|
|
 |
||||||
|
We strongly oppose any breed-specific legislation. We support laws that establish a fair process by which
specific dogs are identified as "dangerous" based on stated, measurable actions and impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible
owners. A dog should not be deemed "dangerous" simply based on a specific breed or phenotypic class. Punish the Deed, Not the Breed! We believe that a dog should be judged by its deeds, not its breed. We are
dedicated to the passage of reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs. Unfortunately, some legislators believe they can protect their communities by imposing laws that restrict
or completely ban dogs based on breed alone, with little or no consideration of well-mannered canines. AKC knows there are
better, more effective alternatives. We strongly support breed neutral laws that target irresponsible owners rather than any specific breed of
dog. We oppose breed specific legislation, which targets the breed and not the deed. Irresponsibility of the owner
is the primary cause of most dog bites and dogs running at large. Legislation to curb these problems is already in place in
the majority of municipalities; however, enforcement is lax. With increased enforcement, existing laws relating to proper
restraint and confinement of dogs would dramatically cut down on the majority of dog complaints. Communities should enforce
the laws already on the books instead of turning to breed specific legislation (BSL). The first breed-specific laws were implemented in the 1980s. Over twenty years of regulation of so-called
"dangerous breeds" should have resulted in a dramatic decrease in dog complaints and bites. Instead, research has shown that
BSL has not caused a significant reduction in the number of dog bites in communities where it has been implemented. The American Veterinary Medical Association Task Force conducted a research project attempting to identify
whether a specific breed or breeds were responsible for a majority of dog bites. They concluded that it was not possible to
calculate bite rates for particular breeds, or to compare bite rates between breeds, for several reasons. The breed of a biting
dog is frequently unknown or misreported, and mixed breed dogs are often reported as purebreds. Actual numbers of dog bites
within a given community are difficult to obtain, especially in the case of minor bites that do not require medical treatment
(which are probably the most common types of bites that occur). Additionally, the number of dogs of a particular breed that
exist in a community is difficult to ascertain, since many dogs are unlicensed. (American Veterinary Medical Association Task
Force on Canine Aggression and Human-Canine Interactions, A community approach to dog bite prevention, JAVMA, Vol 218, No.
11, June 1, 2001). The American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Rottweiler, Doberman,
and German Shepherd Dog are some of the breeds most commonly targeted by breed-specific laws. These breeds simply are not
inherently dangerous or aggressive towards people, as evidenced by the fact that many of them have lived as peaceful companions
and family members for hundreds of years. Rather, these breeds are highly popular with responsible and irresponsible owners
alike, due to their strength, agility, courage, and willingness to please their owners. Whether a dog's physical abilities
and desire to please are used for good or evil is entirely up to the dog's owner. 1. Breed identification is subjective. Animal control officers are not sufficiently trained to recognize
the restricted or banned breed(s). Even animal professionals, including breeders, judges and veterinarians, cannot always
tell the specific breed(s) of origin of many pure or mixed breeds by sight. Breed identification of random-bred or non-pedigreed
dogs is an educated guess at best. The physical characteristics that are often used to describe the generic "pit bull" or
"pit bull mix" could easily describe as many as two dozen breeds and their mixes. 2. Without knowing the actual number of dogs of each breed that reside in a community, it is impossible to
determine whether an individual breed is responsible for a disproportionate percentage of bites. While a more popular breed
may prove to be responsible for a larger overall number of bites than a rare breed, this in no way indicates that an individual
member of that breed is more likely to bite than a dog of any other breed. BSL can also create a false sense of security by
implying that dogs not named on the list of banned or restricted breeds are inherently harmless. 3. Breed-specific laws do not target the irresponsible owner. They target the owner’s property (the
dog), thus removing the blame from the person responsible for the actions of the dog. 4. The cost of enforcing, maintaining and fighting the legality of these laws becomes astronomical to some
communities that are ill-able to afford to waste taxpayers monies on legislation that does not succeed in protecting the community
from dog attacks. 1. Develop Advisory Committees, including but not restricted to veterinarians, dog trainers, local breed
clubs, obedience training clubs, responsible breeders, pet rescue organizations, etc., that can collect data and collectively
analyze the problems of the community as they relate to dangerous dogs. 2. Define terms to be used as applied to dangerous dogs. Educate everyone that will be involved with the
enforcement of the law, of the importance of understanding these terms in the present law as it stands. 3. Enforcement of the dangerous dog laws already in the law books. This may mean the hiring of additional
personnel for enforcement but in the end will be less expensive. 4. React to complaints of dangerous dogs promptly and hold the owners accountable with stringent guidelines.
