Search:

News Feed:

AP - The first NFL game broadcast to theaters live in 3-D fumbled, then recovered Thursday night.

Article:
'animals ~ Lets Look At Animal Control ~ pets'

By: Jay Schindler

"..... What is the correct answer? Should the states be allowed to force individual pet owner..........animals, pets, fish facts, shark facts, tiger facts, cat facts, horse facts, penguin facts, dolphin facts, whale facts, lion facts, monkey facts, frog facts, bird facts, elephant facts, wolf facts, panda facts, turtle facts, snake facts, cheetah facts, animals facts....."

".....

What is the correct answer? Should the states be allowed to force individual pet owners to do ..........animals, pets, fish facts, shark facts, tiger facts, cat facts, horse facts, penguin facts, dolphin facts, whale facts, lion facts, monkey facts, frog facts, bird facts, elephant facts, wolf facts, panda facts, turtle facts, snake facts, cheetah facts, animals facts....."
In America today, there are states that are actively pushing pet owners to be controlled by law. States such as California are enacting laws in which pet owners are forced to spay or neuter their pets. This is something that numerous are talking about as the answer to the pet over population problems. Is this truly the answer? Many prominent breeders are upset by this attempt to control the rights of individual pet lovers.

What is the correct answer? Should the states be allowed to force individual pet owners to do this? What about the puppy mills that are operated in states all transversely the country, why is something not done to shut them down, rather than force individual breeders to have their breeding treasure spayed and neutered. Many do not realize that the sport of dog negative requires a dog in the show ring to still be intact; any sexually altered dogs are immediately disqualified from competition

This essentially means, the sport of dog nonexistent in California and other states following in their path is stopped. The dogs in the appearance would be indispensable to be fixed, with residents in the temper either fixing their dogs, or a flux of residents would be mobile from California and other cities with the same philosophy. Is this really the solution to the over population problem? Most cities have in unwanted animals in the pet shelters, yet there is always a fresh batch of animals coming in daily, therefore it is evident that some corrective action is urgent to solve the problem. However, as a nation of animal lovers, this seems firm to reconcile with the general opinion of society.

How do we solve this problem? Perhaps the answer is more low cost spay and neuter programs, proposal this at a greatly reduced rate, or even free to residents of towns so that animals can be readily fixed that are not bent upon for breeding. While this would be an at a premium venture, it could smoothly cost expensive and do more interest for the over population problem than requiring all pets be neutered and spayed.

Some states are even looking to limit the number of pets that are allowed to be housed. The limit is typically two dogs, with all other dogs forced to be rehomed to other homes. This leaves the problem of owners being forced to give away dogs to homes that may not be able to handle, care, or ensure proper medical care. Is this too far for the states to interfere in the rights of pet owners? To what extent should the state intervene in the way in which we treat our animals?

When did the issue of pets become the business of the master and states? While there are leash laws, they are minded for the invulnerability of the pets, as well as the protection of society in general. This is a law that was enacted by the states, which pending it does limit the movements of pets it has service intentions that are plausible and rectifiable. The urgent neuter and spay is something that can cause harm to a person's livelihood, as well as disqualify a dog from the show ring that could have be contrary been a champion dog.

Is this the state's location to do so? How far is too far before determining that the states have no right to tamper and meddle with the animals that are owned and properly cared for. Should individuals who seek proper medical care for their pets be penalized? Is this something that should have ever been brought up in the states as a need for all pet owners? The issue of pet control is no doubt hot at the moment, and it will be interesting to see the development of these issues in the coming months, years and decades as implemented measures are observed and their results monitored.

"..... Is this too far for the states to interfere in the rights of pet owners? To what extent should the ....."

".........."
_____________________________________________

Article Source: http://www.unique-ezine-articles.com

Read about www.animals-facts.com/frog_facts/frog_facts.html'>frog facts and www.animals-facts.com/bird_facts/bird_facts.html'>bird facts at the www.animals-facts.com'>Animals Facts website.