Bulldog Breeds Forums banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER laws in CA.....what do you think?

Jump to Latest
21 - 40 of 69 Posts
#21 ·
I have some major concerns with this law in CA.

1. When I originally read something about this law working dogs were not exempt. * If this stands than I am against it!

2. I also read that dogs that are registered in the AKC are the only ones exempt from this bill with permits or whatever it may be. *Again if this stands I am against it because AB are not recognized by the AKC!

3. I also do not know the costs of these permits and what are the penalties if this is not adhered too? Who and how will it be enforced?

These are all very important questions that should be asked and brought up. The AKC is not the only reg. in the USA that is reputable.

Does anyone actually have the government link to this bill. I dont want a link from a different part summarizing the bill I want the actual bill before I can say that I like it or not.
 
#23 ·
Again this is from the forum under breeding.
I just got done reading the actual law itself from the web site that I posted. Here it is an with the sections high lighted I think that this law would help the few legit breeders in the industry. The reason the AKC does not approve is this law will take A LOT of $$$$$ out of thier pocket books! I am much more comfortable ith this law. I do not like that the price for the permits are not listed though.

AB 1634 — 4 —

1 control agency, that he or she is doing business and is licensed as
2 a breeder at a location for which the local jurisdiction or its
3 authorized animal control agency has issued a breeder permit
4 license.
5 (2) The owner sufficiently demonstrates that his or her cat or dog is a valid breed
that is recognized by
16 an approved registry or association, as determined in the
6 discretion of the local jurisdiction or its authorized animal control
7 agency, and complies with at least one of the following:
8 (A) His or her cat or dog is used to show or compete and has
9 competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition
10 hosted by, or under the approval of, a recognized registry
11 or association, within
12 the last two years, or by whatever proof is requested by the
13 authorized local animal control agency that the cat or dog is being
14 trained to show or compete and is too young to have yet competed.
15 (B) The cat or dog has earned, or is in
19 the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting,
20 herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other legitimate title from an
21 approved purebred registry or association.
22 (3) The owner provides proof to the local jurisdiction or its
23 authorized local animal control agency that the dog is being trained
24 or is documented as having been appropriately trained and meets
25 the definition of guide dog, service dog, or signal dog, as set forth
26 in subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of Section 365.5 of the Penal Code.
27 (4) The owner provides proof to the local jurisdiction or its
28 authorized local animal control agency that the dog is being trained,
29 or is documented as having been appropriately trained, and actively
30 used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement or rescue
31 activities.
32 (5) The owner of a cat or dog provides a letter to the local
33 jurisdiction or its authorized animal control agency from a
34 California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health,
35 or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog. This letter
36 shall include the veterinarian's license number, shall be periodically
37 updated, and shall, if this information is available, include the
38 duration of the condition of the dog or cat, and the date by which
39 the dog or cat may be safely spayed or neutered.
 
#24 ·
2bully said:
KyleB said:
Sorry, I just cant justify killing 18,000 dogs to save 100 "good" dogs.

Sorry!
Click to expand...
How you saving all those dogs? You said yourself that shelters wouldn't eventually shut down. So if shelters are still up and running dogs will still be euthanized. So all you've done is allowed the first salvo to be lobbed in PETA's war to take our pets from us!
Click to expand...
There's 18,000 dogs killed a year in shelters. If you spay your animal, it’s not going to reproduce. Within a few years, the number of dogs killed every year will drop to nearly zero.

"How are you saving all those dogs?" I said, “How do you justify killing 18,000 a year, just to save 100 "good dogs". If you are against this law, you are saying you are fine with 18,000 dogs being killed every year, just to “save” the few working dog breeders (saving, meaning not making them get fixed, enabling them to reproduce). What do you not understand?

Yep, I’m definitely helping PETA to take your animals away from you, since I agree with the law. Dogs that should not reproduce should be fixed. Dogs that should reproduce (dog has earned, or is in the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other legitimate title from an approved purebred registry or association) can be expempted.
 
#26 ·
Lisa said:
I don't like it. Another example where idiots are taking away the freedom of choice for responsible people. Where will it end?
Click to expand...
I would have to agree. How do you know if a dog is show qualty at 4 mo?
You don't know if a dog is a good working dog by that age. This law will effect the good breeders also. Becouse some good breeders only have a litter every 2-3 years. I do believe that fixing dogs that aren't worth breeding but I don't think the goverment should tell you which ones are or are not breed. Not to mention that would kill off all apbts, since they aren't in the AKC. Not right.
 
