L.A. Unleashed

All things animal in Southern
California and beyond

« Previous Post | L.A. Unleashed Home | Next Post »

Pet Responsibility Act clears state Senate hurdle; bill would mandate spay/neuter for California dogs

State Sen. majority leader Dean Florez A day after it nearly went down in flames, Senate Bill 250 (also known as the Pet Responsibility Act) has been approved by the California state Senate on a 21-16 vote. 

The bill, introduced by state Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Shafter), would require adult dogs in California to be spayed or neutered.  Free-roaming cats would also be required to be spayed or neutered, although the bill doesn't apply to cats kept strictly indoors.  Owners who wished to keep an unaltered dog would have to obtain a permit to do so.  (In a last-minute alteration to the bill, Florez amended its language to exempt working dogs and hunting dogs.)

The bill first went to the state Senate for a vote yesterday, where it failed 16-15.  Judie Mancuso, an animal activist who supports the bill, told the Bakersfield Californian that it failed to pass yesterday's vote because many state senators were absent.  Florez then issued a request for reconsideration, paving the way for the bill's passage today.  It must also pass in the Assembly before it can be enacted.

S.B. 250 was so numbered because, according to Florez, the state spends $250 million annually to house unwanted pets, many of which are eventually euthanized for lack of homes and space.  "I think we can all agree that the quarter of a billion dollars ... could be much better spent protecting health care for the elderly and education for our children," he said in a statement today, adding that responsible pet owners "should be united in support of our effort to cut down on the killing of pets in shelters, the financial strain current policy has on local governments and the emotional toll on shelter workers."

Supporters of the Pet Responsibility Act point to Santa Cruz's success when similar legislation was approved; they say euthanasia rates dropped by 60% after its passage.  L.A.'s spay-neuter law, which is more sweeping than the statewide law would be (it applies to all dogs and cats over 4 months of age, with certain exceptions), went into effect last October.

--Lindsay Barnett

Photo: Florez during a hearing last month. 

Credit: Stefano Paltera / For The Times

Comments () | Archives (94)

The comments to this entry are closed.

THANK YOU to all the other show/working dog breeders who have commented. You can tell that ignorance and naivity about what we do runs high with the mis-informed general public. Most "Joe Publics" out there don't even know that quality-bred dogs exist, or the lengths we go through and the money we LOSE (and never make back) to produce these superior quality dogs.

Reputalbe, professional show breeders' puppies NEVER end up in an animal shelter. They are microchipped and sold on very detailed contracts REQUIRING that the owner return the dog to us (the breeder) if, at any point in the dog's life, the owner can't keep him/her.

Take a look at shelter dogs. Those that are purebred are usually abysmal representatives of their breed, from a backyard breeder who has never seen the inside of a show ring, or, worse yet, from a puppy mill. This bill will only punish us professional show breeders who do things right for the betterment of the breed. Backyard breeders will likely to continue to operate underground.

When are politicians going to understand that criminals do not follow the law. This bill will only drive pet lovers underground and once again waste taxpayers' monies by having to create an enforcement hierarchy that is top-heavy and nonproductive. Education is the key along with inexpensive spay/neuter centers; if you're going to spend money you might as well spend it "fixing" the problem instead of looking for people to prosecute!!

This bill is horrible and will only penalize responsible pet owners.

Don't complain, just look in the mirror, we elected these guys to govern the State and fulfill the lawfull will of the people.Have a good look around:
The Budget crisis!
The proposed remedy to close the deficit!
The unemployed!
The soon to be unemployed!

Let's face it, we goofed, its time to replace the "Old Gang" with some new talent that can address the issues and have viable solutions. Keep in mind there are many talented people in the State that could do a magnificent job in the Legislature BUT THEY DON'T WANT THE JOB.

No on this bill. Responsible pet owners will be penalized and those with no regard for the law will not be affected.

IS it GOOD for California?
Our shelters are required to report animal intake and disposition. Let's look at the data as any serious taxpayer or ANIMAL lover would.

Within California, mandatory spay/neuter laws have shown an amazing track record.

