Pet Sterilization Becomes Law in LA

dirtylicious

dirtylicious

10,490
229
Joined
May 2, 2001
[font=Verdana,Sans-serif][/font]
[font=Verdana,Sans-serif]LOS ANGELES (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.[/font]

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.

Maybe it's just me....but I just have a problem with this... Just another step where the gov't wants to dictate how to live your life.
Click to expand...
 
Maybe its me, but I don't have an issue with this law. I'm from RI and there's nasty feral/stray cats all around the city. I uderstand no one wantstheir life dictated, but obviously people can't keep up with their animals and then they end up strays...
 
I think pet sterilization should be strongly encouraged rather than being mandatory. I like the picture drudge decided to use, by the way. :lol:

r3143116918.jpg
 
ohwell.gif
This is a stupid law. I had planned on getting a new set of dogs tobreed in the near future too. I guess I don't have that issue for now since the dogs I adopted from the local pet shelter did this service along with theadoption fee.
 
The pet situation in California, like the rest of the US, is completely out of control. Considering how many abandoned and feral cats and dogs are euthanizedeach year I'd suggest a moral impetus would suffice to have people spay & neuter their animals. However, this is not the case.

This type of command and control legislation aims to cut the costs of the thousands of animals euthanized by shelters each year. I have strong feelings aboutanimal cruelty, and I am equally offended by pro-kill shelters as much as pet owners that are irresponsible with the living creatures in their charge. Thesituation is out of control, and mandatory spaying/neutering is necessary to cut costs and improve the quality of life for countless cats and dogs until peoplebegin to assume responsibility, albeit this is rarely the case.

how about instead of banning we give a tax-rebate...


This is the type of alternative economic incentive that may actually work better than all-out bans. We should always strive to think creatively when attemptingto tackle tough issues of personal responsiblity, and bans rarely sit well with individuals that care more about having to pay a tax than the lives of animals.
Click to expand...
 
they should sterilize pet owners who don't keep the animals in secure enough situations. i personally think its wrong to fix pets bc, it does terriblethings to their bodies, but at the same time, the sexual frustation/aggression is bad also. its def a catch 22. but i like the tax rebate idea, a big problem isee with this though is, not everyone wants a mutt or older dog that is often found at a shelter, and by saying that only breeders can own unfixed dogs, itmight make the average person unable to have the pet of their choice.
 
not everyone wants a mutt or older dog that is often found at a shelter, and by saying that only breeders can own unfixed dogs, it might make the average person unable to have the pet of their choice.
exactly.
and pure breds are known to have more health problems than mixed breeds due to less genetic variety.
Click to expand...
 
Originally Posted by Dirtylicious

and mandatory spaying/neutering is necessary to cut costs and improve the quality of life
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
don't forget to add "and increase revenue for the city."
Obviously cutting costs adds to a city's coffers... What is your gripe exactly? Reducing the amount of tax money spent to euthanize animalsrecklessly cast off by irresponsible pet owners while eliminating a source of animal cruelty... seems like a win-win. Are you upset because LA, home to manythousands of pets, is seemingly forcing people to be accountable for their poor pet care?
 
Im gonna adopt a dog, name him Dirtylicious, and have that lil bastard fixed.

Then donate him back.
 
this isnt a new issue. Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) has been taking place across the country for "vicious breeds" for quite some time now. Theonly difference here is that "all" dogs are now being included. When it was pits and rotts, no one cared. Now that there is a possibity of itaffecting pugs and labradoodles, it becomes an issue for the masses. Its Funny how people want to keep their labs intact, yet let pits and rotts getlegislated away.
 
What is your gripe exactly?
Just another step where the gov't wants to dictate how to live your life.

Are you upset because LA, home to many thousands of pets, is seemingly forcing people to be accountable for their poor pet care?
just another case of reactionary laws passed that gives no thought to it's effect on normal people.

ridiculous.

less gov't....not more.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Coromanti
Any NTers in Law Enforcement?
Replies
24
Views
2K
mplsdunk
mplsdunk
B
Black woman calls cops only to be killed by cops.
Replies
11
Views
2K
1995
1995

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom