The Barr Code

By Eric

February 29, 2008 7:45 AM | Link to this

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, Mr. Barr. This is very disturbing to say the least. I hope the citizens of L.A. will refuse to comply to yet another round of “Big Brother.” The computer chip, in particular, has a foreboding chill for humanity. How will long will it be until humans are required to have such implants?

By Sally

February 29, 2008 8:10 AM | Link to this

Thank you for speaking out against this. It is encouraging that people are speaking out. Ironically, laws like this will make it impossible for decent people to breed dogs as only the few owners of dogs who are in shows and large “puppy mills” will be able to afford lawyers to get around the restrictions. As for the future application to humans, scary indeed.

By Copyleft

February 29, 2008 8:10 AM | Link to this

Here’s where you and I part company, Bob. When the welfare of other living beings is involved, and where “freedom” means freedom to harm and kill those others, that’s where I draw the line. Last year, LA had to euthanize over 15,000 animals. That has to stop.

Pet ownership is not a right, it’s a responsibility. Just as I’d approve of Child Services taking custody away from an abusive parent, I’m all for government stepping in to correct irresponsible pet owners. And in this case, the correction is extremely mild.

By Sally

February 29, 2008 8:11 AM | Link to this

Thank you for speaking out against this. It is encouraging that people are speaking out. Ironically, laws like this will make it impossible for decent people to breed dogs as only the few owners of dogs who are in shows and large “puppy mills” will be able to afford lawyers to get around the restrictions. Since it will be “puppy mill” owners and not humane breeders who will be allowed to evade the law it will likely have a terrible effect. As for the future application to humans, scary indeed.

By GaLiberal

February 29, 2008 8:14 AM | Link to this

It’s about time government stopped irresponsible pet owners from allowing their pets to breed uncontrolled. There are too many abandoned dogs and cats in shelters and roaming in packs. It’s the sign of a sick society that doesn’t protect those that can’t protect themselves. Pet owners should be allowed to pay for a breeding license otherwise the pet must be sterilized.

It’s also a public safety and health issue. Stray dogs and cats carry diseases like rabies and can attack small children. Dogs that pack hunt can attack adults. Not to mention the cost to taxpayers for animal control having to capture, feed, destroy, and dispose all these unwanted animals.

Georgia will never be this progressive. Not as long as Bob ‘Impeachment’ Barr, the Rethuglicons, and their redneck, regressive, tooth-sucking shills run the state. Too bad we don’t pass a law forbidding them from reproducing and significantly raise the intellect of the population.

When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And bashing how other cities protect their residents is living proof.

And so is BIB.

By Responsible pet owner

February 29, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this

LA is to be commended for taking an important step to reduce the pain and suffering from abuse and abandonment that is the direct result of pet overpopulation. It is hoped that the animal welfare organizations as well as the local law enforecemnt agencies are offering free or subsidized spay/neuter coupons to pet owners so that this ordinance can be humanely administered.

By Filster

February 29, 2008 8:24 AM | Link to this

While I’m onboard with the irresponsible pet owners reason, I think this program out to be extended to the residents of LA as well. If all of them were forced sterilized, why, we might be able to get that insane asylum straightened out in a single generation.

By BB

February 29, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this

Should we commend L.A. for passing this legislation and exempting “professional breeders”? As I read the legislation, puppy mills can continue to churn out new puppies under horrible conditions subjecting the animal to disease, poor living conditions, etc … yet, who I would call, recreational breeders, who on average are your loving, caring breeders of animals are shut down. As always, watch the money. Nice job puppy mill industry, you have decreased the supply of disease free, pure bred dogs in LA. You are now free to raise your prices of disease ridden animals. Congratulations!

By Jack

February 29, 2008 8:31 AM | Link to this

I think they should have the residents of L.A. sterilized. Just a thought…

By BlueMoon

February 29, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this

Wow, I can’t believe you people are so willing to give more and more rights away to the government. Why move to China when you can have communism right here in the good ole USA?

Are there bad owners out there? Of course there are, but hey, let’s just take away everyones rights because of the bad of a few. It makes no sense whatsoever.

By Concerned Pet Owner

February 29, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this

With the number of animals that must be euthanized increasing each year something must be done. Most people do not need to breed their dog. They can get a wonderful pet from a local animal shelter, specific breed rescue or purchase from a reputable breeder. The law should have the option to purchase a waiver or breeding license if you wish to breed your dog but it should come with the caveat that you will be responsible for all of the puppies and they will be neutered or spayed before sale. If everyone was a responsible pet owner we wouldn’t need these laws but until that happens we need reasonable laws so that the majority of people who are responsible don’t have to, as usual, foot the bill for those that aren’t.

By Ron

February 29, 2008 8:38 AM | Link to this

It’s always under the guise of my safety,isn’t it?For your safety,sir,we need to monitor all phone calls and emails that you’re sending to, or receiving from, foreign countries.For your safety sir,we need to enter your home unannounced and search for contraband and weapons.For your safety,you must wear this seal belt.For your safety you must eat only prescribed foods.For your safety,sir ,we must euthanize you so you won’t be a danger to yourself.

By jm

February 29, 2008 8:39 AM | Link to this

Well, Mr. Barr has pointed out one of the fallacies of trying to legislate behavior, often the chaff is mixed in with the wheat. As with guns (an area near and dear to Mr. Barr’s heart) pet care (I dislike using the term ownership when referring to living things) is a responsibility. One size fits all laws (such as this) tend to punish the responsible ones while doing little or nothing to the others.