Los Angeles, the first year their 2008 MSN ordinance went into effect:
-30% increase in shelter euthanasias, sharply reversing 10 years worth of steady progress
-20% increase in shelter impounds

Santa Cruz County
-animal control costs doubled
-impound and euthanasia per capita rates are higher than in nearby counties w no MSN

Lake County w MSN has worst shelter kill stats in California, worse than the national average
per 100,000 population)
. Lake County, CA: 4560
. USA national average: 1000-1300
. California average: 1066
. Nevada County, CA: 163
. Calgary, Canada: 44

Those are just a few. It is a clear FAIL and uses more money.

Decide whether you want to vote for A BILL or vote for animals.

A bill doesn't keep you warm at night, does it? And it does NOT save lives.

I vote for animals
NO on SB 250

Dear Animalvr...your statement...."Stop the killing that is fueled by the breed-and-show community."

Are YOU one of the MANY domestic terrorist covering as Animal RIGHTS heros? Notice I said RIGHTS....not welfare. You crazies care NOTHING about the welfare of our beloved pets. You only worry about what you can force PEOPLE to do because animals are not enough for you to govern. Don't you understand that this law will NOT affect the non-caring and unresponsible humans who do not abide by laws anyway?

GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE SAND! If you want to live in a Communist country please deport from the United States of America ASAP. Thank You.

The real reason behind this change in attitude from people who do work with animals across the board is our recognition in mainstream American that the animal rights philosophy advocates the end of all domestic animals. From the laws they push and the lies they tell to get these laws passed we know that the real goal of PETA and HSUS is to make owning an anaimal more expensive and difficult thus, the end of that species. They hide behind the myth that they are saving abused animals when the real thrust of HSUS is to slowly and methodically push laws in all states that make owning, raising and caring for animals costly and more difficult. This was not about preventing abuse, but about preventing any breeding of domestic animals. Both organizations have killed more animals than they have saved. Here is a typical statement by an animal rights advocate on one of their blogs, (brad-668559 we must accept suicide as a means of pop. control. only when the old, the sick, the weak, the crippled (humans) are disposed of will animals find a home.) This is not a single voice of one animal rights follower, but a common thread through out their blogs. "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding" ** Wayne Pacelle * Director of HSUS. This mind set it behind all of HSUS and PETA's work. PETA is banned in Germany as a terrorist organization and that should tell us something about HSUS that is run by people who use to work for the Alf and PETA. Remember that HSUS is misnamed and is a corporation whose sole purpose is to eliminate animals from human collaboration while raising large sums of money so they can personally benefit.

These laws were bad to begin with, both Oklahoma and Texas recognized the quagmire of costs that put California into the red and refused to pass these laws. Be suspicious of any representative in your government who supports any animal rights agenda. This is a cult and it has tremendous amounts of money to buy your representatives through scamming the public with its puppy mill dramatizations. Check this expose: http://www.vidoosh.tv/play.php?vid=4360
All of the puppy mills being raided were held accountable under present animal welfare laws. It is under these laws that they were shut down. HSUS just jumped in for the TV coverage they do not care for these animals at all. What happened here is that more and more people are realizing that the animal rights movement is really about the death of domestic animals on this earth.

I am a PROFESSIONAL breeders, and my intact dog fees run $100 each plus the permit fee...and I'm never positive my Permit will be renewed--meaning I lose my fee (nearly $300) if renewal is declined. There are ALREADY laws in place that generate revenue for each county/city to police non-altered dogs. It ain't broke, folks--what are your trying to do, reinvent the wheel? NO ON SB250 PLEASE!

As always the people who really HATE animals have a devised a way to eliminate them under the guise of helping them. They have named the bill Pet Responsibility Act but the intent and the result of this bill would be to either make Responsible pet owners criminals or keep them from having pets at all.

Remember that most of the animals that end up in Animal Control are feral. They have never had an owner. This law will punish owners and take away their ability to make medical decisions about their own pets.


I am a great-grandmother and I feel that my dogs are my babies and the responsibility of taking care of them is the same as my children, grandchildren, and the great-grandchildren. If I am not old enough to take care of them then I should not have them. It is my responsibility to whom I sell to and not the place of the government to tell me how to run a business.
Don't they have enough to do with the upset of the car world???

