Requiring All Pet Breeders To Have Permits In California
This survey was conducted among California voters, age 23 and up, voting in the 1992 Presidential election. Its purpose was to gauge constituent attitudes toward a new ballot initiative, being developed to address pet overpopulation and irresponsible breeding. This new law would purportedly reduce the cost of operating public animal regulation agencies, saving California taxpayers $100 million per year and raise $10 million in new State revenues. This initiative would encourage voluntary pet sterilization by creating a permit process for any unaltered animals and for pet breeders.
The majority (69%) of respondents “regularly vote in every election, both primary and general elections,” while 28% “occasionally miss voting in some elections” and 3% voted for the first time in the November 1992 election.
Regarding the provision for a $150 permit for unaltered pets, 58% were for this provision, 28% were against, and 14% were undecided.
Regarding the provision for a $150 breeder permit, 66% were for this provision, 26% were against, and 7% were undecided.
Voters who regularly voted were more likely to be positive toward the unaltered pet permit than those who did not vote consistently.
Of the respondents, 59% own pets, 24% own dogs only, 18% own cats only, 17% own both dogs and cats, 41% own dogs, and 35% own cats.
More respondents were favorable to breeder permits than to unaltered pet permits, possibly due to skepticism about potential enforcement of the law.
Regarding the initiative which would require breeders to maintain community standards of healthy, hygiene and nutrition, 98% were for the initiative, 0% were against and 2% were undecided.
For the provision that “any unaltered dogs or cats brought into California would have to be altered or fixed within 30 days of arrival or before they reached the age of 4 months, unless their owner purchased the unaltered pet permit,” 74% were for the initiative, 21% were against, and 5% were undecided.