Really I think it's a shame there isn't more of a legal requirement to get pets spayed/neutered! The law in California is a great start, but I think in general pets should be required to be fixed.
Ok, so you want to raise kittens/puppies or you're a breeder. Get a license or something that shows you have the knowledge and ability to care for both the mom and babies, and that you will find the babies homes!
I don't see a downside here.
Regulating animal breeding also helps prevent inhumane conditions for the animals, not just on the street but in over populated breeding kennels and other such places.
If it was going to be mandatory, I think there'd have to be a cheaper way to get animals fixed. Perhaps the fines from people not getting their animals fixed could go towards getting them fixed or something. I still think animal abuse should have bigger fines, that way at least some good could come of a bad situation.
2007-09-09 06:19:21
·
answer #1
·
answered by Zamaza 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The cost of spay/neutering being lowered would help I think.
Many people have trouble with the cost. In the area I live the cheapest is $90, but that vet makes you update shots as well, so the cost is closer to $200 by the time you walk out. Many of the vets do this. I know my brother has not spay his cats and now they both just had kittens. 11 cats in the house, 9 of which will be given away to people or the humane society. Just because he couldn't afford the vet bill. (He lost his job and they are living on his wifes $1000 income the past 3 months.)
2007-09-09 06:19:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by shello 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm breeding my cat, and we already have homes for some of the soon-to-be-born kittens.
We're keeping one of the kittens, and we'll be adopting another cat from the pound. We're spaying all of the kittens before we give them away, and paying 300$ to the breeder so she cant' take away one of the cats to be a stud.
Alot of the soon-to-be-owners have lots of rescued cats.
So, I personally think,
as long as you have something planned out that won't contribute TOO much to the overpopulation problem, its okay.
Breeding a cat is supposed to be an overall great experience.
We're only going to have 1 litter, though, not 4 or 6 as those other breeders do.
But, maybe, just to help some bit, they could have a law, that if you're going to breed your cat, 1 litter is only allowed.
That would actually help, because as I said earlier, most breeders have at least 5 litters before their cats die.
2007-09-09 06:41:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by S@r@h 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Huntington Beach California is starting a program where pets must be spayed or neutered or you pay higher license fees. Microchips must also be used. I don't think the law goes far enough but it's a political hot potato. But we need to clamp down even further on backyard breeders and people who very simply should never be pet owners. Our pets are considered family members and are always spayed and neutered. I miss the thrill in seeing a kitten being born but that's a small price to pay for alleviating the suffering of millions of animals throughout the world.
Tougher laws, and stiffer penalties.
2007-09-09 06:18:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
"This is Bob Barker reminding you to help control the Pet population, have your pet spayed or neutered"
If you want to adopt a pet, go to the human society and give an animal a second chance. You can find cats and pups of all ages and they have all their shots and are fixed! They are $100 on average, but think. That's cheaper than a free dog or cat because shots cost like $50 each and fixing them is almost $200.
2007-09-09 06:14:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by Megegie 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
There is a group called Alley Cat Allies. What they do is they Catch Neuter and Release Farrell cats back into the wild. I believe this is a great way to help the over population of Farrell cats. As for stray dogs, I believe that if the dog is nice then the same thing should be done to them, if they are aggressive then they should be given a chance to prove themselves by being turned into guard dogs or use them in the Army. If they are over aggressive then they should be humanly euthanized.
2007-09-09 07:14:23
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well in many cases, it a child that wants a pet, and pets are easy to obtain, but in reality the costs to maintaining them, may fall on parents or guardians that have enough places for the income to go and getting the pet nutered is low on the list. There are things like Angel connections that do this procedure for a voluntary fee but those are few and far between and still getting them there when you have human life to deal with can be a problem. Now I know that their are going to be some folks that are gonna say, then just don't get the bloomin pet when you can't afford to care for them, And I suspect that some of these people would have never been born if their parent had decided not to have them because they couldn't afford them. There IS a bigger picture if one cares to think on it.
2007-09-09 06:21:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by fuzzykitty 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree! I'm rather appalled by the number of people who do NOT get their pets spayed or neutered. They add to the millions of dogs and cats that are killed each year because they don't have homes.
2007-09-09 06:23:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by OPad 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Spay/neuter is something that would largley contribute to the decrease in both the dog and cat population, with pet owners getting their animals fixed their would be less strays on the streets causing trouble and unfortunately being picked up and killed by sick individuals who enjoy harming animals!!!
2007-09-09 06:16:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by Blondie4321 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Introduce and support legislation that gives tax cuts to people with 'fixed' pets.
I'm in the research stage of approaching my representative with this proposal- taxpayer money is what's used to kill all the unwanted dogs and cats in pounds and shelters.
Since most people respond best to money, this seems to be the best way to approach the problem. Also, people respond better to rewards than punishment- funny, kind of like dogs, eh?- it is more logical to give them an incentive rather than a fine for not complying.
2007-09-09 06:37:07
·
answer #10
·
answered by howldine 6
·
2⤊
0⤋