This bill will not help with the problem...the problem is backyard breeders and their lack of knowledge and the futrue pet owners. Educate the public on proper care and breeding of ALL ANIMALS including cows, pigs and the horse industries....most people and law makers are forgetting about the other animals in the world....
Human's just need to be educated about responsibilites.
End of Comments!

When will this insanity stop? Whats next?? Will there be inforced spaying and neutering of people on welfare or under a certin income?? How about octo mom?
The people I know are responsible dog breeders and are not out to make money, or just breeding dogs with out thought or care for the walfare of future pups.
Not all breeders are puppy mills. Why not ban puppymills?
How about the irresponsible dog owners who let their pets run the streets.

No, I do not support MANDATORY spay/ neuter bills. That is a health decision that should be made solely by the owner and veterinarian. This is just another back door effort by the animal rights sophists who want everyone to be a vegan and not own any animals at all.

If all dogs were spayed or neutered, there would no longer be any seeing eye dogs, assistance dogs, therapy dogs; police dogs, search and rescue dogs; cadaber dogs; drug sniffing dogs, bomb searching dogs, etc.

Responsible breeders are being vilified & criminalized when it is they who supply a small percentage of well bred, healthy, well socialized puppies to the pet market. These pups are sold with spay/neuter contracts and with the stipulation that they can be returned to the breeder at any time. These are not the dogs that will wind up in shelters The State of California allows hundreds of thousands of puppies brought in from out-of state puppy mills to be sold in pet shops. Pet shops do not have a "return policy" for the lifetime of the pet. This Bill will eliminate the responsible breeder and do nothing to reduce shelter populations. Education is the way to go, not sterilization.

I would like to know how the ignorant people that are creating this mess think that this will stop the "pet overpopulation?" REGULATION COSTS MONEY!!!!
I work with dog rescue and I show AKC/CKC and rarely breed my dogs (only when I want another dog to show and compete with-and I can't get that from a shelter dog) What WOULD help is if every person breeding dogs microchipped their dogs with their contact info and were required to be responsible for all the dogs that they bred, ie: take them back and rehome them if needed for the life of the dogs. If you are the type of breeder I describe you don't breed enough to make money and you do so in the attempt to have a better animal that the parents. My dogs are better cared for than I am and I could have 2 mercedes in the driveway now for the amount of money I have spent showing and competing with my dogs.
I am another person who has gone to dog events in California and if you think that any of us will continue to do so with this IGNORANT law that is an insult to my rescue efforts YOU ARE WRONG. Where is the support for people who would like to spay/neuter? Where are the FREE CLINICS or ??? Why don't you do that and spent the limited amount of money your state has now to help people as folks are abandoning animals constantly with the economy being so bad. People that are "millers" will continue to breed and the "hobby" breeders who do what I previously described will be regulated and we aren't the ones needing the regulations. NONE of my pups are in shelters and NONE ever will be because I WILL SUE them if they do and I let them know up front in the contracts they sign.
CALIFORNIA (and all other states need):
Breed only dogs you can take back and be responsible for-no breeders dogs should EVER BE IN A SHELTER (do this and shelters will no longer exist)
Microchip them with breeder contact so you as a breeder can be made aware they need help (many dogs in shelters are NOT CHIPPED)
Offer free or very low cost spay/neuter clinics for ANYONE that wants to do this all the time and EVERYWHERE...make them well known to all
EDUCATE everyone on the way things should be done and why
PROMOTE that only people willing to spend money and time to do all health clearance testing, temperament testing, testing to see if the animal can do what it was bred for (ie: hunting, herding, etc) and the research to make sure this is the best dogs being bred together are the ones doing the breeding----leave the REAL BREEDING up to the people that know what they are doing and not these AMATEUR WANT A BE people who take "Suzie Q's dog to breed to next door neighbor's dog so we "CAN MAKE A BUNCH OF MONEY"....WHAT A WASTE!!!

SB250’s Latest Amendment Is a Shell Game: With our State's current deficit now is not the time to pass bills like SB250 that increase costs to local governments. The May 28th amendment to SB250 tries to avoid reimbursing local governments for their increased costs by saying that local governments can increase fees to cover these increased costs. The bill's author, Dean Florez , admitted that this bill will increase enforcement costs. He is also trying to shift those costs to local government. This is a poor precedent since local governments aren’t in any better financial shape than the state.

