PROPOSED "Mandatory"altering LAWS for ALL dogs/cats, ALL OVER THE COUNTRY..especially California......WHY?

MOST OF THESE LAWS WOULD ELIMINATE BREED STOCK FOR GUIDE DOGS (FOR BLIND PEOPLE), SERVICE DOGS, AND EVEN POLICE CANINES. It also makes any dog which is a mixed breed illegal to breed, so there goes all the "Fluffballs" of America. No more white fluffy mixed breed dogs of 5 pounds. Breeding one would be illegal. What about owning one? Would they come after you wanting to know how you obtained it? Would they threaten you to disclose where you got the dog from? If they did, you wouldn't be the first!

Read Why............................

Just WHO is behind all the mandatory altering laws of ALL dogs in the USA?

Animal extremists such as Peta, International Society for Animal Rights (think Bob Barker, spokesperson) the Humane Society of the USA, Animal Defense League (Los Angeles, smoke bombing shelter employees' homes) and most vegan based animal extremists who believe PETS should NOT be owned by people.

WHAT is the extremists' favorite piece of propaganda used to demean and criminalize responsible dog breeders?

They love to claim that "buying a dog causes a shelter dog to die".....but think about it. 84% of the public wants a dog less than one year old that is under 25lb, preferably female. How many shelters have those types of dogs or pups?  Virtually few and none in California.

Why would mandatory ALTERING at 4months of age impact service dogs or guide dogs or even police canine breed stock?

The majority of dog stock used for guide dogs, service dogs, and even police work dogs are not necessarily from registered, show stock dogs. Many of the shown dogs (as in dog show conformation) will not necessarily make a good working dog. And, in most cases, the dogs flunk out of the training program and do not make the cut as a service or guide dog.  Which is why they need a very high number of pups in the breed program.  The dogs that DO make the cut do so when they are close to two years old. If every animal was altered at 4 months, there is no way the programs could weed out the best suited dogs.

This also applies for dogs used in ranching, herding, and general work in the sheep and cattle industry. The dogs are not usually from registered, shown dogs. You can check saveourdogs online, which was set up to explain the working dog problem, if early altering for all dogs is mandated.  If the mandatory altering at 4 months was carried out, you would start to see a host of health problems that is not yet apparent, as early altering does cause some severe health problems in many dogs.  (Imagine neutering your child at age 4?) 

WHY is it nearly impossible to find a rescued female puppy, small breed puppy, or small breed dog in a shelter??? or in the Bay Area of CA?

Because the extremists have consistently indoctrinated OWNERS to believe:

   (1) There is actual "overpopulation" in California  (untrue) In certain counties there are surplus animals, in other counties there is a lack of animals and they have to be imported into the county, or owners need to go out of the county even to rescue a dog. 

   (2)  Killing is at an all-time "high" in shelters.  (VERY untrue) It is down 59% in California, statewide, in past ten years!

   (3)  Dog breeding is criminal and a sin. (untrue unless done for illegal purposes, or to promote aggressiveness for criminal acts), therefore  the extremists CLAIM---the only "allowable" dog should be a rescue dog, a third world stray dog, or of course, a shelter dog which can't pass temperment testing?  (And we wonder why dog bites seem to be so frequent?)

The truth is that killing in shelters in CA is at an all time LOW, and many cities must import dogs from other states and counties to even be able to offer dogs to the public. There are now quite a few SHELTERS or Humane Societies that actually import dogs from Thailand, Puerto Rico, Russia, and even  Beirut, while  the local animals still die in the shelters here.  We don't think this is either wise, nor ethical to bring third world dogs to be sold, especially by shelters. 

There actually is no animal overpopulation in regard to dogs---what there is, is the situation where there are  more mixed breed medium sized dogs that people do not want to KEEP, and that have been given up by former owners. According to the shelter in Sacramento County, approximately 52% of the incoming dogs cannot pass temperament testing. If that was true, can you blame people for not wanting a dog like that?

Also, most of the dogs surrendered to shelters, are surrendered by their OWNERS.  And most stray dogs are simply "owned dogs"  that owners let go!  It's obvious that people don't take dogs to shelters and actually believe they will find homes, unless the shelter guarantees to not kill the dog.  And there are not many shelters like that.

WHAT proof, if any, do the extremists have which show that responsible breeders/owners are at FAULT for shelter populations in existence?

