- Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 


California advances bill to sterilize pets

June 9th, 2007, 07:33 PM

June 9th, 2007, 07:45 PM
Animal Welfare supports humane use and treatment of animals and believes that humans have a responsibility to care for animals. Animal Welfare includes humane treatment and responsible care of animals used by humans for service, research, food, education, kept in zoos or sanctuaries, and especially those animals kept by pet owners.

Animal Rights (AR) is based on moral and ethical philosophies. While Animals Rights Advocates and Groups talk about humane care, the bottom line is to work for humane care and legislation ONLY until all animals can be removed from human use. The reason for this is the Animal Rights belief that no species on this planet is better than another; therefore, humans have no right to dominate over, use, breed, or eat non-human species.

"..can the slavery of animals be justified? After all, precisely what characteristic or "defect" is it that animals have that justifies our treatment of them as our slaves, as our things, as property that exists only for the sake of us, the human masters. The reality is that we progressives like to think that we have eschewed all vestiges of slavery from our lives, but the reality is that we are all slave owners, the plantation is the earth, sown with the seeds of greed, and the slaves are our nonhuman sisters and brothers." Gary Francione, (Professor-Rutgers School of Law) Animal Rights Commentary, February 15, 1996: Human Superiority.

By changing public opinion - By changing the law – by electing pro animal rights legislators. Dr. Elliot Katz, founder of In Defense of Animals says “our efforts to raise the status of animals beyond that of mere property, commodities and things dramatically expanded as the state of Rhode Island, and the cities of West Hollywood and Berkeley, CA, and Sherwood, AR, followed Boulder, CO, in passing legislation recognizing the significance of animal guardianship ... important victories in our relentless war on animal exploitation, cruelty and abuse.” He further claims “Updating city codes to include the term "animal guardian" is a symbolic change that demonstrates a new attitude of public concern for the welfare of all animals. Though updated legal language does not affect one’s legal rights, responsibilities and liabilities, the psychological and sociological impact of this change in language is advancing positive attitudes about animal care.”

Visit the Institute for Animal Rights Law (IARL) website. There you can download their radical version of a model spay/neuter ordinance which reads “it shall be unlawful to harbor in this jurisdiction any unspayed cat or dog over four months of age or any unneutered cat or dog over four months of age. "Harbor" is defined to include legal ownership, or the providing of regular care, or shelter, or protection, or refuge, or nourishment, or medical treatment…”

IARL will also “educate” you on why anti-breeding laws are constitutional. Their website says - The core of a typical anti-breeding law is its “findings,” which usually are that:

· Euthanasia of unwanted cats and dogs is rampant, with totals annually of millions of animals;
· The root cause of this mass killing is the problem of overpopulation, which causes social problems beyond those of euthanasia.

Further, IARL says “Based on these findings, the anti-breeding laws provide for a moratorium on the breeding of cats and dogs, and if that doesn’t reduce the overpopulation problem in that municipality then a mandatory spaying and neutering program is provided.”

As the end goal of animal rights is to end breeding of companion animals, they need to draw a straight line between breeding and euthanasia, whether or not the logic used to make a case is flawed or the information presented is inaccurate. First euthanasia is hardly “rampant”, as figures have steadily decreased over the past decades. Further, IARL, in typical activist fashion, chooses to completely ignore all other reasons for animals ending up in shelters - generally related to a breakdown of the owner’s ability or desire to care for the animal.

If you become involved in local legislation issues, it is important to remember that much of the general public and many of the legislators do not understand these differences. They are being manipulated into passing restrictive laws which can be the vehicle for future enactment of measures to possibly eliminate ownership of pets.

Ethics and responsible ownership cannot be legislated – it must be taught, and animal cruelty laws already exist to punish the offenders.


June 9th, 2007, 08:03 PM
NOW - Let me state, for the record, that I believe that every dog/cat that is kept simply as a pet should be spayed or neutered. However - this law will not do what it is intended to do.

As of right now, CA. has laws on the books that require all pets be leashed or confined and that all pets be registered in the city or county in which they reside. These laws can not be enforced, so how does the CA. legislature expect to enforce this new law.

There are exemptions to this law - allowing hobby breeders (those would be people that have one or less litters a year) to purchase kennel permits so that they can continue to raise, show and breed sound, quality dogs. Also for dogs used by law enforcement and Search and Rescue. These dogs will no longer be exempt after 2009.

What looks like a great law on paper is really just another way to punish the responsible owner.

June 9th, 2007, 08:39 PM
[B]What looks like a great law on paper is really just another way to punish the responsible owner.
I dont understand what you mean by that,how would a responsible pet owner be getting punished by this law.And i didnt think of that,how would they enforce this..