5. Educate the public on the importance of the socialization and training of family pets. Organize local
breed clubs, veterinarians, dog trainers, humane societies, etc. to give educational seminars and free or low-cost community-sponsored
training classes. 6. Use the country-wide promotion of AKC’s Responsible Dog Owner Days to have law enforcement and local
animal authorities join together to educate the public on what it means to be a responsible owner and what will happen to
owners who choose to ignore the laws on record (leash laws, proper confinement, licensing, etc.). 7. Encourage the local shelter to develop personal relationships with breeders, rescue groups, and breed
clubs to help identify breeds of dogs and to determine whether a dog is truly dangerous or simply has an irresponsible owner.
Allow these same organizations to “rescue” the dogs that can be rehabilitated and adopted to responsible owners.
8. Once a dog has been determined to be dangerous, apply the law to the fullest and prosecute the irresponsible
owners for the actions of their personal property. In general, the following types of dogs may represent a higher bite risk: -Dogs of any breed that are not properly socialized or obedience trained -Dogs of any breed that are not properly confined or are allowed to run at large -Dogs of any breed that are encouraged to be aggressive by irresponsible owners -Dogs of any breed that are protecting their perceived property (e.g., yards, sidewalks, vehicles)
from strangers It is neither reasonable nor responsible to identify a dog’s breed as the cause of a bite. Until the
root causes of dog bites are identified and addressed within a community, not only will BSL not work, but dangerous dog laws
will not be effective. Individual dogs of any breed may bite, for reasons unrelated to their breed. Do not make harmless family
pets and their owners pay for the actions of others simply because the dogs may share some physical resemblance. Instead,
target the irresponsible owners, and hold them financially and physically responsible for the actions of their personal property
according to the law.
No group could be more concerned about the problems irresponsible dog owners, irresponsible breeding, and
inadequate animal control can cause a community than the purebred dog fancy. The dog fancy’s goal is non-discriminatory,
fair, effective and enforceable legislation that addresses the pertinent animal issues in the community. · Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address
the heart of the issue—irresponsible ownership. Mandatory spay/neuter laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can
be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. More regulations increase the workload of already financially
strained animal control offices, making it even more difficult for them to perform their duties. · National research organizations have reported that the majority of unwanted dogs in the United States
come from owners who are unable or unwilling to train, socialize and care for their dog. The American Kennel Club also encourages
pet owners to spay or neuter their dogs if they do not want to participate in AKC conformation events or engage in responsible
breeding programs. · Responsible owners should be allowed to use their own discretion in determining whether to alter
their animals, spay/neuter requirements target all owners regardless of their actions. These breeders make a serious commitment
to their animals, working hard to raise healthy, well cared for dogs and work to ensure that these puppies are placed with
responsible owners. · Spaying and neutering is a surgical procedure that may not be right for all animals. A licensed veterinarian
should perform these procedures only after consultation with the owner and a thorough physical examination. · Strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws), and increased public education efforts
are better ways to address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership. · A public education campaign would help teach community residents about how to properly care for their
pets, as well as the need to be a responsible pet owner. AKC has free materials available on issues such as housebreaking,
obedience training, excessive barking and daily care. The AKC and our local clubs would be pleased to work with schools, community
organizations and local governments to distribute this information and the message of responsible dog ownership to the public.
