CA Breeders....RE: Spay & Neuter Law

Well, here we go in Dallas, TX.
These are quotes from an article printed in January
in the Dallas Morning News.

" Dallas considering stiffer animal controls
These are among the recommendations Dallas' Animal Shelter Commission unanimously approved Thursday night, agreeing that the city's stray animal population is out of control and too many pets are being neglected by owners." .....

~Requiring all dogs and cats to be spayed and neutered, except those owned by people with breeder permits issued by the city government. Animals under 4 months old and those exhibiting applicable medical conditions would also be exempt. Breeder permits would cost $500 annually and would subject those in possession to random city inspections. •Allowing city residents to keep no more than six dogs, cats or a combination in a single-family home. Animal foster or rescue operations could keep more upon obtaining permission from the city's animal services director. People with more than six animals would be grandfathered, meaning they would not have to give up pets they own."

Personally, I don't really like unannounced visits from anyone....A phone call to give me a heads up would be nice....How does a breeder continue on with the business of breeding if there are 6 dogs in a program, and there may be two to three litters overlapping....and therefore the breeder has have way more dogs than the ordinance allows....or I guess they are taking that into consideration...hence the breeder fee?

I recognize the problems with strays, and poor care for the many animals that people neglet...I know that laws are for the lawless....I just don't know why the city must impose a 500.00 fee on breeders yearly....when
expenses for them are already high, if they, in fact, are reputable breeders. I think you fine, or shut down the puppy mills, and/or those not following good breeding practices and care....but leave the rest alone.
Registering with the city and charging a fee bugs me....for some reason.
Just more government control, which I am not wild about.

:roll:

Jac, do you feel that AKC is pandering to PETA? I'm hoping that they will recognize PETA's pandering to Them, which I suspect they do, considering the fight that AKC put up last year. I think they'd see through the facade. (Hope!)


Well, we won't get me started on PETA and their actual intentions.

I did see a PETA representative interviewed on TV once, along with a spokeswoman for the fun industry. Quite an interesting piece.

The real eye opener for me was when the interviewer asked PETA why they were just going after furs. She responded that it was sort of the class envy thing where most folks who don't have fur coats would not be that offended at some paint on someone Else's coat, while their Real intention is to use the fur coats as a springboard, from which they can go after things like leather shoes and hamburgers. They don't want Any of us having Anything of leather, much less eat animal protein.

Made me so mad! I won't say what I bought that afternoon, but I will confess that it's dark sable brown, very soft and has kept me cozy and warm on many a winter outing. Even reverses to leather.

Then I called the reporter from the Chicago Tribune who'd been a part of the same interview, and we had a good laugh over it all.