|
Author
|
Topic: Dog/Cat owners look inside
|
|
|
|
|
DRIVINFST
¯
Member # 2430
|
posted
 
 
Done ![[patriot]](graemlins/patriot.gif)
Posts: 555 | From: San Jose, CA | Registered: Feb 2003
| :
|
|
89TRUNK
¯
Member # 2506
|
posted
Thanks alot, It's not the animals fault so they shouldn't be put down because of it.
[ June 14, 2007, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: 89TRUNK ]
Posts: 1843 | From: Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2003
| :
|
|
BCINGUU
¯
Member # 2397
|
posted
I'm not sure I understand all of what's good and bad about this bill. This is the first I've heard of it. Here is the official web site.
On the surface, this looks like a good thing - it would cut down on the overpopulation of unwanted animals. But, maybe it would result in nothing but purebred animals being available to us.
I'm a dog person. I personally have never owned a purebred, but that's mainly because of the expense, and the difficulty in obtaining one. Earlier this year I tried to get a purebred Sheltie but it was just too difficult, with the the invasive application process, the mandatory home inspections, and the 6 to 12 month waiting list.
So I rescued a dog from a rescue group, and this is the third dog I've rescued. I really like rescuing dogs because they are so well screened, already trained, and very well behaved. With a purebred puppy, who knows how they will turn out.
As a consumer, it's nice to have an oversupply of animals to choose from. But I can see their point of view about the problem of overpopulation. Not sure whether this is the right thing or not.
Opinions?
--------------------
93 Cobra #4563 347ci 12.0@118 505rwhp 524tq
90 GT "Saleen Cobra" style convertible 347ci
67 GT "Eleanor" style coupe 347ci
Posts: 1425 | From: San Jose, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| :
|
|
89TRUNK
¯
Member # 2506
|
posted
It's about having the power to choose what you want. Like yourself, you like to rescue dogs. If this bill was to pass would you still have the option to rescue a mixed breed dog? That dog would be put down and not even have the chance for adoption. Later on down the road they might want to pass a bill on breeds they feel are dangerous ie. rotts, dobermans, pits... etc. Even though we all know it's how the dog is brought up. I just want there to be an option.
Posts: 1843 | From: Bay Area | Registered: Feb 2003
| :
|
|
86BackInBlack
¯
Member # 5372
|
posted
This makes no sense. What they NEED to do is work even harder to prevent strays by enforcing spay and neutering more, not just killing innocent animals
--------------------
http://i.imgur.com/go1nj.gif
Posts: 1438 | From: san jose | Registered: Feb 2005
| :
|
|
BCINGUU
¯
Member # 2397
|
posted
I probably agree with you but I'm confused on one point - I didn't see anything in the bill about killing animals. It's about mandatory spay/neuter, from what I saw. Did I miss something?
--------------------
93 Cobra #4563 347ci 12.0@118 505rwhp 524tq
90 GT "Saleen Cobra" style convertible 347ci
67 GT "Eleanor" style coupe 347ci
Posts: 1425 | From: San Jose, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| :
|
|
86BackInBlack
¯
Member # 5372
|
posted
well thats what i got from 89trunks site. i couldnt open the site you posted, it freezes my ie everytime i open it. damn crappy work computers!
--------------------
http://i.imgur.com/go1nj.gif
Posts: 1438 | From: san jose | Registered: Feb 2005
| :
|
|
BCINGUU
¯
Member # 2397
|
posted
I'm still undecided but I do think the government spends way too much time, money, and resources dealing with things like this. And, making it a civil penalty seems a bit harsh. But all my pets are altered, mainly because there is already a requirement to do that. I'm not clear on how this law is supposed to be any more effective. Maybe because they think a civil penalty will be more effective.
Here is the summary of the bill from the CA assembly government website. It has already passed the Assembly vote and now is going to the Senate.
This bill would prohibit any person from owning or possessing any cat or dog over the age of 4 months that has not been spayed or neutered, unless that person possesses an intact permit, as defined.
The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a prescribed civil penalty. It would require all revenues derived from these civil penalties to be used for funding the outreach efforts in connection with, and the
administration and enforcement of, these provisions, and, to the extent funding is available, free and low-cost spay and neuter programs, and outreach efforts for those programs, which would be required to be established by each local animal control agency.
The bill would become operative on April 1, 2008.
[ June 14, 2007, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: BCINGUU ]
--------------------
93 Cobra #4563 347ci 12.0@118 505rwhp 524tq
90 GT "Saleen Cobra" style convertible 347ci
67 GT "Eleanor" style coupe 347ci
Posts: 1425 | From: San Jose, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| :
|
|
Wildfire532FB
CAFords OG
Member # 1482
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by BCINGUU:
I probably agree with you but I'm confused on one point - I didn't see anything in the bill about killing animals. It's about mandatory spay/neuter, from what I saw. Did I miss something?
i am confused too, It doesn't say anything about killing the dog just having it sprayed or neutered. They kill the dog/cat after a couple days or so anyway right now if its not claimed or bought.
Do you possibly mean that getting the dog sprayed or neutered your killing its potential offspring?
[ June 14, 2007, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: Cobra5.0Jeep ]
--------------------
./_ _ _ ___ __\
(]]]_ _ o _ _[[[)
|\_o_ __ __o_/|
|__|..........|__|
68 Fastback
84 CJ7
94 HMMWV
95 GT
03 F350
17 Fusion Hybrid
Posts: 17578 | From: 530 | Registered: Jun 2002
| :
|
|
Wildfire532FB
CAFords OG
Member # 1482
|
posted
I'd like to add that my family owns Purebred Greyhounds and its against the law to own a greyhound if its not sprayed or neutered UNLESS you have a racing permit to breed them.
--------------------
./_ _ _ ___ __\
(]]]_ _ o _ _[[[)
|\_o_ __ __o_/|
|__|..........|__|
68 Fastback
84 CJ7
94 HMMWV
95 GT
03 F350
17 Fusion Hybrid
Posts: 17578 | From: 530 | Registered: Jun 2002
| :
|
|
BCINGUU
¯
Member # 2397
|
posted
Looks like interest died down on this issue? I'm going to conclude that this is just a stricter version of the spay/neuter law they already have, and that doesn't really seem like a big deal to me.
I'll probably vote against it anyway just on the principle that our politicians should be focusing on more important issues.
--------------------
93 Cobra #4563 347ci 12.0@118 505rwhp 524tq
90 GT "Saleen Cobra" style convertible 347ci
67 GT "Eleanor" style coupe 347ci
Posts: 1425 | From: San Jose, CA | Registered: Jan 2003
| :
|
|
Email this post to someone!
Printer friendly view of this Ford topic