The purebred dog fancy is extremely interested in developing fair and effective animal control laws, as well
as bolstering public education efforts to promote responsible dog ownership. To help achieve these goals, the fancy will assist
the community by serving on animal control advisory boards to monitor problems and help develop reasonable solutions, and
volunteering time and resources to help start or improve public education campaigns to teach responsible dog ownership. AKC’s Canine Legislation and Public Education departments can also assist communities. The Canine Legislation
department offers sample legislation and helps develop or improve animal control laws. The Public Education department provides
communities free materials and assistance in conducting responsible dog ownership campaigns. For more information, or to request specific materials, please contact the American Kennel Club's Canine
Legislation Department, telephone 919-816-3720, email doglaw@akc.org • We strongly support voluntary, low-cost, or free non-government controlled,
spay/neuter programs for companion animals, and we encourage all pet owners who do not intend to breed or show their animals
to spay or neuter their dogs. • Mandatory spay/neuter programs have been found to be ineffective, difficult
and expensive to enforce, and disproportionately affect only the most responsible pet owners and ethical breeders, without
impacting irresponsible breeders. • Mandatory spay/neuter programs result in the loss of funding for many
spay/neuter programs and do not result in a reduction in the number of strays and unwanted dogs. • Primary examples of the failure of mandatory spay and neuter legislation
include tLos Angeles, San Antonio, and Louisville. • In Los Angeles, it has been found that enforcement of the law was never
budgeted, and is unlikely to be, as the expense outweighs the benefits of enforcement. The number of animals being turned
into the LA Animal Shelters has sky-rocketed due to citizens' fear of being fined, and the number of animals being destroyed
has gone up proportionately. The law is headed for failure and many animals have given their lives unnecessarily because a
few people who enacted a law instead of educating the public thought this was the answer to a problem. John Yates, American
Sporting Dog Alliance, recently reported: “The Los Angeles program has been virtually bankrupted in only six months,
and the ordinance hasn't even taken effect yet, according to the audit report.” • In San Antonio, many people who do not have the money to spay and neuter
are abandoning their pets in the streets and at shelters. The number of adoptions has dropped dramatically, and again many
animals are giving their lives because of a law that was supposed to save them. Again, education about spaying and neutering,
plus programs to promote low-cost spay and neuter services, would have saved many animals. • Louisville has also followed the way of Los Angeles and San Antonio, with
the killing of pets up, adoptions down, and income shrinking to zero. • Mandatory spay and neuter laws do not stop the unwanted breeding of animals.
This problem is caused by people who are either not aware of low-cost spay and neuter programs, or couldn't care less about
the laws. Responsible breeders promote spaying and neutering of animals that they breed and sell. They follow the laws and
are educated and educate the public. Yet they are the ones that are punished, as the majority of them are also the law-abiding
citizens. Contact: Alison Tyler, ADOA Legislative Chair www.adoa.org • SB 2002/HB 1249 is unnecessary, unfair and extreme. • Eliminating substandard kennels is a worthwhile goal, but this bill stretches
way beyond that goal and targets all breeders, good and bad, large and small. • SB 2002/HB 1249 would discourage those breeders who are providing the
best care available and serving as the most dependable source of healthy pets to their communities. • Effective and enforceable animal laws strike a reasonable balance between
protecting the welfare of animals and the privacy of citizens who keep animals in their homes. • Many of the facility engineering requirements in SB 2002 would be extremely
difficult to enforce. • The new kennel standards would be impossible for hobby breeders who raise
their dogs as house pets to meet and would actually mean lowering the conditions under which they keep their dogs. • Requiring veterinarians to perform tail docking under anesthetic is unreasonable
and dangerous. The best age for docking is when puppies are just a few days old and it's just a minor procedure. • If the bill's aim is to create minimum standards of animal care, why shouldn't
they also apply to shelters, pet stores and any other facility that house and place dogs with the public? • Most breeders do what they do out of a genuine love of dogs, and a desire
to improve the breed, often going above and beyond to provide the best care and treatment, and carefully place their puppies
in the right homes. • Responsible breeders should be treated as partners in helping to improve
kennel standards and eliminate bad breeders, but this bill threatens to alienate the very community that can help most. • Animal organizations differ in their recommendations about the best source
