New AZ Law Addresses Dog & Cat Overpopulation
Mario Tama / Getty Images.
A new law that takes effect in Arizona on September 30 aims to reduce the number of dogs and cats who end up at shelters. Although the state already has a mandatory spay/neuter law that applies to animals being adopted out by shelters and pounds, the new legislation would also apply to lost animals being returned to their guardians. (I don't like the word "owner," which is the language that's in the law.)
Under the new law, cats and dogs who end up at the pound must be spayed/neutered and microchipped before being returned to their guardians. There are exceptions, including if the procedures would be unsafe for a particular animal, if the animal is licensed, or if the person pays a $50 fee. A spokesperson for Maricopa County Animal Care and Control said the law is important because an animal who gets picked up on the street is likely to end up on the street again. But a vet tech at the Santa Cruz Humane Society questioned the effectiveness of the law, since few stray animals are claimed by their guardians.
The more effective law is the mandatory spay/neuter law that's already in place, but even if very few cats and dogs are affected by the new legislation, a single spay/neuter could prevent dozens, perhaps hundreds, of cats and dogs from being born in the future.
Also, I want to point out a common misunderstanding about mandatory spay/neuter laws. While some believe that mandatory spay/neuter means that breeders will be outlawed and no one will have pets any more, that is untrue and there are always exceptions for breeders.
Add to Technorati Favorites
Share on Facebook
Follow Me on Twitter
Comments
What makes you think that breeders will want to pay/can afford fees for exemptions? I know I can’t.
The only dogs/cats left will be the mixes at the shelter that cost more than a well=bred, socialized animal from a breeder. Yes when you allegdly adopt from a shelter you are buying that animal. Don’t kid yourself.
marie.. you have ti right.. and that is you have it ANIMAL RIGHT… the Ar’s do not want anyone to breed pets.. much less pure bred dogs..
‘Doris” does not like the word owner… wonder why.. because “guardian” allows for the person who paid for the pet.. and feeds it and cares for it to have the pet taken away if anyone else thinks they are not doing the right thing for the pet.. or I am sure Doris wold prefer “companion animal”.. guardianship under the law is NOT ownership.. it is merely an allowing of the government for a caretaking.. so even if you buy your pet from the shelter ( and if it were me I would be buying from a BREEDER) it still does not “belomg’ to you.. you are merely the “guardian”
madatory castration has proved to be a FAILURE in every venue it has been tried.. EVERY SINGLE ONE.. Lake County in CA has the HIGHESY KILL RATE in the state…. and yes they have MANDATORY castration on the books.. so how’s that working for ya Doris?
you know what decreases killing in shelters..?? ELIMINATION of PET LIMITS
Hi, Marie and Alice,
Thanks for your comments.
Marie, I’m sure you know the difference between an adoption fee and a purchase price.
Alice, first, I totally agree with you about limit laws! I’ve been fighting a local limit law for over a year now.
Yes, I prefer the word “guardian” because I believe that the government should take children and pets away from people who abuse them. I don’t understand why people would want animal abusers or child abusers to keep abusing their victims over and over.
I had not heard about the Lake County example, and it is disturbing. Nathan Winograd discusses it and recommends low or no-cost spay/neuter programs instead of mandatory spay/neuter, so I have to admit that I’ll have to examine this issue more closely. Thank you for bringing it to my attention!
I understand your concern with the proper care of animals. As a breeder I also care for the proper care of animals. In fact breeders, like myself, are on the front line of breed specific rescue efforts. They spend millions to eliminate genetic defects utilizing new genetic research. They are generous in the support of legitimate rescue efforts. Breeders are also the safest source for sound animals with known temperament traits.
I’ve done (and still do) my measure of rescue. Before there was a shelter here I did rescue out of my own pocket. It is hard work. I’ve rehabilitated animals and re-homed many animals. I’ve seldom had a rescue animal that didn’t have some issue either physical or behavioral.
The problem today is that many well meaning individuals are being mislead by animal rights individuals who are unburdened with empathy for either animals or humans and unburdened with the need to tell the truth. Many breeders are being falsely vilified and physically attacked by animal rights individuals disguised as animal welfare people. This has many unfortunate consequences for both the people involved as well as for the animals being torn from their safe homes and set adrift or killed by the animal rights groups. This is just one such example of victimization of a breeder by a welfare group. http://bluedogstate.blogspot.com/ Be sure and watch the videos. I have many, many other examples that show the truth of these statements. You have my email if you want more information.
It is obvious to me that you really care so I ask you to research other points of view to discover more than the truth that is being put out by one group or one agenda.
I’m unwilling to discard the animals I have spent 20 years preserving for the next generation as others have done for the last 100 years before me. I’m unwilling to consign to oblivion the precious genetics that have produced good tempered, beautiful dogs bred for a purpose. I’m willing to commit my life and my resources to protect them from those that wish to see them “one generation and out”. I’m willing to commit my life and my resources to protect the human rights of those that wish to pursue peacefully the right to breed and enjoy dogs/animals in their life. I will never give up and I will never give in.
Thanks for your comment, Maggie!
It’s great that you’re involved with rescue work!
I looked at some of the blog posts at the link that you provided. I’m not here to defend a particular organization. I haven’t heard their side of the story, so I can’t take one side or the other. I have no qualms about criticizing particular animal protection groups (I critized HSUS’s position on the Obamas’ dog, and blasted PETA for their recent offensive billboard), but I would need more information.
Anyway, the point is not about a particular organization, but is about stopping the killing of millions of healthy animals in shelters every year. Perhaps mandatory spay/neuter is not the best way, but I know that more breeding cannot help the situation.
Another point is the irresponsible inbreeding that leads to health problems and deaths. And in the race to produce the “best” dogs, what happens to dogs who are not up to par? In the case of Iditarod mushers who breed their own dogs, the fate is often death for the slow dogs.
Perhaps the solution is to focus on the public. Breeders will keep breeding as long as there is a demand for purebred dogs, so it may be more effective to bust the myth about purebred dogs being better than mixed-breed dogs.
I would also ask the breeders and the AKC to research other points of view, and to stop defending the rights of people to do whatever they want with their dogs, no matter how cruel or irresponsible.
Lastly, no one is asking you to discard your dogs – there are already too many dogs in the shelters!
My dog was recently taken (i.e., kidnapped) by MCACCC and due to the mandatory microchipping and the negligence involved in the implantation my dog is slowly bleeding to death. This is a terrible law and I hope that the people who put it into action lose their pet as I am losing mine, slowly and painfully.