#27 ·
2bully said:
Say I breed for myself. I do all the health testing, prove my dogs through working venues, have a litter every couple of years and hold back a pup or 2 and give the rest away to responsible homes either fixed or under contract to be fixed if they don't develope to expectation. Now this law goes into effect and the government wants 10,000.00 for a breeders permit. Not to mention that I don't qualify because the government doesn't recognize the kennel club that my dogs are registered with. So I'm a law abiding citizen, what recourse do I have?

There is more wrong with the law than there is right.
Click to expand...
Break the law! This law may stop some breeding by law abiding dog owners, but the problem isn't solved as unlawful breedings will still take place. Just like the gun control laws... it only hurts those that are trying to do it right!

8)
 
#28 ·
wrknrott said:
2bully said:
Say I breed for myself. I do all the health testing, prove my dogs through working venues, have a litter every couple of years and hold back a pup or 2 and give the rest away to responsible homes either fixed or under contract to be fixed if they don't develope to expectation. Now this law goes into effect and the government wants 10,000.00 for a breeders permit. Not to mention that I don't qualify because the government doesn't recognize the kennel club that my dogs are registered with. So I'm a law abiding citizen, what recourse do I have?

There is more wrong with the law than there is right.
Click to expand...
Break the law! This law may stop some breeding by law abiding dog owners, but the problem isn't solved as unlawful breedings will still take place. Just like the gun control laws... it only hurts those that are trying to do it right!

8)
Click to expand...

Exactly!!! It hurts those who already are responsible, cushions the already fat pockets of the Government. Those who stand to profit from it will do it anyways. This law will not stop it. It may in fact make it worse..

Sahrene
 
#30 ·
KyleB said:
How do you all see this as hurting good breeders? If you are a good breeder, you will be exempted, end of story!
Click to expand...
How do you see it as end of story?

I personally know many responsible dog people that might not be able to afford to apply for a permit. It is enough that we spend on training, trialing, showing, breed surveys, transportation, health certifications, etc. This money doesn't get recouped through breeding once every couple years. Now you want to add another fee just so we can have a dog that is not altered? That should be solely my decision to make for my dog! Not some government forcing me too.

Another point that 2bully has made numerous times.... not all venues and/or breed clubs may/may not be recognized. Then what?

This whole law stinks from the get go.... and like I said before it will have little impact on the real problem! You look back in most pure bred pedigrees and there will be show titled dogs 2 or 3 generations back and that is where the problem began! On the flip side I haven’t seen similar trends from the working dog community, most working pedigrees have working parents and so on. I have seen great dogs that can not throw their phenotype and I have seen average dogs that throw phenomenal type!

8)
 
Discussion starter · #31 ·
Hmmmm. Interesting discussion. Now that I've read more about it, and read some other's perspectives on here, I can kind of see how parts of this law are ridiculous. I applaud those of you that took the time to actually read it and research it, so your opinions were informed and not just based in reaction.

For those of you that are against it: I get what you're saying about enforcement, costs, etc. and you have good points. Then how do you propose to get a handle on overpopulation and BYB-ing? Do you have a better solution in mind? I'm not being smart-mouthed, I really and truly want to know your ideas if you have them. Are you against the IDEA of what this law is trying to accomplish? Or just against the way it's laid out?

Those of you for it: do you honestly think they'd be able to enforce this? If so, how? Will the cost of the permits realistically offset the costs (salaries, administrative, equipment, time) to enforce it? Do you think the government regulating something like this is really a good idea when they can't even regulate themselves?

It's easy to just support something that sounds good, until you hear the other side........so thanks for sharing opinions, everyone!
 
#33 ·
How long will it take for this to be a law? Lets just say 6 months. If you can't save up enough money to get a permit in 6 months, then thats just unfortunate, sorry. Get a better job, put in some extra hours, anything. If breeding your dog means that much to someone, i'm sure they will be able to make ends meet to get the money for a permit. And if not, obviously the person has no motivation in life.
 
#34 ·
Grizwald said:
Hmmmm. Interesting discussion. Now that I've read more about it, and read some other's perspectives on here, I can kind of see how parts of this law are ridiculous. I applaud those of you that took the time to actually read it and research it, so your opinions were informed and not just based in reaction.

