Too Many Pets
Looks like Humboldt is following the lead of some other counties and considering an ordinance that requires dogs and cats over four months old to be neutered. A bill is also being considered at the state level along the same lines.
I find some of the expemptions to the county proposal rather curious: Dogs used by law enforcement and guide dogs? Seems to me they're just as capable of having puppies as any other dogs. I guess the thinking is that such dogs are assumed to have responsible owners. Still, seems a somewhat arrogant assumption to make.
I'm actually very sympathetic to the idea. Too many people have pets that shouldn't and there are some irresponsible pet owners even among those who take relatively good care of their pets.
Still, something bugs me about this proposal. I just can't put my finger on it. Maybe because it's just another case of government telling us what we have to do.
Anyone have any good arguments against requiring neutering of pets?
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:37 AM
48 comments
48 Comments:
I think the problem would be how well this could be enforced. What about folks that breed purebreds?
The purebreds that are registered won't be forced to spay/neuter.
I don't know how this could be enforced. I guess neighbors could turn you in if your dog or cat has a litter but I don't think that would happen.
I have a neighbor that adopted a cat that was hanging out around our block but when another neighbor volunteered to take the cat to her vet to have it neutered he had a fit and said that was terrible. She actually did it anyway and he never noticed. I guess there must be lots of other people that believe it is better to have lots of cats or dogs than spay or neuter their pet(s).
Wonder how this has been solved in other counties as the newspaper mentioned this.
If you support something like this,you might as well support the neutering of people who cannot take care of their kids.
And your point? This is a bad thing?
9:43 wrote, "The purebreds that are registered won't be forced to spay/neuter.".
Yes. Registered purebreeds and breeders won't supposedly be required to register.
The Times- Standard had a story today, beneath the one on the county ordinance, about the state law proposal. If I read that one right, individuals could be exempted from the neuter requirement if they applied for some special permit.
While I appreciate at least some attempt there for consideration of the individual, it makes my skin crawl to think it's akin to having to apply for a permit simply because you own a pet.
As far as enforceability, that's a toughie and would probably be impossible for cats.
With dogs, as well but, as much as I hate to say it, animal control folks often deal with irresponsible pet owners.
Since irresponsible pet owners likely constitute the bulk of the problem, it would almost seem selective enforcement would naturally happen since they already deal with the kind of people that really should be encouraged to neuter their pets.
They probably don't run into the types of people that take their pets to the vet and on walks regularly so the "good" pet owners would naturally get little attention from the enforcers.
I hate to put it that way, but it's probably true.
Fred: While none of us likes new laws or regulations, if people took responsibility for their animals, there wouldn't be the need for this. Education alone doesn't work, we've been trying it for decades. It is nothing more than a tool that animal control can call upon when needed.
I think this plan is nothing more then padding more money for a government coffers. I think this plan is utter crap, and this is coming from someone who has "fixed" pets.
Let's see some real good ideas, like making "Tagging" a larger crime with alot more jail time then it gets now.
As much as I support the spaying and neutering of dogs and cats, there seems something wrongheaded about this idea. If it was truly enforced in 10 years there wouldn't be any dogs or cats because registered breeders could not come close to supplying enough pups and kittens. Plus this strongly discriminates against cross breeds. These simply has to be a better way of dealing with this problem.
All this will do is punish responsible people. All you have to do is look at the horrific case with Kiki Bugenig, where nothing could be done when there was REAL neglect.
Siiiggghhh are we not over this pet thing yet.
It's 2007 and people are still so adamant about having there companion wolf.
Animals are sustenance. In there native environments they can also give us scientific insight.
Domestic pets are luxuries of selfish humans, and could use a thorough deucing... so yeah good ordinance.
Fred,
Law enforcement and guide dogs are exempt because there are genetic traits that are bred for to do those jobs.
Rose: You're mixing apples and oranges here. The failure of the DA's office to charge in the abuse case, even after hours of investigation and documentation has nothing to do with this ordinance. You need to stay on point.
Hayduke: There are thousands of animals available at the shelter each year, not to mention through the Sequoia Humane Society. Even if they enforced this zealously, there would still be more than enough adoptable animals to fill the need.
