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 | Link to this

I’ve volunteered at a local animal shelter for over 5 years. We have dog & cat owners who bring in litter after litter of puppies & kitties. They continue to let their animals get pregnant with no thought or considration to what happens to the offspring once they leave them at the shelter. I can tell you that not all of them find good homes. Most are killed…

God bless this law.

By New England Girl

February 29, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this

Kudos to LA. Something needs to be done to protect animals from irresponsible owners. Unfortunately we can’t pass out coupons for vacteomies and tubiligations for those who ride the welfare train pumping out kids.

By stephanie

February 29, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this

Thousands of unwanted cats and dogs are put down in shelters every day. Sterilize or euthanize? I’ll take sterilize.

By Jim

February 29, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

I’m seeing a general trend of folks citing the lack of owner responsibility as a reason to support the sterilization of people’s animals. This is ironic because those who accuse owners of lacking responsibility have none themselves. These people take comfort in surrendering their own capacity to make a choice to the government so they don’t have to bear the burdens of that choice. Then they have the nerve to call themselves “responsible people.” I know children that have a more graduated understanding of responsibility. What weak human beings, sons and daughters marching to the beat of daddy government’s drum because they fear conflict and want nothing to do with the possibility of having to handle the repercussions of their own bad choices. I believe that these people who lack the capacity to handle the burdens that come with choice are a curse to this country that may ultimately lead to its downfall if “responsible” Americans don’t take a stand. Noone has ever said that choices are free. The nature of choice is that there is an opportunity cost to every decision. It’s what this country is built on. Some decisions were bad, but many more were. good. This US is blessed with freedom and prosperity that no other country can rival. For you brats out there who can’t pull your britches up without the governments hand: given that you’re a threat to the country, would it not be the humane thing to do to sterilize you, as your logic contends?

By Jim

February 29, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this

I’m seeing a general trend of folks citing the lack of owner responsibility as a reason to support the sterilization of people’s animals. This is ironic because those who accuse owners of lacking responsibility have none themselves. These people take comfort in surrendering their own capacity to make a choice to the government so they don’t have to bear the burdens of that choice. Then they have the nerve to call themselves “responsible people.” I know children that have a more graduated understanding of responsibility. What weak human beings, sons and daughters marching to the beat of daddy government’s drum because they fear conflict and want nothing to do with the possibility of having to handle the repercussions of their own bad choices. I believe that these people who lack the capacity to handle the burdens that come with choice are a curse to this country that may ultimately lead to its downfall if “responsible” Americans don’t take a stand. Noone has ever said that choices are free. The nature of choice is that there is an opportunity cost to every decision. It’s what this country is built on. Some decisions were bad, but many more were. good. This US is blessed with freedom and prosperity that no other country can rival. For you brats out there who can’t pull your britches up without the governments hand: given that you’re a threat to the country, would it not be the humane thing to do to sterilize you, as your logic contends?

By Tiger the cat and my brother Jack

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

Thousands of our breed, as well as those pesky dogs, are put down every day. Sterilize or euthanize? We’ll take sterilize any day.

By Now hug this

February 29, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

Good idea. Let’s extend the practice to humans, too.

By jm

February 29, 2008 11:16 AM | Link to this

Thank heavens they’re doing this. There are too many stray animals in my neighborhood, namely cats. I wish they would institute this in Atlanta. Way to go LA!

By Chad

February 29, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

Don’t think for a second PETA isn’t the one responsible for this ridiculous law. They want ALL domesticated animals done away with and with this they are one step closer to that goal. The law punishes responsible and caring pet owners and breeders yet it lets puppy mills continue on. This law will do nothing to curb unwanted pets and strays. California is pathetic!

By Chad

February 29, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

“There are too many stray animals in my neighborhood, namely cats”

Ummm…..how exactly would this stop feral cat populations? Again, people like you are the reason ridiculous laws like this are passed.

By Shar

February 29, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

All of my dogs have come to me from either the Humane Society or the Atlanta pound, and I was required to neuter every one of them, even the 4 week old, 4 pound puppy, and provide proof of the procedure to the shelter. I was glad to do it (except for the puppy - I wanted to wait until she was a little older). Pets are wonderful, but stray and feral animals are not. They spread disease, cost a great deal of money, suffer hunger and cold, prey on other animals and frequently end up being euthanized.

There is no reason why those of us who adopt a pet from a shelter should be treated differently from those who buy a more expensive dog from a breeder. All of those pets should be loved and cared for, and none of them should add to the huge population of animals who do not receive the same treatment.

By DM

February 29, 2008 11:25 AM | Link to this

Atlanta needs this law as well. Irresonsible people let their dogs breed over and over again, filling the shelters, tax dollars being spent to kill the surrendered and homeless animals. There are countless programs available for low cost spay/neuter here, yet, no one utilizes them. There is no grounds for leaving your pet unspayed or unneutered. “Oh, she’ll be better if she has just one litter”…what?!? False. Requiring the pet to be altered, regardless of how much then spent (idiots, go to a shelter to find a dog, why spend thousands on a sickly puppy from a mill somewhere in Kentucky) will close the never ending kill cycle in this state. Breeders are nothing more than small-puppy mills.

By Deb

February 29, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this

As usual, government has gone way over their bounds once again. I thought this was America????

By DDE

February 29, 2008 11:26 AM | Link to this

I commend LA. Pet ownership should not be taken lightly. Thousands of animals die each year because of the actions of persons not willing to be responsible. Abuse & neglect is not responsible. Puppy Mills are not responsible. GA needs to take actions similar. It is so easy for those to look away about animal abuse, but it does exist. Needlessly, so many animals are killed each year. Stop puppy mills, owners who just get tired of their pet, dog fighting, people who chain their dog and never give them any attention, the list goes on…

By SanfranSICKO

February 29, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this

All of you shelter workers, I have worked in shelters for years helping out. I have two dogs both not neutered because I believe they were made that way for a reason. I am not going to punish my dog and his health for a bunch of mutts gone wild. Unfortunately dogs and cats will be put to sleep, but guess what, THERE ARE STILL STARVING CHILDREN DYING IN THE WORLD EVERY DAY. Animals are not humane, GET OVER IT!!!!!!

