Spay/Neuter Ordinance in Los Angeles

[Jodi]

Los Angeles County Spay/Neuter Ordinance

 

If this works, it would be great. Does anyone know if any other city/county/state has tried something like this, and how it has worked out?

 

To say the least, I'm skeptical. I can't see Los Angeles having the resources to enforce it. This particular part made me laugh:

 

A second violation is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed six months or by a fine not to exceed $1,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

They have a hard enough time keeping hardened criminals locked up due to overcrowding. So basically, where the resources are going to be drained is in the clerical work it takes to mail out all the notices to all the people in violation of this ordinance, sending them to collections, and trying to enforce the monetary judgments.

 

Beyond that, how do they plan on putting this into effect? Is it only the dogs that are caught as strays that get enforced upon? Or are they going to go through their county licensing records and make sure everyone who has an intact dog competes in doggie sports? Are the police going to walk around with a microchip scanner and scan every dog he sees to make sure it has been chipped? And what about the myriad of dogs that aren't licensed with the county (which is probably right where the problem is ...)?

 

Would love to hear some thoughts on this.

 

Jodi

[Journey]

If this works, it would be great. Does anyone know if any other city/county/state has tried something like this, and how it has worked out?

Why would it be good? From what they have listed the Border Collie is not covered, nor is ABCA listed or any USBCHA trials. Their policy appears to pertain to the big all breed registries.

 

Karen

[Kyrasmom]

Our county has a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance which went into effect last year. All owners must have their pets altered unless they have a kennel license.

 

From what I understand, it's too early to really see the effects and our county is understaffed but as the license fees are renewed, animals need to be altered so within a year or so (as they're behind) everyone should be in compliance. And of course strays need to be altered before being returned to their owners if they're claimed. Neighbors have also been turning people in as there are a lot of people who let their dogs wander the street.

 

Maria

[Katelynn & Gang]

Anyone know anyone with working Border Collies that this is going to hurt?

 

It sure doesn't sound right, kind of like a monopoly.

 

Any dogs that is registered with a purebred registry that holds events for the breeds original propose should be excluded, especially if the dogs are working farm/ranch dogs that are a big part of farming/ranching business.

[Jodi]

Karen, my comment about it being great was a bit tongue-in-cheek. They seem to think that this ordinance is going to ease the overcrowding in the shelters, and force people to be responsible pet owners. I think that's a bit unrealistic. Most responsible pet owners license their dogs with the county, spay/neuter, microchip (or whatever form you use to ID your dogs), and keep their dog's vaccinations up to date, etc.

 

Maria, requiring that strays be altered prior to being returned to their owners if they were claimed ... is a huge violation of our rights. Assume you go on vacation and have someone watching your dogs. Your dog gets out and lands in the pound. You come home from vacation, and you now have to get your dog out of impound, and it's been spayed/neutered because an ordinance was created because of irresponsible dog owners. How fair is this? Or are they going to keep a list of those "performance dogs" that are involved with the exempted organizations before they perform the unauthorized surgery? If so, are all the employees going to check that list before putting the dog in for surgery?

 

What if I don't believe in putting a foreign object into my dogs body (i.e. microchip)? I would still be required to do so by Los Angeles County?

 

In fact, I think this entire ordinance is bordering on violation of rights. We recently had a discussion on this board about dogs loose in trucks. I mentioned something about changing the law to require it, and got skinned for it. But I have to say, I learned a lot in that conversation. Why keep creating new laws to protect people from being irresponsble?

 

Jodi

[Kyrasmom]

Jodi,

 

I'm not saying I agree with the ordinance, I'm just saying that our county has implemented it and it's too early to really see how effectual it is.

 

I know that impounded stray dogs are not altered until the owner attemtps to claim them and does not have a kennel license. There are no exceptions in our County unless there is a kennel permit, so AKC/Performance/Whatever is not an issue. This is not done to protect anyone's rights, but because the County cannot afford to spay/neuter a dog that may be put to sleep if not adopted or claimed.

