Anti-Breeder Law Passes in Virginia

On Monday, March 26, 2001, the city council of Richmond, Virginia overwhelmingly (I think it was 8 to 1) passed an ordinance that requires residents of the city to either spay/neuter their animals or pay a $50 fine for each offense.

Breeders may purchase a special permit at the cost of $100 which allows them to have one litter per year.

I understand that Los Angeles has passed a similar law and it is expected to pass statewide.

While I understand and agree with the core issue here - to force more people to act responsibly when it comes to the pet over-population problem - I think it will cause an explosion of pet give-ups unless the city is also willing to provide access to low-cost options for those who might not otherwise be able to comply with the law. If people can't afford to get their animals neutered, but face penalties legally if they don't get them fixed, then won't they just be more apt to abandon them??

Does anyone know how things have gone in LA or is it too soon to really have an accurate picture? Are shelter drop offs up?

*sigh* This is going to backfire...I just know it.

Gaye

Hi Gaye - great to see you posting again!

I see what you mean... but here's a point to consider:

The people who cannot spay and neuter because of money issues, will probably not be able to care properly for their pets. What will happen to those pets when they need to get some medical treatment, or just see the vet?

In the long run spaying and neutering is a lot cheaper than bringing litters of unwated kittens and puppies into the world. People who are not willing to do this are not being resposible pet owners IMO.

I don't see why you say that this is an anti-breeder law - can you elabortae on this aspect? As far as I know breeding involves so many expenses this doesn't sound like a lot of money. It might deter backyard breeders who don't want to spend money on their cats.

Hi Anne,

It is good to be back here at the Cat Site. I've been tied up with personal issues, and haven't been much able to drop in to look over the Forums.

This issue is important, so I've included a description of a bill that is soon going up for vote in California. Sorry this is so long...but the ordinance passed in Richmond is but the tip of the iceberg it seems, as Richmond is using California as it's role model for action similar to the California legislation. Here is a description of the California SB 236, which would ostensibly be Phase Two of what was recently passed in Virginia:

DESCRIPTION OF THE BILL

SB 236 is authored by State Senator Jack O'Connell (D-18) and sponsored by the Animal Legislative Activist Network. The founder of A.L.A.N., Richard G. McLellan, M.D., is the principal promoter of this legislation. Dr. McLellan has stated that a purpose of the bill is to establish a database on all dogs and cats sold in the state in order to reduce abandonment of animals. He and other proponents claim the bill is a way to make those who sell dogs and cats "responsible" if they become homeless. All owners' would be known by local animal agencies and permit information would be open to public inspection with county clerks maintaining records. Fees imposed on those who sell
dogs/cats are to be used for administration costs, spay/neuter and other programs.

THE IMPACT

SB 236 would require all local jurisdictions in the state to change their animal ordinances. EACH SALE of a dog or cat, under one year of age, in California would require a separate permit, at a fee to be set locally, and issued by an animal agency. The permit must be obtained prior to engaging in "any advertisement" for the sale - this includes newspapers, flyers, newsletters, magazines, periodicals, Internet, oral offers or even the "display" of a dog or cat. (Cats from other parts of the country even
offered for sale at a California cat show would require a permit.) A "seller" does not include a person or organization that shelters an abandoned animal and charges a fee to recover costs.

Any person who owns a dog or cat must ensure the dog/cat has been micro-chipped and the owner's identification has been entered into a local or national registry. Feral cats are exempted (but not defined). Dogs and cats kept temporarily are exempted.

Dogs license laws would be changed to add a provision requiring the owner to notify animal control whenever a dog is transferred to a new owner and provide information on the new owner.

OPPOSITION AND CONCERNS

1. This bill is part of an ongoing overall effort to regulate all breeding and sales of dogs and cats in the state of California. The permit and microchip provisions would be in the part of the Civil Code covering consumer and warranty laws for pet stores and commercial dog breeders. There is no need for this overly restrictive legislation that would cover EVERY person in the state who sells a dog or cat. It is an extreme invasion of privacy, and enforcement would be costly or impossible. Most Hobby breeders of pedigreed cats/purebred dogs provide home-raised kittens and puppies under optimum conditions. This legislation would discourage conscientious breeders and deprive the public of an excellent source of cats and dogs. It would cause the demand for selectively bred animals to be met by out of state sellers.

2. Some individuals, whose pets may have an accidental litter, will surrender them to shelters rather than pay permit fees for each animal and attempt to find homes through newspaper ads. Why discourage individuals from taking responsibility? Some may even abandon the animals for fear of fees and punishment.