The Cost to the Voters: Local governments, in order to recover the costs of these programs, would have to raise licensing fees to an exorbitant rate which many pet owners will not be able to afford. I believe that less people will license their pets.

The Death Rate versus Animal Control Costs: Sincce1998 euthanasias have been reduced by 50% in the majority of animal control (AC) facilities, but AC budgets have risen continuously. You cannot increase their mandate, their workload, and their patrol staff, without increasing their costs as even Dean Florez has finally admitted.

How to Reduce State Costs: If the legislators want to reduce animal control costs, what they should do is review their existing animal bills and retire those that aren’t worth their cost in enforcement. It is easy and cheap to pass a law. It is expensive to enforce one. There is no such thing as free enforcement. Educatiing people to be responsible pet owners should be a primary goal as well as free or low cost castration for those that choose and for seniors and low income families.

Pet owners vote and we will not be voting for officials who support mandatory castration. We will not support officials who want to take away our rights. Responsible pet owners do not break the law - leave us alone! Enforce the laws that are already on the books.

PETA is another Hiltler, Ben ladden of this world and we have our senators falling right into their hands. First it's our pets what's next?????
This bill does absolutely nothing to save pets from being put to death, it will only cause more and also keep revenue that we so badly need coming into our state, because people will boy cott California!!!
Open your eye's Senators before it's too late!!

This Bill is pushed in by HSUS and PETA and all The idiots behind them...they pretend to be pet lovers, but are really very sick narcisistic people...they really need to get Medical help and leave the true animal lovers alone. I'm Voting Nothing But Republican from now on..had enough of the Socialist comunist party that hide behind the name of "Democrats"... No such thing as pet over population in the united states.... do your research... and quit emporting dogs from foreign countries to fill up the dog pounds.... See what happens when you start kicking GOD out of Schools and Public places.... AMERICA NEEDS TO GET BACK TO GOD as fast as she can!! Then let GOD handle these idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I show dogs and although I don't live in CA, I do travel there to visit relatives and attend dog shows. If this bill passes, I will no longer attend any shows in your state; for one thing it would be too risky for my dogs and me. I will also not support a state with my dollars that continually tries to pass harrassing and damaging pet control bills that are patently the work of Animal extremists. Do the legislators there realize how expensive a bill like this is going to be on it's many fronts? Enforcement will be but a part of the expense; loss of revenue from various sources will occure, pet related buisnesses will close due to lack of business, license revenue will go down as serious breeders leave (heck, I would move in a heart beat if I lived there- which I am glad I don't!), shelter intakes will rise dramatically on owner released animals. I also predict spotty enforcement as personal agendas in AC departments comes into play; people will be targeted rather than across the board enforcement (which won't be possible anyway due to the high cost of this bill). Money would be far better spent on S/N free/cheap clinics and public education. I do believe more people will do this voluntarily if the option were more affordable to them. Meanwhile, I think the CA voters need to do some thorough house cleaning.

Hmm the last commentor stated something about protecting the weak - I wonder how they would feel if the government protection extended to altering all children and intact adults to elimnate the human population problems? Or hey we could just target particular populations that cost the state the most in funding right?
This is not a pet protection act its a pet exctinction act which would result in shelters having to kill more animals than ever.
But then that is what the AR people want - all animals safely dead where they don't have to 'suffer' human contact...
A chicken in nobody's pot and poodles and chihuahuas living free in the wild...

I have been heavily involved in rescue for over 30 years and yes, even I am opposed to this! I have never produced a litter of puppies or kittens or any thing other than tropical fish (which I kept myself!) so this certainly isn't from a breeder wanting money.

But this won't stop the pet over population problem. You're punishing responsible breeders along with all the idiot back yard breeders and puppy millers! Punish the actions, not the EVERYONE who has an intact animal! It's the same as breed bans basically... They punish all dogs of a certain breed, even if they are the most obedient, friendly loving dogs. You should punish the deed, not the breed! Happened to innocent until proven guilty? What about the right to pursue happiness?

This is just the AR nuts trying to get even more control so that someday NO ONE will have pets. Animals will no longer be "enslaved by humans". No one will be able to afford to breed and raise top quality purebreds because of all the permits and restrictions! So you love a top quality hunting dog? Too bad. Breeders won't be able to afford the permits on top of all the medical care required to produce a litter.

