SVP ne pas cliquer sur les annonces gratuites annoncant la vente de chiots via internet. Nous ne sommes pas responsables de ces annonces
 
AccueilAccueil  PortailPortail  GalerieGalerie  CalendrierCalendrier  FAQFAQ  S'enregistrerS'enregistrer  GroupesGroupes  Connexion  

Partagez | 
 

 loi californienne obligeant les chiens a la stérilisation

Aller en bas 
AuteurMessage
jenypoo

avatar

Nombre de messages : 62
Age : 61
Localisation : Québec
Date d'inscription : 09/02/2007

MessageSujet: loi californienne obligeant les chiens a la stérilisation   Sam 9 Juin 2007 - 22:16

Allo,

pour votre information, voici un article que j'ai trouvé dans mes courriels et qui parle d'une nouvelle loi qui a été votée en Californie afin de faire réduire la population canine et les euthanasies. Tous les chiens devront etre stérilisés avant 4 mois OBLIGATOIREMENT.

Je suis contre cette mesure car elle amène bien des problèmes de santé chez le chien stérilisé en bas âge comme le démontre une cinquantaine d'études (vous lirez le prochain PASSIONNEMENT CHIEN, j'ai traduit un article a ce sujet). Il faut se prémunir contre ce genre de solutions ici au Québec.

Le texte est un peu long...désolée...


Danielle



At 10:12PM Thursday June 7th Levine finally brought AB 1634 up for a vote.
He needed 41 votes to pass. He got 41 - yes and 38 -no's. The Motion passed.

Our 38 "NO's" are a strong statement. We will continue the fight to protect
our pets....

Please keep California pet lovers in your thoughts today....

Robin



This is absolutely the best comprehensive article I have read regarding this
bill. The website from which it came
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/a/2007/05/29/petscol.DTL
permits emailing of the article,

The mandatory spay/neuter bill is not healthy for pets

By Christie Keith, Special to SF Gate

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

There's a bill, known as the Healthy Pets Act, wending its way through the
state Assembly's committee process right now, that would require that all
dogs and cats in California to be spayed or neutered by the time they're 4
months old. The idea behind this bill, AB1634, is that the large number of
animals being put to sleep in shelters would be reduced if fewer puppies and
kittens were born.

I love dogs and cats. And like all people who love animals, I hate to see
even one pet put to sleep for lack of a home. So if I thought this bill
would actually make that happen, I'd be in favor of it.

But it won't, because it's a huge, sweeping, one-size-fits-all solution to a
problem that has many facets -- a problem that is not, in fact, one problem
but many problems, all of which vary from place to place throughout the
state.

In fact, in some parts of California, such as San Francisco, there actually
is no problem. Not only are animals not being euthanized for lack of homes,
there are more potential adopters than there are animals available for
adoption. That's why San Francisco frequently brings pets in from other
areas to be adopted locally. Areas that don't have a problem aren't in need
of a solution, but they would be forced to implement -- and pay for -- the
provisions of AB1634 anyway.

In other places where there is a problem with homeless animals, the
situations are varied and not necessarily targeted by the proposed bill. For
instance, many of the animals being euthanized are feral cats. Feral cats
are not owned by anyone and will not be affected by this legislation.

In some areas, the primary source of animals being euthanized is the
deliberate or accidental breeding of dogs by people who don't care about the
law, don't license their dogs and breed them for fighting or to sell to make
a buck. They also don't go to the vet and don't give a damn. Mandatory
spay/neuter won't do anything to solve that problem, either, because one
thing I know for sure: People who are breeding dogs to fight them are not
highly likely to comply with this law.

Probably one of the biggest reality gaps in this bill is that, in many parts
of the state, the problem is not a shortage of homes or a surplus of pets,
but a shortage of pets that people want to adopt.

For instance, some people don't understand that adult dogs and cats make
wonderful pets; they only want to adopt a puppy or kitten. Many people are
hesitant to welcome a senior pet into their homes, worried that their time
with their new companion will be too short. Still others don't feel up to
the task of coping with a pet with a behavior or health problem, even a
relatively minor one. Seniors, people with physical challenges and people
who live in condos and apartments are, understandably, usually seeking small
dogs, which are rarely available for adoption in shelters today.