There is NO proof, because it is not true.  Shelters have been known to consistently misstate their intake/kill numbers to suit their own purposes, and many extremists have taken to working in shelters.

WHAT about claims that altered dogs are "less aggressive" toward HUMANS?

Many studies have covered this topic, including Federal funded studies. They show that altering will  NOT render a dog less aggressive to HUMANS--it "may" affect the dog's behavior toward other dogs, but there is no guarantee--and in many cases, it causes no changes in behavior.

Don't animal extremists really want to "save" animals?

Surprisingly, the answer is a resounding NO. And by extremists, we mean those who believe animals are in slavery if they are owned.  Since most extremists believe that animals are NOT property, they do not believe that humans should OWN animals as pets, since this amounts to slavery. PETA does not believe fish belong in aquariums, birds do not belong in any cages, and dogs, cats or any animal, should not belong to families. 

 It is the truth that PETA would rather  kill all homeless pets than find them homes---PETA KILLED 90% --YES--90%--of all the animals they TOOK IN in 2005. 

PETA heavily believes in euthanizing dogs, cats, puppies---on one of their many websites, they boldly state: NEVER BUY ANIMALS FROM PET STORES OR BREEDERS! (In other words, never buy an animal, you must adopt a stray or take in a third world stray, or street dog.)  Ingrid Newkirk, head honcho of PETA, admits to working overtime in the shelter so she could kill thousands of animals so they would not "be abused"...........

WHAT about the constitutional questions involving the rights of pet owners, dog breeders, and related issues of pet supply businesses for dogs, cats and other pets?

Animal extremists love to target the  $pocketbook; they know that pet related businesses are commercial enterprises. Last year, the Federal government updated the Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act (AETA) which upped the criminal penalties/sanctions for those attempting to cause economic damage to animal enterprise groups, businesses, even dog rescues. The SHAC group is a good example of an idea gone way over the edge.

In most cases, MANDATORY spay/neuter is not challenged because it is very expensive to bring lawsuits forward. HOWEVER, now that extremists have more than several regions in California targeted for mandatory altering, any dog related BUSINESS should become involved in opposing such laws-------if mandatory altering is the law everywhere, there will be very few new dogs born, and those that are, will be extremely PRICEY.  (*note: in Los Angeles County, the mandatory altering ordinance is challenged in Federal Court. Riverside, San Jose, and other counties are just waiting to implement the same, many are waiting to see if Assembly Bill 1634 proposing MANDATORY altering at 4 months for ALL dogs/cats, with limited, ridiculous alleged exceptions, will pass.)

The other dogs will likely have to come from out of STATE---many of them puppymills----so the mandatory altering law is just the beginning of a BIG DEMISE to many canine related BUSINESSES!!!  We believe such laws are unconstitutional and have no place in the United States. 

There are many alternative solutions to work on the problems of shelter populations. Altering every dog in the United States is NOT one of them.

Why would a law authorizing only breeding of "registered, purebred, show or titled dogs" be a problem?

For one thing, only approx. 2% of ALL dogs in existence fall into the above category. That means an exceptionally small gene pool? If you know anything at all about canines, you can immediately see a HUGE problem? In addition, this means all these dogs would cost a fortune, and so would their pups. And where does it say that everyone even wants such a dog in the first place? 

The average American is not interested in a show dog as a pet! Showing dogs and titling them is expensive, time consuming, hard work.  It is very political, requires extensive traveling, and consumes large amounts of time and money.  Then we have the problem of "I want a white FLUFFBALL dog"......well, chances are the white fluffball is a designer (mixed breed) dog which will then have to be procured from out of your state, since breeding such a dog is illegal (if the law passes.)

This means you will likely end up with a puppymilled dog from a commercial breeder with health defects. Now is that what the legislators intended? We don't think the legislators can think that far ahead, and they don't know that much about dogs in the first place. 

What would be a reasonable thing to do if there are too many animals being euthanized in shelters?

A program which was subsidized ONLY for the areas which have the highest kill rate shelters would make sense.

  That way the focus is on the actual problem, and not just another law that will cause the demise of good animals and businesses at the same time, plus the current proposed laws infringe on the right to own dogs in general, without a rational reason. 

 The animal extremists will "say"  there is a rational reason but let's be serious. The majority of the extremists are just that--extreme--and not what most would consider to be rational.