By SanfranSICKO

February 29, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this

All of you shelter workers, I have worked in shelters for years helping out. I have two dogs both not neutered because I believe they were made that way for a reason. I am not going to punish my dog and his health for a bunch of mutts gone wild. Unfortunately dogs and cats will be put to sleep, but guess what, THERE ARE STILL STARVING CHILDREN DYING IN THE WORLD EVERY DAY. Animals are not human, GET OVER IT!!!!!!

By CODY

February 29, 2008 11:37 AM | Link to this

Frankly…I think it’s a great idea when you think of all the dogs and cats that are living in shelters, roaming the streets, or dead on the side of the road. It breaks my heart thinking of “critters” that don’t have a place to call home. If I didn’t have a great dane at home (which I adopted), I would probably have another dog.

Too bad there can’t be the same kind of law for parents that shouldn’t reproduce…

By MUTTS GONE WILD

February 29, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

I do not want a Mutt, therefore spaying and neutering mutts are ok from shelters. But I am not going to remove my dogs reporductive organs that produce things needed for him to keep him fit, healthy and in shape for a bunch of poor mutts getting killed. I volunteer in shelters and think this should not be a law. Here is a good law, if they find your dog roaming on the street it has to be neutered, problem solved. Take the rest of the roaming animals and put them down. Harsher punishments to owners will solve the problems, not punishing pets. The rest of you need to do your research, it is a painful procedure that could lead to death, and it can have inhealthy side effects, YOU MORONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By AW

February 29, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

Bob, I dis-agree totally! It’s clear that voluntary spaying and neutering is not working. What’s to stop someone from in-breeding and opening puppy mills? Nothing. I, myself have had dogs all my life, some 40+ years and not one wasn’t spayed or neutered. I have adopted many mutts that were the result of irresponsible owners. It’s sad to see all the animals who all have feelings and nothing but love to share be put to death because they are born to an owner who has fewer brains than a rock. It’s a sad day but what else can be done? Perhaps we should spay and neuter their owners—that might stop the problem and reduce the prison population too!

By BS Aplenty

February 29, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this

Anyway we can get this law applied to the socialists?

By demwit

February 29, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

“We will, sooner rather than later, become a no-kill city and this is the greatest step in that direction,” said Councilman Tony Cardenas

Using Councilman Cardenas logic, LA should obviously take another great step and sterilize the whole city population. After all, they would sooner, rather than later, become a no-kill city!!

By M

February 29, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this

What will happen to the best dogs of all: mutts?

By M

February 29, 2008 11:49 AM | Link to this

What a nightmare world of purebred pit bulls and toy poodles. No happy, waggy-tail mutts, no family dogs, just designer accessories.

By Sara

February 29, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this

I think this is a wonderful idea. Thousands of dogs are put to sleep everyday in this country because of irresponsible dog owners. If it takes a law for people to take responsibility for their pets then so be it. It’s about time that the government is speaking up for the animals, and yes it is too bad that is has come to this. However if this is what it takes to decrease the number of dogs that are put down in animal shelters in California then so be it. Anyone who adopts a dog from rescue groups is required to spay/neuter them to prevent the needless euthanasia of more dogs. Coming from someone who fosters dogs for rescue groups and who sees how many dogs don’t get a chance to have a loving owner and a full life, but instead are sent to the pound with the rest of thei litter mates to be put to sleep because the owner of their mother refuses to spay her,I’m 100% behind the law! I firmly believe that other cities and states with similar issues should look into implementing the law as well. Spay and neuter your animals and this would not be a problem.

By Mark

February 29, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

Spaying/neutering should be mandatory at 6 months of age. Breeders get an exclusion for 1 yr. And microchipping all spayed/neutered dogs and cats is nothing short of a good idea. Another good idea is to IQ test the owners to see if they are capable of owning a pet. There are too many southern retards with their dogs chained to a tree.

By Anthony

February 29, 2008 12:04 PM | Link to this

Like another poster said go walk away a pound and see all those poor animals that are going to be put to death. GA puts over 100K animals to sleep every year because they cant be adopted out. Guess who pays for that?

By Susan

February 29, 2008 12:06 PM | Link to this

Bob, Try working with rescue groups and “no-kill” shelters. Try understanding that the purposeful death of a human or animal is immoral. Try understanding, that even though you say you are a “Bible” person, you do not have the right to kill a person, animal, or anything else. God does as He does. Spay/Neuter does not allow us the option of playing God and killing, and it forces people to understand what responsibility is.

How dare you call this “Draconian”. It’s the most practical thing you can do to prevent slow, torturous deaths of our counterparts on this earth.

By M

February 29, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

I am the owner of two neutered/spayed mutts, one from the animal shelter via Petsmart and one from the WalMart parking lot. The guy is 16 years old, alert and aware now about 30% of the time, but still continent and not in pain. The girl is young and it broke my heart to have her spayed as she found one of my son’s stuffed animals that he had as a baby and used it as a lovey, carrying it around like a puppy and trying to get it to nurse. I hope we can soon clone our pets for $10 each because MUTTS RULE!

By Bob

February 29, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

Why stop with the animals? The taxes I pay to put down those pets are small compared to the taxes I pay for “unwanted” children. People need a license to own a gun and end a life but not to create one. This seems odd. Sterilize anyone who applies for govt aid. That’s right! I said it. If you want my money, play by my rules. You can reverse the sterilization when you can pay your own way.