Not the failure to charge. That came later. The inability to act even in the face of obvious abuse.
Where do you think the animals in the shelters come from? Do you think they breed them there? I realize that we are not going to actually eliminate dogs and cats. I was only pointing out if we truly enforced such a law then then there would be no more animals being taken to the shelters, and then eventually no pets I don't expect that to happen, but then that is really the point. Laws like this only disadvantage law abiding citizens.
Rose:
Failure to act on the part of the DA or the sheriff department? Not quite sure who you mean. The people who investigated this incident were horrified by what they found, as would any but the most cold hearted amongst us. Maybe if we had this ordinance in effect then, the outcome may have been different, another tool for law enforcement. I think we can all agree, even with all the hard work Steve Knight and the shelter does, animal issues are very low on the list of priorities in Humboldt.
I might be for tougher penalties on those who are found to be abusive, but not something like this which presupposes that everyone is guilty, and has the government making decisions for the people, turning innocent people into criminals. needlessly.
Rose is off her rocker again.
Spay/neuter laws are very effective. Find me a case where someone has been wrongly found guilty.
I don't know of a good reason to oppose this law. If pet owners made sure their animals didn't breed or adopted/humanely euthanized the litters, it would be unnecessary. The recent flurry of extreme animal abuse and need for County animal shelter shows there's a growing problem.
There is a social belief among many lesser educated people that it is ethical to let a female pet have one litter so she "has the experience of giving birth" and as a result will be a "better" pet becasue her "nature" is fulfilled. Similarly the belief for male pets is to let them have the "experience of mating" so they would be fulfilled and not "frustrated". Thats all nonsense prompted by people's selfishness and insecurities about their own identities and lives. Those people's ideas cause much suffering by animals and much expense to their neighbors.
I'd prefer a law that allows one litter for female pets if the owner finds homes/euthanizes the issue and requires neutering males at a modest age. But enforcement of that would be even more problematic than the proposed law So I support the proposed law.
I remember once , when I lived in a typical bachelor pad with 3 other dudes in our very early 20's, one of my roommates cats disappeared. About the time we had given it up for dead, it reappeared with a shaved belly and stitches...Naturally we figured it had been abducted by aliens and implanted with alien embryos; however, after a while with no offspring coming forth of any kind, we realized one of our neighbors had probably taken her to the vet and gotten her spayed, doing everyone a favor.
"Looks like Humboldt is following the lead of some other counties and considering an ordinance that requires dogs and cats over four months old to be neutered."
Why not? We operate a system that spiritually and emotionally neuters our own children. What else do you call it when you force children to sit still in their classroom seats (bored to death, I might add) for twelve years before they can be free?
Another example of the state legislating common sense. What's next; a law mandating tooth brushing? It will be interesting to observe the "enforcement" of this bullshit downriver from Willow Creek and Orleans.
It would be nice if there was a law mandating healthy teeth, it would save much more suffering than it would cause. As for the pet thing , just pretend it's a privelege and not a right, and get over it.
Thanks for that, 8:09. Everything's a privelege and not a right?
You might have made my point for me, without even trying to.
Taking it one step further; Just exactly what do you think "rights" consist of, if anything?
Can we start neutering the bottom feeders in Humboldt? Forced sterilization is neccessary.
Forced execution of the lowest of the low is preferable. When I look at the pristine environment of Humboldt county I think to myself "How dare these bottom feeders ruin such profitable land". The wealthy liberal elites should leave for a few days while the NWO Napalms this entire place! Let those bottom feeders die in excruciating agony! As a wealthy liberal I can see that the sheeple need to be culled and managed.
The apocalyps must come and cleanse the earth of the sub-human infestation.
"Another example of the state legislating common sense"
Zorba doesn't seem to have noticed that no "sense" is common. Speed limits would seem to be "common sense" to me, but this is not true for the geniuses who rush to every light and stop sign in Eureka.
cpr, Get over it! You know that speed limits are a revenue measure.
"speed limits are a revenue measure."
......?
I hope, mr genius, that you never have to help scrape someones brains off the asphalt after they smash up after doing 85 mph.
We have speed limits to save lives.