For those of you that are against it: I get what you're saying about enforcement, costs, etc. and you have good points. Then how do you propose to get a handle on overpopulation and BYB-ing? Do you have a better solution in mind? I'm not being smart-mouthed, I really and truly want to know your ideas if you have them. Are you against the IDEA of what this law is trying to accomplish? Or just against the way it's laid out?

Those of you for it: do you honestly think they'd be able to enforce this? If so, how? Will the cost of the permits realistically offset the costs (salaries, administrative, equipment, time) to enforce it? Do you think the government regulating something like this is really a good idea when they can't even regulate themselves?

It's easy to just support something that sounds good, until you hear the other side........so thanks for sharing opinions, everyone!
Click to expand...
Most municapalities already have animal control laws that they aren't enforcing. I suggest enforcing the existing laws. An enterprising city attorney could reasonable apply some other laws to the situation, such as sellers permits, failure to pay sales tax, retailers licensing, etc.
 
#35 ·
KyleB said:
I just dont understand how the working dog people can continue to let 18,000 dogs a year be killed, just so they can breed there good-working dogs.

Great logic people :D
Click to expand...
Your missing the point, your only hearing what you want. The language of the current law is the problem. The current law's language leaves alot to be interpertated by a local official that in most cases would not be elected. There is no guide line as to what a permit or exemption should cost. The animal control agency could charge as much as they wanted for those things. 10,000, 20,000, 100,000 what's the limit? The language also says that local agencies have sole discretion as to who gets permits and exemptions, so even if you meet the requirements you may not get one. Again I'll implore you to read the law, stop eating the candy coated propaganda.
 
#36 ·
Thanks for the Pm 2Bully...

How many have read the entire Bill? What is you interpetation? I work as a paralegal and thehe entire bill has holes, no definate meaning it has so many gray areas that it is left to the Local authorities to use their judgment to use thier interpetation of this bill. It has been revised for the third time.. This is a BSL, that will be left for local jurisdiction (your local animal control, who are big fans of the bullbreeds) to leave at thier descresion. This is just a new BSL spearheading the source. The bullbreeds, rarebreed, mix
mutts. Do you think the State Of CA will recognize the ABDA, ABA, UKC, NKC,ARF, ABRA an other registries the register bullbreeds. What makes you think the State of CA will issue a permit to breed Bullbreeds? And I am a working person, this effects all pet owners..... Permits cost are left up to each county to be determine...




My post several weeks back from the TG board..


For those that have wrote in thank you. Just figure the blueprint is set for a bill in your state soon to come.. People should not be shocked about this, it was a matter of time. We have defeated BSL before time after time this is just a new BSL..err I mean bill focusing on spay and neuter and licensing with a different platform and a throw in oh yeah we will exclude this breed and that breed... If not even thou it states per the bill " Recognized as a valid breed by an approved purebred registry or association in existence since at least October 1, 2007" it still leaves the door open as to what the state of CA will Recognize as a "purebred" and "valid breed registry or association"...Rare breeds owners will get screwed unless they can compliy with the terms below....Oh yeah The AB folks will be united for once in CA at least as American bulldogs..none of this OSW, OEW, performance, Hybred, JDJ...be ready to see you guys on the training field now.... Sorry if I am being sarcastic to a point, just got a bunch of emails from people that own rare breeds and ABs and read this board ..the light bulb went on for them and are now shitting their pants. Relax guys bill won't take effect until Jan 2008, maybe longer for possible and law suits in regards to overturn this bill...So you have plenty of time to get them bitches bred and mass produce them dogs, get while the getting is good...

Another post

Part of an email I sent to dog people I know in CA.... "althou the writers say this is not the fact it is in the bill and until changed it is part of the bill"... what this bill ask for also..lets say any of us wants to put on a dog show, or a national event for SCH, PSA, FR, MR any out of state competitors or participants want to attend or compete, they will be subject to a permit as well. This will kill any shows/events in CA. This is why the AKC/USA /DVG/NARA are fighting this bill so hard..
 
#37 ·
Grizwald said:
For those of you that are against it: I get what you're saying about enforcement, costs, etc. and you have good points. Then how do you propose to get a handle on overpopulation and BYB-ing? Do you have a better solution in mind? I'm not being smart-mouthed, I really and truly want to know your ideas if you have them. Are you against the IDEA of what this law is trying to accomplish? Or just against the way it's laid out?
Click to expand...
I'm for the goal, but this one is IMO laid out poorly...