LA is moving the right direction, just not right enough!

By Mark

February 29, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

Great post Bob! I couldn’t agree more…

By M

February 29, 2008 12:19 PM | Link to this

And I think that the idea of pure breed designer, accessory dogs has CONTRIBUTED to the large numbers of shelter dogs. People think they are buying a disposable object.

By spayed

February 29, 2008 12:23 PM | Link to this

It’s a good thing that Noah didn’t build his ark in LaLa Land!

By Michael

February 29, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this

My county animal shelter also requires the sterilization of adopted pets, and that is fine because the person who is looking to adopt has the choice not to adopt. However, I do not agree that big bother has any right to tell law-abiding citizens how to treat their pets.

For sake of argument, lets say by the end of this decade, all 50 states pass the same sterilization law as L.A.. What would the pet population be in 2020? If only professional breeders are allowed to keep our nation populated with new dogs and cats, would the average family be able to afford to purchase a pet? Would we have a shortage of cats and dogs? Pets are a very important part of growing up. Caring for a family pet teaches our children how to be responsible for another life.

I agree that we must act to reduce the number of unwanted pets that roam the streets and are killed in our shelters, but instead of passing laws the would violate our rights, we should educate. Education can go along way compared to threats of fines and jail time.

By pinky

February 29, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

This is the best law I have seen so far. Those of you who allow your pets, especially cats, to roam the city, and engage in uncontrolled breeding have no idea the suffering you bring to animals, not to mention the tax money required to keep them until they are either adopted or euthanized. Animals that are spayed and neutered and vaccinated prevent millions of unwanted animals being born, and prevent a host of communicable diseases not only to other animals but to humans. Those of us who attempt to save and prevent further abuse by society to these animals understand the high price these animals pay (with their lives) and society pays for human irresponsibilty. Mandatory spaying/neutering and vaccinations should be a legislation priority, not just to reduce the suffering of animals, but to save tax dollars that could be spent on human needs.

By Kitty

February 29, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

I think the illegals should be sterilized! Thats more important. Then ship them home. When they solve the invader problem, then worry about pets. Ca —land of fruits & nuts

By pinky

February 29, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

This is the best law I have seen so far. Those of you who allow your pets, especially cats, to roam the city, and engage in uncontrolled breeding have no idea the suffering you bring to animals, not to mention the tax money required to keep them until they are either adopted or euthanized. Animals that are spayed and neutered and vaccinated prevent millions of unwanted animals being born, and prevent a host of communicable diseases not only to other animals but to humans. Those of us who attempt to save and prevent further abuse by society to these animals understand the high price these animals pay (with their lives) and society pays for human irresponsibilty. The discussion mentions animals who are discarded and abandoned. I would like to see people arrested and forced in community services at kill shelters and and at no-kill shelters to get a real first-hand, hands-on experience. Mandatory spaying/neutering and vaccinations should be a legislation priority, not just to reduce the suffering of animals, but to save tax dollars that could be spent on human needs.

By spayed

February 29, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this

Attn: Michael, like I said about Noah.

By ada

February 29, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this

I totally agree, and think LA has passed a great law! The homeless pet problem is terrible, and we should do whatever we can to prevent it. If that means making a law then so be it. Regardless of the law, there will still be mutts up for adoption, there is no way everyone would be a law abiding citizen, right?

By Aubrey

February 29, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this

This law is a wonderful idea. It breaks my heart every time I see a litter of pups put down at a shelter because we can’t help them. I’ve been working for a pure bred rescue for 3 years and there are countless dogs we get contacted about daily and there is so only so much we can do to help. If this prevents even 4-8 more dogs from being euthanized, all the better.

By em

February 29, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this

It’s okay for local governments to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to kill unwanted animals but considered government intrusion to pass legislation mandating pet sterliization? Where was this argument when warrantless wiretaps on American citizens was passed? It’s now wonder the Republicans lost both houses two years ago and may lose the White House in 2008!

By em

February 29, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

It’s okay for local governments to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to kill unwanted animals but considered government intrusion to pass legislation mandating pet sterliization? Where was this argument when warrantless wiretaps on American citizens was passed? It’s no wonder the Republicans lost both houses two years ago and may lose the White House in 2008!

By em

February 29, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

It’s okay for local governments to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to kill unwanted animals but considered government intrusion to pass legislation mandating pet sterliization? Where was this argument when warrantless wiretaps on American citizens was passed? It’s no wonder the Republicans lost both houses two years ago and may lose the White House in 2008!

By Troglodyke

February 29, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this

This is a bunch of BS. All mutts need to be neutered, they are the majority of the problem… 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.

HUH?

It’s not natural to remove an animals sex organs, but do it to the mutts? What are you smoking? Do you realize you refuted your own stupid argument?

Neutering and spaying are perfectly acceptable ways of stopping animals from overbreeding. We domesticated cats and dogs and have tons of other restrictions on them. They cannot properly control their breeding habits, so we—as their owners—must help them.

In a world where millions of unwanted dogs and cats die from people’s stupidity, neutering and spaying does make a difference. Get your fact straight.

It cracks me up how the ignorant types who say “neutering is unnatural” are the same ones who say “pets are not human and we shouldn’t treat them like they are.” Well, by refusing to neuter because you think the freakin dog cares about sex is treating the dog like a human.

Dogs and cats don’t care about sex the way we do. It makes no difference to them whatsoever. They tend to be calmer, more content, and easier to live with when altered. If you want to argue against neutering for other reasons, like ownership rights or health issues, then do it. But know your facts, please.

And to all of you who have unaltered pets and will not sterilize, I say: that is your right (for now). BUT—you had better never allow your dog or cat to father or birth ANY litters unless you will be completely responsible for them their entire lives.

