Canyon News — This is one of those typical tricks whereby the nomenclature sounds so good but have nothing to do with the act. In this case the law is called the Healthy Pets Act. It has little to do with anything other than government mandated pet population control. It’s supporters are mostly animal nutballs, municipal beancounters and probably a few puppy farms.
California taxpayers and animal activists alike had something to be happy about on June 7th after the State Assembly passed the California Healthy Pets Act (AB 1634) by a vote of 41-38. The act was first introduced to the State Assembly by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D) on February 27, 2007. It requires that most pets be spayed or neutered by the age of four months, keeping them healthy and saving California taxpayers a good amount of money.
Good deal. Full blown eugenics is next. People deserve to be 3-4-5 times more healthy than our pets.
Where are our priorities?
Vegan trophy wives are way too influential.
Not surprised… Caliphornia ish ruhn byh Arhnolhd… One breed, one state, one leader.
Are you sure it’s the “Healyth” Pet Act?
[Thanks, fixed. – .ed]
I think the legislators are just trying to prevent more Yoda like creatures.
Didn’t you just yell at someone for being a racist in the military service thread? (checks) Yes. Yes you did.
Implying Arnold is a Nazi just because he was born in Austria is no better than cracking jokes at the expense of black people.
#6
http://www.arnoldexposed.com/
Dog and Cats don’t need to reproduce, that is what Re-Pet is for.
#7 – Wow. Political carping against him and accusations against his FATHER mean it’s OK for you to call him a Nazi, but rag on others for their race/nationality based humor?
Dude. Flat-out hypocrite.
1. when are they going to do this to Humans.
2. the Purebreads SUCK. they have more problems then the mixed breeds. There is to much inbreeding.
#9
So, someone who does a Hitler greeting and admires Hitler is just normal in your world. Well, congrats malren…
That’s California for you. Another stupid law.
#12 Clueless you are. You didn’t get the joke I guess. Arnold stared in the 6th day which was about cloning. Re-Pet was where you could have you beloved, dead pet cloned. Guess you were intent of taking a shot, that you didn’t get the humor. Oh well.
12,
IF you look at what hitler did, and HOW. to bring his country together, to FIGHT what was being done to Germany, by the AXIS from WWI.
He did a good thing.
IF you are associating the atrosities with what he NEEDED to do…Yes that was a BAD thing.
BUT, even our GOV does it…Point a FINGER and say…”THEY DID IT, THEY caused this to happen TO YOU”…
Look at the past…READ it and understand ALL sides of it…
From the American indians, The Irish, The Chineese…
Look at WHY Japan attacked Hawaii…WE/USA embargo’ed there OIL.
Look at the Old cartoons and movies that Pointed fingers at ANYONE that wasnt White and Catholic.
Dont believe What is STUCK in your face…LEARN ALL the sides of WHAT was done.
#12
I guess I’m clueless… Where’s the humor you’re talking about. Malren’s perceived humor about African-Americans being lazy pimp looking people or what? I guess I’m running short of fuel after being up and running for way too long… I just can’t see it. Sorry.
I can’t even get the damn numbers right… #16 was an answer to #14….
#15
Hitler caused a war that terminated the life of some 55 million people. Oh, yeah… he sure did bring a people together in order to do it. Hurrah.
Yes! I say neuter those condors!
Seriously. I remember having dogs around that only managed to have litters when we wanted them to. No neutering or spading. I think we had a total of 4 litters in 8 years. Maybe less.
Cats – (looks at the six that he already has, and the extra that’s [supposedly] temporary) That’s another thing. They’re all neutered and spade.
Ok, I’ll bite as the naive guy on this one. I actually like this law on the face of it. There’s nothing in the article that says only purebreds will be allowed to reproduce. Instead it says that ANYONE who wants their pet to be “intact” will be required to pay for a permit to do so (presumably Mr. Dvorak means that as a byproduct, purebred owners will be the ones more likely to want this).
Speaking only as someone who lives in the Bay Area, there are way too many stray animals here, and too many careless owners out there that cause this problem. Requiring neutering in California will not significantly reduce the overall “gene pool” for dogs & cats as a species, but could reduce the amount of strays in this state, which is a good thing.
I wish it was the other way around and purebreds weren’t allowed. Purebreds are genetic freaks resulting from multiple generations of inbreeding. They have mental disorders (usually anxiety) and a variety of physical problems… kindof like the UK royal family.
