Mandatory Spaying Of Dogs At Large . . . Interesting Ordinance

[sandgrubber]

I'm thinking about moving and comparing dog ordinances in various California counties. They're quite different, one for another. I'm seriously considering Sonoma, specifically Santa Rosa (notable as the home of Charles Schultz, creator of Peanuts). I found this in their code . . . think it might be a useful model

Sec. 5-170. Mandatory Spay and Neutering for All Dogs at Large.

Except as provided in subsections (a) - (g) below, all owners cited for dogs running at large for violation of section 5-115 shall have their dog spayed and neutered at the owner=s expense.

(a) Dogs documented as having been appropriately trained and actually being used by public law enforcement agencies for law enforcement activities, or such dogs designated as breeding stock by an appropriate agency or organization approved by the director after consultation with knowledgeable professionals;

(b) Dogs documented as having been appropriately trained and actually being used as an assistance dog, such as a service dog, guide dog, signal dog, or social dog, or such dogs designated as breeding stock by an appropriate agency or organization approved by the director after consultation with knowledgeable professionals;

© Dogs documented as having been appropriately trained and actually being used by search and rescue agencies for search and rescue activities, or such dogs designated as breeding stock by an appropriate agency or organization approved by the director after consultation with knowledgeable professionals;

JLB 78059.2 12 4/20/06

(d) Dogs certified by a licensed veterinarian as having a health reason for not being spayed/neutered;

(e) Dogs which are appropriately trained and actually being used for herding of other animals, or as livestock guardian dogs, hunting dogs, or such dogs designated as breeding stock by an appropriate agency or organization approved by the director after consultation with knowledgeable professionals;

(f) Dogs boarded in a licensed kennel or a business, which boards such animals for professional training or resale;

(g) Dogs which are registered with the American Kennel Club, United Kingdom Kennel Club, and/or American Dog Breeders Association Incorporated and trained and kept for the purpose of show, field trials and agility trials.

I like the idea of writing such an ordinance with lots of loopholes . . . so it becomes strong persuasion to keep your dog fenced, but doesn't result in automatic neutering of quality / trained / working dogs who accidentally escape.

Also interesting how Sonoma has navigated the Pit Bull dilemma . . .

"Pit Bull" means any Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, or American Staffordshire Terrier breed of dog, or any mixed breed of dog which contains, as an element of its breeding, the breed of Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, or American Staffordshire Terrier as to be identifiable as partially of the breed of Staffordshire Bull Terrier or American Staffordshire Terrier.

pit bulls are allowed, but neutering is mandatory unless they are working dogs in official positions, like law enforcement, guide dogs, etc. There are lots of pit bull X's in the animal shelter. . . . roughly 1/3 of dogs in shelter.

btw. the subsidized dog spay/neuter fee for lower income people is $20 in Sonoma County.

Edited October 23, 2011 by sandgrubber

[Leema]

Thanks for posting. An interesting piece of legislation.

[huskies4life88]

$20 wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

but i bet ya if we had that subsidy here we would still have idiots making up excusess...." it will ruin my dog" she will get fat blah

thanks for the info though it was interesting

[BJean]

$20 wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

but i bet ya if we had that subsidy here we would still have idiots making up excusess...." it will ruin my dog" she will get fat blah

thanks for the info though it was interesting

Impossible. As there would still be idiots playing the bigot.

[Rebanne]

I like the idea of writing such an ordinance with lots of loopholes . . . so it becomes strong persuasion to keep your dog fenced, but doesn't result in automatic neutering of quality / trained / working dogs who accidentally escape.

what about the entire dogs who escape because of accidents like a fence down because a tree fell on it, or a tradie who was careless with a gate/s etc? Why should those owners be penalised? Not all people who keep their pets entire are irresponsible, nor would all entire pets be in the above catergories.

[JLPandFriends]

I like the idea of writing such an ordinance with lots of loopholes . . . so it becomes strong persuasion to keep your dog fenced, but doesn't result in automatic neutering of quality / trained / working dogs who accidentally escape.

what about the entire dogs who escape because of accidents like a fence down because a tree fell on it, or a tradie who was careless with a gate/s etc? Why should those owners be penalised? Not all people who keep their pets entire are irresponsible, nor would all entire pets be in the above catergories.

Why should a tradie not be held accountable for something that is a result of his/her carelessness? Being careless is irresponsible isn't it? Just my 2 cents. =)

[Rebanne]

I like the idea of writing such an ordinance with lots of loopholes . . . so it becomes strong persuasion to keep your dog fenced, but doesn't result in automatic neutering of quality / trained / working dogs who accidentally escape.

what about the entire dogs who escape because of accidents like a fence down because a tree fell on it, or a tradie who was careless with a gate/s etc? Why should those owners be penalised? Not all people who keep their pets entire are irresponsible, nor would all entire pets be in the above catergories.

Why should a tradie not be held accountable for something that is a result of his/her carelessness? Being careless is irresponsible isn't it? Just my 2 cents. =)

didn't say they shouldn't be but it doesn't mean the owner would get their dog back still entire

[BJean]

I like the idea of writing such an ordinance with lots of loopholes . . . so it becomes strong persuasion to keep your dog fenced, but doesn't result in automatic neutering of quality / trained / working dogs who accidentally escape.

what about the entire dogs who escape because of accidents like a fence down because a tree fell on it, or a tradie who was careless with a gate/s etc? Why should those owners be penalised? Not all people who keep their pets entire are irresponsible, nor would all entire pets be in the above catergories.

Why should a tradie not be held accountable for something that is a result of his/her carelessness? Being careless is irresponsible isn't it? Just my 2 cents. =)

No being careless is not being irresponsible; the rest of your 2 cents doesn't make sense.

[Maxiewolf]

I think that there should be some instance as well where if its proven that it was a once off occorance due to say a fence down, sudden fright by loud noises such as fireworks or thunder etc then it shouldn't apply.

If it was something like a three strikes policy.. well you have plenty of time to Fix the "broken fence" , make sure your gates have locks on them. make sure your dog is restrained etc etc... and if after all that you still cant keep your dog in... don't really see a problem.

[jacqui835]

I think that there should be some instance as well where if its proven that it was a once off occorance due to say a fence down, sudden fright by loud noises such as fireworks or thunder etc then it shouldn't apply.

If it was something like a three strikes policy.. well you have plenty of time to Fix the "broken fence" , make sure your gates have locks on them. make sure your dog is restrained etc etc... and if after all that you still cant keep your dog in... don't really see a problem.

I think this suggestion is good. This way the victims of one-off, freak events would be spared and distinguished from the people who can't be responsible for their pets.

If a tree fell down and broke our fence, or our cleaner forgot to close our gate properly and my dog wandered into the next door neighbour's yard (the only place he ever goes because there was once a free range rabbit there), well I would not think it was fair if he was desexed for something out of my control.

Not everyone believes that desexing is in the best interest of their dogs - in my eyes it would be harming my dog and putting him at greater risk of bone cancers etc so I do not think that he should be forced to undergo surgery unless there's a damn good reason.