Don’t you DARE dump a litter at the local pound. And if your male dog starts becoming aggressive, do not make excuses for it—deal with it.

If you are going to keep an intact animal, you had better be sure you are watching it every second. How will you owners of male dogs or cats GUARANTEE they’ll never father unwanted animals?

By Roy

February 29, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this

Dog really is “mans best friend”, and I’ve often thought wolf evolved into dog while domesticating humans! I’m for the government staying outa peoples way as much as possible, but I also know the need for the mass extermination of doemstic animals to come to an end. Growing up down in South Georgia I’ve witnessed many an abandoned cat or dog. For a civilized society to let this continue in this century is a throw back to midievel mentallity. remeber, pet ownership is a right, but it carrys responsiblity. Spay and neuter folks!

By Sue

February 29, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

Pet sterlization should not be made mandatory. If you adopt a pet from a rescue service, usually they are already sterlized. But mandatory, NO NO NO! What’s will CA come up with next? Mandatory sterlization for humans? This is not China.

By Michael

February 29, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

How strange that GaLiberal laments that, “It’s the sign of a sick society that doesn’t protect those that can’t protect themselves.”

Shouldn’t the government not be sticking its intrusive nose into what goes on in the privacy of the kennel?

I can’t help but wonder if GaLiberal would extend the same protection for a for actual unborn HUMANS as he/she/it wants for a dog.

You know, since they “can’t protect themselves.”

GaLiberal, by your words you are justified and by your words you are condemned.

By Sue

February 29, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

Pet sterlization should not be made mandatory. If you adopt a pet from a rescue service, usually they are already sterlized. But mandatory, NO NO NO! What’s will CA come up with next? Mandatory sterlization for humans? This is not China.

By NetBanker

February 29, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

WOW! A LOT of you folks scare the bejesus out of me by willing giving up rights to the government. You are willing to punish the numerous innocent in order to hopefully capture the guilty few. Laws or rules written purely in black and white with no grey area or leeway are never a good idea. Just look at the consequences of some of the no tolerance rules in our school systems that have resulted in children being suspended or expelled unjustly. Remember the Tweety Bird Wallet chain that resulted in the suspension of an 8 year old girl?

By AllForIt

February 29, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

If people would be responsible pet owners, this drastic measure would not have to be implemented. I’m all for it!!

By jody

February 29, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

YES!!!!! We don’t need breeders and we don’t need unwanted puppies. Then breeders should be licensed and required to report frequency of breeding. Sorry for all you people who think that animals are “property” that you can and should control, but they were not intended to be domesticated and bred to excess and then killed, tortured, neglected. some of you who think that it’s so terrible might be good pet “owners,” but the fact is, that a huge percentage of the population is NOT responsible, is breeding illegally and far too many think a dog should be a profit center (or at least pay for itself) by breeding pups that are sold indiscriminately. LA obviously has a huge problem with pet overpopulation and human ignorance. This is not a rash consideration - it’s a necessity.

By Richard Calhoun

February 29, 2008 1:21 PM | Link to this

What’s the matter Bob? Still mad that the Republican Party took away your district?

By Michelle

February 29, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

Good for LA! It is about time someone required people to do the responsible thing. Having worked in veterinary ICUs and shelters I cannot tell you how frustrating it is to see the number of animals euthanized due to the pet overpopulation problem. Also their is much greater health risk for your animal if it is not spayed/neutered. I can’t tell you how many animals I have seen come into the ER with health problems that could have been avoided had they done a routine spay/neuter when the animal was young. For instance female dogs get what is called pyometra (an infected uterus), when this happens it is life threatening if not treated and guess what the treatment is…an emergency spay. This is usually costly and I have seen many people have to euthanize as they cannot afford treatment. As with almost all of the health problems that arise (pyometra, mammary tumors, prostate cancer, etc…) from not spaying/neutering your pet the treatment is almost always to spay or neuter so in the end it is done anyway. As for people that want to breed, don’t do it! There are enough homeless animals in shelters, not to mention that contrary to what people might think animals can’t always give birth all on their own. Too many times they are rushed in, in labor with puppies/kittens stuck in the canal and need emergency C-sections and again people can’t afford it and then you lose not only the puppies/kittens but also the mother. Finally, almost all reported dog attacks are from intact male and female animals. An intact male has all of the secondary sex characteristics: urine marking, aggression, etc.. I am not saying that there aren’t exceptions but when I argue with people everyday regarding why their animal urinates all over the house and why it is aggressive towards people and other animals and all they had to do is neuter it and it would help but they won’t do it. Then these same animals end up in the shelter because of “behavioral” problems. Do the responsible thing and have your pet spayed or neutered. I don’t want to see any more euthanized. Educating people is obviously not enough when millions of animals are destroyed each year, if this is the only way to get people to do it then by all means pass the law for the whole country! People never think about all of the animals sitting in shelters or on the street when they decide to breed little “Fluffy”, people need to wake up and be responsible.

By A Brilliant Idea

February 29, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

Here’s what needs to happen: Pass a bill that states that all euthanized animals in all of the animal shelters in Georgia are sent to local chinese restaurants. Include a provision in the bill that all homeless people in Atlanta must be euthanized as well. Everybody likes sweet and sour “chicken”, it would provide a steady food supply for Georgians, and you wouldn’t have to put up with homeless people in downtown Atlanta anymore. PLUS, you’d save a ton of money on those fancy potties you’re planning to install.

By matt

February 29, 2008 1:37 PM | Link to this

This is a city who is constantly in the top 5 in homicides per year and has more gang related violence than anywhere else in the world. They have horrible traffic conditions and mounting immigration problems and THIS IS ON TOP OF THE PRIORITY LIST!!!!!! Our country, even down to the smallest local government needs a huge OVERHAUL!

