Animal Extremists' Hidden Agenda:
CALIFORNIA AGAIN PROPOSES NEW LAW FOR 2008
TO FORCE MANDATED ALTERING OF ALL PRIVATELY OWNED
DOGS AND CATS
IN THE STATE!
AB1634:
A Lesson in Insanity
Anti-pet law advocates, usually called animal rights groups, (not animal welfare)
push their veiled agenda of eliminating household pets by telling everyone
that spay and neuter or "speuter" is a cure-all.
Currently, many extremists have managed to even persuade shelter
personnel, some members of the legislature, animal rescues,
and other animal groups into believing that
assembly bill 1634 (AB1634) will actually work,
despite the repeated failures of the past, and despite all
the logical facts which indicate mandated altering laws
increase COSTS and in general, do not result in the saving of lives.
Below are basic rules that are NOT followed
BUT should be:
(1) Mandatory Dog safety training for kids, and Supervision
of all children, especially around dogs
(2) Rigid enforcement of the leash law
(3) Behavioral training for all dogs/owners
(4) Low cost/free altering in all high kill/lower economic level areas
Will Mandatory Spay and Neuter of ALL dogs
STOP Dangerous or Aggressive dogs
and
"End" euthanizing in Shelters ?
Extremists would have you believe this--
Do not Buy into it!
There is mounting opposition to AB1634,
because many opponents realize the TRUTH....
AB1634* ignores the reality of this fact---that EVERY person who would
like to obtain a dog CANNOT and will not be able to afford a SHOW dog,
or a TITLED dog, all of which are purebred dogs. Small mixed breed dogs, which likely account for the majority of the dogs that are actually desired by many dog owners who visit the POUND (84% of them want a female, small dog)--will be ILLEGAL to be bred at all, since they are mostly mixed, designer, cross bred dogs.
*AB1634 is very misleading; it is named the Healthy Pets Act, but scientific facts show that it is not the safest nor most prudent action to alter a baby animal at 4 months old.
Shelters only do it because it is mandated to try/stem the tide of recycled animals contributing to more impounds, NOT because it is safe or recommended by vets.
The people desiring such small dogs will have to turn to
outside sources for those dogs. And we all know that means what?
Of course, it will likely mean more puppymilled dogs! (Puppy mills are mostly legal commercial breeding establishments located in central and eastern USA; bad puppy mills are often featured on TV, etc. showing the terrible housing/health conditions which may exist)
And what kind of health do such dogs generally have? Bad health, bad genetics.
So AB1634 will inevitably end up forcing people into obtaining dogs which may be worse off healthwise, but cost less than the purebreds which will be allowed. (A quick look online will show anyone that dogs can be easily obtained out of state at a low cost, or in some cases, at a high cost. Buying a dog online without seeing the actual living conditions, parents of the offspring, etc. is a gamble and not recommended. Additionally, the recourse and potential problems that may crop up are made more difficult because of location/jurisdiction.)
In order to properly understand AB1634/its proponents, one should have a rudimentary knowledge of the animal rights' veiled agenda regarding animals.
The long term goal+ motivation of many national animal rights groups such as PETA and HSUS, is actually to eliminate the right to OWN an animal as a pet, since they believe that all animals are not property, but are separate beings with individual rights. (They look upon pet ownership as a form of slavery, so to speak.) Despite what these people/groups tell us, the truth is that they are basically against people "owning" animals or using* them in any way---but since this is a radical outlook which many people would not be interested in, they have to use subterfuge and other misleading efforts to convince others. [*No animals to be used for food production, no animal products to be used for anything such as leather, dairy products, manufactured items,etc.]
Extremists are joined (purposely) by rescue personnel, shelters, and vets.
Why? For credibility, of course...Groups such as PETA are known for their radical ideas and behavior, and are closely watched since they are suspected of helping extreme animal terrorist groups which engage in domestic acts of terrorism (such as arson, food poisoning,destruction of laboratories, property, spiking of trees, etc.) Despite the controversy, the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was updated in 2006 with very stringent penalties for those who engage in/cause economic losses (among other things) to any animal enterprise.