of pets -- whether that should be a breeder, shelter, pet store, rescue or even foreign country. It is important to recognize
these biases and not mistake ideology and marketing hype for facts. • The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) the national fundraising
and lobbying organization promoting this bill is pushing similar legislation all over the U.S. HSUS, which is not affiliated
with local shelters, discourages the breeding of dogs. When seeking advice on how to regulate an activity or industry, it
is dangerous to rely on a group that would prefer that it be abolished rather than improved. • When it comes to proper animal care, it is the quality of care and the
conditions that matters, not quantity. • Limit laws like the 50 dog limit contained in SB 2002 are usually based
on an arbitrary number and have been found to be unenforceable and vulnerable to court challenges. • Number limit laws have never been successful in addressing irresponsible
breeding or negligent rescue operations. • People who maintain dogs responsibly and humanely and do not present a
nuisance to their neighbors should not be prevented from keeping them because other animal owners might not be as responsible. • The goal should be to limit specific negative behavior, property destruction,
neighborhood degradation and abuse by focusing on actual nuisances and confirmed reports of negligence or abuse. • What is needed is greater enforcement of existing cruelty and nuisance
laws to crack down on those who disobey the law, not more regulation for law-abiding citizens. • A positive step would be to educate consumers about how to research the
source of their pets and distinguish the good breeders from the bad. In that way we shut down substandard kennels by cutting
off their customer base. From AKC: • This legislation will not improve the welfare of dogs in Florida, but
it will hurt responsible breeders like me who strive to raise healthy, well cared-for dogs and work to ensure that these puppies
are placed with responsible owners. Limiting the number of dogs I can own will force me to send animals to shelters at the
taxpayers’ expense, rather than placing them in good, loving homes. Shelters and animal rescues are exempt from this
bill and therefore will not be held to the same standards of care as breeders. Animal limit laws are also difficult to enforce
and do not address the underlying issues of responsible ownership and proper dog care. • Rather than focusing on ownership limits, concentrating animal control
efforts on those owners and breeders who are causing the problem and investigating credible animal cruelty complaints would
be a much better use of taxpayer funds. • SB 288 could have the unintended consequence of holding breeders responsible
for genetic defects that are beyond their control. This will hurt responsible breeders. • This bill has the potential to financially destroy a citizen’s life
by imposing a $10,000 fine which could cause them financial distress or the loss of their home. • The new criteria in the bill for who would be considered pet dealers is
so ill conceived that many non-commercial dog and cat enthusiasts are forced into commercial status. These enthusiasts do
not make a profit; it is a passionate hobby. • The $10,000 fines contained in SB 288 are excessive, given that many violations
are minor paperwork errors, confusion in complying with the Lemon Law, veterinarian errors and are unintentional. • Constitutional safeguards and a clear appeals process up to and including
court review need to be implemented. • Administrative fines should not be implemented without the ability to
contest them; the amount of an administrative fine should be graded on the gravity of the violation, the existence of prior
violations, the frequency of violations and the economic impact on the consumer. • As a taxpaying citizen of Florida during the current economic crisis,
I strongly oppose the creation of a new unjustified bureaucratic position. • This new layer of regulation could cost local governments to enforce minor
infractions or paperwork errors discovered. Is the State going to reimburse local governments that have to actually go out
and enforce state statutes and prosecute violators, or will this be an unfunded mandate? • Educated breeders are responsible for providing useful, factual information
to prospective buyers. It is unwarranted to encourage the pet buying public to run genetic testing that may not exist, they
do not need, and could not easily understand. • Animals that are afflicted with disease are easily identifiable, but if
a pet is a carrier it will never be affected. The animals that are carriers are a problem only if they breed with another
animal with a matching genetic flaw. If a consumer does not intend to breed that pet, they would not need this information. • Each breed has certain genetic diseases that run within that breed. A
particular genetic disease maybe widespread, meaning it runs in numerous breeds of dogs or cats. However, the mode of inheritance
may be different or unknown in different breeds. This is the reason that requiring testing of the breeder or consumer will
