Things that aren't true

[spiffystuff]

Uhhh, I don't remember where I was told this -- my panel at SPACE? my trip to the Ukraine, where social issues were talked of muchly? -- but someone stated that the gender ratio in the united states was 60% women to 40% men. I questioned this, saying that I heard this was the current gender ratio of college, but as I recall she (it was definitely

Comments

Pt. 2

[canis_ridens]

Basically, dog and cat shows will still come to California, because SHOW PETS ARE EXEMPT (I don't think the opposition website bothered to read the bill). Purebred cats and dogs will not go extinct, because animals belonging to someone with a business permit *OR*- not "and," but "or"- those enrolled in any of the numerous competitions that responsible breeders use to trial their stock are also exempt. Service and police dogs will not go extinct, because those are exempt. The only reduction we'll likely see is in purebreds and mutts that specifically wind up at the shelter, and even those aren't going to go extinct. The overdramatization of this bill by the opposition is driving me nuts! PETA, for all of their problems, at least isn't that shrill, and, just because they support the bill doesn't automatically make it TEH EBIL BAD PETKILLER LAW. Perhaps the bill sponsers should go through the text and use giant red fonts and blinking text to highlight the important parts, since people don't seem to be reading it. As for me, I won't be calling up to voice my opposition, because, as someone who lives here and spends a fair amount of time volunteering with rescue groups to clean up other people's messes, I've already called in my support.

Re: Pt. 2

[spiffystuff]

Hahaha, thanks for responding! I kind of figured you'd like that it would force all the zoophiletards to fix their animals. XD

I agree, it's not as bad as a bunch of the sites are making it out to be (and my original post was probably over-influnced by the fact that someone I generally respect and seemed to have read a bit on the subject hates it.... really more influenced by the fact that PETAs lobying hard for it). I did, however, read the text pretty carefully and agree that yes, the exemptions they've added have made it a lot less onerous than some of the sites are making it out.
On the other hand, as near as I can tell (with, admittedly, only 3 hours of browsing on the subject) the money'd be much, much better spent on subsidizing spay/neuter clinics, enforcing current laws, maybe a fix/release program, etc? I tried looking for examples where such laws were successful, and so far I've only found rhetoric. The ones that are successful seem to be more moderate, such as requiring all *adoptions* to be spay/neutered, etc. Am I wrong?
... mostly I just dislike on principle such a huge amount of government regulation :/ And the fact that there's no word on what the "intact liscences" will cost. (they say what the cost will be determined by, but still, no estimate of what that might be)

Re: Pt. 2

[canis_ridens]

In LA, which recently enacted its own legislation, the cost of an intact license has not increased. In LA and the Inland Empire, there's already a $20 difference in cost between the license for an intact animal and that for a fixed pet. While free spay-neuter would help, we already have that in some areas (some of the pit rescues in the San Jose area will do it for free), it would only help prevent accidental litters, rather than deliberate ones. Granted that the state should push for that and feral cat TNR programs, but part of the problem is that people would have to be willing to take advantage of them. Remember that little brown pit that I kept dropping off at the shelter at my last house? (She was the one that menstruated all over the back seat of my car, indicating that she wasn't spayed. This is another reason to spay your female dog if you're not going to title and breed her... ) The shelter fined the owners, but she was returned, intact, each time. If any dog was at risk of unplanned (by the humans) pregnancy, that would be the one. Spaying her wouldn't keep the owners from letting her roam, but it would at least help prevent other dogs from having the same fate. There's also some moron near Bakersfield that's breeding purebred Anatolians, based on the strangely frequent appearances of this rare breed at the shelter. Someone doing this deliberately isn't going to care about free spay-neuter; unlike a responsible breeder, this person obviously doesn't care about where the offspring end up.

For money, the only way the law would increase costs would be if animal control agencies cited offenders without fining them; it seems rather self-funding in that respect. (Ontario already goes door-to-door looking for unlicensed dogs. The local humane society that does this is staffed with needle-happy people; they're actually an example of how mandatory spay-neuter could be bad, as they would simply confiscate and kill, but the rescue groups are fortunately already aware of them.) It would certainly cut down on the, "Pit bull pups: $20. 'Not for fighting.'" ads in the Pennysaver- finding unpermitted litters, as opposed to animal abusers or the owners of pets running loose, is made easier by the fact that they advertise. If nothing else, to avoid getting caught, owners of intact animals might try a little harder to avoid accidental pregnancy. Lastly, the animal cruelty laws are written in such a way that it's often very difficult to report someone for out-and-out cruelty, like with my former neighbors that put their pit out in 100-degree heat in a bottomless wire cage, the result being that he quickly filled his water dish with dirt. It can be something to report when the cruelty laws are insufficient, sort of like how I approach the CA assault weapons ban when advising people of how to deal with pepper-spray boy. People really only have to worry if they're being irresponsible with their pets' balls.