By Jen

February 29, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this

I think this is a wonderful law. I have been saying for years that a law like this was needed across the United States. Once people see the number of animals deaths decline from unwanted and neglected pets out there I hope to see EVERY state adopt this law!!

Jen

By Reese

February 29, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this

Unfortunatley, Los Angeles is not the first to consider this. AS of January North Las Vegas, NV has already passed the law. I think instead of spending money on passing laws like this we need to spend more money on pet education. This is an example of why we ne to be more cognizant of who we vote for.

By Dana

February 29, 2008 8:51 AM | Link to this

While I understand the many issues of unwanted animals that are destroyed each year , I am very concerned about this legislation

The average show dog does not enter the ring until 6-9 months and even then it is only fun low stress activities. 4 months of age is where the bar is set in this bill and is unrealistic. The burden of proof and responsibility for not being able to medically exempt animals falls to the veterinarian and may small dog owners have concerns about anesthesia and allowing the growth plated to develop at one year. Veterinarians are then put in an unrealistic position between the government and the owner

Puppy mill breeders will continue under this legislation and filing under professional breeder status and long term this will not solve the problems

By kitty daddy

February 29, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this

Dear Mr. Barr,

It sounds like a good idea to me. How long before Georgia, or at least the metro counties, smarten up and pass similar legislation? After reading your column, I was so taken with the idea that I sent an email to my County Commissioner asking him to consider introducing this intelligent plan to the Board of Commissioners. Thank you for suggesting such a sound way of dealing with excess feral cats.

By gttim

February 29, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this

Considering that the greater metro Atlanta area euthanizes 100,000+ dogs and cats a year, I feel this would be a great idea here. Allow pure bred breeders to be licensed to breed and stop everybody else. You can still own pets, just not irresponsibly breed them. I think marking them with a RFD chip to verify they have been fixed is a good idea as well.

Funny, when Vick was getting convicted all the wingnuts and libertarians were going on about how “they were just dogs.” Now that a city wants to put RFD chips in them, they suddenly have rights? You already have to license dogs. So now you have to fix and chip them. Big deal! I would be more worried about telecom immunity and net neutrality than this non-issue. This seems like you are just dragging up BS to avoid talking about important stuff.

By Bosch

February 29, 2008 8:56 AM | Link to this

Well, Bob Barker will certainly be proud.

One question - how are they going to enforce this law? Creating laws such as this is simply ridiculous.

Some thoughts:

At what point does a person “own” a pet? I’ve fed stray animals before, does that mean I own them?

Do we all seriously think the police in LA are going to stop people in the streets and see if their pets’ balls have been snipped off, or take in a female dog/cat to see if she’s been spayed?

Is it just dogs and cats? What about birds, fish, ferrets, tarantulas, snakes, goats, horses, cows, pigs, rabbits, ducks?

This is really weird.

Surely, these kinds of questions are addressed in such a law.

While I commend the city for their desire to reduce an overpopulation of animals, because it is a really heartbreaking problem, this seems like a really stupid way of going about it.

By Claire

February 29, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this

Once again, a useless law that can’t be enforced. The guy who pays $$$ for dogs for specific breeding purposes isn’t the problem. The 1000’s of unwanted dogs being euthanized come from people who don’t vet their pets, without vet checks, you have no record of who owns a dog. They get a dog, let it wander & get pregnant, then dump the pups. How this law going to prevent that? Why is there no common sense in government?

By Conservative Guy

February 29, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this

Note to GaLiberal: please progress your way out of Georgia as soon as possible. If you really want the government to control every aspect of your life, then by all means, move to California. The so-called ‘Progressives’ make quick, knee-jerk reactions to everything, always fueled by emotion instead of common sense. I’m sure there is a better (and more humane) solution to curb pet populations in L.A., but the ‘Progressives’ are intellectually lazy. They don’t want to put much thought into the process. ‘Progressives’ like GaLiberal have no sense of history. If you want the government to think for you, I suggest that you try living in China or Mynamar for a few years. Perhaps then, and only then, would you come to appreciate our republican democracy (look it up, I’m sure you are confused at this point). Freedom is a privilege…I just can’t understand why GaLiberal and her friends never appreciate this gift.

By Jim Osterman

February 29, 2008 9:00 AM | Link to this

I don’t the government telling me what I have to do with my dogs (both fixed, by the way), however, can someone offer a solution to the number of wanted dogs and cats in the world?

And by solution I don’t factor in the number of animals put down weekly because animal shelters are out of space.

If we agree we don’t want government telling us what to do, how do we deal with this?

By Nikki

February 29, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this

The problem is that people are poor stewards of the animals they claim to wish to care for, and when they allow those animals to breed unchecked, the rest of us get the fun of stray cats and dogs digging in our yards, through our garbage, harassing our properly careed for pets.

Stray animals form colonies and spread disease amongst themselves, much, much more so than packs of wolves or wild dogs would do in a natural setting. Stray animals are a public health concern and a cost to the public in maintaining shelters and euthanizing unwanted pets. At least LA is making an effort to stop the problem at its core - unaltered pets - rather than just dealing with the symptoms.

By Larry

February 29, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this

A better ideai would be to sterilize most of the hollywood tracs so that so many new babies aren’t in a two parent family by age 5!

Plus, if we could sterilize a certain race, we could use the money incarcerating these animals to feed and shelter the chidren born into circumstances beyond their control.