PETA'S "NO BIRTH NATION".......they say don't buy a pet. They
say all pets should come from third world countries, that people should
only get stray dogs, shelter dogs,imported dogs, dogs no one wants......they claim they are against the 'killing' of shelter animals. Yet, in 2006, PETA's records indicated that they actually killed 90% of the animals they took in. (And for several years prior to that, their kill rate has been steadily increasing from mid 70%, far higher than even the worst shelter in California.) And let's not forget, two PETA employees (there were probably more but they were not caught) went to trial on criminal charges after they dumped close to 100 dogs/cats in dumpsters (after they killed the dogs/cats) but had told the groups they obtained the animals from--that they were "going to find them homes." So when you hear that PETA, HSUS, and the followers who support AB1634.........
believe us,
IT AIN'T TO
SAVE THOSE SHELTER DOGS!!!!!!!
* PETA also ADVOCATES for BREED SPECIFIC LEGISLATION ---AND supports
outright BANS against dogs such as Pitbull dogs... Peta is also
against "no kill" shelters, so in other words, they think animals should be killed
rather than saved. A rather ODD thing for a group that claims to SAVE animals, eh?
Ingrid Newkirk, head honcho of PETA--- publicly announced that the best gift one could give
a homeless pet is--(are you ready?!)--the "gift" of EUTHANASIA !!!!
SO--as it can plainly be seen--PETA is NOT an advocate for homeless
shelter animals, despite all their support, donations, and talk about "saving"
animals.
If you donate to PETA you may want to rethink where your money is being used!!
For the People Who Think the CVMA (CA Vet Med Assoc) Supports AB1634?
After the letter below was publicly placed online and the CVMA board members had
another meeting, the CVMA pulled their support for AB1634.
Read this from Doctor John A. Hamil to the CVMA Board of Governors:
Dr. John A. Hamil,
former president of the California Veterinary Medical Association, to
the current president of the CVMA and the CVMA Board of Governors.
Dr. Hamil, a speaker at the Council's 2002 Symposium, has a small
animal practice in Laguna Beach, California.
June 1, 2007
Re: AB 1634, :CA Healthy Pets Act
Dear President Faoro and the CVMA Board of Governors,
As a past president of the California Veterinary Medical Association,
founder of the California Council of Companion Animal Advocates that
sponsored biannual Pet Overpopulation Symposia (now the Animal Care
Conference), member of the American Veterinary Medical Association
Animal Welfare Committee and the National Council on Pet Population
Study and Policy, author of the CVMA and AVMA positions on early
spay/neuter, past chairman of the Orange County Animal Shelter
Advisory Board, and recipient of the Hillâ"¢s Animal Welfare and
Humane Ethics Award as well as being selected as an AAHA Regional
Practitioner of the Year, I have devoted my professional life to
trying to understand the many factors that contribute to the
continuing problem of animal relinquishment and euthanasia. I, like
most veterinarians, believe that spay/neuter is one of the most
important parts of the solution to this national disgrace.
Unfortunately, this divisive legislation will not help and may
aggravate the situation for the following reasons:
a.. Most veterinarians are very conservative about government
incursion into their private lives and businesses. It is naive to
invite the legislature into professional decision making. If they can
tell us that we must perform a procedure then they can tell us we can
not perform a procedure.
b.. It is inappropriate to mandate a controversial and possibly life
threatening surgical procedure.
As CVMA has argued in the past, decisions of this
magnitude should be made after consultation between the owner and
their veterinarian.
c.. As has been published in our journals, not all animals benefit
from prepubertal gonadectomy before four months of age.