3. Animal agencies and shelters in California are working hard to comply with the requirements imposed by the Shelter Act of 1998. The turmoil, administrative costs and data keeping that would be associated with SB 236 would take away from the important work of animal agencies to provide a safe haven for homeless animals.

4. Every local jurisdiction in California would have to determine how to change ordinances and how to comply with these new requirements.

5. With a strong focus on neuter/spay programs in the state already showing excellent progress it is non-productive to place additional burdens on our shelter system and divert attention from workable programs already developed that are reaching the attention of the general public.

6. Micro-chipping is a good means of identification, or as a back-up to collar-tag ID, but it should not be mandated for every owned dog and cat in the state. It is not necessary for many animals. A collar and tag is the quickest way for dogs, or cats who are allowed outside or inadvertently get out, to be reunited with their owners. The cost of micro-chipping is considerable and may lead some owners to procrastinate on spay/neuter responsibility. The technology is not perfect and universal scanners that will detect all microchips are expensive - they are not in every animal agency truck or
veterinary office. The bill is more about owner identification and punishment than helping animals.

7. Responsible pet ownership and stopping abandonment of animals can be achieved in positive ways without adding extra costs and punishing every cat and dog owner in the State. Most cats in shelters are unowned/freeroaming/feral and their unweaned offspring. There is already good headway in the state of California to stop the reproduction of these cats and diminish their numbers. Increasing the available spay/neuter voucher programs and other efforts will be far more effective in reducing the numbers of cats in shelters.

What's Wrong With SB 236:

1. This bill would make it "unlawful for any person to own, harbor or keep any dog or cat over the age of four months, unless that dog or cat has been microchipped and the owner's identification has been entered into a [local
or national] registry approved by the Department of Food and Agriculture."

PROBLEM:
(a) Microchipping is expensive.
(b) Microchipping is not necessary for some animals (e.g., why force microchipping of an elderly cat or dog in poor health and incapable of wandering off the premises?).
(c) The government may use registry information to keep track of every pet owner in the state. The pet owner will have been identified and will be immediately at the mercy of whatever future pet regulation or zoning laws they come up with.
(d) Citizens, veterinarians, and many shelters do not have scanners. The Los Angeles Dept of Animal Control has scanners, but the scanners have sat unused for nearly 3 years. The fastest way to identify most pets is still
the inexpensive collar and tag.

2. You will be required to take out a permit before you can sell a pet. You will be required to have a permit for EACH and EVERY pet you sell, even though it may be a whole litter of puppies or kittens. You will be required to provide the permit numbers in any form of advertising that you use, including newspapers, web sites, oral offers, and fliers.

PROBLEM:
(a) If you are a private individual and not a nonprofit incorporated shelter, you cannot even charge a small adoption fee to protect a dog or cat you try to place unless you first obtain permission from the government and
pay a fee for EACH and EVERY pet placed. (Adoption fees protect pets from being adopted on a whim by a person that can't afford to care for the pet. Fees also prevent unscrupulous people from adopting a pet with intent to sell to research labs, sell to pet shops, or abuse in youth gang or satanic cult rites. Instances of the latter have been documented many times.)
(b) If your young cat or dog gets out and accidentally gets pregnant, you have to get a permit and pay a fee for each kitten or puppy from the litter that you try to place.
(c) Many people will abandon unwanted litters rather than pay for permits.
(d) This will impose an incredible burden of expense and red tape upon private breeders of home-raised pedigreed kittens and puppies. They will be required to get permission and pay a fee before selling each and every baby
in each and every litter. This plus other portions of SB 236 will eliminate private breeders from the state of California. However, SB 236 will do nothing to eliminate pet shops that sell kittens and puppies from midwestern
puppy and kitten mills. Pet shops can only be regulated by the federal government.

3. All information, including street address and phone number, must be given on the "permit to sell" and will be kept on file by the county clerk and open to public inspection.

PROBLEM: Not only will the government know about it each time you sell a pet, so will everyone else that wants to know. Animal Rights extremists can use the public information to locate and harass private breeders.

4. Even if you GIVE your dog away to someone, even to a friend or relative, you will be required to notify your local animal control department. You will also be required to provide the name and address of the new owner.

PROBLEM: The government will be entitled to know all the details even if you give your dog away to a friend.

5. Local government and animal control departments will be required to enact and enforce most aspects of the bill.

PROBLEM: Administration, data keeping and enforcement will greatly increase animal control costs. The emphasis on collecting fees, keeping records and punishment will divert energy from communities working on far more productive solutions to the homeless dog and cat problem.