By The O-Gee

February 29, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

bouncing bob ex-representative, the irony of this meddling is almost too much. you’re whinning about a pretty reasonable law that should help reel-in negligent pet owners saying that it is “big brother”-like, while at the same time your chronies are passing laws or ignoring basic right to privacy to spy on americans. you’re too silly, old man.

something should be done to control the morons who can’t take care of their pets. pet ownership is a responsiblity - not a right.

By Meezy

February 29, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

Can the California government get the Michael Vick treatment for cruelty to animals? It’s gotta be cruel … taking each animals malehood or femininity. Actually, its prejudice towards animals. Where’s PETA and the rest of the activists?

By GB

February 29, 2008 9:09 AM | Link to this

What amazes me is citizens wants the government to take care of them with benefits, security, etc… . they actually expect more and more government… . but, WAIT… they get upset when something like this becomes law! I say either put up (without the governments help on everything …) or shut up!!!

By Jim

February 29, 2008 9:10 AM | Link to this

Anyone who does not agree should go in to the animal shelters to watch poor innocent homeless animals being put to death because they do not have homes or owners who love them to take care of them !!!!!

By Eric1

February 29, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

This is a great idea. The federal government should enact such a law to protect pets from irresponsible owners nationwide.

By Brian, Decatur, GA

February 29, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this

If pet owners were all responsible in their owning of pets I would agree that people should not be coerced to sterilize their pets, however, there are many people who do not act responsibly where their pets are concerned. They allow them to run free, do not ensure that they receive regular vet care and allow them to breed indiscriminately. Irresponsible pet ownership leads to stray animals that can spread disease and can also harm people and children who may get attacked by a stray cat or dog. The public health ramifications and the cruelty that stray animals may be subjected to justify action being taken by government to prevent disease and other problems resulting from strays. Despite Mr. Barr’s repetition of the Republican mantra of less government being desirable this is one area where I would have to disagree. When the actions of irresponsible people put the populace at risk, it is the job of government to address the problem. This law alone is not the solution but it is a good start. The law should be coupled with a public education about the problems of stray pets and about responsible pet ownership.

By Brian, Decatur, GA

February 29, 2008 9:12 AM | Link to this

If pet owners were all responsible in their owning of pets I would agree that people should not be coerced to sterilize their pets, however, there are many people who do not act responsibly where their pets are concerned. They allow them to run free, do not ensure that they receive regular vet care and allow them to breed indiscriminately. Irresponsible pet ownership leads to stray animals that can spread disease and can also harm people and children who may get attacked by a stray cat or dog. The public health ramifications and the cruelty that stray animals may be subjected to justify action being taken by government to prevent disease and other problems resulting from strays. Despite Mr. Barr’s repetition of the Republican mantra of less government being desirable this is one area where I would have to disagree. When the actions of irresponsible people put the populace at risk, it is the job of government to address the problem. This law alone is not the solution but it is a good start. The law should be coupled with a public education about the problems of stray pets and about responsible pet ownership.

By Kim

February 29, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

If petowners were more responsible to begin with, there would be no need for such a law. When will people start taking responsibility for themselves and their pets. Don’t people get it…we would have less government involvement if only we would make rational, educated decisions for ourselves.

By No more government

February 29, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

GaLiberal - please find a new word…Rethuglicon is getting old, redundant and boring. No matter what the issue it’s always the Repubs fault in your world. Get a grip. Democraps are not any better.

As for the issue, I do not want more government BS running my life. As a responsible pet owner my animals have been neutered or spayed. I didn’t need the policy police telling what I need to do. I do believe if our government wants to control pet overpopulation, they could start with these God awful puppy mills - shut them down for starters.

If you adopt a pet from the rescue centers or the humane society, it should be mandatory that they be fixed. If your animal is running loose and is picked up by animal control and it’s not already fixed, it should be a mandatory requirement, otherwise you lose the animal, it’s put up for adoption.

Responsible pet owners are not the problem, it’s the irresponsible ones that let their dogs or cats breed out of control or abandon them to roam neighborhoods and city streets in search of food. They’re not going to pay any attention to this law anyway and I seriously doubt that the LAPD has enough time or officers to enforce this ridiculous law. I sure hope GA doesn’t get any stupid ideas like this!!

By Vanessa

February 29, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this

How can anyone possibly think this is a bad thing? The last thing this country needs is more unwanted animals. If you disagree, go spend a day volunteering at Animal Control. Sure, there are responsible people out there who should be allowed to decide for themselves whether their pet breeds or not, but most people are NOT responsible. That’s why we have laws. If people were responsible enough to make their own decisions, we wouldn’t need seatbelt laws, helmet laws, speed limits, truancy laws, or a minimum drinking age.

GEORGIA NEEDS THE SAME LAW!! In 2005, metro Atlanta shelters killed over 80,000 animals. On average, it costs about $17 to euthanize an animal. That’s over $1.3 million dollars that the local governments could spend on something else, if we had the same law. Sure, some animals would still end up at Animal Control, but not nearly as many.

And again, if you don’t believe me, spend some time at Animal Control. Dekalb County is a great example.

By Karen

February 29, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this

Amen to this! Thank God someone is finally looking out for the animals, the innocent. Obviously the majority of people aren’t responisble and treat animals as disposable. It would be awesome if they made this law apply to humans next.

By ghostwriter

February 29, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this

Where can I buy a python and volunteer to set it free in LA?

