Sure why not? Or they could do it the other way around - offer people some money to spay/neuter. Like a rebate.

Yes. Unwanted dogs and feral cats are a needless nuisance to society. Nobody has any business letting either cats or dogs breed unless he is a professional or has a promise in writing in advance to take every animal from a litter. Nothing else has been found to keep people from dumping unwanted pets by the side of the road where they become a major expense to society. And it really doesn't make any difference to the animal. Our dog was spayed and never had puppies and was the happiest, healthiest critter you ever saw.

They may not have the right, but I love the idea!

Absolutely! After all, it's the government that has to foot the bill when all those stray, unwanted animals need to be rounded up and kept somewhere, right?

I think they should do this to people. If you don't spay or neuter your pet, they come and alter you.

Definitely a good idea and makes sense for the good of the animals and the humans who need to care and feed for them!

oh my gosh! No way!!! I have three cats, just one is mine. (Haha) I am an animal lover, I think that animals should be able to breed freely.! I also think that abortion is wrong!

Not at all.

Hell, yes. Not only are there too many stray animals out there, there are also too many idiots who try to make make a few bucks by breeding irresponsibly. Not only should pet owners pay a fee for not neutering, but people who intend to breed animals should have to take classes and be licensed to do so, so idiots don't continue to harm the various breeds.

Absolutely! It is insane that we have to euthanize so many animals. I'd go a step further and give a tax break to people who take rescued animals into their homes.

But they are penalizing purebred dog breeders and they aren't the ones making the problem that fills the shelters and animal control places. It's crossbrees and backyard breeders that make all those puppies and kittens. Very few purebred dogs end up in pounds and shelters. And the restrcitions on purebred breeders is too restrcitive and very expenisve. They are ridicxulous. Why should they bear the brunt of the expenses because Mr Heinz 57 can't keep his dog from getting pregnant. And how ill all those unspayed and unneutered dgos get fixed by poor people and whoever? Where is all that money coming from? How ill they enforce it? Will they have inspectors checking for balls and scars on each dog? Pet overpopulation is one of my pet peeves but this law is useless and hurts those that are already trying to do something,.

I think they definitely have the right to do this. And I think that the money raised should go to animal shelters and to providing free vet care for those that cannot afford it otherwise.

definitely! it would be the owner's fault.

Aye..A right that is unenforcable.

Absolutely! Some people need the threat of negative consequences to motivate them to do the right thing. The government has to pay the cost of irresponsible pet owners, so they might as well try to recover some of the funds needed.

I could turn your question around and ask "As a taxpayer, do you think pet owners have a right to make you pay for their refusal to take responsibility for their unwanted pets?"

Well, this bill has been tabled until January. That is a good thing. THe Assemblyman wuthor is going to try to address some of the many problems with this bill. I'm sorry but this is a bad bill that will not change what needs to be changed. 75% of all dogs in CA are spayed and neutered already. Everyone wants to stop dogs from being killed, but it's not puppies that are showing up in shelters. In fact if you do your research, you will find out there is a SHORTAGE of puppies, especially of small breed puppies in southern Calif. and that they are being smuggled into SC from Mexico, over 10, 000 a year. What are getting killed in shelters are ADULT dogs that owners turn in or ones people just find that have been dumped. This bill does nothing for those. In places where they have tried mandatory spay/neuter it hasn't worked. When they tried in Santa Cruz their kill rate went down from 1995-2002 by 46%. Well, California went down 65% all by itself. A neighboring county with no such law went down 95%!!! ONly the good responsible people will be affected. The ones who don't license their dogs, don't get the shots, don't s/p. still won't. It will make Vets the policemen for the state. They have to report all intact dogs that come in for shots. That will mean those people with intact dogs will NOT go to their vets or don't anyway. So how do you make those people s/n their dogs? Now you have people not getting rabies shots, a major danger. This has happened in other areas where they try to force s/n. So now these animals will get less care, not more and better. In whatever area they have made s/n law, the rate and amount of licensing and shots plummets. Those bad eople stop going to their vets. And in some areas dog deaths rise, instead of the desired affect. HEre's a quote about Camden NJ's s/n success: "When it was passed in 1996, the Camden County, New Jersey mandatory spay/neuter ordinance required a $500 permit fee to possess an intact dog or cat. In 2000 it was changed to $10, because of there were so few requests for it. But then again in 2001 the permit fee was again raised to $100, its current rate. As for the euthanasia rates since the effective date of the ordinance, the PAWS NJ website comments, “An analysis of these statistics shows the Humane Society of Southern NJ which operates the Camden County Animal Shelter, to be consistently one of the leading, if not the leading killers of animals in the state of New Jersey.” The report covers 1998-2001, well after the effective date of the mandatory spay neuter ordinance." There are health consequences to 's/n before 6 months of age'. Did you know that rotties get bone cancer at a higher incidence if they are neutered early, 8% if the dog is intact but increasing to 28% if neutered before 12 months of age. That's 1 in four. How does this help dogs. S/N is something you and your Vet should decide on, not a state law. Do you know who will be able to get blanket permits to breed dogs? Puppy mills and those that do this as a business. Small purebred, responsible breeders don't breed many dogs and don't qualify as a business so they won't be able to meet the regs. But big breeders like puppy millers are given an exemption. So if you are looking for a puppy producer, now you've found him. And there is a backyard breeder exemption in place so that people can let the kids see the miracle of birth one time. Isn't that sweet, when this is the kind of thing that should be stopped! In another state these were the stats: License compliance has appeared to decrease since passage of the ordinance. Animal control expenses have increased 56.8%. In 1990 the total cost of animal control was $1,662,776; in 1997, it was $3,087,350. Euthanasia rates actually fell at a slower rate after passage of the ordinance. In the years prior to enactment of the law, euthanasia rates were plummeting in King County. Here is a successful program from http://network.bestfriends.org/animallawcoalition/news/4108.html: "An example of a successful model is the ordinance in Tacoma, WA. The Tacoma ordinance requires mandatory spay/neuter of animals impounded for the second time in a 12 month period. Sec. 17.010.110. No animal can be released for adoption unless it has been spayed/neutered. Sec. 17.010.120. There is also an increased licensing fee for unaltered animals. Sec. 17.05.040. There is a municipal spay-neuter fund. Local animal rescue groups also provide funding for spay/neuter. Owners can use their vet at their own expense for the spay/neuter, with the shelter making the appointment and transporting the animal to the clinic. If the owner is low-income qualified, the shelter will transport the animal to a participating vet and will pay the cost for the spay/neuter from the municipal fund. At last count between 80 and 100 sterilization vouchers are provided each month to low-income residents. Another program provides a voucher for a free spay for female cats when an owner brings in a litter of kittens. During twelve years of providing subsidized neuter programs, shelter intake has decreased from receiving over 40,000 a year to under 25,000. Since the law’s inception, only 23 dogs have not been claimed because of the mandate." For lots of great info this is the best website about the bill AB1634: http://www.saveourdogs.net/ab1634.html Final note from that page: The United Kingdom has about twice as many people as California. Dogs are common. Spay/neuter is relatively rare. But in the UK in 2006, only 7,734 dogs were euthanized for lack of a home. A commonly seen bumper sticker there says "A Dog is for Life Education, not sterilization, is the answer. "

