Pet sterilization becomes law in LA

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by madmonkeygirl

Owning an animal now will only be for the rich whereas those who struggle financially won't be able to afford havig an aimal.

Surely you mean buying an animal now will only be for the rich. Owning one has always only been for the rich. It's very, very expensive to own and properly care for a pet.

[Sohrshah]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Surely you mean buying an animal now will only be for the rich. Owning one has always only been for the rich. It's very, very expensive to own and properly care for a pet.

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.

[madmonkeygirl]

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.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Sohrshah

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.

I don't see this as an either/or issue. Yes, all people should be able to get proper medical care. That really has nothing to do with pet ownership.

Owning a pet is a choice and along with that choice comes the responsibility to properly take care of your pet. If this means that by owning a pet, you can't afford healthcare, then you shouldn't be owning a pet.

Too many people think it is "nice" to have a pet, but it's a not just nice, it's a 10 - 20 year commitment with financial impacts. If a person is not prepared to make that kind of commitment, then they shouldn't have the pet in the first place.

If a person really feels like they are missing out not having a pet in their life, then there are PLENTY of rescue organizations and shelters who would LOVE to have these people as volunteers.