By M

February 29, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

Whoa! I’m against this law but not neutering pets is NOT natural! I just wish all cute girl dogs could have one or two puppies! And if only breeding mills can breed puppies, only Paris Hilton will have dogs.

By Dog Lover

February 29, 2008 1:57 PM | Link to this

Michelle - Since you aren’t willing to tell the drawbacks to spay/neuter, let me help you with this. If any of these terms do not seem familiar to you then you DO NOT work in a Canine ICU.

Here are a few of the reasons why you do not know what you are talking about:

Drawbacks to Spaying a B***:

• Increased aggression in altered females.
• Increased occurrence of urinary calculi.
• Increased difficulty passing urinary calculi.
• Increased likelihood of vulvar pyoderma (urine scald)
• Increased likelihood of urinary incontinence.
• Increased likelihood of adverse reaction to vaccinations (27-38%).

Maybe you think Parvo is fun.

Drawbacks to Neutering a Dog:

• Increased occurrence of urinary calculi.
• Increased difficulty passing urinary calculi.
• Increased chance of urinary obstruction.
• Increased likelihood of urinary incontinence.
• Increased likelihood of adverse reaction to vaccinations (27-38%).

What would you do with an “leaking” dog?

What most of you (and the rest of the AR crowd) know is not very much.

By K

February 29, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this

The comment posted by BB said it best. This will decrease the pet supply of pure bred dogs and puppy millers will be able to jack up their prices. GA requires that any person having more than one litter a year for sale have to be licensed. The responsible breeders get their licens and go through inspections. Puppy millers go underground because they know they cannot pass inspections and they may even be evading taxes. Law abiding citizins that actually do responsible breeding will be the ones that take the hit on this while puppy millers are not affected. Puppy millers do not get on the radar by getting licensed. This law may also send responsible breeders underground and they will no longer be subject to inspections.

As far as mutts go. I love mutts, but I agree that they should be spayed/neutered because they are the most likely one to be abandoned. Think of it this way, mutts are normally free. If someone pays nothing for an animal, it is disposable. There is no monetary loss. However, if a person pays for a pure bred dog, they are more likely to take care of it because there is monetary loss. However, the spay/neuter law is not enforceable, without house to house, property to property searches for all live dogs to check for their balls or check for the spay scar. The only people that will abide by the law is the law abiding citizens. Responsible law abiding citizens are not the problem.

It would be nice to eliminate the problem of abandoned animals, but there is no real solution except for all of us to give up our rights and open our doors to the government to come in anytime to inspect our homes for dogs. We all have a right to privacy.

GA Law 4-11-15.1 is a law that makes it unlawful to abandon animals on public or private property. You know and I know that animals are abandoned everyday. Woner how many arrests GA has made in regards to this law? It is probably low. If that law is hard to enforce when it is a crime that has to be done in the open/public, how is it that the law of spaying and neutering can be enforced when that can be violated in the privacy of one’s home?

I think the law has good intentions, but it just is not feasible.

By Doris

February 29, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

There’s no bias in this report, is there? The only way to address the thousands and thousands of pets euthanized or otherwise killed as strays each year, is with a mandatory spay/neuter law. We have shown ourselves as a society to not take care of this responsibility on our own. I personally don’t support breeders, but you could always include reasonable exceptions, but not for puppy and kitten mills. It is barbaric in this country how we allow our pets to breed indiscriminately and then throw them away or abandon them to a life of suffering and/or death. They deserve a much better fate than this.

By Kiki

February 29, 2008 2:22 PM | Link to this

While I do not support the idea of micro-chipping all pets, I do support the law to spay/neuter all cats and dogs. The number of animals that we kill, or ‘euthanize’ if you prefer, every year in this country is staggering. The only way to stop this is to sterilize the animals. All of you people who are so strongly against this obviously do not care how many animals are abused, left to rot in shelters, or put to sleep on a daily basis. The good that will be done by this law far outweighs the bad in my opinion.

By i love my pets

February 29, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

I truly love my pets, and am thankful to have the freedom to enjoy and care for them. Unfortunately, there are too many irresponsible people who will not do the right thing, and so they have caused this decision to be made.

This is in the best interest of so many animals out there who can’t find a home.

By K

February 29, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

Thank you Dog Lover. You brought up some good points. I had a Lab that was spayed. She was a great inside dog until she got spayed. After she was spayed, she started urinating on herself while she was sleeping, and I mean great big puddles. What did I do with her? I had to put her outside. I kept her until she died, but she was no longer an inside dog. She was an old dog when she died. I still loved her and it was heart breaking for me to have to put her outside.

By Scott in LA

February 29, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this

Categorizing this as ‘big brother’ taking control, etc. and violating people’s rights is wrong. Do you live in LA? Thousands of animals are euthanized every year. Your type of mind set is the same type that allows some states to allow people to ride motorcycles without helmets because it’s their right. Well, it’s the taxpayer’s right not to have to pay to euthanize thousands of animals and or not to have to pay the hospital bills for the motorcyclist head injuries.

By Cindy

February 29, 2008 2:35 PM | Link to this

We have a local problem with pit bulls going through Animal Control. They are never adopted out, so if the owner claims them fine; otherwise its the Nazi gas chamber for them.

I would love to see such a law here. Who needs a pet that is not spayed or neutered?? (Probably only those who fight dogs.) Too many people are just too irresponsible with their pets. Maybe if these laws start creeping in our cities the citizens will take more care of their pets or do without. After all, most of our laws are for exceptions, not the rule (eg. laws against murder, theft, rape, etc.)

One of the trainers from the Westminster dog show was interviewed and she had two full blooded dogs; both spayed/neutered. When asked about this she said she was a trainer not a breeder and did not have the knowledge to be a breeder so there was no reason not to spay/neuter her pets. Proper breeders have the knowledge and provide the care necessary for a quality breeding program. This law could help oversight of breeders and assist to stop the puppy mills and prevent irresponsible breeding.

