Millions of Americans don't have health insurance and therefore cannot see a doctor. If its too good for humans, then it's hard to say that animals not brought to a vet regularly are being improperly cared for.

That said, I have only had health insurance for about a year of my adult working life. My pets have gone more regularly to vets than I have to doctors.

It was once considered kindness to feed and love a pet. Now you're a "bad" owner if you don't also provide it with expensive care way beyond what many PEOPLE get.

Sounds like another law that will impact the law abiding far more than those who the law is really meant for.

I expect it will primarily be citizen reports from neighbours.

Or a way of double fining owners when animals get into trouble?

By eliminating the home breeder, you're just providing financial encouragement to the puppy mills, who will breed their dogs in counties where it is legal, and transport them in for sale at high dollar amounts. I don't like these laws at all.

It's one thing to encourage spaying and neutering, or perhaps making it nearly free. It's another thing entirely to legislate what amounts to an increase in profits for puppy mills.

What about shelters? Aren't there all kinds of animals in shelters that need a loving home?

I don't mean to imply that pets should be given a higher standard of living than humans. And it's a sad fact that many pets live better than some people.

But it's not asking too much for animals not to be abused. And if you are going to take responsibility for them, then seeing to their general health, nutrition and well-being are part of the obligatory territory.

It is the fact that 60,000* animals per year were being euthanized at the shelter that drove this new regulation. There are more than enough healthy animals that are being destroyed that it shouldn't have an impact on the greedy breeders.

The law is geared towards your average mutt. If someone is a breeder, they do not have to have their animals sterilized.





*I use this number from memory of hearing a news story this morning on the way to work. The number may be different.

Pet sterilization becomes law in LA
 

Yes there are is a shelter right down the street from us but with this new law all the puppies except those by breeder will be sterile thus i foresee no more shelters with animals but then again maybe i'm wrong in my assumption. Since down the road the only way to get a dog is thru a breeder once all the dogs will be fixed.

But however especially with cats in my neighborhood and many others there are "strays" no one claims them and they are free to "roam" and when i walk the doggies everyday and at work i hear customers say there are so many strays out there. How can they pinpoint their owners when no one will claim them (they have no collars etc)? This will be the interesting thing in all of this plus this is LA only statewide only.

I wonder if they will require vets to report on animals who are not 'fixed'. I'm very back and forth on this issue- I think there ought to be some serious subsidies to help out people who are on very limited incomes. It's ridiculous that only people who are well off can adopt animals from so many of these shelters- anyone who can love and care for one should be able to do so. (That whole stupid Ellen drama is still fresh in my brain, and I think that shelter was very much in the wrong). Still, maybe this will cut down on hoarding- I've been watching Animal Planet a lot lately, and it seems that the ASPCA gets a lot of calls regarding compulsive hoarders. These are not NA (or Wendybeth, for that matter) hoarders, but really over the top nutjobs that allow the animals to take over the home. The last one had over 150 cats, and was forced to flee his (formerly nice) middle-class suburban home due to being literally overrun with domesticated and feral kittehs.