 

It is very much a case where responsible people pay for the irresponsibility of others. As I've said, I have one unneutered male left that I now need to get altered even though he does not get out, has no bad male habits, and my husband would prefer him intact even if he will NEVER be bred. I'm not thrilled with it even though working closely with my local Animal Control office, I know how big the problem is in our County.

 

And then of course, if someone is truly irresponsible, chances are the dog is not even licensed, thus again rewarding only those who do get their dogs licensed with more stringency. (tongue in cheek).

 

I don't agree, I understand parts of it. What would be fairer, at least in my opinion, is if we're somehow rewarded with our compliance. For example, in Italy, there is no mandatory spay/neuter but dogs must be tatooed or microchipped and there is an annual license fee. But I can write off my vet bills from my taxes..so while the government imposes something, I also get something back which, by and large, really does encourage responsible pet care.

 

I do understand how desperate animal control facilities are to get a handle on the situation and this is just another attempt. But I fear, along with so much other legislation put in place either out of fear or lack of control, that it will become more widespread.

 

Maria

[smileyzookie]

I think instead of creating laws and violating peoples rights, there should be money put into teachign these people responsible pet ownership. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who dont see the big deal in breeding their mutt dog and giving away puppies (im not gonna open another can of worms by mentioning purebreds lol). I dont think people realize the amount of animals and animal deaths in shelters - possibly they could have them take a class or something? I havent thought that one through so dont rip me to shreds for it. But if you speed in Nebraska, you have an option to take a driving class to get out of the ticket. (my father did at least) - possibly do something like that there?

[Jodi]

Thanks for the information, Maria. I would be interested to see how the numbers come in to see if the ordinance in your county has helped, and if so, how much.

 

SZ, I agree with you. Educating the public is the key.

 

Jodi

[Kyrasmom]

Originally posted by Katelynn & Gang:

Anyone know anyone with working Border Collies that this is going to hurt?

 

It sure doesn't sound right, kind of like a monopoly.

 

Any dogs that is registered with a purebred registry that holds events for the breeds original propose should be excluded, especially if the dogs are working farm/ranch dogs that are a big part of farming/ranching business.

See, that's where it gets tricky, in our area, as I've said so many times, our pound is full of dogs that are bred on these working farms/ranches and bred irresponsibly. Giving them an out automatically means more dogs die every year.

 

There is no easy solution and education is probably the only key long term, but tell that to the people who have to put to sleep animals every day for a living.

 

Maria

[Kyrasmom]

Originally posted by Jodi:

Thanks for the information, Maria. I would be interested to see how the numbers come in to see if the ordinance in your county has helped, and if so, how much.

 

SZ, I agree with you. Educating the public is the key.

 

Jodi

We're all kind of anxious to see how it shakes out, even the people at Animal Control. On the one hand they were thrilled to have been able to "be heard" by the County, on the other, a law, just like a contract, is only as good as the person who abides/signs it.

 

I think by the end of this year we'll start having some detailed feedback on it which I will happily share.

 

Maria

[Dal & Mad's Mom]

My understanding in FL a dog coming out of the shelter gets fixed no matter what. The down side I've heard about is they will fix a dog going to a rescue even if they are suffereing from kennel cough or have a temp for some other reason and the dogs get sicker. So possibly a hard fast rule may not be for the best.

[Journey]

Sorry Jodi, I wondered why the first half of your post didn't agree with the second half! Is this the same county that has a new "dangerous dog" ordinance as well?

 

I do recall someone on Sheepdog-L asking for help/input on this one though. Hopefully the ordinance will be squished!

 

Sheryl, I am in Fl and to the best of my knowledge a "shelter dog" not a reclaim by owner is altered prior to leaving, as to them being ill, who knows, the shelters are overrun and I suppose it does happen.

 

Karen