Yes, I agree it might be hard to enforce, but it gives law enforcement a stronger hand dealing with violators when they do catch them. It will help lower the number of unwanted and homeless animals and will probably reduce the number of abused and abandoned pets.

The animals put to death or adopted out of animal shelters and humane societies are not loved and cared for pets going in (in most cases). The only way to stop the unwanted animal population is to force owners to become responsible, because they already proved (visit your local animal control) they can’t be responsible on their own.

If nothing else, maybe this law will be a deterrent for potentially irresponsible pet owners.

By Sassy

February 29, 2008 2:43 PM | Link to this

YES! YES!!!!! YES!!!!!!!!! There are too many animals being destroyed due to lack of homes. And boo hoo for the breeder! If someone want to breed animals then enforce license requirements with annual fees and inspections to continue that license. And not a $10 annual fee, more like $10,000.

By K

February 29, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

**The comment posted by BB said it best. This will decrease the pet supply of pure bred dogs and puppy millers will be able to jack up their prices. GA requires that any person having more than one litter a year for sale have to be licensed. The responsible breeders get their license and go through inspections. Puppy millers go underground because they know they cannot pass inspections and they may even be evading taxes. Law abiding citizins that actually do responsible breeding will be the ones that take the hit on this while puppy millers are not affected. Puppy millers do not get on the radar by getting licensed. This law may also send responsible breeders underground and they will no longer be subject to inspections.

As far as mutts go. I love mutts, but I agree that they should be spayed/neutered because they are the most likely one to be abandoned. Think of it this way, mutts are normally free. If someone pays nothing for an animal, it is disposable. There is no monetary loss. However, if a person pays for a pure bred dog, they are more likely to take care of it because there is monetary loss. However, the spay/neuter law is not enforceable, without house to house, property to property searches for all live dogs to check for their balls or check for the spay scar. The only people that will abide by the law is the law abiding citizens. Responsible law abiding citizens are not the problem.

It would be nice to eliminate the problem of abandoned animals, but there is no real solution except for all of us to give up our rights and open our doors to the government to come in anytime to inspect our homes for dogs. We all have a right to privacy.

GA Law 4-11-15.1 is a law that makes it unlawful to abandon animals on public or private property. You know and I know that animals are abandoned everyday. Woner how many arrests GA has made in regards to this law? It is probably low. If that law is hard to enforce when it is a crime that has to be done in the open/public, how is it that the law of spaying and neutering can be enforced when that can be violated in the privacy of one’s home?

I think the law has good intentions, but it just is not feasible.**

By For4legs

February 29, 2008 2:55 PM | Link to this

Want to do it right?

Here’s the real way with no mandatory spay or neuter (unless you break the rules):

1) DNA profile EVERY dog when it gets its first rabies shots as well as RF chip it.

2) Use the SAME brand of RF chip.

3) Give EVERY vet a scanner - this would allow everyone to work together. Give EVERY county a scanner too.

4) When a dog comes it for any further treatment check the chip to make sure it works (so the dog can be returned if lost). This verifies that there is a DNA profile.

5) Make all of the above cheap so all the good guys are encouraged to play right.

6) Require that all breeders are licensed but make it cheap too. Require that dogs may be sold via licensed breeders in all circumstances.

7) If a new pup comes in to the vet, and the DNA profile of the pup can be matched to the parents - repeat the first steps 1,2 and 4.

8) If the pup cannot be id’ed via DNA, then heavily fine the owners until the breeders can be brought in. If the pups owners cannot produce the breeders name - alter the pup and the fine stands. If the breeder broke the rules - pull the license, fine the daylights out of them and alter the entire kennel ASAP.

The only exception to this would be if the dog is imported and then a vet statement from the breeder would allow the normal process to start.

By RF id’ing every dog the ones that are lost can be returned ASAP and by giving every vet a scanner verifying that the chip works is easy and quick.

The cost of this should be directly on those who break the rules and then it should be one strike and you’re out - forever.

Just listening to some of the auomatic spay/neuter crowd makes me think they really want to get rid of pets completely and what’s next - a mandatory vegetarian lifestyle?

By Troglodyke

February 29, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this

It’s true that spaying and neutering are not without risks. All surgeries carry risks. “Dog Lover” and those who are against spaying and neutering as a part of responsible pet ownership do have some science behind what they say.

But you have to look at the numbers. The risks are low compared to the benefits. Personally, I’ll take the remote possibility of increased urinary calculi in a male dog over humping, marking everything in sight, a tendency for aggression, and reproductive cancers later in life.

I’ll also take the remote possibility of urinary incontinence in spayed females (which seriously decreases if the surgery is done at 8 months to 1.5 years of age as opposed to younger) to having to deal with heat cycles and the possibility my dog might be impregnated in my own fenced yard when I turn my back for a second, or when we are out for a walk. The risk of pyometra and reproductive tract cancers is greater, to me, than possible urinary issues.

Most of the drawbacks of S/N that “Dog Lover” listed occur in animals spayed or neutered pediatrically. Doing the surgery when the dog is over 6 months reduces the chances of these side effects, and also greatly reduces the side effects of not spaying or neutering.

The bottom line? Talk to your vet. Spaying and neutering is sound medical advice for most dogs and cats, and it absolutely guarantees your pet will not reproduce.

Should it be mandated by government? No. But how come the folks who are so against it have no reasonable solutions to the deaths of millions of pets every year?

Start presenting reasonable solutions to the problem, and I’ll listen. Until then, I will spay and neuter my animals, period—so the law will not affect me.