Instead, shelters are often full of pets who, through no fault of their own,
are considered less desirable: older pets, dogs of breeds perceived to be
dangerous, adult cats, pets with behavior and health problems and so-called
"big black dogs," legendary in shelter and animal rescue circles as being
hard to place in new homes.

Those things are certainly problems, but they aren't problems that mandatory
spay/neuter will fix. People will still want the pets they want, and not
want the pets they don't want, until they're educated -- and yes, marketed
to -- about the myths that underlie some of these perceptions. This law does
nothing to accomplish that goal -- and without addressing that problem,
shelter deaths won't be reduced even if fewer puppies and kittens are being
born.

That's because a reduction in the number of pets born in the state won't
reduce the demand for dogs and cats. People won't own fewer pets because of
this law; they'll just get them somewhere else. Unethical breeders who don't
care about licensing or complying with the law will create a black market of
puppies and kittens. Pets from out of state -- from Mexico and the bountiful
puppy mills of the Midwest -- will come flooding into California. Anyone
with a credit card and an Internet connection can order up a pet, just like
you'd order a new iPod.

While the very hallmark of a responsible breeder is providing a permanent
backup home for every dog or cat they breed, pet stores, Web sites and other
retailers will sell a dog to anyone with the money to pay the bill. Dogs
obtained from these sources have no safety net, and if their family can't or
won't keep them, there are few options other than the shelter. Pets from
these sources will rush into the vacuum, and the problem of overcrowded
shelters will not only not get better, it could end up getting worse.

So if AB1634 gets the problem wrong and the solution wrong, what can people
do to lower the number of deaths in California shelters?

The first step is to identify where the pets in shelters are coming from.
The National Council on Pet Overpopulation Studies, a research group whose
members include the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty for Animals, the Humane Society of the
United States and several other organizations, has published the top 10
reasons why dogs are surrendered to shelters:

1. Moving

2. Landlord issues

3. Cost of pet maintenance

4. No time for pet

5. Inadequate facilities

6. Too many pets in home

7. Pet illness(es)

8. Personal problems

9. Biting

10. No homes for littermates

Only one or, arguably, two of those reasons have anything to do with how
many dogs are being born. Even if AB1634 did succeed in reducing the numbers
of puppies born, it would do nothing for the other eight or nine top reasons
people surrender their dogs to shelters. People seeking to reduce the number
of animals that end up in shelters need to design programs that actually
address those specific problems.

Second, each area needs to target its programs to the problems responsible
for their local shelter population, or nothing will change.

For example, the top two reasons people surrender their dogs relate to
housing. Groups such as the San Francisco SPCA are able to identify a
specific, local problem and target it with a specific, local solution: the
Open Door program, which helps put pet-owning tenants together with
pet-friendly landlords.

The third step in designing an effective program to reduce shelter deaths is
to identify strategies that have been successful, or have failed, in other
areas with similar problems and issues.

San Mateo County's Peninsula Humane Society, which spearheaded the nation's
first "breeding ban" in the name of reducing shelter deaths, did not have
the expected success with that approach. In the areas of the county where
the ordinance was implemented, dog deaths increased by 126 percent, while
cat deaths went up by 86 percent. Licensing dropped by 35 percent -- from
around 50,000 in the previous decades to just over 36,000.

That may be why PHS is not supporting AB1634. PHS Vice President Scott
Delucchi told the San Mateo Daily Journal, "The spirit of it is fine. The
mechanics of it is a little more difficult," and said he prefers a
county-by-county solution, not a statewide one. San Mateo, he said, has
gotten its best results from free or low-cost spay/neuter programs,
including its newly launched mobile clinic.

"The goal of reducing the number of animals in shelters and euthanasia rates
is critical," wrote Laura Allen, attorney for the Best Friends Animal
Society and head of its Animal Law Coalition. "But to suggest numbers of
animals in shelters and euthanasia rates will decline if there is a ban on
breeding is a little like saying we could find homes for all the unwanted
children if people stopped giving birth to their own children."