Growth-related problems, urinary incontinence, and behavioral problems
have all been reported in higher numbers in animals neutered at such
an early age.
a.. It seems inappropriate for a profession to legislate a procedure
that only they can provide. We all know that we lose money on
spay/neuter procedures. However, several legislators see our defense
of declawing and requirement for spay/neuter as nothing more than
protecting our "turf ",and stimulating income and several dog breeders
wondered what would keep spay/neuter prices from going up. We must
remember that perception is reality. Our public image could be
seriously damaged if there is exploitation of this unintended opportunity.
b.. The number of animals being euthanized in California shelters
has dropped steadily for more than two decades despite the continuous
population increase in families with pets. Importantly, the numbers
continue to drop faster in shelters that are in jurisdictions that do
not have mandatory spay/neuter.
c.. The majority of animals euthanized (approximately 60-70 percent
in most shelters) are unowned or unwanted, stray and feral cats. This
bill will not impact this population in any way.
d.. There are so few puppies and small dogs in many shelters that
they import them from other shelters in California, other states
and/or foreign countries.
e.. A large percentage of the dogs counted as euthanized are DOA,
old, ill, injured, or behaviorally unacceptable. The actual numbers
of these animals are unknown due to incomplete record keeping by the
sheltering community.
f.. The majority of dogs euthanized are medium to large mixed breed
individuals (many of them pit bull crosses) belonging to irresponsible
owners who are hard to identify and who will never comply with this
law and are noncompliant with many other community laws.
g.. The number of young, healthy, well socialized, adoptable animals
euthanized is much smaller than the humane and sheltering community
has claimed.
h.. The number of animals euthanized continues to decline each year
and varies greatly from area to area within the state. Why do we need
a coercive, punitive and intrusive" broad brush" state law, when this
is clearly a local issue?
i.. As it is agreed* that breeders of pure bred dogs and cats are
relatively small contributors to the shelter euthanasia numbers, why
are they being required to fund the implementation of this law with
fees (often quoted between $100 and $200 per year) to simply own an
intact animal that may never be bred? Owners of intact animals are
already paying a differential licensing fee. Why impose increased
taxation on this law abiding community?
[Note: it is not necessarily "believed" by many animal rights groups, rescues, or shelters
but it is a fact]
j.. It is elitist to only allow pure bred dogs an exemption. We all
acknowledge that many of the greatest family pets are mixed breeds.
Surely, it is not anyone's desire that we only have pure bred dogs.
k.. If passed this law will be very unfair to the economically
disadvantaged. They are, as a community, poorly educated about pet
population control, often culturally averse to neutering their pets,
have the least ability to afford this surgery, have little access to
low cost clinics in most communities and often do not have
transportation. Although this community contributes
disproportionately to the numbers of animals impounded, I don't think
there is any political will to deprive them of their pets. In order
to have the desired effect, the law would require fines, sterilization
at the owner's or the public's expense, or impoundment. No one wants
to deny these families the benefits of animal companionship. And yet,
if we fail to address this segment of society; how will this bill
reduce shelter euthanasia?
l.. If this bill is passed, it will fail to solve the euthanasia
numbers because animal relinquishment is not a problem of too many
dogs and cats but one of too few responsible owners. The steady
decrease in animals being euthanized in shelters can be accelerated
through cooperative effort among veterinarians, animal control
agencies, humane activists and dog and cat breed clubs encouraging
responsible ownership through enforcing regulations already in place,
gathering more useful information in the shelters, designing more
effective and better targeted educational materials and delivery
systems, differential licensing fees, vaccinating and licensing cats,
encouraging owners to keep cats indoors, encouraging spay/neuter of
cats allowed outside, microchipping, and providing mobile low cost
spay/neuter.
m.. Even if it was possible to "turn off the faucet", as Assemblyman
Levine likes to say; there would be little reduction in the cost of
shelter operation. As hospital owners know, most costs are fixed
(facilities, administration, trucks, equipment, etc.) The shelter
cannot even reduce staff as we can in private business.