By Seriously

February 29, 2008 3:21 PM | Link to this

Look at all the uproar this sad little man (Mr. Barr) has created. Just looking at all of the entries against spay/neuter tells you what a backward, redneck state we live in. There really shouldn’t be a debate at all, it should just happen because that’s what’s best for the animals. I’m embarrassed to be from Georgia. No wonder we have the reputation for being dumb, imbred rednecks with no education. *Keep showing your ignorance people, keep on blogging! *

By shelly

February 29, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

There are too many unwanted pets euthanized yearly and this is the only common sense way to lower the pet population. Also, the USDA grants licenses to those “puppy mills” and is supposed to inspect them. They are not underground at all. Those puppies are sold at flea markets and look like pure breeds. Irresponsible pet owners are usually your neighbors letting their dogs breed so “their kids can enjoy the miracle of birth.” Unless your dog is a show dog, you do not need to breed it! They are a dime a dozen.

By Cindy

February 29, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this

I have two dogs; my husband has two dogs. All four are spayed/neutered and have no ill effects. All four are “rescued” dogs. They range in weight from 32 to over 100 pounds. They are house dogs and visit their vet regularly. We have a very big bed.

I would like to know how many people who are against this law have adopted their pets from shelters and how many they have adopted.

I would also like to know how much these people have donated in time, items or cash to their local animal control/shelter.

Mostly, I would like to know how many of these people against this law have even visited their local animal control and know the conditions there and the numbers of animals destroyed a year.

And, out of curiosity I wonder how many of these people screaming against the law, if they own a dog or cat, have ever had an unwanted litter or their pet has forced it onto another pet owner (if they even are responsible enough to know).

By K

February 29, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this

Trolodyke, I wish there were reasonable solutions. There is no real “fix” for this. Every solution presented on this page requires the citizen to be responsible and law abiding and since the problem exists due to irresponsibility and law breakers, the “fix” is not to create another law that is on the books for show. That law is not enforceable and it is just a show law to grease the squeeky wheel. Mainly, it is a law to shut up the people that are out crying. That law will fix nothing. It is a waste of tax payer money to even put time into reviewing, ammending, approving, writing and publishing the law. I wonder how much money has already been spent by government on this issue. As far as stopping the humping and the marking, it does not. At least it did not for my dogs. They still mark and they still hump. They can even still breed females, but they just have nothing to produce with. Humping, most of the time, has nothing to do with being sexual. Humping is how dogs tell the others that they are the Alpha Dog and it is their territory. By the way, I have 3 dogs that have been spayed/neutered. All of these dogs were dumped. I rescued them before they were taken to a shelter. I did the responsible thing and got them spayed/neutered, but there is no way to enforce the law. I just don’t see it. As far as the people that dumped those dogs, they are really missing out on some good dogs and I hope God has a punnishment for them. Animals are God’s gift to people. Nothing is more loyal than a dog. Not a husband, wife, child, mother or father. The dog is always loyal. With all that being said, I still stand by my earlier posting that this is an absurd law and it will cause more problems that it fixes.

By JJ

February 29, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this

When I adopted my lab from Gwinnett County, I HAD to get her spayed. If not, I faced a fine. And trust me, they kept up with it.

I adopted another puppy from Hall County and she was already spayed at 2 months. She has an “S” tatoo’d on her belly showing she has been spayed…..

Both my cats are fixed too. I didn’t neuter our beta. He’s an indoor fish. (Friday laugh)..

By Just Me

February 29, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this

I’m an animal rescuer, a feral cat caregiver, and a volunteer at a shelter. Millions of homeless and abandoned animals die horribly every year because of irresponsible pet owners. And guess what, a majority of pets that wind up in shelters are purebred. Spay/neuter should be mandatory. Sterilization is better for the animal as well as for people. Sterilized animals are not prone to fighting, and fighting can lead to the spread of rabies and other animal diseases. Shelters are bulging over with animals without enough good homes. It’s time for us to take responsibility and do something about the pet overpopulation. So go ahead…put me out of business. I’d love to never have to rescue another animal, or see misery in a shelter, or trap, sterilize and care for feral cats. All of this at my own expense I might add. But juding by some of the comments here I won’t be going out of business any time soon. Sad.

By Just Me

February 29, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this

I’m an animal rescuer, a feral cat caregiver, and a volunteer at a shelter. Millions of homeless and abandoned animals die horribly every year because of irresponsible pet owners. And guess what, a majority of pets that wind up in shelters are purebred. Spay/neuter should be mandatory. Sterilization is better for the animal as well as for people. Sterilized animals are not prone to fighting, and fighting can lead to the spread of rabies and other animal diseases. Shelters are bulging over with animals without enough good homes. It’s time for us to take responsibility and do something about the pet overpopulation. So go ahead…put me out of business. I’d love to never have to rescue another animal, or see misery in a shelter, or trap, sterilize and care for feral cats. All of this at my own expense I might add. But juding by some of the comments here I won’t be going out of business any time soon. Sad.

By jct

February 29, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this

@Cindy,

I am against this law. I am not against responsibility. We can not and should not legislate everything.

I have two pets - a dog (pure bred) and a cat (from a no kill rescue shelter). Both are spayed.

I did not get my dog spayed until the vet encouraged me because my dog was having menses issues. At the time she was three and 1/3 years old. She is an inside dog. When she was in heat, we never let her outside alone. There was no need for her to be spayed. It was a personal decision between me and my vet. I did not adopt my cat until she was spayed. I wanted to make sure she was fixed because one the place where I adopted her from required it and two she was close to being the age where she would probably go into her first menses. In my experience, cats are a lot harder to keep from getting pregnant.

I give money to the no-kill shelter where I adopted my furkid.

That being said, I don’t think you should legislate behavior. What I think should be encouraged is that shelter’s, humane society, local animal control will not allow you to adopt a pet unless it has been spayed/neutered. There is no reason for this law.