Just so you know. This bill AB 1634 is about stopping all breeding. We raise and show cats. This bill would mean that any non show cat must be spayed/neutered by 4 months, you cant show kittens before they are 4 months old! We would have to pay a license fee of $150 or higher per cat that is whole, and allow the house to be inspected at will by the local animal control. The fees are to support the shelters but there won’t be any responsible breeders with AB 1634 as law to support them. There will still be unwanted pets, just no purebred pets.
If you want that bull dog you’ll need to import it from Mexico.
Anyone who has raised animals for any amount of times know that if you are taking care of them, feeding correctly and providing a well, stable animal for adoption you don’t make any money.
Puppy and kitten farms are not showing the animals, to ensure they meet the minimum breed standard, and will tell you that they could have gotten papers but did not want to. That means they are breeding animals that were not placed with breeding rights, thats right breeders can and do withhold breeding rights on pet animals, and may not have true bred animals. You can liken it to buying a Rolex for $50. It might be one, it likely isn’t. The get into it to make big bucks and find out it isn’t there. Adding more and more breeders to try and make a profit it gets out of hand and then we see them on the news.
As for the some of the comments about registered animals, there is at times inbreeding to set new traits and strengthen others. We do it with our crops and we do it with our animals to increase health, beauty and ability.
This bill is only going to hurt the responsible breeders and the citizens of California. The problem breeders will just deny ownership to avoid fines and the animals will be destroyed. Access to pets will be limited to the rich and privileged.
Please tell you representative to vote no on AB1634.
For more information on this check http://cfa.org/exhibitors/alerts.html#State
#21:
As a citizen and resident of the United Kingdom I take great exception to your comments about dogs and our royal family. Dogs are intelligent and lovely creatures, and on behalf of dogs everywhere (even anxious purebreds) I think you should say sorry.
#21:
As a citizen and resident of the United Kingdom I take great exception to your comments about dogs and our royal family. Dogs are intelligent and lovely creatures, you should say sorry to all dogs everywhere (even anxious purebreds) for insinuating they are anything like the royal family.
Everyone that is making Arnold / Fascist references. Last I checked Arnold wasn’t in the legislature. It’s the State Assembly that passed this bill, the crazy liberal state assembly. Stop being pigheaded and assign blame where blame is due. This is the same legislature that wanted to give 14 yr olds the right to vote and drivers licenses to illegal aliens.
This is a bill about animal breeding. So what makes it liberal or conservative?
24. LOL, I love the self-deprecating British humour, always have.
My wife rescues street dogs down here in Mexico – takes them in at whatever upper limit I can tolerate, gets them shots, parasite medicine, whatever else they need, and then has them neutered. She never runs out of animals that without her help would die of parasites, diseases, starvation, and other penalties of the wild, free life. Then she either finds homes for them or takes them to friends (some up in the States) who find them homes.
A law like this is not a plot against dogs and cats, IMHO. You love your mutt enough you want to see him/her reproduce? No problem just pay a small fee that should be earmarked for animal shelters.
I guess I’m with the legislature on this one. There is never any shortage of strays, here or in the States. People who take them in are wonderful folk; people who do it responsibly should have them neutered or be willing to pay a small fee. “Crazy liberal”? Sheesh.
Sooo…. if you break the law and keep three mutts with their dangly bits intact, are you subject to the three-strikes law and permanent imprisonment? – and would that make you happy, Ben?
I had a buddy who planned to breed his Staffordshire Bull Terrier bitch (incorrect known in Amerika as a pit bull)…
He first asked around, and got deposits from everybody (his friends/family/acquaintances) that wanted a puppy. He set a price, and a date to receive the deposit, and made it first-come-first-served. He got a dozen orders, she had 9 puppies. 8 made it, those first 8 buyers got their dog, and the other people got full refunds.
How hard was that to do?
Of course, then you have those wild cats and dogs that just go out and get laid. I mean, what can you do, they’re like teenagers! They beg for the keys or sneak out a window, and go get some… it’s not like irresponsible parenting was the issue…
I live a couple miles outside of town. It is no surprise to see young dogs and cats wandering around here. They come from town folk dropping off their unwanted “pet’s” offspring to usually die a lonely, cold death in a corn field or under the wheels of some vehicle on the road.
I would welcome a law like this. Something like 25 hours of community service along with the fine would work too.