By No more government

February 29, 2008 9:18 AM | Link to this

GaLiberal - please find a new word…Rethuglicon is getting old, redundant and boring. No matter what the issue it’s always the Repubs fault in your world. Get a grip. Democraps are not any better.

As for the issue, I do not want more government BS running my life. As a responsible pet owner my animals have been neutered or spayed. I didn’t need the policy police telling what I need to do. I do believe if our government wants to control pet overpopulation, they could start with these God awful puppy mills - shut them down for starters.

If you adopt a pet from the rescue centers or the humane society, it should be mandatory that they be fixed. If your animal is running loose and is picked up by animal control and it’s not already fixed, it should be a mandatory requirement, otherwise you lose the animal, it’s put up for adoption.

Responsible pet owners are not the problem, it’s the irresponsible ones that let their dogs or cats breed out of control or abandon them to roam neighborhoods and city streets in search of food. They’re not going to pay any attention to this law anyway and I seriously doubt that the LAPD has enough time or officers to enforce this ridiculous law. I sure hope GA doesn’t get any stupid ideas like this!!

By Dusty

February 29, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this

My feral cat “Kitty” just came by and said he was totally against this. He suggested, as Jack did, that human population control should come first. People cause more trouble than cats. (He did say that this policy is OK for dogs. He also called “Kitty Daddy” a homebound fleabag!)

By the finger

February 29, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

By Conservative Guy February 29, 2008 9:00 AM Freedom is a privilege…I just can’t understand why GaLiberal and her friends never appreciate this gift.

actually it’s a right - an inalienable right, dumbass haven’t you read the constitution?

By GeezGuys

February 29, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

Whining like this is what gives Libertarians a bad name. Stray animals are a health problem, they can carry rabies and other diseases. And I guess Mr. Barr missed the news stories about packs of wild dogs running loose around Atlanta.

It takes taxpayer dollars to run animal control, so suck it up and live with it, people. Get a pet from your local shelter. And if you’re one of the idiots who pay hundreds of dollars for purebred animals, spend that money elsewhere.

By Troglodyke

February 29, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this

If we agree we don’t want government telling us what to do, how do we deal with this?

So true. I work in animal welfare, and I see so much life destroyed because of irresponsible people. Animals are disposable to them. They need to be educated, because it’s impossible to legislate them to do what’s right. This law is overzealous and unenforceable.

Personally, I don’t want the only people who are allowed to breed to be breeders or puppy millers. I like mutts.

The very people who need to be punished under this law will go free, and responsible people will be punished.

Meanwhile, our civil rights are being chipped away.

It’s a difficult issue, and I don’t know the best way to solve it. But I don’t believe draconian means will work.

All my animals are sterilized, and I strongly encourage most everyone I meet to have the procedure done. But making it mandatory for everyone opens up a door that will be hard to close.

Organizations like HSUS and PETA are NOT out for our best interests, people. They are trying to limit our rights. Be very, very careful who you support!

Spay and neuter alone will NOT solve the problem of unwanted animals.

By Vanessa

February 29, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

BOSCH—

In Georgia, if you feed an animal, you are considered the owner of that animal. If you feed strays, they are considered your cats and you are legally responsible for them. So, I guess if we had a law like this, those of us who feed ferals would be obligated to have them fixed.

For anyone who does feed ferals and hasn’t had them fixed, please check out www.atlantapets.org and their clinic. They will fix ferals for $15 and the rabies is $5. They also do pets for cheap too! Dogs and cats. There is no good reason for anyone not to fix their pets.

By Shari

February 29, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this

Kudos to LA! I am in favor of the idea. There are too many pet owners who let their pets have offspring and end up dumping them at shelters because they cannot find homes for them. And then there are the greedy, irresponsible back-yard breeders who only do it for the money. They do not care about the health or temperament of the offspring. It is appaling how many companion animals are killed in shelters…thousands and thousands each day because of our greed. No, it’s not a human life as some would argue but still a life destroyed for no other reason than our self-serving reasons. I would love to see other Cities follow suit.

By Shari

February 29, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this

Kudos to LA! I am in favor of the idea. There are too many pet owners who let their pets have offspring and end up dumping them at shelters because they cannot find homes for them. And then there are the greedy, irresponsible back-yard breeders who only do it for the money. They do not care about the health or temperament of the offspring. It is appaling how many companion animals are killed in shelters…thousands and thousands each day because of our greed. No, it’s not a human life as some would argue but still a life destroyed for no other reason than our self-serving reasons. I would love to see other Cities follow suit.

By Katie Carson

February 29, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this

Mr. Barr, What a miserable man you must be to constantly criticize everything around you. There are no true answers in government, however it is their responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Change comes from the inside out. In the meantime, let us try to help the suffering and vulnerable (not you).

By Vanessa

February 29, 2008 9:23 AM | Link to this

**BOSCH—

In Georgia, if you feed an animal, you are considered the owner of that animal. If you feed strays, they are considered your cats and you are legally responsible for them. So, I guess if we had a law like this, those of us who feed ferals would be obligated to have them fixed.