In California they need to start neutering people lol

I am a responsible pet owner who not only spends alot of money on my purebred dogs I feel it is my right to decide whether or not they are neutered. We bred our dog 13 years ago and kept all three pups and have gotten immense pleasure from them and to think the government could step in and take that right away is wrong. To neuter an older male dog who is confined in by a fence seems ridiculous and could be dangerous to his health as I have read. Also, I have done my part by trapping, neutering and caring for over 18 stray cats in our neighborhood so I think a better law would be to require a pet be neuterd only if he runs freely such as a cat or dog who is not confined in a fence or enclosure.

Yes, if they did this in every state the number of animals euthanized every year would decrease significantly as well as the number of feral cats that are decimating the local bird populations.

Spay/neuter is a wonderful thing; as a vet school candidate and technician assistant I must say it is. It is, however, limited in its effectiveness. Think about it- just one dog left unaltered and let run can father an exponential amount of puppies. This is bad, but not the problem. Instead of tackling spay/neuter, if you want to introduce helpful legislation, try putting more stringent requirements on pet ownership. Make a dog license a proper LICENSE, make new owners (grandfather clause current owners or you will probably see an atrocious peak in surrender of older dogs) take a basic education class! Train people in how to care for and train their animals, and I guarantee the number of responsible owners will soar. It also has the potential to lower your "holiday shoppers" and your "disposable pet" types of pet procurement. Also, put your effort into promoting management programmes for issues like feral cats, such as the TNR (trap-neuter-release) programmes.

Absolutely not, unless you believe that only middle class and higher families should have pets. Pets help to civilize people. Making people shap and neuter them means that they will have to get their pets from breeders - that's expensive. Have you seen how much breeders charge for their dogs and cats?

There should indeed be incentives, especially for people on low incomes and I like the idea of a mobile desexing clinic so that people who can't get to a vet clinic can still have their animals desexed. I do think some people are getting their pets "done" at too early an age, before they are mature, and this could have negative consequences later on. To stop puppy mills, there needs to be a proper licencing system, with regular inspections of the premises by a qualified vet. If animals are kept in cramped and otherwise cruel conditions, the licence can be yanked and all the breeders desexed.

In a way. If reduced-priced desexing was offered, (at the governments expnse) I could see that. That way, lower-income pet owners would have a way of avoiding the fee. It does no one any good to have fertile animals if there aren't enough people willing to care for the offspring. In light of the immense population of unwanted kittens, pups, etc., the fact that CA is taking action (even if it does seem a bit off-kilter in its practicality) is commendable.

Oh hell yeah, it will keep stupid irresponsible pet ownwers responsible. I think every state should follow suit. There are too many homeless animals that suffer every day and are subjsct to all sort of abuse and neglect. I believe a that there should be a law, an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth, what ever someone does to a cat or god that same exact thing gets done to them. Then I guarentee that animal abuse will be cut down dramaticly.