Unfortunately, a reduction in the numbers of animals entering the
shelter will only effect a small reduction in the overall cost to the
taxpayer. This is demonstrated by the steady increase in animal
control budgets over the last two decades despite the number of
animals entering the shelters and the number of animals euthanized
decreasing significantly.
n.. The method of accounting, linking the overall cost of animal
control to the number of animals euthanized, exploited by the sponsors
of this bill is very misleading. Using this method, the cost of each
euthanasia goes up as the number of euthanized animals goes down. The
use of this tactic is dishonest, disingenuous or, at best, misinformed.
o.. Reducing the number of pet animals born in California will not
reduce the demand for puppies and kittens. This reduction,
particularly of well bred and socialized animals, will leave the
people of California vulnerable to puppy millers from California and
other states, unregulated internet sales, sellers of animals smuggled
across the border and unscrupulous brokers of animals imported from
Eastern Europe and Latin America. If these animals are poor
representatives of their breeds, poorly socialized or unhealthy-and
they usually are; many will end up in the shelter. Isn't it better to
buy animals from people you can question face to face, premises you
can inspect, and breeding stock you can see?
p.. If low cost spay/neuter in the shelters is to be part of the
solution, who will provide the service? The shelters have had
difficulty filling their veterinary positions for years. If shelters
decide, as has been suggested in San Diego, that technicians can
bridge the short fall; we will, again, have to fight the battle about
technicians being allowed to perform surgery. Do animals in the
shelter deserve a lower standard of care than those taken to private
veterinary hospitals?
q.. Although the bill allows local jurisdictions to issue an intact
animal permit for guide dogs, service dogs, signal dogs, and dogs used
in law enforcement and for rescue activities; it does not allow for
intact animal permits for those animals that are bred to produce these
dogs.
r.. An unfortunate result of mandatory spay/neuter in many
jurisdictions in California and around the nation is an initial
increase in shelter euthanasia rates and decreased licensure, as
people try to drop out of the system. This will decrease shelter
revenues and may cause fewer animals to be vaccinated against rabies,
possibly contributing to a public health problem. This is, quite
possibly, why the Peninsula Humane Society* is not a supporter of this
bill. As Hurricane Katrina and other disasters have demonstrated, it
is important to know which families have pets. We need to encourage
people to enter the system, not drive them away.
[Note: Peninsula Humane, San Mateo county, passed mandated altering in 1991.
It has been deemed an ultimate failure overall.]
s.. Requiring veterinarians, as has been suggested in San Jose, to
report the reproductive status of animals along with our rabies
vaccinations reports, will result in some owners not seeking
veterinary care for their animals. How will this serve animals or
public health we are sworn to protect?
t.. An unforeseen consequence of passage of this bill will be denial
of Maddie's Funds to any community in California. These funds, which
are available for collaborative programs to achieve no kill status,
are not available to any community with mandatory spay/neuter.
u.. CVMA has allied with AHA and HSUS, two animal rights
organizations that have attacked our profession unceasingly and who
will continue to do so. CVMA has simultaneously made opponents of the
AKC and CFA. Both organizations are made up of our clients and have,
historically, been our allies. The AKC Canine Health Foundation is the
largest donor of money exclusively for canine research, over one
million dollars each year. CFA, through the Winn Foundation, is among
the largest donors of money for research for cats. A large percentage
of this money is funding research at UC Davis.
v.. Political inconsistency is both frightening and ironic. CVMA
sued for the right of people to decide with their veterinarian about
the appropriateness of declawing their cat and now CVMA would
legislate this more dangerous and invasive surgery. The other
proponents of this bill are predominately" pro choice". Yet,
paradoxically, they would deny animal owners choice about sterilizing
their family pets and want to mandate this, possibly, life threatening
surgery as they continue their efforts to legislate against ear
cropping, tail docking, declawing, etc.
The CVMA has always been known as an organization that is science
based, thorough, deliberate and open in its decision making. In this
case the CVMA has let its membership, the people and the animals of
California down. CVMA did not seek or ignored statistics about the
problems associated with mandatory spay/neuter and seems unaware of
readily available information about the factors contributing to animal
relinquishment from sources like the National Council on Pet
Population Study and Policy.