For anyone who does feed ferals and hasn’t had them fixed, please check out Lifeline Animal Project and their clinic. They will fix ferals for $15 and the rabies is $5. They also do pets for cheap too! Dogs and cats. There is no good reason for anyone not to fix their pets. **

By ConservativeDem

February 29, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this

Hey they make good target practice. Why should the shelters be the only ones to euphanize unwanted animals. I say the humane societies have put animals on such a high plain equal to humans that no one is ready to solve the problem. Those having solutions would be ridiculed and defamed. Keep government out of my life! I am worried about the supreme court decision that may take away my 2nd Amendment rights. Hell I may have to be euphanized.

By I like it

February 29, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this

I agree humans should be next! We have a whole bunch of folks out there overbreeding, spreading disease, birthing crack babies, abandoning them and overburdening our healthcare, welfare systems and too damn lazy or useless to work! Mandatory neutering & spaying of humans should be a law….

By Vanessa

February 29, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this

I work in rescue here in Atlanta, and believe me, responsible pet owners are in the minority in this state.

L.A. is no different. Paris Hilton is the perfect example. She has more money than most, but has never fixed her dogs, and she now has 17 dogs at her house, and counting!! With this new law, she’ll now be forced to have her dogs fixed finally. And if she weren’t rich, I promise you, she wouldn’t be able to care for 17 dogs and most would end up at the pound. She is a typical irresponsible pet owner and it’s people like her that need this law.

By Mike B

February 29, 2008 9:31 AM | Link to this

So…. All of you that are either too lazy, cheap or ignorant to spay/neuter your pets are blaming Republicans for taking away your rights? Is it a right? or is it a privilege……. We need to look, really look in the mirror first.

Look at how many animals are euthanized here in Metro Atlanta every year (never mind L.A.) something like 275,000 unwanted pets.

Every year the AJC does an obligatory story on this subject, but no progress is made other than individuals and small groups dedicating themselves to animal rescue, and a few new shelters to house more animals before they are killed. Did the government do this???

Look at the money the government spends in reactionary operations to deal with your ignorance. Is this the governements fault??? that money could be spent in schools, or on fighting crime (oh I forgot… Not interested in that type of progress….Might interfere with the the dog fighting business and all the related crime that goes with it).

Yes, we are at the point where measures like these need to be taken by governement, because the lazy, the ignorant, the dog fighters, and irresponsible breeders have forced this on society. A measure this extreme enacted for a time will hopefully reduce the imediate number of euthanasia’s happening in shelters today. This would allow animal control employees to more proactively focus on dog fighting, while regularly inspecting breeding operations for licensing and living conditions. This is what they should and I am sure would rather be doing than injecting unwated stray animals with poison all day. The fines that result from these inspections could then be funneled back in to future operations to further clean up this epidemic most posting here don’t want to acknowledge. Bob Barr included.

Oh by the way, this comes from a republican animal lover……..

By Tired of it all

February 29, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

Ga Liberal do you think your obsessive posting in every single blog that “When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests.” has any effect? It only shows that you have the mentality of an 8 year old! Your use of Rethuglican is so laughable. How can anyone take you seriously when the only thing you can come up with is calling names. Please come up with something original, we are tired of hearing it.

By George V. Douglas

February 29, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this

May we STERILIZE THE CALIFORNIA POLITICIANS so they don’t reproduce?

The pet sterilization law will be a boon for the pet-cloning industry!

Significantly dropping the cost of neutering would be a much better approach than sterilizing every dog and cat. If it is affordable, more pet owners will elect the procedure.

Price the sterilization procedure so that it is equivalent to the annual vaccinations and within the financial reach of the general population.

Who or what will be sterilized next?

By rj

February 29, 2008 9:38 AM | Link to this

Californians deserve what they get. California should be an example for the rest of the country. An example of going in the wrong direction.

By Houckster

February 29, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this

Count me as one of those who thinks the LA ordinance is a commonsense measure that will save many unwanted lives that will have to be terminated and many thousands of dollars. Owning a pet is a privilege, not a right. We live in a nation of laws and I have no sympathy for those who make up “rights” and then expect government to adhere to their wishes.

Some of the comments are absolutely nonsensical. They act as if the mayor and city council of LA just got together one day and said “Let’s make this law up, that’ll be fun!”

Those who decry more government interference are not realistic. The vast majority of government intervention in our daily life is because some people and companies are irresponsible or they believe that if there’s no law prohibiting or prescribing something it must be OK. The harm they cause impacts everyone.

Bob Barr, you’ll have to get real someday.

By kennyg

February 29, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this

I certainly hope they also consider using the SAME policy on the adults that re-produce kids that go w/o (a) parent(s).

By MAD

February 29, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

Sigh, a little piece of my spirit dies every time I wade through the crap in the AJC comments section.

By smile

February 29, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this

Mike B - you made several very good points. No one wants more government in their daily life, but like you said they are way too many slackers out there that don’t do the right thing. I own three dogs and a cat….all rescue animals from just around my area. All I had fixed.

I live fairly rural area and we’re a popular dumping ground for unwanted cats and dogs. I’ve had to call animal control more than once because of abandoned and subsequently injured animals(hit by cars).

It’s heartbreaking to realize you can’t save them all. Maybe this law is a good place to start…..I just don’t see how it’s going to be enforceable….

By Thomas

February 29, 2008 9:44 AM | Link to this

Even though I favor spaying/neutering pets,I don’t agree with mandatory laws requiring it. Several years ago there was a movement similar to this here in Savannah,but it was turned down. The same people who have pets that cause problems will cause problems whether their animal is altered or not.

