L.A. pet law requires pets sterilized at 4 months

[Porsche-O-Phile]

It sounds a little draconian, but I think this is one of the rare cases where a law in L.A. or CA in general makes some sense. The problem is (as usual) enforcement. There are lots of animals in poor neighborhoods that don't ever get taken to vets and certainly the owners won't comply with this law because it'll cost them money.

Good idea - good first step towards knocking down the number of euthanizations though. Anything that reduces the number of euthanized animals is a good thing. I'd rather have fewer animals on earth that are all loved and cared for by good people than a lot of animals on earth, with some of them getting well cared for and some of them living terrible lives eventually resulting in their executions.

Now if they could only enact a similar law for humans, we'd be getting somewhere. . .


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/02/26/pet.sterile.ap/index.html


LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Tuesday signed one of the nation's toughest laws on pet sterilization, requiring most dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered by the time they are 4 months old.

The ordinance is aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating the thousands of euthanizations conducted in Los Angeles' animal shelters every year.

"We will, sooner rather than later, become a no-kill city and this is the greatest step in that direction," Councilman Tony Cardenas said as he held a kitten at a City Hall news conference.

Councilman Richard Alarcon, who like Cardenas is a co-author of the bill, brought his two pet Chihuahuas to the event to be neutered in a van operated by the city.

The ordinance does exempt some animals, including those that have competed in shows or sporting competitions, guide dogs, animals used by police agencies and those belonging to professional breeders.

The average pet owner, however, must have their dog or cat spayed or neutered by the time it reaches 4 months of age (as late as 6 months with a letter from a veterinarian). People with older unneutered pets and newcomers to the city with animals also have to obey the law.

First-time offenders will receive information on subsidized sterilization services and be given an additional 60 days. If they still fail to comply they could be fined $100 and ordered to serve eight hours of community service. A subsequent offense could result in a $500 fine or 40 hours of community service.

The ordinance brings the nation's second-largest city into line with about a dozen of its neighbors that have similar laws.

Many states require animals adopted from shelters to be sterilized, and New York City requires the same for animals bought from pet shops, but restrictions such as those in Southern California are rare. A 2006 Rhode Island law requires most cats to be sterilized.

A measure similar to Los Angeles' passed the California Assembly last year but did not gain state Senate support.

Los Angeles animal shelters took in 50,000 cats and dogs last year and euthanized approximately 15,000 at a cost of $2 million, according to city officials.

Bob Barker, the retired game-show host who famously ended every "Price is Right" show with a call for sterilizing pets, pushed for the law's adoption and was among those at Tuesday's news conference.

"The next time that you hear me say, 'Help control the pet population, have your pet spayed or neutered,' I can add, 'It's the law in Los Angeles,"' a jubilant Barker said.

[stomachmonkey]

I think it's a good idea.

As you said, difficult to enforce but any effort that leads to a reduction is welcome.

I wonder if they have done a cost analysis on providing the service for free or reimbursing vets for the procedure.

The initial cost would be high but I wonder if the long term cost savings would work out better.

They spent $2M to euthanize 15k animals, that's $133 per animal. Add in the reduction in the number of animals that they would need to care for and it might be viable.

[island911]

At 4 months, that's on the young side.

. . .and this is so the city doesn't have to pay for euthanasias? ...make the people pay for the pricier Sx --collect tax .

[The Gaijin]

I worry about the long slippery slope. Before long, they will be snipping humans they don't deem fit.

Just not sure this is the business or the right of local, state or national government over such things. They should stick to the things outlined in the constitution.

[legion]

They just need to open a Chinese-style market in LA...that will take care of the ferral dog problem.

[Hugh R]

I think its a good idea. There are plenty of exceptions for bona fide breeders and owners of show dogs. Way too many inconsiderate people out there that have dogs that have puppies and they kill them or drop off at the pound or turn on the streets.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Yea, one thing you see a LOT of around here (southern CA) is stupid/short-sighted owners that buy pets and once the novelty wears off they stop caring for them. I have a neighbor who's a perfect example of this - he has two very mean-tempered pit bulls who never get taken for walks, never get played with by him that I can tell, etc. Not uncommon.

The other problem I see is when people move, they use it as an "excuse" to get rid of the pets. You'd be horrified to know how many pets get dropped off at shelters (and killed) because the owners were too stupid or lazy to find a new residence that allowed them to keep their animals. I think this is 90% the fault of the owners being VERY short-sighted and selfish and 10% on stupid landlords that just uniformly ban pets when they could far more easily allow for responsible owners to have them with a deposit or whatever. It's a worse problem with dogs, but I've heard of it being a problem with cats too. A lot of people don't get the concept that "adoption" means "for life".

It's an imperfect solution for an imperfect world, but at least it's a step. . .

[alf]

Genocide! Eugenics! Sounds like a good idea, good luck enforcing it.

