Jump to content
Dogomania

Spay and Neuter Bill in Oklahoma


Recommended Posts

This is a new bill that may be signed into law in Oklahoma:

Spay/Neuter Bill Introduced in Oklahoma

Purebred dog fanciers in Oklahoma may soon find it too expensive to participate in their sport. Scheduled to be introduced on February 2nd by Sen. Sam Helton, the

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't blame the AKC for opposing it. It is stupid! IMO, all that can come of this is that the good honest hobby breeders that DO show and train their dogs will be forced to quit (or move out of state.) While the puppy mills and large "commercial" breeders will not be affected at all. And what in the HECK is up with this part?


[quote]* “Noncommercial breeders license,” authorizing owners to have a dog or cat that produces one litter, whether intentional or unintentional.[/quote]

So it is STILL OK to have unintentional litters!?!?!?

And just exactly WHO is going to enforce this? And more importantly HOW? Are they going to drive up and down every street and check all of the dogs stomachs to see if there is a spay scar or if they have testicles or not? :roll: And just what about cats? How are they going to know if they are spayed or not? (Unless they have baby kittens.)

I would like to know just HOW they are going to catch people that don't have their puppies altered? (By the way, females must be spayed by [b]4 months[/b] and males by [b]6 months[/b].)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Enforcement will be difficult, I agree with that.


[quote]all that can come of this is that the good honest hobby breeders that DO show and train their dogs will be forced to quit [/quote]

$100 is not going to stop the people who are showing and breeding responsibly. These people have and do spend a lot more than that on their dogs and this fee won't stop that. $100 once a year is not going to break them.

You're right Black GSD, I would like to see their plan for enforcement. It isn't fair to make a law that is unenforceable. Only the responsible people will be hurt by it. To get a rabies tag you have to have a certificate from a vet. Maybe you will have to get a spay or neuter tag as well. But I have no idea how many dogs are out there that aren't licensed already. I would really like to know how this will be enforced.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many unaltered dogs one is allowed to have without being MADE to get the $1000 commercial lisence though?
Most folks that show have more than 3 dogs.


And as with a rabies tag, the only time it REALLY matters is if the dog bites someone. Other than that, no one knows if they have a rabies shot or not. Same with a lisence. Unless a dog is picked up by animal control, no one knows if it is lisenced or not. So what is the point?

And here, you get a rabies certificate AND tag from the vet.

Have you seen just WHO is going to get the money that foks have to pay for these lisences? If not, let me know and I will post it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another "great" one they are trying to pass in Virginia that will require anyone selling a litter "for profit" (that means charging anything - it does not apply to people who want to experience the miracle of birth with their kids) to pay a $2500 licensing fee. Who do you think this will hurt the most?? The responsible breeders! These laws are stupid and I'm glad the AKC isn't supporting them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]And as with a rabies tag, the only time it REALLY matters is if the dog bites someone. Other than that, no one knows if they have a rabies shot or not.[/quote]

actually, that depends on where you live. Here in Illinois rabies shots are strictly enforced by the county. You get three notices, if you dont comply and you still have the pet they will fine you as much as $500.00, and if you dont then get the pet the shots immediately they will take the animal away from you. My problem with this is that it is specific to purebred dogs. There needs to be laws regarding mixes and mutts too. That's what you see most of in the shelters. It could be enforceable if the vets cooperated. Like a rabies shot, having to submit a neutered certificate to the state or county, or whatever. I am highly in favor of spaying and neutering all animals unless you are a breeder or are showing the dog.
I dont see a reason not to otherwise. I think the licensing is a little high for the breeders though. $1000.00 per dog is nuts. I would prefer a $1000,00 a year for a professional breeders license. And then there would be a way to make sure that the breeders are following all the health standards to produce good dogs. If done correctly this could work.
I have long thought that breeders should be licensed. And that an inspection of their kennel is necessary to get a license. This could help cut down on puppy milling too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mutts4Me

In theory, I think it's a good thing.

I definitely think there should be restrictions on breeding, accidental or planned. If people have to pay $100 a year to leave their dogs unaltered, then maybe people would be willing to pay the one-time fee it'd take to spay and neuter their dogs. So if the only people who will have intact animals are the serious breeders, then the overpopulation poblem could be drastically reduced, and I don't see how that could be a bad thing at all.

Breeders should have to be licensed and inspected, and there should be a fee. It may hurt some people, but its biggest effect would be on the people who breed for fun or profit and end up adding to the number of dogs being euthanized in shelters.

[quote]My problem with this is that it is specific to purebred dogs. There needs to be laws regarding mixes and mutts too. [/quote]

I don't think it's specific to purebreds, the opening line just says purebred dog fanciers because those are usually the ones purposely breeding their dogs. It then says "would make it illegal to own or keep intact dogs and cats without a license" without specifying "purebred." So hopefully it includes all dogs.