I see laws like this as a way to slowly erode privacy because its intent is not mean spirited. However, that does not make this law right.

By Cindy

February 29, 2008 5:03 PM | Link to this

jct, Good for you! One of the few, I’m sure.

I still believe there is every reason for this law. Why do we have laws against theft, murder, child molestation? To protect the victim. Is that an invasion of privacy (I be the child molesters think so) The victims here are the animals and they don’t deserve the gas chamber.

Federal wiretapping of individuals in the US is an invasion of privacy; not the requirement for pets to be spayed or neutered (with exceptions). Now that should be a federal law.

How is it more of a privacy invasion than smoking laws or seatbelt laws or even abortion laws? This law in no way affects an individual’s freedom it only affects pets.

And there is darned good enforcement potential. What about the dogs left at a house when an owner moves out? What about when an abused dog is picked up and it is not spayed/neutered. I’ve heard of cases where the owner was warned and the poor animal returned to him/her. If it isn’t neutered, then a way around that is to force the owner to pay the fine before getting the animal back. I was a guest at a dog park where a guy brought in his two unneutered Neopolitan Mastiffs. I was surprised because the dog park rules didn’t allow unneutered animals. I could have had that rule enforced with a flip of my cell phone.

By GADAWG2004

February 29, 2008 5:28 PM | Link to this

I agree with Ron we are losing many choices and freedoms due to S-a-f-e-t-y. I have personally had my own dogs neutered and spayed because I did my own research and decided on my own it was the best for my dogs. The key was I decided not Big Brother. If you are a pet owner and have no plans to breed your pet then you should have them spaded and neutered. But is shouldn’t be criminal if you do not.

By GADAWG2004

February 29, 2008 5:29 PM | Link to this

I agree with Ron we are losing many choices and freedoms due to S-a-f-e-t-y. I have personally had my own dogs neutered and spayed because I did my own research and decided on my own it was the best for my dogs. The key was I decided not Big Brother. If you are a pet owner and have no plans to breed your pet then you should have them spaded and neutered. But it shouldn’t be criminal if you do not.

By Typical Georgia Redneck

March 3, 2008 8:29 AM | Link to this

Most of us rednecks treat our dogs better than our kids. And we treat our dogs like crap.

That’s what’s really sad.

End animal and human cruelty through forced sterilization of rednecks.

By Elodie

March 7, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this

There is NOTHING wrong with this. If you’ve ever been to a pound and seen all of the unneutered, unspayed animals, all of the puppies and kittens that are killed, all of the animals used as BAIT for fighting dogs…

You would understand.

This isn’t so much about personal freedom being violated as keeping more and more unwanted animals from being thrown out into the streets.

Breeding is a BIG responsibility, and just because your dog is a purebred, that doesn’t mean you need to breed it.

By Dianne Clohessy

March 9, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this

By Dianne Clohessy Dismissive, banal and blanket political jibes do not belong in the arena of informed opinion and should not pose as such. They clearly signal an intellectual laziness or incapacity to assess the pros and cons of an issue and intend only to deflect honest and open discourse.

Crying “big government” at every turn may resonate with those who really do not want to think through an issue but, for those of us who want some real discussion we see the “big government” cry as a tiresome smokescreen.

In a perfect world we would need no government at all. People would act in all cases from a place of godly spirtual enlightment. No one and nothing would suffer. Unfortunately, we are very imperfect. History has shown us that given great stretches of time over to which arrive at the conclusion of appropriate behavior toward each other and toward our stewardship of the environment, we often respond in a far less than laudable manner and ofttimes with very little sense of responsibilty at all. Were it not for laws, in many instances, there would be no understanding of the necessity to advance a position of “common good”.

As regards a recently enacted mandatory spay/neuter law in the City of Los Angeles, the intention of the law is to serve the common good on many levels. Cats and dogs are mammals that have been domesticated over thousands of years. They rely on people to protect their health, for the consistent resources of food and safety and emotional support. Without that care the majority of domesticated offspring that come into this world, are frightened, starving, sick and often seriously injured or put down. They are innocents that suffer greatly with no relief in sight.

Many pet owners, knowing full well that mating is one of the strongest biological imperatives, do not spay or neuter their animals. As a result they becoming unwilling caretakers of new lines of puppies and/or kittens that, they are ill-prepared to care for in any way. Most often those animals are abandoned or euthanized. Uncared for female and male cats pick up and transmit diseases to each other through fighting and mating - two activities that are minimized by spaying/neutering. Most people who have unspayed cats that have kittens are initially charmed by the kittens, indeed some of God’s lovliest creations. However, finding homes for them becomes a trying and often very unsuccessful task. As a result many of them are abandoned or relinquished to shelters where they are eventually euthanized.

Having animals is a commitment that lasts for years. It requires patience, love and a certain amount of resources to maintain them in good health. Having animals and not caring for them at all or caring for them inappropriately is not the right thing to do. Worrying about whether backyard breeders are no longer allowed to breed cats/dogs or worrying about whether people who just like cats/dogs will not be allowed to let them breed without restriction, does not serve the common good. Not of the animals or of people in general.

It is heartbreaking to put down animals. Perhaps opponents of Los Angeles’, mandatory spay/neuter law should go to shelters around the country and spend a little time with the animals that are scheduled for euthanization. Further, I suggest that they take a turn holding an animal their arms as it is euthanized. It will be one of the most heartbreaking experiences they ever have.

What is interesting about this law is that it is the real animal lovers who support it. Think about that. When you come back to the table for discussion please stay on point with the issue. The issue is: allowing pets to breed unrestricted is not good for the pets, for the people who love and initially think they will find homes for them for them or even for the people who do not like animals. What can and will we do about the problem.? Nothing is not the answer.