Opinions On California Spay/Neuter Law?

Question

This is my opinion on the law. Please tell me if you agree or disagree, and why/why not.
Pet's owners' should NOT repeat NOT have to have their pet(s) fixed! If you own a pet YOU have the right to make decisions about what happens to it, the Gov't shouldn't tell you! And I can guarantee that if this becomes a law, most people won't want to have to spend about $200.00 per pet to have them fixed, and most likely how they find out if you own pets' is by going to the vet for Vaccinations. Which means that more pet's will have Rabies, and give it to more people. And not to mention the fact that if you take your pet to be fixed, there is a chance that when they knock out your pet that when the surgery is finished they will not wake up, all because of some people who think that they are helping by keeping unwanted animals' off the streets. Bottom line, is that it does more harm then good!!

I agree! Thanks, Adam C!

I clearly wrote at the top PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE! Saying that "Your Wrong" just makes you look catty!

I agree, thanks can76chaser!

I agree, thanks hwinnum!

I agree, thanks, Acyla!

Answer 1

It shouldn't be law to get your pet fixed (otherwise they could next make laws telling you what hours to feed your pet etc). As a pet owner it should be your right and responsibility. It would be nice if they gave a subsidy to spray/neuter your pet or the vet could claim the cost back from the government (free bag of biscuits would be a good incentive for some as well).

I do understand that when you buy a dog/cat from the pound they come neutered. That's understandable to me.

Answer 2

I agree with you and for the same reasons. National Animal ID is another government program that they claim will prevent animal diseases from spreading, but is more likely to have the opposite effect when people try to dodge the system. Government is gaining too much control over its citizens, and what's scary is the number of citizens willing to hand over their rights in order to feel "safe" or "protected". They've drunk the government's Kool-Aid and believe what they are told.

Answer 3

i agree with the law. if you can't think of a good reason for this go to your local animal shelter and look at all of those animals. then multiply that by the number of cities in the US.

if you think the cost of spaying/neutering is too high you don't understand the costs involved in keeping all of those animals that no one wants.

also, this will prevent the euthanizing of hundreds of thousands of animals each year.

if humans were more responsible our government wouldn't have to make rules to keep them from doing stupid things to themselves or their pets.

blame your average joe pet owner for this because until we breed smarter more considerate humans, the animals we keep need to be protected from us.

Answer 4

ok-phrased. : ) In my suited international, everybody who owns a canine or cat could have a 'marvel' pass to from to blame puppy enterprise, who could withdraw some blood and decode the DNA from that animal. Then DNA exams could be administered to all different canines and cats filling the shelters, picked up via the pound, in any different case stumbled on wandering, and spot if those animals could desire to be traced back to those human beings. If the guy who initially held the founding animal is a to blame individual and can practice that they wellbeing attempt and artwork and/or practice their canines (a minimum of practice the cats, what artwork does a cat do? : ) ) and are to blame for the animals of their care, then the conventional techniques of monitoring - AKC registration, different workplace work, microchips and tattoos - could be administered and the recent proprietor could be tracked down and fined (till, of direction, it may desire to be shown that they have got been actively searching for their lost puppy). For the BYBs and pup turbines, this could advise that each physique of their undesirable, genetically unwell animals could desire to be traced back to them and that they could be slapped with a heavy advantageous and investigated and optimistically close down, as quickly because it rather is seen that almost ALL animals in shelters and rescues are THEIR fault. How can it no longer be, whilst sturdy breeders sustain a correspondence with their pup/kitten proprietors for the existence of that animal? perchance there could be amendments for sturdy breeders - which incorporate, in case you have evidence of CERT and OFA/PennHip and practice and/or artwork your canines, then of direction you're a functional person and don't require monitoring or expenses. everybody else could be, even in spite of the incontrovertible fact that, and can be punished for doing it irresponsibly, without regard to the lives they're starting to be. i'm fairly drained precise now - up too early this morning - so i do no longer think of my argument makes lots experience, and that i've got no longer yet touched on what it may do to sturdy breeders, yet i think of it may be great to have such a company. sign me up! EDIT: And by fact of this i'm no longer a lawyer - i do no longer make a cohesive argument! lol on an identical time, i won't be able to stand government impression, so according to probability it rather is a private company who oversaw something of this fee.

Answer 5

In my opinion, this is one of those things the government should keep their nose out of, I have a feeling this one will be overturned...

Answer 6

I think it is very bad for them to start getting into things like that!!! What will be next?? That will start a snow ball effect!!!!

Answer 7

You are just plain wrong. It is that simple.