I certainly won't be traveling to CA with my dogs anytime soon. I love to go down there for the shows but won't do it now. CA will not be getting any of my travel dollars. Not even for a plain old vacation without my dogs. Not one dime.

SInce the actuall killing of animals is enacted by LOCAL organizations, it would seem that THEY, and not the state should enact their own local laws to take care of any "problems" they have in their areas. Why is this a STATE issue?
Someone else asked WHY our State legislators are taking up their time with things the local governments should be doing? Aren't there better things for them to be using their "wisdom" on?

I have a friend that has been involved in obtaining statistical data in her state for things such as numbers of animals in shelters, reasons why the animals are surrendered, numbers re-homed, how long the animals are actually "in residence", numbers and reasons why some are NOT considered to be good re-home candidates, numbers actually euthanized, costs of housing, vet bills, euthanization, etc. There is quite a long list of data that she endeavors to report. The biggest problem she has is GETTING the information. Once the shelters find out that she is merely trying to get some verifiable statistics, they CLAM UP. They stop answering the phones, they won't return calls, they aren't there that day, they say they are non-profit, so they are not required to give stats (which in most cases is not true)
Well, here is my question: If there is very little actual reporting of this sort of thing in each state, and no place that these statistics are uniformly reported/documented, then how can NUMBERS be used in quoting the "problems" we think we have to deal with? If there are no good numbers, WHO says there is a problem?

I know of two very large state of the art shelters in the NE that have closed down because there were not enough animals there to keep them open!! So, just WHO is giving us all these "over-population" numbers? WHO is telling our legislators there is a problem - to THEY have the numbers?

I can see the sign now entering California..."Welcome to the Socialist Republic of Calfornia."

SB250 is just another version of AB1634l that was defeated last year, only even more flawed and rediculous. I have been a Democrate all my voting years and now am considering switching parties because I don't want to be associated with a party that when the State of California is in the worst budget crisis in histroy has nothing better to do that to think up ways to punish responsible breeders and show competitiors. This will cost the state and local governments millions of dollars that they don't have, in addition to loosing the revenue that is brought to the state by the shows held here.

At a time when police and fire departments are having to cut essential staff (which to me is much more important than animal control officers) the authors of this bill should be ashamed of themselves. It has been proven that MSN policy's do not work and in fact lead to more animals being killed than before they were put in place.

We must educate all potential owners about responsible pet ownership and provide S\N services that are affordable and accessable to all, and free for people of low incomes. Someone suggested not allowing pet stores to sell animals, which I suppose would be considered unconstitutional, but it would help to eliminate the problem.

We must also STOP including ferel cats and street dogs in the numbers, because they are not owned by anyone, and noone is responsible for them.

I am a show breeder and yes, I do sell a few puppies per year, however, none of them will ever end up in a shelter. I screen my prospective buyers as if they were adopting a human baby. I also keep in touch with them after they take the puppy home and they know and in fact have signed a binding contract that if at any time, for any reason, they cannot keep the dog it is to come back to me, so that I can find another appropriate home for it. All of my puppies are checked from birth by my veterinarian, given all age appropriate shots, wormed, have had their declaws removed and are offered with a health certificate.

If anyone thinks small hobby show breeders make lots of money on the sale of their puppies, they truly do not know the facts. We do this for the love of the breed we raise and show and we always strive to make the next breeding better than the one before. That's how we win points, however, when you factor in entry fees, parking fees, food and show equipment we certainly don't make a lot of money. We have to sell a few puppies to pay the other costs. That is, however, what helps the local economies where we show. We average $400. - $500. per show. These are generally small, farming communities with fairgrounds that really can use this revenue.

California can't even afford to pay it's citizens their tax return dollars, yet their political leaders believe that they have the resources to enforce such a law?

NO NO NO NO I oppose this bill just like the other one.
What really needs to be done is someone should write a bill to get rid of HSUS and PETA they are nothing but trouble.....

This bill is clearly contrary to the basic long term legal definition of animals as personal property as supported by the 5th and 14th amendments of the constitution. Something that both HSUS and PETA have been fighting against for years.

