why would??

Question

SB 861 was passed by the California legislature in October, 2005. Put plainly, SB 861 authorizes any California town to slowly remove from the dog population any breed of dog by allowing a town to require forced sterilization of any particular breed that they choose to target. While we believe that responsible pet owners should neuter or spay their dogs, we also believe that it is not up to a state or town to make that decision, and not on a breed-by-breed basis. In addition, having a particular breed targeted by a local law will make owning that particular breed less attractive, perhaps even intimidating (can you imagine having the police stop you every time you walk your dog so that they can inspect her belly, or look between his legs?) This of course will only hasten the town becoming free of that breed. Thus, while SB 861 claims to only be about sterilization, it truly is a law designed to help towns ban breeds.

WHY WOULD THEY DO THIS!!??

While it is true that the Dangerous Dog Breed law was passed in response to incidents in which people were injured by dogs - often by particular breeds - the answer to such incidents is to hold the owners responsible, not the breeds of dog. Irresponsible dog owners are to blame for such incidents, not the breed. It is not the particular breed's fault that certain types of dog owners choose to train them to fight, or to attack, and for every dog of a given breed that has been irresponsibly trained, there are hundreds more of that breed who are loving family pets. More to the point, for every dog of a given breed that has been irresponsibly trained, there is an irresponsible dog owner - and it is that dog owner who must be held accountable, not the dog, who is but another victim of the owner's irresponsible acts.

While it is true that the Dangerous Dog Breed law was passed in response to incidents in which people were injured by dogs - often by particular breeds - the answer to such incidents is to hold the owners responsible, not the breeds of dog. Irresponsible dog owners are to blame for such incidents, not the breed. It is not the particular breed's fault that certain types of dog owners choose to train them to fight, or to attack, and for every dog of a given breed that has been irresponsibly trained, there are hundreds more of that breed who are loving family pets. More to the point, for every dog of a given breed that has been irresponsibly trained, there is an irresponsible dog owner - and it is that dog owner who must be held accountable, not the dog, who is but another victim of the owner's irresponsible acts.

The proponents of SB 861 will tell you that this is not "Dangerous Dog Breed" legislation. They attempt to get around that by including in the law language which prohibits a town from calling a breed "dangerous" or "vicious" under the town's breed specific local ordinance. That's like suggesting that it's ok to discriminate on the basis of sex and only hire men so long as you don't call it a "men-only job". We all know what they really mean. And so will insurance companies, who will then be able to discriminate against homeowners who own "dogs that are not labelled dangerous but that had to be neutured under that breed-specific law for dogs that we aren't allowed to call 'dangerous'".

Above all, realize that this law allows a town to target any dog breed they choose. And it won't just be those breeds which may immediately come to your mind. We're aware of people labelling german shephards, labradors, and even corgis "dangerous". All it takes in a given town is one incident with a breed, and the town council can force every single person who owns a dog of that breed to immediately spay or neuter their dog. Which also begs the questions: By what method will a town determine who owns what breed of dog? And by what method will they determine whether you have complied with the forced breed-specific sterilization? Will it be by registration? Will they have your own veterinarian keeping tabs on you and your dog? Is this the world in which we want to live? In which we want our dogs to live?

Answer 1

people are alarmist plain and simple. also people are idiots, some people want whatever is is scary just to seem like a bad@$%. right now its all about the pit bull aka stafordshire terrier but i remember when it was rottweilers who were the breed to ban, before that it was dobermans and lets not forget german shepards. its not the breed of dog that matters its the morons who train and breed for "mean" dogs. pit bulls are already in the past, now they are moving to akitas, presna carnes and mastiffs. this legislation won't help it just makes all the cry babies feel better. if someone for whatever demented reason wants a vicious dog they'll find one. the time and money would be better spent going after people who own truly vicious dogs regardless of breed, cus if they have owned 1 they will most likely own another. people also seem to forget that a dog is not a person, they are an animal and animals can and will be unpredictable. you can ban as many breeds as you like but as long as people own dogs of any kind someone somewhere is going to get bitten.

Answer 2

The reason they do it is because the laws that are already in place are not working...in general, people think they do not have to abide by the law and unlawfully keep these animals without proper permits and under certain guidelines.

Part of the reason there are dangerous dog breeds (remember, I said "breeds"...we are not talking about "a" dangerous dog which could be of any breed.) is because they are bred that way. Keeping the responsibility of breeding in a seemingly responsible breeders hands will eliminate breeding for the wrong reasons.

The law is probably aimed at only letting owners/consumers have sterilized animals so that there is no "back-yard breeding". Its kind of like my ferrets...the only people who can own ones that are un-altered are the breeders themselves.

These laws really are not that uncommon. We can all thank the irresponsible owners for this one. :)

Answer 3

They do this because of irresponsible pet owners who aren't even as smart as their pets.
It is not the dog's fault,it's the owners that the need for this kind of action to be put in effect.
This could be controlled with the requirement of a breeders license for those people who are actual breeders.
If an animal is picked up and it is non-compliant then the owner could be fined and required by law to prove within a reasonable period that the animal has been neutered/spayed. If they fail to comply they could be face with jail time.
I can see where it would be a law designed to require sterilization but I can also see where it could be for banning particular breeds though in reality you know as well as I do that it is targeted at the "dangerous" breeds. (They just left out the specific name as it could be possible they could get sued for discrimination. . . legal mumbo jumbo or legal loop hole.)
Government has got to do something since there are sooo many owners who refuse to.

Answer 4

Yes you should have your freedom to breed. But when their is problems passing threw the beads if the laws and state can not stop then sooner or later you will have the feds NP you and health department as some dogs as well as humans carry some dreaded disease, aids etc, and just look on this same sheet what this person likes to do if the animals owner is not their, now owners and breeders has that to worry over as well.

Answer 5

Sacramento has been telling California residents what they CAN and CAN'T HAVE for the last 30 or so years... why is it this posting does not surprise me. So now it is certain dog breeds that are undesirable instead of Ferrets, Gerbils and the like.
I moved from California in 1973 when Sacramento started this legislation regulating the ownership of pets and animals.. I also took my tax dollars with me when I left.
I like the FREEDOM to choose what animals I can own and how many and that is not possible in California.