not work and these decisions are best left between the breeder and the consumer. • Scientific screening for many genetic disorders in dogs and cats is not
possible at this time, therefore genetic testing is not sophisticated enough to support the guarantees provided in SB 288. • All living creatures are biological organisms, not manufactured products,
so quality control, as is done with a product, is impossible. In a perfect world no animal would be made to suffer from a
genetic disease, but all dogs and cats carry six or seven genes for various genetic defects. Legislative efforts that try
to create a perfect world will never succeed. • The public is better protected by laws that educate consumers prior to
the sale, enabling them to distinguish between responsible and irresponsible sellers, rather than by laws that attempt to
protect consumers from every conceivable possibility after the sale. • Pet sellers and consumers are dealing with living beings and it is unrealistic
and may be harmful to our pets to encourage consumers to think of them like they think of manufactured products. • Buyers have a responsibility to learn about the breed or species of animal
that they are considering before purchasing. • Providing education and disclosure prior to the sale is preferable to
providing purchasers with remedies for their problems after a purchase. This is one place where an ounce of prevention (education)
is worth pounds of the cure. • To help consumers educate themselves, purchasers can be directed to organizations
like Cat Fanciers Association, the American Kennel Club, (with parent clubs for specific breeds), to learn more about the
breed or species they are interested in before buying. • A good consumer law requires consumer education and disclosure prior to
the sale and it protects consumers from fraud, misrepresentation and from health problems that were known at the time of sale. • Consumer laws should protect buyers from fraud, misrepresentation and
breach of contract, but these protections should be extended to the consumers of all pets whether they are purchasing or adopting.
It's easy to get frustrated when your lawmakers seem to be doing the exact opposite of what you'd like them
to do, or when another interest group is supporting legislation which works directly against you interests and beliefs. At first glance, their opinions may appear groundless or misinformed. But, while you may not always agree
with all proposals for the policies governing you, the following tips may help you handle these disagreements more productively
and, ultimately, gain respect for your opinions or issues of canine legislation. 1. Your lawmakers are trying to do the right thing. They just may not have the same base of knowledge or
expertise about dogs that you do. Instead of chastising them, try educating them. If your facts are convincing, you may persuade
your lawmaker that your way is the right way. 2. Laws are proposed and passed to solve problems. By the time a law gets proposed, the lawmaker has already
been convinced that the problem exists. At this point, it may be too late to convince your lawmaker to do nothing, or that
there really is not a "problem" at all. Instead, try suggesting a different "solution" to the problem. Your approach doesn't
even have to involve a law -- for example, education is a good way to address problems involving irresponsible dog ownership.
3. If you want a solution that does not involve a new law, be prepared to help. After all, if the government
isn't going to solve the problem, someone else will have to. And who better than you -- or your club -- to deal with an issue
that you know so much about, and to make sure things are done your way? You can begin these volunteer services while the proposal
is still under consideration. Such initiative will convince your lawmakers that (a) you are serious about your offer to help,
and (b) the job will actually get done. 4. Be sure to understand the proposal. It's never safe to assume that all proposals which are not in the
best interests of dog fanciers are the same, nor is it safe to assume that what you read in your newspaper is an accurate
description of the law. Even similar types of legislation often have different wording which makes them very different when
enacted. Don't just tell your government that their proposal won't work -- tell them what will. You need to know what
your dealing with, because without all the facts, it's hard to make a convincing argument. Having a specific understanding
of the reasons for and content of the proposal will help you to put together a rational, complete response to it. Reading
the proposal and knowing the details will also alert you to the issues that your opposition most wants to address, which may
help you come up with some more acceptable alternative solutions. 5. Rudeness never wins respect. Listen carefully and respectfully to all speakers during public meetings.
Don't let bad manners undermine your credibility. 6. Never raise your voice or lose your cool. No one wants to listen to someone rant and rave, no matter how
good their ideas may be. 7. Avoid threats. Threats immediately put people on the defensive and close their minds to what you are saying.
