![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
firecatPeriodically, I receive a recorded phone message from PETA (People for the "Ethical" Treatment of Animals...I won't dignify their site by linking to it). I have no idea where they got my phone number; maybe they phone everyone. I usually hang up as soon as I know who it is, but today the machine picked it up.
They are asking people to support a California bill, CA A.B. 1634, that imposes a $500 fine on people who don't spay or neuter their pet dogs and cats by the age of 4 months. There will be some "intact permits" available for a fee.
There are a lot of different claims about what this bill means, so I went to the source. Here's my summary:
Intact permits will be available only for
(1) licensed breeders
or
(2) owners of purebred cats and dogs ("recognized by an approved registry or association") that are currently being "used to show or compete" under the auspieces of such an organization
or
(3) working dogs for "law enforcement, fire agencies, or legitimate professional or volunteer private sector working dog organizations"
or
(4) animals that have a letter from "a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog. This letter shall include the veterinarian's license number and shall, if this information is available, include the duration of the condition of the dog or cat, and the date by which the dog or cat may be safely spayed or neutered"
or
(5) "guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs".
I think altering your pet cats and dogs is a good idea. I think there are too many unwanted animals. I think puppy mills are bad. (They are already against the law...commercial breeding requires a license.) I have no problem with individual businesses and organizations having rules that require spay/neuter before they'll provide you with an animal.
I also think that it's legitimate to pay a small extra fee if you want to have an intact animal. In San Mateo County the annual fees are $30 for an unaltered dog and $12 for an altered dog. But $500 is too much.
I am really uncomfortable with the idea that only "certified" purebred animals that are currently being shown or worked can be legitimately bred. Mixed-breed pets are just as valuable and useful as purebred ones, and there are lots of organizings sponsoring competitions and training for mixed-breed pets. This bill would legitimize only associations that restrict membership to purebred animals.
I think that purebred cats and dogs are often inbred and not as genetically sound as mixed-breed cats and dogs (I volunteer at an animal shelter, and the purebred animals that come in are on average less healthy than the mixed breed ones). Because of inbreeding, a certain number of purebred puppies and kittens will have genetic disorders that may cause them suffering. So I object to a law that limits breeding only to purebreds.
I think laws should be made with the assumption that people are basically going to do the right thing and should focus on punishing people who do harm, rather than trying to prevent harm by imposing restrictions on everybody. Of course I think some restrictions are legitimate—for example, I think the law that you need to stop at a red light even if the streets seem empty is legitimate even though it's a restriction—but responsibly breeding your non-purebred cat or dog should not be one of them.
As far as PETA is concerned, I know why they are supporting this bill: They would like there to be no pets and no pet ownership at all. I have heard that PETA euthanizes healthy adoptable animals that they received from people who believed they would find homes for the animals. So I think they will support anything that imposes restrictions on pet ownership and on breeding.
They are asking people to support a California bill, CA A.B. 1634, that imposes a $500 fine on people who don't spay or neuter their pet dogs and cats by the age of 4 months. There will be some "intact permits" available for a fee.
There are a lot of different claims about what this bill means, so I went to the source. Here's my summary:
Intact permits will be available only for
(1) licensed breeders
or
(2) owners of purebred cats and dogs ("recognized by an approved registry or association") that are currently being "used to show or compete" under the auspieces of such an organization
or
(3) working dogs for "law enforcement, fire agencies, or legitimate professional or volunteer private sector working dog organizations"
or
(4) animals that have a letter from "a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog. This letter shall include the veterinarian's license number and shall, if this information is available, include the duration of the condition of the dog or cat, and the date by which the dog or cat may be safely spayed or neutered"
or
(5) "guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs".
I think altering your pet cats and dogs is a good idea. I think there are too many unwanted animals. I think puppy mills are bad. (They are already against the law...commercial breeding requires a license.) I have no problem with individual businesses and organizations having rules that require spay/neuter before they'll provide you with an animal.
I also think that it's legitimate to pay a small extra fee if you want to have an intact animal. In San Mateo County the annual fees are $30 for an unaltered dog and $12 for an altered dog. But $500 is too much.
I am really uncomfortable with the idea that only "certified" purebred animals that are currently being shown or worked can be legitimately bred. Mixed-breed pets are just as valuable and useful as purebred ones, and there are lots of organizings sponsoring competitions and training for mixed-breed pets. This bill would legitimize only associations that restrict membership to purebred animals.
I think that purebred cats and dogs are often inbred and not as genetically sound as mixed-breed cats and dogs (I volunteer at an animal shelter, and the purebred animals that come in are on average less healthy than the mixed breed ones). Because of inbreeding, a certain number of purebred puppies and kittens will have genetic disorders that may cause them suffering. So I object to a law that limits breeding only to purebreds.
I think laws should be made with the assumption that people are basically going to do the right thing and should focus on punishing people who do harm, rather than trying to prevent harm by imposing restrictions on everybody. Of course I think some restrictions are legitimate—for example, I think the law that you need to stop at a red light even if the streets seem empty is legitimate even though it's a restriction—but responsibly breeding your non-purebred cat or dog should not be one of them.
As far as PETA is concerned, I know why they are supporting this bill: They would like there to be no pets and no pet ownership at all. I have heard that PETA euthanizes healthy adoptable animals that they received from people who believed they would find homes for the animals. So I think they will support anything that imposes restrictions on pet ownership and on breeding.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 21 Jun 2007 12:37 am (UTC)I find it very annoying when people (PETA in this case) react to serious problems with hysteria and run to the government to impose an ill-thought "solution" that penalizes the innocent along with the guilty -- in this case, by diminishing biodiversity.
I agree with
no subject
Date: 21 Jun 2007 01:24 am (UTC)As for "running to the government", maintaining social order is one of the functions of government. If people can't manage to maintain order on their own (and in this case, we have clearly failed), then it's well within government's role to step in. Many new laws have problems when first presented, and this one certainly needs some cleaning up. That doesn't mean the underlying idea is bad.
I also consider the lives of mixed-breed animals to be just as valuable as purebreds (they're my personal preference, too), and I don't know where you got the idea that I feel otherwise. In fact, if everyone spayed and neutered their pets, the vast majority of animals that would benefit from it would be mixed breeds - they're the ones who are euthanized in shelters because of overpopulation. Purebreds are a minority in that situation.
no subject
Date: 21 Jun 2007 02:38 am (UTC)maintaining social order is one of the functions of government
Maybe. I'm dubious about who would get to define that "social order" (as opposed to "rule of law"); see below.
If people can't manage to maintain order on their own (and in this case, we have clearly failed)
According to *your* standard of social order? I'm not saying the situation is great, but as sad as it may be, it's not causing daily panic in the streets.
then it's well within government's role to step in.
Definitely not, if their stepping in with some ham-handed "solution" makes things worse.
I don't know where you got the idea that I feel otherwise.
I didn't say you did. I followed up my statement of concern over diminishing biodiversity by quoting bits from
no subject
Date: 23 Jun 2007 01:02 am (UTC)According to *your* standard of social order? I'm not saying the situation is great, but as sad as it may be, it's not causing daily panic in the streets.
I'm far from alone in my concerns about domestic pet overpopulation. But to the extent that I agree with the idea of their being a spay/neuter law, yes, it's according to my standards. This particular bill, as written, has a lot of problems, which have been picked apart pretty thoroughly here, so I won't say any more about that. My main point is that I support there being mandatory spay/neutering of cats and dogs, and I'm glad there are people out there using the government as a tool to make it happen. Of course, that doesn't mean they won't screw it up...