To be successful in solving such a
multifaceted problem, it is important to bring all contributing groups
together. Instead of being the rational voice in this difficult
arena, CVMA was swayed by the emotional cry, "we have to do
something." More important, this decision was made without the input
of CVMAs membership. CVMA has always used the governors, delegates
and the California Veterinarian to poll its membership when making
decisions of this magnitude. I know of no one in my district who was
aware of your deliberations before this decision was made.
This proposal interferes with citizens' rights, fails to address the
major sources of animals entering shelters, punishes the law abiding
and the poor, reduces the availability of good quality pets, leaves
California's citizens vulnerable in their search for family pets, and
exacerbates the ill will among the groups that need to work together
to develop workable strategies to reduce the number of unwanted dogs
and cats euthanized in our shelters each year.
Ultimately, as past experience has shown, this coercive, punitive,
intrusive law will retard the progress that has been made in the past
two decades. CVMA can, and should, do better than this. Abandon this
bill and provide the leadership necessary to bring everyone
(veterinarians, humane activists, animal control agencies, dog and cat
breeders, feral cat caretakers and other knowledgeable interested
parties) together to develop effective ways to reduce the number of
unwanted dogs and cats entering our shelters.
Sincerely,
John A. Hamil, DVM
Past President, CVMA
Sacramento Bee News Editorial Slams
Mandatory Altering Proposed law
Editorial: Whither the mutt?
Bill: Only pure-breds can make babies
Published 12:00 am PST Monday, March 5, 2007
So much for California's reputation as a melting pot. A well-intentioned bill that seeks to rid the state
of too many cats and dogs, if approved and enforced, would lead to a state of only the purest-bred pets.
The elegant Lady would be welcome. The raffish Tramp would become a dog of the past.
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, is the sponsor of Assembly Bill 1634.
It would prohibit any person from owning or possessing any unaltered cat or dog
over the age of four months. A major exception is if the owner possesses an "intact permit."
Which cats and dogs qualify for such permits? Under AB 1634,
cats and dogs could legally procreate if they were registered as a purebred with a
pedigree from either the American Kennel Club, the United Kennel Club,
the American Dog Breeders Association or the International Cat Association.
This is a bone being thrown at the breeding industry, with the mongrel relegated to the black market.
The overpopulation of cats and dogs is a problem with no easy solution.
Nobody owns the tens of thousands of feral cats that, well, reproduce like animals,
so AB 1634's neutering mandate doesn't touch them.
Nor does it solve
the problems of chronically underfunded and understaffed county
animal control operations.
Important topic. Wrong approach. The right one will come at a price.
~?~What do ALL SHOW and COMPETITION DOGS~?
HAVE IN COMMON?
ANSWER:
THEY ARE ALL NOT altered ----REPEAT---NOT ALTERED!!!
This being the case, it is completely laughable
to even think, for one second,
that "altering" a dog is going to change an aggressive
dog into a safe dog!!
The HYPE---and mistaken Beliefs:
Are you guilty of these?
1) The belief that dog breeding is "bad" and that shelter dogs are "good"
2) The belief that ALL shelter populations are due to "breeders"
3) The belief that curtailing responsible breeders will "stop" shelter populations from existing
4) The belief that mandatory altering will end dog "aggression" against humans
[Recent study indicates at least 50% of the fatal attacks on humans by canines have
been traced to dogs
which were either rehomed, rescued, or obtained from shelters.]