With government running out of $$$ what better way to reverse the flow then by cutting off the tax free status that such groups hide behind as practically all their $$$ collected is for political featherbedding and lavish expenses with little if any going to what they say it is supposed to go.....

Do reporters ever check the FACTS? I think not...the Santa Cruz MSN is not successful http://saveourdogs.net/2009/04/01/mandatory-spayneuter-laws%E2%80%94a-failure-everywhere/
Try checking your facts prior to printing for a change!

Feeling vs Facts...Facts win! Mandatory Spay and Neuter does not work. Programs like Trap Neuter and Release work! The Calgary Program works...http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Platt_Michael/2008/09/01/6627046-sun.php
His campaign for owner responsibility, including a bylaw with strict rules and stiff fines, has resulted in a dog licensing rate of over 95%.

Forcing people to spay and neuter their pets will not make people responsible, it will annihilate the pet population.

It is like saying that if all, but those parents willing to pay a premium price, are forced to have their two-year-old sons castrated then we will have more responsible parenting... no teenage pregnant high school girls, no dead beat teenage dads, no state paid assistance or welfare to children of teens. Mandate parents to make their female children undergo major surgery so hysterectomies can be performed and we can almost certainly monitor responsible parenting because there will be no parents.

This is a very scary slippery slope that the California legislature is embarking on with this type of legislation.

Effect yes... responsible? devastating? Nazi like?

How about just requiring people to be responsible. Enforce leash laws, punish abusers, cite neglect.

I learned responsibility from having pets. I hope my grandchildren will have the same opportunity.

How could our elected officials fall prey to such uninforcable ignorance? A $5 gate lock will keep dogs from reproducing. Dogs sterilized before full growth will bring lots and lots of $$$ to veterinarians because it's bad for their health- osteoperosis, urinary incontinance, obesity, bone cancer, brittle bones. Yet the American Veterinary Medical Association OPPOSES it! And the LA Times is WRONG - Santa Cruz kills more dogs per capita than almost anywhere else in America. See stats at www.saveourdogs.net.

Do the people ever think ahead? Mandatory spaying and neutering is a dog and cat extermination policy. There will be no reproduction, period. Good dog breeders that care about every puppy are being demonized by these measures. There will be no pets, no service dogs, no police dogs. This will not stop puppy mill puppies. Puppies will be imported from foreign countries like everything else. This is another loss of personal freedom. It's government control at it's finest. Wake up people! Pretty soon you won't even be able to take a breath without government permission. Oh yes protect the little mouse and minnows but kill our pets.

Where I live some very dedicated people run a shelter and low costs spaying and neutering clinic. They also teach people how to trap feral cats , and they charge $15.00 for these services. They also have $5.00 special days. they inoculate them and then they are released back where they come from. I personally have trapped 30 and I have stopped the unwanted kittens from being born without killing the adults. There are some vets that charge exsorbant fees to do these procedures. If you want to do something productive sponsor low cost neutering clinics.

Why does there have to always be an extreme? We are short on police, we have overcrowded classrooms, money is tight with people and the goverment.
If there is a problem with pet owner’s responsibility then let’s just have every pet that goes to a vet clinic be microchipped. If that dog strays then you hold the owner accountable at that time. Why penalize ALL for a few? Besides, there are too many laws that go uninforced as it is. Let’s keep it minimal and simple… if that doesn’t work, you can always add more to the law.
Let’s make it mandatory to microchip– it’s less invasive and if a dog is wandering, it is still wandering whether it is neutered or spayed with no owner in sight. Secondly, all those spays and neuters are going to cost a lot more than a simple microchip and during a recession like this, you will see a lot more compliance by keeping the cost minimal.
Besides, who wants to have to go to a pet store to buy a dog made out of state or bred out of country. I would rather get a dog from a reputable breeder that lives near by that I can converse with than some dog created in some foreign puppy mill.

