What would you do:Reputable/responsible breeders/exhibitors ONLY?

Question

What would you do if your state was to pass a law saying that all dogs had to be spayed or neutered?
Or no dogs could be bred?

Don't believe it can't happen.
It can.

howldine, I misunderstood your question.
I appologize. I am sorry. I think your idea is good.

But your question led me to my question. It can happen.

Answer 1

I would fight tooth and nail!!!!!!! Even tho I don't live in CA, myself along with LOTS of responsible breeders/owners/exhibitors/dog show judges, FOUGHT to keep this draconian nonsense from passing there,,,,however, Peta, Hsus and the rest of the pet nazis aren't going away, they will be back folks! They are worming their way into small towns, big towns, .....they make my blood boil.

Yeah, you're darn right I would fight, and I wouldn't move. I guess they could fine me all they wanted...my dogs are my property. ......

I would rather see, like Howldine stated, an incentive, a break for legitimately TITLED dogs......
Mandatory s/n will only drive the responsible breeders out....Of course, JQP is ignorant to the REAL reasoning behind such laws....to END pet ownership period. Until ppl realize this fact (no matter if you have a mutt, purebred, show or not, breed or not), and STOP GIVING THESE MONEY GRUBBING HYPOCRITES MONEY, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO USE THEIR POWER AND LOBBYING INFLUENCE UNTIL THERE ARE NONE!
That is the TRUE agenda.

And for the record, I have about as much use for peta, and hsus as I do for byb and pm! They are each the scum of the earth.

Answer 2

Legislation like this results in a black market of puppies.

Reputable breeders would relocate or go underground. Eventually these breeders would die off or quit... but there would be no new upcoming breeders to take their place and purebred dogs would die out.

Even with a caveat allowing liscensing by reputable breeders, such legislation would quickly and severely affect most breeds by limiting the gene-pool. Dogs (males) placed as pets (often co-owned and shown to championships by the breeders) would end up neutered and their genetics lost to the breed. It would become even harder for people to get Service Dogs, and much much more difficult for law enforcement agencies to find the dogs they require (most of whom are intact and donated at 18 mos of age... btw.. if the parents were required to be spay/neutered... there would BE no 18 mos old pups to donate).

Personally, with the general allowances most of the proposed bills make, I'd be fine. I'd get liscensed because I breed and train Service Dogs... however, I'd probably feel a huge responsibility to get more dogs(gene-pool diversity) and breed a lot more than I do... might even make money.

I really hope this never happens.

Edit: And yes, dobiz_rule... I turned down a puppy home in California because it looked like that bill might pass. It will come up again in January.

Answer 3

There is a mandatory spay / neuter law that they are trying to pass in California,
the law is
* any pet that is not registered with AKC full registration must be spayed / neutered by 6 month.
if the law passes i know that some breeders will not sell their pet puppies to California homes anymore, because 6 month for a breed such as Doberman or Great Dane is 2 early! They are trying to fight this law, but if it does pass, a lot of good dogs will not be homed in california.

Answer 4

Poms- I saw your answer to my question about the tax return. You misunderstood me. I wrote you a personal note-Please go back and read it!

I would not support this law. It has no grey areas for responsible breeders, service dogs, or police dogs. This is why it didn't pass in CA. I would be interested in giving tax incentives to pet owners who CHOSE to spay/neuter their pets.

EDIT: Thank you Skye- I hope Poms understands where I'm at!

EDIT 2: Thanks, Poms, I was never mad. I knew you just misread it. And if it led to this question, I don't mind- this is a subject that needs to be talked about. PS- anybody think that BSL is a foot in the door towards a blanket spay/neuter proposal? Or do you think they're not related?

Answer 5

If the province of Manitoba passed that law, I don't think that it would matter to me because I live on a native reserve in northern Manitoba, and our Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs would probably stop them from forcing us Natives to spay and neuter our breeding dogs.

Answer 6

I am NOT a breeder or exhibitor, but I know if that law was mandated in my state.. the reputable breeders I know would fight it and/or resort to moving their breeding program elsewhere.

Answer 7

I would fight it, and if I couldn't stop it I would move out of state/province/even country if necessary.

PeTA, H$U$ and their ilk MUST be stopped.

EDIT: skye_blue, California narrowly avoided having such a bill passed, and the perpetrators are going to try again.

Answer 8

I really doubt it will ever happen. You misread the question that lead you to ask this. She wasn't trying to pass a bill to have it mandatory, just to where people could donate towards a fund that would help with the s/n programs in the state. This would benefit people that need help to have their dog or cats fixed, not make it a law where all of them have to be.

Answer 9

because you are able to no longer administration the actually colour distribution of a tortie/calico, then you definitely particularly have no handbook of how one is to look. you in basic terms ought to renowned the cat ought to have the two the black(seal) and pink markings on the face, ears, tail, and feet. it would selection from cat to cat. as long because of the fact the colors are on the cat (factors) then that is not suitable.

Answer 10

If it happens to my state, I will move to some where else which is smarter in legislation.