By Mutts

February 29, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

This is a bunch of BS. All mutts need to be neutered, they are the majority of the problem. Then you have the ghetto and white trash with fighting dogs. I have two uneutered dogs, and they have never bred but it is natural. It is not natural to remove a dog’s reproductive organs so it will be easier on us? That makes no sense. We do not do it to criminals or child molesters so why force it apon dogs that do not need it. A dog that is a mutt with no reason to be bred, and probably going to a lower income family needs to be neutered because of the probability of the owner not caring for the dog. But a normal human that takes care of a dog should not be forced to chop or spay thier animals. This will not stop breeding of animals unfortunately, animal owners will just be more careful from now on.

By Rutuger

February 29, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this

EVERY STATE SHOULD DO THIS.

Those opposing this practice have never been to an animal shelter. Think about something other than yourselves.

By nimbooda

February 29, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this

What is up with this author. It is very irresponsible to make this law appear to be so negative. Although, I am trying to understand both sides, I would support the law for my State. It’s a shame we need the government to wake up people but that is Americans for you. You need a law to wake people up. 1st, fixing your animals is healthier. 2nd it fights against the overpopulation of dogs. 3rd it helps fight against breeding for dog fighting. Jim’s right, some of these people against the law are the same people who have never volunteered at animal shelters (which I do), have never witnessed the aftermath of dog fighting, haven’t lived in states like Arkansas where you really can see the problem with overpopulation, abused, neglected dogs. I think if you want to breed, you should be heavily regulated. I live in Arkansas where we need this law because it is the “culture” here to breed “mutts” and try to sell or give the pups away at every street corner or the popular Wal-mart. It’s ridiculous. From what I have witnessed in my life, most people don’t deserve to own a dog period. Breeding for dog shows? Please. Don’t get me started. People should be ashamed of themselves for the type of breeds they have created. So many of these dogs have genetic problems because of bad breeding.

By nimbooda

February 29, 2008 9:58 AM | Link to this

I was thinking the same thing Katie Carson was thinking but then Barr is a libertarian and libertarians are for less government, so I understand why he is against the government trying to control yet another thing - our pets.

By InTownGal

February 29, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

GREAT IDEA! I volunteer w/ several animal organizations and stupid people own pets, therefore, must be told how to be responsible. There are FAR TOO MANY animals who do not have homes and ultimately euthanized. BTW, RESPONSIBLE pet owners usually spay/neuter at will.

By Rutuger

February 29, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this

“Big government…”

“intrusive ordinance…”

You right-wing nutjobs are a hoot. A disgrace and a humiliation to educated, reasonable Georgians, but a hoot nonetheless!

Someday, when GA moves out of the stone age, we might actually have the same level of foresight and intelligence as a state like California. In the meantime, you ridiculous paranoid Republicans can just keep moving farther and farther away from society… That suits the rest of us just fine!

By John

February 29, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

I have mixed feelings on this, but ultimately don’t agree with the LA ordinance. At one time I had two dogs and four cats. I had all of them neutered and/or spayed. The dogs stayed in a fence all day, never got out, but I still wanted to make sure they didn’t make or have any puppies. The cats went in and out. Those pets are gone now but I now have a new dog, a dachsund. He stays inside and when he does go outside, he is always on a leash. Why should I have to mutilate him when there is almost a zero chance that he would get away and impregnate a female dog? Neutering is not without it’s problems as well. Most neutered male dogs gain weight. For a dachsund that is almost always going to cause back problems. I agree that cities should control the pet population but this ordinance should allow more ways to exempt your pet.

By ConservativeDem

February 29, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

Oh mighty government! Lord of all! I need your loving caring message. The weekend is upon me and I do not know what to do. Please show me the light. What should I eat? How should I dress? With whom should I socialize? Should I neuter my pet? Oh mighty government and big brother to us all, only you can solve this delemma. I have no thoughts, no answers, and of course no solutions. Please help us lord government.

By I have rescues

February 29, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

It should be a privilege to have a pet. The only good Dog is a neutered or spayed one. We put too many to death now. Yes, let’s make those who own them responsible (even to include the Chip. I am a Conservative, but Animals need a voice … not to run amuck.

By No more government

February 29, 2008 10:05 AM | Link to this

nimbooda - you hit the nail on the head. I for one was opposed to the very idea and yes I have volunteered in animal rehabs which included dogs and cats as well as exotics. I am rethinking my initial reaction.

Humans can be incredibly selfish and cruel when it comes to animals….what does a gang leader need with a lion other than it being another form of tough guy bragging rights. As bizarre as that may sound it is true..right here in Atlanta.

It is unbelieveable how many animals, dogs, cats, birds, big cats, wolf hybreds, snakes, lizards, monkeys, etc. are brought home to be pets and then are turned loose, abandoned, discarded because the owner lost interest, didn’t care anymore.

By Jon

February 29, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

On the other hand can we start the forced sterilization of people instead? Are these people ProChoice? I refuse to spade my female cat or declaw her. It a personal choice and I know most people would have a probelm with that as well, but it is my choice. Ignorant human species thinks it knows what is good for the benefit of the world.

By Rutuger is a retard

February 29, 2008 10:07 AM | Link to this

“Someday, when GA moves out of the stone age, we might actually have the same level of foresight and intelligence as a state like California.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You are a freakin MORON. Do I Need to even say anything? HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHA

By Jon

February 29, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this

On the other hand can we start the forced sterilization of people instead? Are these people ProChoice? I refuse to spade my female cat or declaw her. It a personal choice and I know most people would have a probelm with that as well, but it is my choice. Ignorant human species thinks it knows what is good for the benefit of the world.

