OK, this city is really upsetting me and I hope people stand up for this when it comes to spay or neuter your dog at such a young age but the city is making you spay or neuter your dog/cat at such a young age they don't care of the possible side effects it can have on your dog/cat. So, I hope this message gets shared to everybody and in every city so you are AWARE of how this city is doing us dirty and making you PAY for something you don't actually have to do. This is the second call just this week (I get them often over the months for my business)from a customer that is saying they adopted their dog from The City of Moreno Valley animal shelter and they are being forced to do the surgery or else face a fine and breaking the law. Ok, well I see a few problems with that in itself but let's start from the beginning. In fact my now client told me the lady was so rude to them that she just kept repeating herself saying "It's the law! It's the law!" I am not a big fan of rude people or school bullying customers into scaring them into something that they actually have the option to fix your dog or not let alone somebody that flings "It's the law!" when they actually don't know what they are saying. Kind of like a school bully cop that actually thinks you have to show them you ID if you have not committed a crime or not actually knowing the law they enforce. If these professionals representing our city is saying it well then it must be the law right? WRONG! So, over the years after hearing these complaints and the threat of this office on how they are treating their customers AFTER they adopt the animal and AFTER you have paid, they seem to get a bit snippy. I looked up this so call LAW and found it under the Municipal code for the city of Moreno Valley title 10 Animals Chapter 10.02 animal regulations. Instead of telling customers ITS THE LAW!, why are they not offering the alternative options of the law/MC to avoid spay or neutering your dog/cat. Is it the lack of knowledge that the animal shelter would get paid more for not fixing the animal? This confuses me. Anyways I found some alternatives for us citizens. For example: Section B says Exemptions... LOL! One loop hole I found is Section B #3.- Animals recognized and registered with the American Kennel Club (AKC), United Kennel club (UKC), or other national registry. OK? It does not say that the dog has to have a AKC registered number to be recognized or registered with them. I would know because I am one of the evaluators for AKC. Also, You can basically register a frog or a gold fish at UKC. They don't care one bit over there.. So, basically anybody that is adopting a dog can actually take my simple canine good citizen course for $40 and then they get a form I fill out from the AKC that says the dog has passed my class and they can file that paperwork with the AKC for $10 and now your dog is registered with the AKC. That's one option.
If they are sooo keen on this law, then why does the city put it on the adopting person? Why doesn't the city just do it themselves and fix the animal themselves? Oh wait, because that would make sense if you were to put a dog up for adoption and not fix it so the city does not have to pay for it and rather MAKE the adopted person to do it and pay for it.
Now let's get to the other part of this section of another option and in fact this is smack dab on their website to get around this MC or law as they called it with apparently NO other options. Well, Lets look way in the back of this law under section "J" It says,
"Application of FEES and FINES collected. All costs and fines collected under this chapter and the fees collected under this section shall be paid to the animal services division for the purpose of defraying the cost of the implementation and enforcement of this program"
Which now brings me to the animal shelters website http://www.moreno-valley.ca.us/resident_services/animal/licenses.html
If this is "THE LAW!" then why does the website offer an option when you license your dog? You would have to pay a higher rate for not fixing your dog? Is that also NOT an option to offer the customer/adpotee? For example it says on their website if you buy a license
1 year License fixed $15 not fixed $52
2 year License fixed $27 not fixed $84
3 year License fixed $34 not fixed $105
So why is this lady telling people "IT'S THE LAW!" when these people and myself included actually have alternative options to NOT spay or neuter our dog/cat..
Now what are the consequences to doing this surgery too soon or at a very young age.
This is exactly what I did with my dog. I paid for the 3 year license and waited until my dog went through it's puberty stage to lower the risk of future health problems that this can cause. Actually, I bought twice the 3 year non-fixed license because i was never going to fix my dog but then he had a rare condition that a dog can get from one ball not dropping, so for medical reasons we had to have the surgery. I also believe that if the animal does not go through puberty that you run a higher risk of immaturity. Imagine fixing your child at age 5, don't you think you would have some problems down the road with your child not developing or not going through puberty? Example. The male needs it's testosterone and the female needs her estrogen to help go through puberty, help develop the mind and to grow into adulthood.If you were take that away from a dog/cat at an early age before going through puberty, you run a higher risk of more problems. Some say hip dysplasia, some say the growth plates left open will cause more pain or even still having a immature mind that did not develop that needed to be fed by these two items may never mature to adult status.. There are more problems from other studies like cancer sooner than later. You can simply google this and read all the complications this can lead to by fixing your dog sooner than later.
So, why is this lady stiff lipping these people that are just trying to adopt a dog/cat? I hate this when somebody gives mis-information and then that spreads like cancer throughout the community and she is the one setting the tone of "there is no other option and it's the law", when their own website gives an alternative option. I hate to see city officials that represent my city going around telling people of our community wrong information. I hope they find this lady and set her straight as well as giving her an attitude chip on her shoulder adjustment. She is NOT the law and she doesn't know the law! How can a person represent a city official office like this? People come to these offices in hopes the folks they talk to know what they are talking about because they are the one that should know their own position and job and we put a certain trust into these city officials.