Think about it, breeders are made to stop breeding what will happen top the average cost of a purebred dog" IMO the only people who will be able to afford a pet will be the wealthy. THE POLITICIANS ARE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THIS THEY HAVE PLENTY OF MONEY AND ITS ALL ON OUR DIME IF THEIR KIDS WANT A PET! Not everyone wants a dog from the shelter, most are there for a reason! Yes some can be rehabilitated but do you want to be the one to find out why the dog is there in the fIrst place? Me, I want my dogs raised with my family so I know the dog and can trust them with my children. I dont want someone elses problem or s sick or defective dog. We adopted our first dog from a local animal shelter only to have it come down with parvo 3 days later. Poor Tara, after several thousand dollars in vet bills a very broken heart AND SADLY a dead dog in the end, we were told by the shelter "THATS NOT OUR PROBLEM!" WE DON'T PAY VET BILL OR GUARANTEE HEALTH. WELL I AS A RESPONSIBLE BREEDER DO JUST THAT!!! ALSO fyi out there>>>>>>>>California puppy lemon law says breeders are responsible for puppies for two weeks after purchase, so what makes the shelter any different? We ate 3,000 in vet bills from an animal shelter, are they above the law?
Me persoanlly I will never adop another dog from a shelter. This does not mean we do not have mutts that are fixed as our pets. We are not breed snobs, we just dont want the diseases and or problems that are sure to be present from a shelter! I feel people have the right to choose where they get their family pets.. So kick the small hobby breeder out of California and people will be forced to buy shelter dogs that come with no guarantees for health or temperament or congenital health. Maybe worse they might go online and purchase a puppy bred at a puppy mill from another state. This would be appauling! It also removes income for many in this state, like we need to remove anything that creates income in this country right? Income that pays bills buys clothes gas food, creating a better economy, have they lost their minds here? This is wrong on so many levels I cant even begin to tell you all the ramifications of this bill!

This bill is clalssist, elitest and unreasonable.
If tis bill passes, only the responsible animal owners will spay and neuter the others will give up thier famil;y pets or turn them loose in the streets. That's just what our pets and economy needs right now isnt it?
They are also saying that all ferral cats must be spayed, who will pay for that? Us the tax payers? Like we can afford that in this economical crisis? Hellooooo what are the politicians thinking?
Me, I am a responsible breeder of AKC Pomeranians and enforce a spay and neuter contract on my puppies sold. I have worked my rear end off for almost 20 years and spent thousands of dollars to find and breed healthy sound Pomernaians that have great temperaments that are a great representation of the breed. Tjhis has cost me dearly and now they want to take away what I have worked for for so many years? ARE THEY NUTZ?
So after many years of toil and sweat now the government wants to take away what I have worked my whole life for? I think not, this is my persuit of happiness and they cant legally do this.
How much do they think it will cost to enforce this? I sure wouldnt want that bill along with the bill they will have for euthanisia. They think they have thousands being put down now, just let this bill pass and watch the body count rise. It would be nauseating to see the shelters full and so many destroyed becuase they want to punish all for the irresposibility of some!
All you bleeding heart people had better wake up and think about the SIMPLE freedoms you are relinquishing and remeber this...............
THE LAND OF THE FREE???????????????

Add me to the list as another disgusted Democrat. I was proud to register as a Democrat the day I turned 18 and have voted for the Democratic candidate in every election since that day 20 years ago. The next election will mark the day I vote Republican all the way down the ticket. I am disgusted and nauseated by the actions of what this party has become. You have absolutely NO RIGHT to come into my house and tell me what I can do with my dogs. It's already bad enough that I have to pay a substantially higher registration fee to keep intact dogs when NO DOG of mine has EVER seen the inside of an animal shelter or the dog catcher's van. Dean Florez, good luck getting elected to any public position in the future. You're going to need it. I and many others fully intend to lobby greatly for whoever you are running against. BTW, was it you or Judie Mancuso who hired the call center to place thousands of calls to the California Senators pretending to be citizens in support of the bill? How much more slimy can you get? Don't answer that....I'm sure you'll come up with something worse....

Totally VOTE "NO" on bill SB 250. This bill is so ridiclous. A few irresponsible pet owners make it so hard on a majority of caring responsible pet owners. The bill AB 1634, which was defeated, had 3 strikes. This bill has 1 strike. These people who are presenting anti-canie bills are the oneas being irresponsible. FLOOR ALEART please VOTE "NO" on bill SB 250. The majority of pet owners are very responsible for their pets.