Not only should we spay/neuter pets, but also anyone on public assistance.
So you're suggesting that anyone who enlists in the military be neutered.Can't say I totally disagree with that.
"I hope, mr genius, that you never have to help scrape someones brains off the asphalt after they smash up after doing 85 mph."
7:07AM, mr genius is correct. Having written many many traffic citations and helping to clean up a few gory collision scenes I can assure you that speed limits ARE a revenue measure. Traffic collisions are invariably the result of reckless driving.
OK, so what this law tells me is that if my animal gets pregnant, I should do one of the following to avoid being fined:
1) Club the mother to death.
2) Drown the babies.
3) Raise the babies in secret, then release them into the wild.
After all, if my pet illegally gives births, I am not going to advertise free kittens or puppies in a newspaper classified, nor am I going to risk dropping them off at a shelter that might catch me on camera. Wise law. Very wise.
Unintended consequences.
10:46 AM
Yes I agree the law could be oppresive. But if YOU take personal responsibility for your pet's offspring no one will charge you. Is it better to have the county "drown" your unwanted animals? That's exactly whats happening now(more humane ways are used) without this law.
As far as releasing your unwanted animal into the "wild", you're showing you are part of the problem. Domesticated animals suffer when abandoned and impact. In your mind is the "wild" any vacant lot or public place that you choose? Its not kindness or responsible to abandon domesticated animals.
You know, its already unlawful to leave your pet's sh*t in public places, but its enforced only in the most egregious circumstances. This new law will work the same way.
Gee Fred, 8:09 PM didn't take your bait to rant about how he supports government control over everything? Guess the folks here are on to your feeble attempts to falsely characterize promotion of public good as socialism.
Our first unquestioned right is to be able to reproduce at will without government restriction. So, in order to live together peacefully, with a constantly increasing population we accept limitations to behavior in other areas. For example, you now can't shoot a gun outdoors on your property in Eureka. Years ago you could. The proposed restriction on pet possession is a similar situation.
Wrong.
I love a law like this if it includes two provisions.
#1 People can apply for a FREE waiver for their pet.
#2 Offenders are pursued (flyers and classifieds are monitored by the county), with offenders given a HEFTY fine, say, $500 on first offense. That fine will be waived within 120 (or whatever) days if the person provides proof of spay/neutering. It is key that first offenders do not get off with a warning. Strict enforcement, only.
Give me that kind of law and I'll support it. The current law appears overly broad (no exceptions granted for average folks) and devoid of an incentive for enforcement. It's all for show. No thanks.
We need to get back to a discussion on spaying and neutering homeless people.
No we don't.
Oh, great! More paperwork. More big brother.
Kiki is well known for raising good dogs. Dogs that work well and are easy to handle. She may be a wild cat but she always took good care of livestock. What you all should get straight is that it was when the government took over that the dogs went down hill. You want to assure problems just add more government.
It is decided between 14-18 months of age whethrer a guide dog puppy in training will be used for breeding. At that point they return to their particular school (Guide dogs for the Blind, guide Dogs of America, or Guide dogs of the Desert here in California, Leader dogs for the Blind and seeing Eye serve other regions-hope I did not miss anyone) for professional training(as opposed to a family teaching good manners & housetraining). This program helps people to lead independent lives as a team of dog and person. I would be disappointed to see the program changed since it helps so many people. Please check out Soulmates on the guide Dogs for the Blind website guidedogs.com-It's very short and powerful.
My kids are horrified to hear that they can't have kittens and puppies anymore. What will we do when ours die? We don't want a purebred, have always had mutts, and gotten our kitties from other kids at Safeway. Now they'll be criminals?
Drying up tears
You are a monster to intentionally make your kids cry.
If there has been any input from the entities that will be doing these procedures on the animals I must have missed it. What will be the impact on the area veterinarians? Is there an adequate
number of trained persons able/willing to do this surgery? The next thing you know we'll have crazy old ladies doing these in a shed in their backyard. Will this be retroactive or just apply to animals acquired in the future?
spay and neuter the trailer trash and hippies here in humboldt. It'll solve a lot more problems than people realize.
spay and neuter all anonymous posters
Post a Comment
<< Home