policies for any dog over 20 lbs that officers encounter. And the vast majority of animals killed by police are harmless family pets.
So people who wish to own such animals as aggressive breeds might be required to participate with their animal in and successfully pass obedience classes, for the same reason as driver’s ed. If they show up with an adult dog that they cannot control, that is aggressive to people or other animals, they may not be allowed to keep it in circumstances other than cages or other such confinement. Requiring reexamination after a period of a few years would also be acceptable.
Basically, the same rules that already apply to keeping large wild cats or other dangerous wild animals. They may think the world of their pets, but they pose a public hazard.
Alternatively, professional breeders with many animals have strict health requirements for the proper care and maintenance of their animals that are not unreasonable. If some elderly lady wants a hundred cats, she should be able to do so if she creates an acceptable living environment for them, just like the professionals do. Otherwise it is cruelty to animals.
So as I am pointing out, many of the rules already exist, and could just be tweaked to solve existing problems.
But, as is also obvious, there are a lot of dumbasses out there more than willing to keep an animal as a weapon, and let it roam free to menace and attack others, with complete disregard to the animal or other people.
Likewise, there are lots of people who care for animals, but cannot care for their animals in an acceptable manner.
I think there should be a lot of exemptions to the law. Your examples are all good.
I think the law should more geared towards the irresponsible pet owner.
Pet owners that show an interest in keeping their pets unfixed should of course be permitted to do so.
I don’t know how restrictive this law is, but I do think some regulation is appropriate. There are too many abandoned animals.
I am for exemptions for responsible pet owners. Some form of population control is in order.
All of my rescues were fixed before I got them, but we had our Persian fixed ourselves. I was soooo nervous. We went thru with it becuase she was in very intense heat and obviously uncomfortable. It was a good decision for us. She is much happier. In fact, I would say she has become even more loving.
My heart breaks for your loss. Pets are amazing, and it hurts something awful when they leave us. My Mom’s Chiuauha was hit by a car and killed three weeks ago. It was tough.
Sion a few days before his passing. As long as he could run, leap up on the bed, leap off the bed and live a "normal" existence, we persevered through his illness. On his final day, he couldn't lay comfortably on his side or tummy. That happened overnight. It was time to say farewell to our friend.
I would like an Italian Greyhound some day or a retired full size greyhound. I won't add a greyhound to the household until my current "pack" has gone to their reward.
Lets analyze your last paragraph: Instead of forcing people to spay or neuter would you be happy with heavily penalizing those who choose not to? Because either one would make me happy as a volunteer. Either you are forced to be responsible or you have to pick up the extra money it costs your community to police your irresponsibility.
No matter how you feel about legislative measures to correct behavior, I hope you at least agree with me something has to be done about this. Indiana only has a dog cat issue, what must poor Florida be going through with exotic pets running amok on occasion.
“either one would make me happy as a volunteer” - your happiness or lack thereof is your affair. In no way does your ‘happiness’ give you a right to control another citizen’s property. Nor does it give you the right to impose costs to force that citizen to “make you happy”.
If you don’t want to kill unwanted pets, don’t volunteer to so do. But, to demand that others be forced to comply with your personal need for a ‘happiness” is tyranny. Are you perchance an animal rights whacko?
The population of trays and unwanted animals can be controlled far cheaper than with the present huge “animal facilities’ favored by the PETA nuts. Are you sure you want to be confused with those people?
As for FLorida’s exotic animals, we are coping with all sorts of critters. Coping, I might add, without too many new gooberment agencies.
ParkMan wants all sorts of money to deal with pythons, but hopefully that will be dealt with by Brer Gator.
In the final analysis, let to people impacted by the strays, etc. deal with the situation. That is far cheaper, works better, and does not further socialize America.
Just some thought for you to consider.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.