By skeeter

February 29, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

If there wasn’t a serious problem with overpopulation of pets, laws like this would never appear. Until people as a whole can be more responsible, government will continue to step in and fill the void. That’s the way it is.

By Rutuger is a retard

February 29, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

“Someday, when GA moves out of the stone age, we might actually have the same level of foresight and intelligence as a state like California.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You are a freakin MORON. Do I Need to even say anything? HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHA

By formula

February 29, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

Do some research, Mr. Barr instead of just attacking another non-Georgian city. Over 80,000 animals a year are put down in shelters in LA. It’s a problem that needs harsh measures taken. Georgia is a mess because nobody believes in taking harsh measures. They all love their liberty while society crumbles around them. We aren’t free in Atlanta, we are all living in fear or denial of that fear. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mim0EIN/is2005Feb25/ai_n10302835

By Mocamarc

February 29, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

As we know, personal choices can have public consequences. In this case, it’s out of control cat and dog populations that just cost us all in the end.

One irresponsible pet owner is one too many. And this country’s shift to an urban/suburban existence, which is barely habitable for humans, is no place for dogs.

Other than purebred pets from breeders, all dogs and cats must be neutered.

By Fight The Power

February 29, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

Neutering and Spaying is not healthier for your pet, please back those facts if you are going to use them. Those of you working in shelters, so do I and I believe that forcing the removal of reproductive organs to satisfy human needs is wrong. We need to do something different then force this apon animals, maybe go after humans, or have them track dogs that are not neutured and fine if they reproduce. The people that agree with this have no minds or thoughts and want the governement to do everything for them.

By Copyleft

February 29, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this

Looks like you’re in the wrong on this one, Mr. Barr. All the sane posters and responsible pet owners are in agreement that laws like this really ARE needed, and should be adopted here too.

In other words, there ARE some things government is good for—and protecting lives and safety is one of them.

By Mike B

February 29, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this

Houckster- Great Points. All should reflect on your post before reacting further.

Smile- Good of you to do what you can do. Sometimes these things work, sometimes they don’t. Awareness certainly helps though. If laws like these expose the ignorance around us, then rising tides lift all boats.

To all- These laws/ordinances are not written on a napkin in a bar. They are written usually with stipulations about how far they reach who they do/do not effect. Creating hysteria/hype vs. digging in and understanding how these legal instruments come to be, is unproductive.

The AJC’s operating philosiphy is to write articles that cause uneducated kneejerk reactions and blame others.

Metro Atlanta would be much better served if every one of us performed a self appraisel, and truthfully came to grips with who we are.

A part of the problem, or part of the solution.

By Dee

February 29, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this

Well it is of no surprise to me that I do not agree with you Bob! I have never really agreed with anything you say or do. This is a very IMPORTANT subject to me and the fact that Atlanta (where I live) euthenizes 90,000 dogs and cats a year due to them being homeless makes me wonder how ANYONE could have a problem with this! The only “people” I can see having issues with this are the ones who make a living from breeding animals and them selling them like they are merchandise! We have too many unlicensed and uneducated “breeders” out there who are just out to make a quick buck! The amount of pets that are being put down annually in this country is astounding and it MUST STOP! I have always thought of you as heartless Mr. Barr. Now I am sure I am right!

By Houckster

February 29, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

All I can say about BaldTexan is that he’s been off his medication too long. This guy’s elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top.

By Susan

February 29, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

We live in a society not an isolated island. We have responsibilities to other living beings. This includes animals. The thought of euthanizing animals sickens me. How much better to come up with a solution of not having these abandoned animals being created in the first place? If people are going to be so irresponsible as to let unwanted animals suffer, I believe that this law is a desirable alternative.

By SharonH

February 29, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this

Well every state can’t have the great social and cultural history that GA has. snicker

As for the law, it’s the responsible and humane thing to do. For God’s sake, are you so myopic that you can’t see the need for such a law? Do you really favor allowing animals to breed unchecked in favor of your “freedoms”? The last thing this world needs are more cats and dogs, there are plenty of them walking around hungry and mistreated, many of them being put down in shelters right now as we speak. I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word “draconian” or you would have never used it in reference to this law.

By formula

February 29, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

As is usually the case, those who disagree with Bob have some facts and arguments, and most (but not all) of those who agree with Bob come off as weird, angry, and creepy.

But that’s what Libertarians are, primarily…just angry self-centered people. They don’t care about others’ rights: they pretend to care about others’ rights under the guise of wanting to be left alone.

Bob always writes disparagingly of the area that has enacted a law of which he disapproves. Is this fair, respectful, or reasonable? I don’t like LA and wouldn’t choose to live there, but it has so many great things about it…like so many other American cities. Libertarians are anti-city at heart anyhow, because they’re anti-society.

By Mao T

February 29, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this

Forced sterilization. That’s such a great idea, we should use it on people too. The Chinese love it!

By Sylvia

February 29, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

Oh please, first animals, next people. In other parts of the world this is an idea that should be studied about force sterilization with humans. But as far as anything being forced in the US, I am totally against it.

By will

February 29, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this

The hypocracy of you liberal idiots is a trip…..according to you, were all going to be dead in a few years due to global warming. So who cares if the dogs and cats are sterilized or not?