5) The belief that mandatory altering or breed bans will end "dangerous" dogs
6) The belief that 'buying' a dog causes a 'shelter dog' to die
7) The belief that one can easily pump out "dangerous and aggressive" dogs
by breeding them using aggressive parent dogs--and that if this were to 'stop', then
there would be NO dangerous dogs in existence
8) The belief that "dangerous dogs" are born that way because of their "genes",
which is attributable to their BREED
9) The belief that "overpopulation" exists while ignoring statistics showing the numbers
of dogs, the numbers of humans, and the longevity of dogs shows otherwise
10) The belief that the dogs are always to be blamed, and not the dog's owner
11) The belief that one can make a law which makes it "illegal to breed an aggressive dog"
and actually enforce that law somehow, in the United States
12) The belief that extremist groups like Peta want to "save" domestic pets-- when in reality
they kill 90% of all pets they "take in"
As for those desiring "designer dogs" such as Yorkie-poos, Malti-poos, Puggles, Chi-poos, and any combination thereof, it is obvious that the law will preclude the breeding of such dogs, because they cannot be registered with AKC. They are not dangerous dogs we assume, but in Los Angeles one would not be able to offer these dogs for sale, and surely none of these dogs could have won a title in a dog show. In our opinion this clearly intereferes with interstate commerce on a very large scale.
Unfortunately, claiming that such a law (AB1634) will eliminate the
killing of shelter dogs/cats is an emotional ploy not backed up by facts, nor logic.
Since feral cats are not technically owned, they are not subject to the proposed
law, and feral cats make up a huge part of shelter killing in many counties.
(Animal pounds charging $65-$95 for a cat do not help cats get adopted either!)
So it is apparently cheaper to kill them, which they do.
SUMMARY OF AB1634
The proposed legislation is one of those laws that may
appear "nice" on the surface, but contains legal issues that may not be
readily apparent; it will invariably bring increased cost issues,
(even if impounds are reduced), as evidenced by
both Santa Cruz and Los Angeles city laws; it increases
both punitive actions (seizing animals/killing) and administrative burdens
(additional tickets, fining, hearings, and seeking out those not
in compliance) as well as increasing pound animals--not decreasing;
it does nothing to increase the adoption of shelter animals;
it ignores the fact that certain animals bred as 'working' dogs are not usually
registered with specific canine kennel clubs, and are not ready for assessment
until they are well past a year old;
it invites the inclination to misrepresent shelter data, since there are no
standardized rules for reporting
shelter data across the United States, and many shelters receive budget
constraints based upon the number of animals killed;
it does nothing for the problem of feral cats/does not affect
such animals nor their resulting offspring; it is invasive because it attempts
to tell veterinarians when they should alter a pet, and it tells owners
they should be forced to "give away" a litter of pups for free (June, 2007
version of AB1634) and forces owners to allow the animal control to search or
enter premises without exigent circumstances; it invites the misuse of
using the open fields doctrine involving surveillance; it is misleading because
it implies that an altered dog is automatically safer/ignores the
dog owner/social/environmental aspects impacting behavior;
it is conclusory because it assumes that such a law will provide a given
result when past facts/history dictate completely otherwise;
it is overreaching because it mandates altering
for privately owned animals in the entire state even where shelters
are not killing at a high rate; it is illogical because it does not call for
free or nearly free altering for those counties which need it most (lowest economic
level, which has higest shelter kill rate); it is poorly conceived, not based
on factual data, and the purported legitimate state interest is heavily
outweighed by the overall commercial loss which could be avoided
by simply concentrating on those economic areas where the problems exist.
|
|
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SB861 AS IT IS WRITTEN? According to online sources, the so-called pitbull rescue group "badrap" has admitted they 'co-authored' SB861 along with United Animal Nations. The mandatory altering was their idea somewhere along the way. It is in fact, legislation which is nothing but crap since it allows jurisdictions to establish breed specific legislation based solely on a cainine's breed. Although the law has not been challenged in a California state court, there is sufficient evidence to prove that SB861 would not likely be upheld if the court heard all the evidence available. | |
The animal extremists have their 'own' agenda, which is to end pet ownership. Therefore they will be against anything that allows any type of breeding of animals. They have made headway by infiltrating the animal shelters, and poisoning the minds of much of the public to believe that eliminating dogs, breeders, and pets is the ultimate answer. Even Best Friends Animal sanctuary in Utah seems to have jumped onto the bandwagon and dispersed the "Katrina" pitbull dogs to other rescues, but then spent $147,000 on importing approximately 300 dogs from Beiruit, Lebanon. Let's face it, the shelters and humane societies are attempting to operate as if they were pet stores, in Oregon, the Oregon Humane society charges $55 for a pitbull dog, and $300 for a poodle mixed mutt. Go figure. EVERY animal shelter has a duty to be knowledgeable about APBTs, and they should be a priority. Placing the dogs with good temperaments ought to be a priority. Instead, few are placed and little is done to rectify this across the nation.