Chris, LA already have a bunch of Chinese Americans with markets

[speeder]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

The other problem I see is when people move, they use it as an "excuse" to get rid of the pets. You'd be horrified to know how many pets get dropped off at shelters (and killed) because the owners were too stupid or lazy to find a new residence that allowed them to keep their animals. I think this is 90% the fault of the owners being VERY short-sighted and selfish and 10% on stupid landlords that just uniformly ban pets when they could far more easily allow for responsible owners to have them with a deposit or whatever.

The problem is that as far as I know, landlords cannot selectively ban dogs, i.e. let one person in a complex have one and tell someone else that they cannot. All rules have to be enforced uniformly or it's discrimination, which is illegal. What they can do is to change their policy and cease allowing new tenants with pets move-in, (even if some dogs already live in the building), but here again, it has to be applied across the board. That's my understanding at least.

[KaptKaos]

This is pretty stupid if you ask me. I understand that the goal is worthwhile, reducing euthanasia, but this law will have no impact. It's another feel good piece of legislation that will have no effect.

The only possible effect it will have will be to convince people that there is no point in obeying any laws. If they keep passing patently stupid laws, why should anyone pay attention to the important laws?

[Mule]

Illegal Mexicans are next!

[stomachmonkey]

Originally Posted by KaptKaos

This is pretty stupid if you ask me. I understand that the goal is worthwhile, reducing euthanasia, but this law will have no impact. It's another feel good piece of legislation that will have no effect.

The only possible effect it will have will be to convince people that there is no point in obeying any laws. If they keep passing patently stupid laws, why should anyone pay attention to the important laws?

I know plenty of people that would obey simply because it was the law.

My m-inlaw thinks that anyone that receives a traffic ticket is an idiot.

"If you follow the rules then you'll never get a ticket" We all know it's not that simple but in theory she has a point.

Forgoing the fact that she would neuter her animals anyway, yes she would comply.

Now let's thing about the impact of one un-neutered pet.

"If allowed to breed, one female dog can cause the production of 67,000 puppies within 6 years! One female cat and her offspring can produce 420,000 cats in 7 years!

http://www.petsearchpa.org/snp.html

[scottmandue]

Non issue for me seeing as I get all my pets at the animal shelter and they can't leave the place until they have been neutered.

I work at exposition park and it is common to see people dump their unwanted cats and dogs here.

Same thing happens at the beach park near my house.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

There's a place not too far from me (bluffs near the beach) where literally dozens of feral cats live. I suspect that these were pets or decended from pets of people who lived nearby and later decided they "couldn't keep them" (translation: "irresponsible idiots who have no business having pets in the first place"). It's common local knowledge and people go there a lot to feed them & watch them. At least they get some attention and a little bit of contact with humans. They're not pets and they're very standoffish, but at least they get to live "naturally" and with some attention and have a semi-decent quality of life. I guess it beats being lassoed by Animal Control and killed.

My pets are all spayed/neutered. It's a bit sad to think of (that they're the "last of their family line"), especially because they're all such great pets and have wonderful personalities, but it's awfully hard to consider not having them spayed/neutered when there are so many strays and shelter animals. I can't save 'em all, I can only do my small part for a few.

I really wrestled with the decision to "gene bank" some of Charlie's tissue after he passed away in January. I finally decided against it on the grounds that even if cloning becomes affordable in the coming few years, it's irresponsible to do when there are so many other animals that need homes/care/love. There will never be another Charlie, but there can certainly be someone else who's just as great in their own way I guess.

Please guys, be responsible with your pets. That's all I'm saying I guess.

[wrecktech]

Originally Posted by Hugh R

I think its a good idea. There are plenty of exceptions for bona fide breeders and owners of show dogs. Way too many inconsiderate people out there that have dogs that have puppies and they kill them or drop off at the pound or turn on the streets.

The problem with laws like these is not the number of exemptions it is qualifying for the exemptions. How difficult or expensive will it be?

[the]

I didn't see anything in the article about how they intend to enforce it.

So it probably has little effect. Those who are responsible likely already spay/neuter. Those who are irresponsible are, well, irresponsible, and will just ignore the law.

[911Rob]

I can't see the purpose of bringing in a law that can't be enforced? Even the ones that do comply because its law, well they'd be people like you and wouldn't be the problem anyway?

As for Landlords restricting pets; I see it all the time Denis. Strata docs or Leases that specify a maximum shoulder height (ie: 16") and even some that specify the exact breeds they don't want. I've even seen one in an adult MHP that required board approval for each and every individual pet that lived in the park.

Too many punks with pit bulls, ruins it for the rest.
Cats! Well that's a whole nuther story......

[Hugh R]

Originally Posted by Mule

Illegal Mexicans are next!

What, mandatory sterilization? Hum, let me think a minute..................




Ok, I'm for it.

[scottmandue]

I tried sterilizing my cats but they really got upset about being dipped in alcohol!

And they were covered with germs in a few hours anyway.

[Tobra]

This is a bad law that absolutely will not have the intended effect and cannot be enforced.

It is ridiculous to think that poor folks are going to take their dog or cat in to be neutered, it won't happen. Responsible people already do the right thing. Irresponsible people won't do the right thing even if it is free.

Shouldn't Villagrosa be worrying about taking care of his girlfriends instead of getting to meet Bob Barker?