However, I too seriously doubt the ability to enforce the laws. It could be done through the vet the same way rabies liscences are, but not everyone takes their dogs to the vet, and honestly, those are the people you have to worry about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mutts4me wrote:
[quote]but not everyone takes their dogs to the vet, and honestly, those are the people you have to worry about.[/quote]

Exactly, and this is the problem you run into with these laws. Hard to enforce and they hurt the people who have done nothing wrong. Give me a good way to enforce them and I'm totally gung ho all for it. It's great on paper, but in reality it has holes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

as with any law, there will always be those that fall thru the cracks. that cant be helped. but most dog owners at some time take their dog to the vet, if they really like their dog, and therefore it could be enforced for the majority. Not everyone, of course, but even if only the majority it would help out a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]You get three notices, if you dont comply and you still have the pet they will fine you as much as $500.00[/quote]
Yes, but how do they know you even have a dog? Do they check vet records (confidentiality issues arising there I'd imagine, though I could be wrong), or do they just keep a record with the dogs' licensing info? If the latter, what about dogs that aren't licensed? I'm not being sarcastic, I really am interested in how they keep track of the info :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mutts4Me']In theory, I think it's a good thing.[/quote]

Yes, "in theory", but this is just another feel good law that won't accomplish anything but hurt the people who contribute the least to the problem.

[quote]If people have to pay $100 a year to leave their dogs unaltered, then maybe people would be willing to pay the one-time fee it'd take to spay and neuter their dogs. So if the only people who will have intact animals are the serious breeders, then the overpopulation poblem could be drastically reduced, and I don't see how that could be a bad thing at all.[/quote]

How about $2500 then? That's what's being proposed in Virginia. How many people can afford that? Commercial breeders can. They can also afford $100 per dog because they make a profit. Most breeders I know don't make a profit. They do it because they love the breed. Oh well, soon there won't be a place for them. And call me paranoid, but this is all part of the AR agenda to end all pet breeding and pet ownership. They start small and work their way up because they know that no one will accept their radical stance outright. If you follow the money trail, you can see where the proposals for these bills come from - i.e. PETA and their ilk.

[quote]Breeders should have to be licensed and inspected, and there should be a fee. It may hurt some people, but its biggest effect would be on the people who breed for fun or profit and end up adding to the number of dogs being euthanized in shelters.[/quote]

Again, the people this hurts the most are the small breeders.

If you all want to see who laws like this hurt, then join the Pet-Law group on Yahoo and read up:
[url]http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pet-law/[/url]

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]Yes, but how do they know you even have a dog? Do they check vet records[/quote]

the first time you take your dog to the vet, for a checkup, puppy shots, worming, whatever, the County requires the vet to send the rabies shot info to their office. Of course, if you never take your dog to the vet they have no way of knowing, unless the dog escapes or encounters the police or animal control for whatever reason. Then if it's not vaccinated you're in pretty deep. Here, a rabies tag is REQUIRED to be displayed on a dogs collar. dogs caught outside without one can be (and have been) shot by the police if they could not be rounded up. There is a lot of rabies capable wildlife here...coyotes, foxes, raccoons, skunks....and many forested areas for them to live and hide in. The County then keeps track of the vaccinations and sends notices out if you dont have them re-vaccinated within a year or two years time, depending ont he kind of vaccination you got. Most people get the shots regularly, there are of course some who do not, but they are the minority. The fine for not getting it done is high, and you stand a chance of losing the pet completely. The County WILL take the pet away if you do not comply. While they strongly encourage name tags, they REQUIRE the rabies tag, and a dog without a collar that cant be caught will be shot. it seems very harsh to some, but I am in complete
agreement with them. A child or adult bitten by a rabid animal has to go through an agonizing series of multiple injections, which are not guranteed
to stop the disease. If your dog is rabid, and bites someone because you did not vaccinate, you are looking at jail time. While neutering is not considered a public menace problem, the steps are already in place here to track it and make people comply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the people who thought of this had a great thing oging... in their head but it just seems impossible to enforce I agree. BUT the law should definately be passed!

[quote]responsible breeders![/quote]

What is a "responsible" breeder? I think there is no such thing. Breeding in general is irresponsible because you are causing the death of animals all over!!! It may not seem like it but you are contributing to the death of dogs and puppies in shelters. There are so many examples I can think of that people have gotten a dog or a puppy then they see purebred puppies for sale and they want them! :evil: It makes me so angry because they think that purebreds are better than a rescue/shelter dog. And what is the point of breeding anyway its like saying oh my dogs right now arent good enough Im gonna have to keep breeding until I get the "perfect" dog!

Im sorry but the whole topic gets me so mad to know that just because people are adding more dogs to the population others have to suffer for it! :cry: Why should they have to pay the consequences of our actions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]What is a "responsible" breeder? I think there is no such thing. Breeding in general is irresponsible because you are causing the death of animals all over!!! [/quote]

I tend to agree but you have to be realistic. Some people want a purebred dog for a number of reasons. If that's what they want, then that's what they are going to get. There are people out there who are breeding and doing it as responsibly as it can be done. Those are the people that the laws should be protecting. The BYB, puppy mills and people who are just too lazy to spay and neuter are probably the hardest to shut down and these are the people who are really contributing to the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mutts4Me

[quote name='__crazy_canine__']What is a "responsible" breeder? I think there is no such thing. Breeding in general is irresponsible because you are causing the death of animals all over!!! It may not seem like it but you are contributing to the death of dogs and puppies in shelters. There are so many examples I can think of that people have gotten a dog or a puppy then they see purebred puppies for sale and they want them! :evil: It makes me so angry because they think that purebreds are better than a rescue/shelter dog. [/quote]

If you're interested in what makes a responsible breeder, in the opinion of the members of this forum, there are a few topics in the "Breeding" forum that address this issue.