Free or subsidized spay/neuter, behavioral and training counseling and
classes, programs like Open Door and free transport for pets to be altered
and receive veterinary care, combined with programs targeting local problems
such as transient military or college populations, dog fighting and
unmanaged feral cat populations, are all more likely to result in fewer
animals entering the shelters.

Will these things reach all people needing help with their pets and prevent
every pet from entering the shelter system? No, of course not. No approach
will ever reach everyone, nor can we prevent every failure of commitment
between a pet owner and his or her pets. But we can bring the problem below
a certain critical mass so that the number of pets coming into the shelter
is never greater than the community or organization's ability to treat,
rehabilitate and re-home those animals. That is an achievable goal -- and
one that has been achieved here in San Francisco without mandatory
spay/neuter laws.

The other benefit of focusing on local, positive and proactive approaches is
that people tend to buy into them more easily. AB1634 is strongly and
vocally opposed by a wide range of individuals who love dogs and cats, and
spend most of their waking hours being involved with them. People who breed
and train police dogs, guide dogs for the blind, assistance dogs for the
disabled, show dogs and stock dogs, and the breeders and preservationists of
rare breeds are strongly united in their opposition to this bill, for a
variety of reasons.

Proponents say that the concerns of some of these groups can be, or are,
addressed by exemptions and language changes, but the fact remains that this
proposal has made enemies out of the very people who could have been the
strongest allies of effective change in California.

More to the point, those exemptions and language changes cannot alter the
fundamental flaw at the heart of AB1634, which is that it won't reduce the
number of shelter deaths in the state. It can't. It is inflexible, expensive
and difficult to enforce; it is divisive and based on the premise that there
is one reason for animal shelter deaths in California: animal births in
California. It fails to take into account the multitude of reasons that
animals end up in shelters, or do anything about them.

I would like nothing better than to be writing about my support for a
program that would end the death of dogs and cats in shelters in California.
AB1634 is not that program.

AB1634 is expected to be up for a vote in the state Assembly in the next few
weeks. People who want to express their views on this proposed legislation
should contact their representatives. You can read the bill, as amended on
May 9, 2007, on the state of California official legislative information Web
site. Arguments in favor of AB1634 can be found on its official Web site.

Christie Keith is a contributing editor for Universal Press Syndicate's Pet
Connection and past director of the Pet Care Forum on America Online. She
lives in San Francisco.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.lagarderiedomestique.com
Chica

avatar

Nombre de messages : 1912
Age : 40
Localisation : Laval
Date d'inscription : 10/02/2007

MessageSujet: Re: loi californienne obligeant les chiens a la stérilisation   Sam 9 Juin 2007 - 22:17

C'est jeune 4 mois...
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
jenypoo

avatar

Nombre de messages : 62
Age : 61
Localisation : Québec
Date d'inscription : 09/02/2007

MessageSujet: Re: loi californienne obligeant les chiens a la stérilisation   Sam 9 Juin 2007 - 22:21

oui c'est jeune et très dommageable pour la santé.

Beaucoup d'éleveurs ont cette tendance maintenant a faire stériliser leur chiot avant le départ de leur maison, i.e. vers 8 semaines.

Il y a aura des chiens avec les os beaucoup plus long, plus de problèmes cardiaques, des cancers augmentés etc...

Danielle
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.lagarderiedomestique.com
Karoube
Admin
avatar

Nombre de messages : 1806
Age : 41
Localisation : Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Date d'inscription : 08/02/2007