By WRCz

February 29, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this

Have you been to Los Angeles lately? Crowded, dirty, expensive, shallow, sprawling, crime-ridden, trendy and usually on fire. Yeah, they’re definitely doing something right out there.

By Butler

February 29, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

I wish Georgia and/or Atlanta had a very similar law. Too many folks fall in love with ‘puppies’ but then when they find out there is actual work and responsibility involved they quit on the animal.

Hey…have the homeless poop’d in your yard yet?

By Concerned

February 29, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this

Most people think of the animal shelter as being full of ugly, mangy animals that can’t be adopted. Little do they know of beautiful, healthy, and adoptable animals who are destroyed there. As well as tiny kittens and puppies born long enough to experience death. Is this worth the price of so-called “right” to own animals without restrictions? What about the rights of the animals to experience a life in a healthy home life? All you have to do is see the puppies born under porch steps that never receive proper housing, or healthcare and that die of parvo and rabies and other preventable diseases to see that there needs to be more laws, not less. Unfortuately there are more animals than homes for them. And until that is no longer the case, then laws need to be there to stop these senseless deaths. Any knuckle-dragger who hasn’t evolved far enough to see that needs a reality check. They need to look beyond themselves and their paranoia long enough to see reality. Pet ownership requires responsibility and until everyone is responsible enough to provide basic health care and homes for all animals born, then we will have to make laws to force them. Like spoiled children, sometimes you have to show them what is right because they don’t have the capacity to understand.

By mark

February 29, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

Well Bob…you never cared for Humans while in office that had chronic disease and no insurance company would touch them why are you concerned with this..I love my dog way more than I can Say but 15000 animals a year in LA alone being put to death..something has to be done! You are nothing more than cold hearted snob, sorry to be so mean.May God Bless your Soul

By Katie Carson

February 29, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this

Thanks to everyone with some common sense and humanity. This is how a society is judged in the long run. Let’s not bash Republicans or Democrats. Both sides have done great work. Chip Rogers, a Georgia Republican state senator, was the creator of the anti dog-fighting legislation. Let’s work together for a better society. Humans on their own are not safe from each other..

By Attn: Mr. Conservative

February 29, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this

Mr. Conservative - I am one of those liberals and have lived here all my life!
You leave! I am southern born and bred are you from? Go back!

By Rob

February 29, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

This a great law and should be in place in every city and state in the Unites States.

By John

February 29, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

It’s illegal right now in most places to let your pet wonder wherever it wants to, but plenty of irresponsible people let their pets do this. Are these people suddenly going to be responsible enough to carry their dog or cat down to the vet and have it neutered? And are they going to pay for this? HA! Those people will just abandon their pets…they don’t care. Then LA will have even more pets to have put to death. This ordinance will won’t do what it is intended to do, it will just make things worse.

By dillard

February 29, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this

Sterilize people and let the dogs and cats take over. They can’t possibly do a worse job of taking care of things as people have.

By CS

February 29, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this

While the law may not be perfect, it is a huge step in the effort to reduce the numbers of abandoned and dumped dogs. Any of you who disagree need to work with a rescue organization for a while and you will understand. As someone pointed out earlier, there were over 15,000 animals euthanized in LA last year. Anything that helps reduce those numbers is a real plus.

And, for those of you who cry about having your civil liberties taken away - you need to think about the fact that the only reason this is necessary is because those liberties have been so badly abused over the years. This wouldn’t be necessary if people accepted responsibility for their pets. It’s the same premise as child welfare laws - it’s a shame that those are necessary too.

By John

February 29, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this

It would sure save me money on all the anti-freeze I use! Your pet, your poop, your responsibility - my yard - its dead, end of story.

By John

February 29, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this

It would sure save me money on all the anti-freeze I use! Your pet, your poop, your responsibility - my yard - its dead, end of story.

By Very Concerned

February 29, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this

It’s unfortunate that animals are considered “disposable”. FREE TO GOOD HOME ads is often how animals end up as dog fighting bait, food for snakes, and animal experimentation. If there were laws to prevent these births to start with, then these animals would not be subject to torture. Is a dog being torn apart in a dog fight worth so insignificant that you are more worried about yours rights? How about a cat being cut open for vivasection while still conscious? If none of these things is more bothersome than your pet ownership rights, then the problem isn’t really with the laws, but you incapacity for empathy.

By Joe

February 29, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

Just another example of big government in this country. If the Humane Society worried more about the unwanted animals instead of trying to stop hunting it would be much better.

By John

February 29, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this

It’s illegal right now in most places to let your pet wonder wherever it wants to, but plenty of irresponsible people let their pets do this. Are these people suddenly going to be responsible enough to carry their dog or cat down to the vet and have it neutered? And are they going to pay for this? HA! Those people will just abandon their pets…they don’t care. Then LA will have even more pets to have put to death. This ordinance will won’t do what it is intended to do, it will just make things worse.

By p

February 29, 2008 11:02 AM | Link to this

It’s unfortunate that animals are considered “disposable”. FREE TO GOOD HOME ads is often how animals end up as dog fighting bait, food for snakes, and animal experimentation. If there were laws to prevent these births to start with, then these animals would not be subject to torture. Is a dog being torn apart in a dog fight so insignificant that you are more worried about yours rights? How about a cat being cut open for vivasection while still conscious? Mr. Barr, if none of these things is more bothersome to you than your “rights”, then the problem isn’t really with the laws, but you incapacity for empathy.

By Kurt

February 29, 2008 11:03 AM |