I understand where you're coming from, but realize that there are people on this forum who show and otherwise compete their purebred dogs, and some of them also breed their dogs and/or get their dogs from a breeder. These are responsible dog owners and breeders, and blanket statements like the one you made are probably insulting to them.

I love mutts and will most likely always get my dogs from a shelter, but I have no issue with purebred dogs. Nor do I have a problem with responsible breeders who have a program intended for the betterment of the breed and who carefully screen potential buyers.

Purebreds are NOT better than mutts, but mutts - as much as I love them - are not better than purebreds, either. Each breed has certain characteristics that make it unique from other breeds, and people are drawn to those different characteristics, so they want a specific kind of dog, and that is their right.

All breeders are not bad. It's the BYBs and commercial breeders (puppy mills) who are the big problems in sending animals to the shelters, as well as irresponsible pet owners who don't get their animals fixed and let them breed whenever, with whatever. That's why I support higher fees for unaltered animals. There are just too many animals dying all the time because people can't make the effort to schedule a simple procedure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sry I didnt mean to sound so ... well, rude when I said that :oops: I guess I got worked up. Bad topic for me because I try to defend things too boldly.

I understand breeders like the ones here mean well but I just dont agree with breeding thats all. Im not trying to insult people individually Im just expressing my opinion and thats that I think breeding is something that should not be overdone as some people do. And I do think BYB and puppy mills etc are FAR worse than people who show dogs. There is a BIG difference between the two and I would never, ever compare professionals to those scumbags. Anyway, the law sounds like a good idea but just like every law that already exists its going to be broken. I mean, I think people who show their dogs should be allowed to take a test to get a permit them wouldnt have to pay those expenses, only other people doing it for profit and such. I understand perfectly that people showing their dogs are going to protest this but please understand its in the best interest for the dogs, as I see it. you dont have to agree and Im sure most of you wont but if this works out, I think it will decrease the population and less will be euthanized.

Again sry to anyone I offended, Im overlyexpressive of my views on things :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous

[quote name='Mutts4Me']These are responsible dog owners and breeders, and blanket statements like the one you made are probably insulting to them.
[/quote]

Yes, I am insulted. How am I (and I don't even breed) responsible for all the stupid people who buy a dog on impulse from a petstore or byb and then dump it at the shelter a month later? How am I responsible for all the rediculous "poo/doodle dog" byb's and people who think it would be neat to have puppies? Gimme a break. The breeder I bought my dog from knows where all of her puppies are and she takes them back if there is ever a problem. She's not taking up homes for shelter dogs because someone who goes through all the trouble to get one of her dogs wasn't going to get one from the pound in the first place. Some people know what they want and like to have a choice. Go figure.
Honestly, lately this board has been so anti-purebred that I don't even know why I bother coming here anymore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Anonymous'][quote name='Mutts4Me']These are responsible dog owners and breeders, and blanket statements like the one you made are probably insulting to them.
[/quote]

Yes, I am insulted. How am I (and I don't even breed) responsible for all the stupid people who buy a dog on impulse from a petstore or byb and then dump it at the shelter a month later? How am I responsible for all the rediculous "poo/doodle dog" byb's and people who think it would be neat to have puppies? Gimme a break. The breeder I bought my dog from knows where all of her puppies are and she takes them back if there is ever a problem. She's not taking up homes for shelter dogs because someone who goes through all the trouble to get one of her dogs wasn't going to get one from the pound in the first place. Some people know what they want and like to have a choice. Go figure.
Honestly, lately this board has been so anti-purebred that I don't even know why I bother coming here anymore.[/quote]

Kiger,

VERY well put. I agree 2000%.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kiger Wrote:
[quote]Some people know what they want and like to have a choice[/quote]

I've always thought of it the other way around. It seems like people buying purebreds have less of a choice to me. If you want a purebred Lab or Chihuahua, or other breed, they are pretty much going to look very similar to other dogs of the same breed. And if bred right, their temperment should have similar characteristics also (that's not to say their personalities are the same though). Mutts are all very different. It's almost impossible to go to a shelter and find two that look and act alike. I think that's where the choice part comes in. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='kendalyn']Mutts are all very different. It's almost impossible to go to a shelter and find two that look and act alike. I think that's where the choice part comes in. :)[/quote]

Yes, exactly. You don't know what you are getting. I know what I want, and some people would like to take that choice away.
Anyway, I'm going to remove myself from this board for awhile because my views are obviously not in tune with the current crop of members. This board used to be full of helpful people including hobby breeders. I rarely see them anymore, and now I know why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Announcements

×
×
  • Create New...