To get your opinions heard and respected, you want to get people to listen to you. 8. Always back up your positions with facts. When you disagree, explain why. For example: "I know some people
think that breeders only breed their dogs to make money and get rich, but my experiences as a breeder and show judge of 15
years have shown me that this is most often not the case. Responsible breeders breed to the standard and for the betterment
of the breed, and are not motivated solely by profit." 9. Keep your focus on the ideas, and not on the people presenting them. Personality criticisms appear petty
or vindictive to the casual observer, and can damage your own credibility as much as your target's. Be careful not to let
personal attacks distract from the merits of your position. Remember, actions speak louder than words. The names and contact information for the members of the Florida House of Representatives and Senate are
linked below in this Section. If you are writing as an individual constituent, write to the House member and Senate
member representing your Districts. If you are writing on behalf of your club, write to all of the House and Senate
members representing the Districts of your club's regional territory. When you write to your legislators about a pending bill, you also should send copies of the letters to the
members of the House and Senate committees where the bill has been referred for consideration. The House Bills and Senate
Bills listed at the top of this page have been referred to the committees listed opposite the bills' titles above. The names, addresses and telecopier numbers of each committee's members are available on the webpages hyperlinked
to the committee names above. Email addies of some committees' members are listed below. This portion is under construction, and additional
committees' email addies will be added in due course. Email addies: House Agriculture & Natural Resources Policy Committee House General Government Policy Committee House Military and Local Affairs Policy Committee House Public Safety & Domestic Security Policy Committee Email addies: Senate Community Affairs Commitee
Hours has been spent reading newspaper stories and digging
out what statistics can be easily found and we have yet to find one locality where MSN had a favorable effect. Some statistics
for San Mateo County (California) are on line; MSN was a failure there after about a year and a half although it has not been
repealed so far as I know. Montgomery County (Maryland) passed an MSN law but a government watchdog agency concluded that
it wasn't working; it was repealed two years later. Los Angeles County passed the toughest MSN law anywhere but it was quietly
deemphasized in favor of much more effective measures after a couple of years. The usual natural history of these laws is a year of vigorous
enforcement, a year of less enforcement, then enforcement only against people who make someone in the animal control establishment
mad. Of course at that point, many otherwise good pet owners are violating the law.
The theory is that the way to reduce what is termed 'overpopulation'
(although excessive euthanasias of adoptable adults is the more common problem) is to reduce the birth rate and that intentional
breeding is the main source of births. Both of these beliefs are false and accordingly, these laws don't work. In Deland in the month of April 2008, 12 dogs and over 60 cats were captured
by Animal Control. Notice the difference in number. Ferel cats are the source of the high euthanization at the Volusia pound
not dogs. MSN law will not address the ferel cat population which is the main source for overpopulation in the pound. Many rescue groups have tried to obtain the rare unwanted purebred that ends
up at the pound and provide shelter, sterilization, medical care and find homes for these purebred animals so that
they would not be euthanized but the Humane Society refuses to work with these organizations. And yet
they claim to care about the animal????
Take the time to study THESE sites! http://www.pet-law.com/euth1_intro.html ><><><><><><><><>< We need you to help keep this law from passing For comissioners addresses go to this site http://www.paws4laws.com/initial.aspx?c=60 Why we Oppose Mandatory Spay
and Neuter Laws by Paul Barrett of Palm Beach 1. Pet populations are Demand Driven. There
are over 1 million people in Palm Beach County. Pet ownership increases because of a demand for pets. The population of pets
is Demand Driven. Pet populations are not the result of over-breeding. Spaying and neutering will not affect
a demand driven pet population unless you spay and neuter every animal in the United States. And then people will get pets
from over-seas. In California they imported thousands of dogs from over-seas. The dogs had serious diseases and illnesses. 2. Mandatory Spaying and Neutering is based on the
assumption that pet populations are the result of over-breeding. They believe that people are breeding pets indiscriminately. The truth is only feral, wild, and stray cats
are over-breeding. Dogs and domestic cats are not over-bred Mandatory laws would have little or no impact on dog and domestic
cat populations. 3. Pet Retention Levels Impact the number of pets
in an animal control facilities. People want pets - they demand them - unfortunately some pet owners give up their
pets for various reasons. Most abandoned pets are owned less than a year. The top 5 reasons for surrendering pets include: The top 5 reasons for pet abandonment are NOT
solved by mandatory spaying and neutering. 4. Education proves to make significant improvements
in Pet Retention rates. When pet owners are educated in the responsibilities of pet ownership principles, the rates
of pet retention are significantly improved. Training the animal also increases retention rates. Education is the key. People
want to help whether it's recycling, buckling up for safety, or learning how to improve their relationships with their pets.