A better resolution IMO would be that for ANY litter to be registered, the sire and dam must have passed a recognized breed suitability test that is appropriate for the breed ie working breeds will have to pass a working test. For those breeds that have no working venue, they must pass a temperament test and have a champion show title no further back than the second generation. This will have impact as most novice dog owners seem to think that AKC registration is all that, therefore wouldn't buy dogs that aren't registerable as their parents were bred without a BST. The AKC and/or parent breed registry could easily handle this at their level, but (and it is a big BUT) they will be giving up huge dollars from reduced registrations!

This would not be the end all to the problem, but would be a step in the right direction.

8)
 
#39 ·
MarioF said:
Thanks for the Pm 2Bully...

How many have read the entire Bill? What is you interpetation? I work as a paralegal and thehe entire bill has holes, no definate meaning it has so many gray areas that it is left to the Local authorities to use their judgment to use thier interpetation of this bill. It has been revised for the third time.. This is a BSL, that will be left for local jurisdiction (your local animal control, who are big fans of the bullbreeds) to leave at thier descresion. This is just a new BSL spearheading the source. The bullbreeds, rarebreed, mix
mutts. Do you think the State Of CA will recognize the ABDA, ABA, UKC, NKC,ARF, ABRA an other registries the register bullbreeds. What makes you think the State of CA will issue a permit to breed Bullbreeds? And I am a working person, this effects all pet owners..... Permits cost are left up to each county to be determine...




My post several weeks back from the TG board..


For those that have wrote in thank you. Just figure the blueprint is set for a bill in your state soon to come.. People should not be shocked about this, it was a matter of time. We have defeated BSL before time after time this is just a new BSL..err I mean bill focusing on spay and neuter and licensing with a different platform and a throw in oh yeah we will exclude this breed and that breed... If not even thou it states per the bill " Recognized as a valid breed by an approved purebred registry or association in existence since at least October 1, 2007" it still leaves the door open as to what the state of CA will Recognize as a "purebred" and "valid breed registry or association"...Rare breeds owners will get screwed unless they can compliy with the terms below....Oh yeah The AB folks will be united for once in CA at least as American bulldogs..none of this OSW, OEW, performance, Hybred, JDJ...be ready to see you guys on the training field now.... Sorry if I am being sarcastic to a point, just got a bunch of emails from people that own rare breeds and ABs and read this board ..the light bulb went on for them and are now shitting their pants. Relax guys bill won't take effect until Jan 2008, maybe longer for possible and law suits in regards to overturn this bill...So you have plenty of time to get them bitches bred and mass produce them dogs, get while the getting is good...

Another post

Part of an email I sent to dog people I know in CA.... "althou the writers say this is not the fact it is in the bill and until changed it is part of the bill"... what this bill ask for also..lets say any of us wants to put on a dog show, or a national event for SCH, PSA, FR, MR any out of state competitors or participants want to attend or compete, they will be subject to a permit as well. This will kill any shows/events in CA. This is why the AKC/USA /DVG/NARA are fighting this bill so hard..
Click to expand...
Nice post Mario. Your welcome for the PM
 
#40 ·
Another perspective certain paragraphs will rewards the puppy millers and the BYB. Not the folks that hobby breeders that do the correct thing, test their stock re temp, hips.. overall health. I am not a breeder.

I am not against the permits and the licensing. I am against the language of the bill and the misreprenstation of facts used by Levine to get this bill going and the effect it will have on those breeds and owners that dogs will not be covered under the language of registries.

Email I just received...by a friend in the law in Sacramento...

AB 1634 has been amended yet again on 5/9/07, with an ineffective attempt to
placate by changing the requirement that a dog meet ALL to ANY of the
various criteria. The requirement that the dog be a a valid breed recognized
by a approved purebred registry has been changed to approved registry. It
appears that titles, etc. would still need to be from an approved purebred
registry or association, however. They tried to improve the paragraph on
non-residents, but it leaves it up to the LOCAL jurisdiction to determine
whether you are there for a legitimate reason.

My interpretation of this bill is that titles and events offered by USA
might very well not qualify since it is highly unlikely USA would be
considered a recognized registry or association.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1634&sess=CUR&hou
se=B&search_type=email
 
21 - 40 of 69 Posts
About this Discussion
68 Replies
20 Participants
Last post:
CowBella
Bulldog Breeds Forums
posts
536K
members
11K
Since
2005
A forum community dedicated to Bulldog owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about breeding, health, behavior, housing, adopting, care, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Photos General/Misc. Bully Discussion New Member Introductions News & Events