This is one more law that is impossible to enforce. On the way to work today, I saw three people talking on their cell phones while driving without handsfree apparatus and two more texting. It is a joke. Don't get a pet unless you can care for it and rescue like crazy but don't punish those who care about the purebred and wish to participate in events honoring their breed choice.

Do you really think irresponsible people who let their pets run wild and breed are going to pay hundreds of dollars to neuter or license them? Pet overpopulation is a people problem, not a pet problem. Maybe it's the irresponsible pet owners who should be neutered. I rue the day the neuter Nazis come out in force checking under tails to get their kicks. This law will create a huge underground of unlicensed, unvaccinated dogs, not to mention legions of irrate owners who will not comply out of protest. Of all the ignorant legislation ever passed in this state, this takes the cake.

Please stop this bill. Vote NO!

I'm all for spaying and neutering pets, but the way it sounds, this bill ads "permits" for those who wish to keep unaltered dogs for breeding... Breeder permits already exists in most areas, so it would make essentially a tax for dog breeders. Most cat breeders keep cats indoors...

Another problem is that if there is not a sundowner on this bill, we could essentially destroy the gene pool of mixed breed cats that make great mouse hunters!

Worse yet, there is nothing in the bill that stated how everyone without a spayed or neutered animal is going to get this done, so time frame is a question??? And what are the penalties for NOT having an animal spayed or neutered??? Does this bill have fines or ??? for those who for whatever reason cannot get their pet(s) fixed by a certain date? Also, it may lend itself to pet dumping, as these laws have in the past... Orange county is a prime example! Just go to the beach in Orange county around sunrise or sunset, and watch all the animals, many whom are starving, etc. from being simply dropped into a harsh environment. This happned after they passed a similar law... I guess that's why their conty wasn't used as an example!

Seems to me this bill is about charging fines, knowing darn well that people already have to wait to get pets fixed! Another way to tax people and bring in revenue! (Mine were all fixed at around 4 months old, although this can cause urinary tract problems in male cats, they need to wait another couple of months according to my vet! My male cat, and many others, have had the same problems caused by being fixed at too early an age.)

My cats are all fixed, and have been since they were young, as we DO have WAY too many animals in shelters, BUT there needs to be a sundowner on this law, and if they haven't calculated an estimated time for this, they simply have not done their homework!

Since there seems to be a people overpopulation, should we have people undergo the same procedure? (Oh, wait, NO! That's right, it's only people voting, so should we have wildlife fixed as well? God forbid!)

While I agree we have an dog and cat overpopulation problem, and that people need to be responsible, this law, if implemented, will eventually need to be backed off and likely entirely reversed! Anyone who's studied populations of animals of any species can tell you that! If, no WHEN we get a disease that goes through and kills say cats or dogs, and not say rodents, then we as humans will have our own health risk to be concerned with!

All this is going to accomplish is less people owning up to being owners, thus less people getting shots for their animals, and worse yet, animal dumping!

Do they even take into consideration that the waiting list to get your pet into surgery can be 2-6 months, depending on where you live, so unless you've made an appointment, in some places before your pet is born, you may not make the deadline. The problems with male cats may also extend to dogs, I don't know.

This law, while has good intentions, needs to have more thought put into it! IF the text of the law is as it is written here, it's ridiculous!

Also, will breeders of either pure-breds OR mix breeds get their permits free? Who will decide which breeds are allowed and which ones will not get permited? Have they thought at all about biodiversity in breeding? Many "pure bread" dogs and cats have health problems with go with that certain breed... anyone taking this into consideration? AND what if your pure-bred license or permit only covers a pure breed and your dog or cat gets loose and mixes with another breed? Do you get fined? Has the fact that mixed breeds tend to be healthier than "pure breds" even been considered?

How much money is it going to cost tax payers to implement this beaurocracy?


No, No, No! On the surface, and I think that's what got it this far, it seems like a good idea. But when you dig down a little deeper, and put some more thought into it, this is one of the dumbest things the legilators ever came up with!!! Some well-meaning (I hope) but shallow-thinking person pushed this upward, got a bunch of other shallow-thinkers on board to help push, and this is the result. Think deeper, people!

« | 1 2


Recommended on Facebook


In Case You Missed It...


Pet Adoption Resources

Recent Posts