People are willing to learn and practice responsible pet ownership. Education is the key to responsible pet ownership and
reducing pet abandonment. 5. Animal Care and Control includes wild,
stray, and feral cats in their death rates. Cats can account for up to 75% of a shelters pet population. Animal Care
and Control also includes old, sick, diseased, and dying pets in their statistics. The statistics do not reflect
an accurate assessment of the problem. Addressing dogs and cats as separate issues will significantly
alleviate the numbers of deaths in shelters. This simple step with a few creative applications can practically eliminate the
need to euthanise any animal. 6. There are health risks and dangers to Spaying
and Neutering. The health dangers and risks
of spaying and neutering an animal are very real and outweighs any so called advantages. Every owner needs to evaluate and
make an intelligent decision as to whether they will spay or neuter their pet. Their are too many Vets who are not informing
owners and disclosing all the health risks. Spaying and Neutering can actually contribute to pet abandonment.
For example, it can cause incontinence in many animals. Incontinence would be one of the reasons owner would abandon an animal.
Besides affecting health, spaying and neutering also impacts behavior in negative ways. Some animals actually became More
aggressive! Other become fearful and timid, depending on the pet's nature. Allowing a government to make health impacting
decisions for your pet is ludicrous. 7. It's an Invasion and Violation of our Rights.
Mandatory Spay/Neuter laws violate basic principles
of law as well as our rights as American citizens. We believe it violates our freedom, liberty, and our Constitutional rights.
It is unfair to hold an innocent person accountable for the irresponsibilities of a few pet owners. 8. Irresponsible pet owners will not comply with
the law. It's not enforceable. Only responsible,
innocent owners and pets will be penalized. This law is as practical as prohibition was in the 1920's. It will ignite a rebellion
by otherwise law abiding citizens to break a ridiculous law. 9. It Fails to Achieve Results. Mandatory Spaying
and Neutering, simply does not work! In areas of the country where implemented, it fails. It will not Stop the Killing
of animals! Animals will still be euthanized in shelters. For a sample of mandatory spay/neuter failures, click here 10. There are better solutions including building
a NO KILL Shelter System. Why kill any of the animals? All of them can be saved. Only dangerous pets that are a threat
to the public such as violent biters should be euthanized. Also sick and diseased animals that are suffering and cannot be
treated should be euthanized. All the rest can be saved! Without raising Taxes! If you love animals - cats
and dogs - join us in the fight to
MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER PROPOSALS ARE NOT THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO SOLVE ANIMAL CONTROL
PROBLEMS Responsible owners should be allowed to use their own discretion in determining whether to alter
their animals. Spay/neuter requirements target all owners regardless of their actions. Spay/neuter requirements would restrict
the many responsible breeders who raise and breed purebred dogs for the purpose of showing. These breeders make a serious
commitment to their animals with the intention of promoting the sport of purebred dogs and improving the individual breeds.
Spaying and neutering is a surgical procedure that may not be right for all animals. A licensed veterinarian should perform
these procedures only after consultation with and a thorough examination.
A BETTER SOLUTION IS AVAILABLE For additional information, contact: Need materials, talking points or other assistance? Contact AKC's Canine Legislation department (doglaw@akc.org, 919-816-3720.) |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
|
||||||||