Hope this explains better why I call this an "anti-breeder" issue. What is happening in California is going to happen here in Virginia. This first, new, local ordinance is the start - they *will* attempt to adopt it State-wide, just as they did in California. And they will add all sorts of "new and improved" amendments to it so that Virginians will face what Californians are now facing - The total elimination of companion animals. The Animal Rights Extremists seem to feel that the only happy cat/dog is a wild one, living on it's own and totally undomesticated.

Ask all of your friends where they expect to get their next pedigreed cat or purebred dog. Not in California if this passes! The best they'll be able to do is some not-quite-socialized and probably not-quite-healthy puppy-mill product from the Midwest at a pet store.

As a breed preservationist, there are issues here regarding the very survival of entire breeds! If this passes in California, it is also likely to pass here in Virginia. It will be passed in other states as a matter of course over time. If these types of laws are permitted to pass, then the day will come when you won't be able to own a pet anymore.

Yours,

Gaye

Gaye, I can see several things here - some are good and some less so.

Overall, I think animals should be under more regulations. This may help to prevent the many cases of abandoment, abuse and backyard breeding.

PROBLEM:
(a) If you are a private individual and not a nonprofit incorporated shelter, you cannot even charge a small adoption fee to protect a dog or cat you try to place unless you first obtain permission from the government and
pay a fee for EACH and EVERY pet placed. (Adoption fees protect pets from being adopted on a whim by a person that can't afford to care for the pet. Fees also prevent unscrupulous people from adopting a pet with intent to sell to research labs, sell to pet shops, or abuse in youth gang or satanic cult rites. Instances of the latter have been documented many times.)

Click to expand...

Yes - this is indeed a problem that needs to be dealt with. Perhaps they can declare certain individuals as affiliated with rescue organizations and able to charge those fees on their behalf (and as a donation to the organization).

(b) If your young cat or dog gets out and accidentally gets pregnant, you have to get a permit and pay a fee for each kitten or puppy from the litter that you try to place.

Click to expand...

not a bad idea IMHO - people should be more responsible then to let their cats and dogs get pregnant accidentally.

(c) Many people will abandon unwanted litters rather than pay for permits.

Click to expand...

Like I said before, I'm afraid these are the same people who would rather abandon animals then pay for medical bills. Responsible owners would pay and not abandon.

(d) This will impose an incredible burden of expense and red tape upon private breeders of home-raised pedigreed kittens and puppies. They will be required to get permission and pay a fee before selling each and every baby
in each and every litter. This plus other portions of SB 236 will eliminate private breeders from the state of California. However, SB 236 will do nothing to eliminate pet shops that sell kittens and puppies from midwestern
puppy and kitten mills. Pet shops can only be regulated by the federal government.

Click to expand...

I guess that buyers will eventually have to pay for this. It might make purebred kittens more expensive. I think that as purebreds already cost 300-600$ - as additional 50$ or so shouldn't make such a difference to the buyers (and therefore to the breeders). Pet shops should pay (I think they should even pay double what private breeders would have to pay - because keeping cats and dogs in a pet shop is terrible IMO). I would also change that part of the bill.

I do agree about the microchip thing. I'm not sure this is the way to go with pet identification.

As for issues of privacy - I don't see the need for making these files open to the general public. Does seem like a violation of privcay. But if that were to change and be under government control only - I don't see a problem.

Sorry for being the devil's advocate, but I do think that some things here may be for the good.

Hi Anne,

I have to agree that the core issues in this legislation are based in sound logic - forcing people to be more responsible when it comes to their animals - but it is the implementation and the enforcement that I find to be ludicrous.

As for those people who would rather abandon than vet their animals, that happens now regularly even without the law. In fact, it is exactly how I acquired my old diabetic girl, Whitney, nearly 3 years ago. Under the terms of this bill, Whit's previous owner would have had to obtain a permit and pay the appropriate fees before I would have been able to bring her home. Additionally, I would have had to submit her sick little body to the vet for the surgery, complete with general anesthesia, just so I would be in compliance with the mandated microchipping. Then I would have to apply to the city to register her (and ME!!) as an owned pet. This is not even taking into consideration the thousands of dollars I spent to help bring her back to a moderate degree of good health! This is just plain stupid, Anne. Whitney was nearly 14 years old, and quite ill, not to mention that she never, and I do mean NEVER went outside without me. Why should I be forced to submit her to a dangerous surgery, and have to pay dearly in cash to the city for the priviledge of perhaps bringing about her death under anesthesia?

What bothers me the most about this bill is that it is only disguised as protection for animals. It is a way to identify the RESPONSIBLE pet owners and to make *them* for the actions of those who are NOT taking proper care of animals.

Yours,

Gaye