City reaches deal with Petland to drop spay/neuter suitBy Jim PhillipsAthens NEWS Senior WriterThursday, October 13th, 2005   The city of Athens may be getting close to a negotiated settlement with the Petland chain of pet stores, which has challenged the city's one-year-old spay/neuter ordinance in court. ** (The city did settle and is changing the ordinance.)
The company, which has a store on East State Street in Athens, sued in Athens County Common Pleas Court in March, alleging that the new ordinance, passed in June 2004, is discriminatory and unenforceable.
Officials and attorneys from both sides have been meeting to discuss how to resolve the dispute. Lisa Eliason, an attorney with the Athens office of prosecutor and law director, said the city has submitted to Petland a proposal to amend the ordinance, and will have a meeting with a judge next month to see how the company responds to the offer.
"We're trying to negotiate a settlement with them," she confirmed. A status conference in the case is scheduled for Nov. 11.
If all goes well, Eliason said, city council will agree to amend the ordinance, and in exchange Petland will dismiss its lawsuit.
"That's exactly what we're hoping," she said.
Athens is not the only city in America by far to have a law requiring that pets be "fixed." Other communities with such laws, according to the animal rights group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, include Los Angeles, Denver, New York City and Richmond, Va. In 24 states and the District of Columbia, all animals adopted from shelters must be spayed or neutered.
Athens' ordinance mandates that any dog or cat over 6 months old be fixed before being sold or given away. Owners of younger animals must show proof that they've purchased spay or neuter services from a vet.
Eliason would not describe the content of the amendment Petland has been offered. Local attorney Gerald Mollica, who is handling the suit for the company, said likewise that he could not provide details on the proposal. He did indicate, however, the main areas of objection Petland has to the ordinance as it stands.
One objection, Mollica said, is that Petland believes the ordinance affects out-of-state suppliers and therefore violates interstate commerce laws. He said it also seems to discriminate, exempting breeders who live in the city, but not those from outside.
"The other thing that was problematical as well was the requirement that Petland either spay or neuter the animal, and have proof of it at the time of sale," the attorney added.
Petland has maintained that it should not have to meet this requirement, because it provides spay/neuter coupons that can be redeemed by pet purchasers with a veterinarian.
Critics of the store have argued that only one local vet honors these store coupons, but Mollica said Petland officials believe that may be because the vets are being pressured by Petland critics to refuse them.
Mollica said the proposed amendment addresses these areas of concern, and may further clarify the exemption from the ordinance for some animal breeders that the city currently allows.
Eliason said she has done some research on spay/neuter ordinances and litigation over them, and while she has found some other cases, has not found any law quite like the one in Athens. "This is fairly unique as far as the ordinance goes," she said. "I've seen others, but nothing identical to ours."
Since the ordinance was adopted, some animal-rights advocates have complained that it's not strict enough. Critics have cited the fact that the law doesn't apply to pets belonging to many city residents, given that it only talks about animals brought in from outside.
They have also objected to the fact that while an earlier version of the law required microchips to be implanted in all dogs and cats sold in Athens to keep track of them electronically, that language was removed before the ordinance was adopted.
In June, staffers at the Athens County Humane Society cat shelter held a public demonstration, to protest what they called inadequate enforcement of the ordinance.
In a city activity report in March, the animal control division of the Athens Police Department noted that owing to the Petland lawsuit, "enforcement is on hold for the section (of the spay/neuter ordinance) holding Petland criminally liable for purchasers not having cats or dogs spayed/neutered."
|
|