MessageSujet: Re: loi californienne obligeant les chiens a la stérilisation   Sam 9 Juin 2007 - 22:46

mais on comprends la raison derrière: un meilleur controle des naissances et donc de la surpopulation! par exemple si tous les chiots vendus en animalerie étaient stérilisés, yaurait moins de portées non désirés ou voulues sur un coup de tête et moins d'éleveurs improvisés... mais bon ya le fait de la santé aussi, faut le prendre en compte...et j'aime bien l'argumentation de ce texte, même si certains points ne s'appliquent pas très bien à notre situation. Une obligation à faire stériliser le chien avant sa première chaleur ne serait pas mieux? mais là le hic c'est comment exercer un controle et comment faire pour que ça soit respecté! les vets lors des visites pourraient exercer un controle en vérifiant si le chien est bel et bien stérilisé et sinon obligé le client ou émettre un avertissement à un organisme x en charge du projet... je sais pas, je réfléchi à tout ça. Ca fait longtemps qu'on cherche des solutions à la surpopulation et la stérilisation en est une, même si elle ne règle pas tout...alors là c'est dur d'aller totalemetn contre. Faudrait trouver comment ça pourrait s'adapter..et oui ça pourrait être intéressant au Québec, mais pas tel quel. L'Idéal serait que tous les chiens et chats soient vendus par de bons éleveurs qui ont un contrat de non reproduction..mais bon c'est notre combat!

_________________
Nancy
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://actions-animaux-qc.actifforum.com
Layla

avatar

Nombre de messages : 250
Age : 34
Localisation : bas du fleuve, rivière-du-Loup
Date d'inscription : 09/02/2007

MessageSujet: Re: loi californienne obligeant les chiens a la stérilisation   Dim 10 Juin 2007 - 4:35

Ça du pour et ça du contre.

Moi je trouve que l'idée est bonne malgré tout.
Peut être que s'il y réfléchisse et prenent des renseignements sur les dangers de la stérilisation, il retarderait la date.

Mais s'il suggère comme Karoube le dit, avant les chaleurs, c'est vraiment parfait, j'approuve cette loi.


Danielle, j'aimerais bien voir si tu en as un, un petit texte qui explique les dangers de le faire si tôt.
En tant qu'éleveur, à quel âge les chiens devraient être stérilisés??

Je ne suis pas pour à 100%, à cause de l'âge, mais la cause est parfaite.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
Chica

avatar

Nombre de messages : 1912
Age : 40
Localisation : Laval
Date d'inscription : 10/02/2007

MessageSujet: Re: loi californienne obligeant les chiens a la stérilisation   Dim 10 Juin 2007 - 4:54

8 semaines?? ben voyon!

L'idée de fond est excellente, je suis d'accord avec vous. En passant par la ville? Ex: un chien enregistré doit être stérilisé avant x mois, sauf avec un permis d'éleveur bien sur.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
StephaneR



Nombre de messages : 30
Age : 46
Localisation : Laval
Date d'inscription : 27/02/2007

MessageSujet: Re: loi californienne obligeant les chiens a la stérilisation   Dim 10 Juin 2007 - 5:54

Il n'y aura pas de solution parfaite pour régler le problème. Moi je pense que c'est une très bonne idée si on regarde la situation dans son ensemble.

En nombre absolu, combien de chiens seraient euthanasiés si c'est loi n'existait pas? Et combien seront malades à cause de l'application de cette loi?
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.auchienbleu.ca
Mokajou

avatar

Nombre de messages : 337
Date d'inscription : 24/02/2007

MessageSujet: Re: loi californienne obligeant les chiens a la stérilisation   Dim 10 Juin 2007 - 6:15

Moi,je suis d'accord aussi car entre l'euthanasie et la stérélisation à 4 mois...je n'hésite pas si on baisse la surpopulation
,,,et mon vet m'a dit que bien des études récentes prouvent que 4 mois ce n'est maintenant plus trop tôt...
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur http://www.upra.ca/
Contenu sponsorisé




MessageSujet: Re: loi californienne obligeant les chiens a la stérilisation   

Revenir en haut Aller en bas
 
loi californienne obligeant les chiens a la stérilisation
Revenir en haut 
Page 1 sur 1
 Sujets similaires
-
» Punks à chiens
» Acceptez vous les chiens ?
» chiens de salons !!!!!!
» croquettes des chiens en burkina
» chiens de traineaux

Permission de ce forum:Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
Actions! Unis contre les usines à chiots! :: On ne sait pas ou mettre le sujet, il va ici!-
Sauter vers: