BILL NUMBER: AB 1634 - Mandatory spay & neuter - BILL DROPPED - kinda

[~flower~]

I understand that this Bill is in an on-going re-writing process. Knny and Amy I understand your concerns but I'm also troubled by the fact that you don't even seem slightly concerned that 430,000 dogs were put to death in LA county last year. And I don't even have the number on cats. And I don't even want to get started on the callous treatment of these animals by the shelter employees.

Was it not your dog or cat so no concern?

I think that is being unfair and I am going to ignore that type of tactic.

You’re worried that people who can't afford altering will turn in their pets to the shelters yet many cities within LA county offer voucher programs to help those people as well their are plenty of groups who contribute pledges to owners and their are low cost and no cost spay/neuter days. If these owners can’t afford the $20 or $30 left over after the voucher then how can they afford food for their pet or veterinary care when needed. That argument is weak. 

I see a lot of opposition and the only solution I've seen is "what about a leash law for cats".

  And no comment on that suggestion from you?  Do you not agree that if cats were not allowed to roam free the cat population explosion could be greatly reduced?  Sorry, that thought suggestion isn't worthy of your consideration.

A great deal of the homeless pet population come from ethnic neighborhoods where keeping their dogs "in tact" is considered "macho" and from back-yard breeders who have their dogs turn out liters for profit until she no longer has any use then they just turn her out on the street looking for her puppies (they were sold) looking for food and looking for her home. 

So how about some solutions guys because so far, your arguments don’t outweigh my concerns about the lost 430,000 innocent lives.

   If the bill addresses the concerns about the guide and police dog programs that would be effected, the health problems that made lead to THOSE dogs then being given up to a shelter because of behavior and medical problems from early altering or just put down, the shrinking of the gene pool that companion animals will come from leading to more prevalence of breed specific health issues, the extinction of "mutts" which usually are more healthy than "pure breds" because they don't inherit breed common problems, leads to what companion animals there will be being unhealthy, and becoming more and more so over the years.

   Trying to make me feel guilty is not going to make me overlook the health of generations to come for companion animals.  Or make me give up my RIGHT and my companions RIGHT to do the  best that I can provide to assure my companions quality of life is not compromised by a law that will harm them.  Read the early spay and altering health consequences study. 

  I had a suggestion that I thought could easliy pass and be a benefit.  It would be a start and could take a BIG dent out of cats being put down and unwanted litters being born. 

      I can be concerned over the number of pets killed each year and still fight for the right of HEALTHY companion animals.  What kind of person would I be if I didn't care for the health of MY companions and MY future ones.  And also for the health of other RESPONSIBLE pet owner companions. 

  Use the guilt angle if you want Dave, but this bill needs to address more than just guilt to pass. 


  I will repeat, this bill is the "Healthy Pet Extinction Act"
     

[Max_Rep]

Amy you mentioned guilt at least three times in your post. Guilt was NEVER my intent.   I said that you don’t seem at all concerned because all of your posts are taken from the website meant to defeat this Bill, some have merit some don’t but let’s not get so wrapped up in the passing or defeat of the Bill that we forget to solve the problem.

THAT is my concern… solving the problem and ending the senseless killing of these animals.

Who would enforce a cat leash law in communities like Los Angeles, Orange County, San Diego, San Francisco where the police forces are already short on manpower, payroll budgets and a qualified candidate pool? It’s a nice idea but I don’t see at as being a practical measure.

I don’t see the extinction of any breed as being “endangered” any time soon. I’m certain if it were to reach that point, amendments could be made.

Are we only going to look at the health problems caused by early altering and yet ignore the health problems caused by breeders and breeding?

The TV show “Nature” ran a two part, two hour long documentary about dogs and how there were ALL breed from Wolves. The show talked about some of the health and behavioral problems caused by breeding. Hip displacement, respiratory disorders and more. If you look at the English bulldog, the early versions were much, healthier than today’s version. Much of the breeding that goes on is NOT to produce police dogs, care-giver dogs, heard dogs etc. It is to produce a liter that a breeder can sell for profit because people want a “cute” (fill in the breed blank). As long as those new owners are responsible, I don’t have a problem with it. Unfortunately, I don’ t think the screening process is much more than “Do you have the $2000?”

[~flower~]

It would be enforced however this bill was going to be enforced.      How is the early altering going to be enforced?   At one time dogs ran all over towns, that seems to have been stopped.  I thought it wouldn't be 100% effective but even a 50% decrease in breeding cats roaming free would be great. 


  Your reply points out a few of the FLAWS with this bill that I have.  I stickied that PBS show, so yes I watched it.   If you cut down the number of breeders you limit the gene pool. Genetic problems become more and more by more inbreeding and limit of stock. If early altering is the law it further cuts down from using the healthiest and best temperamented dogs to breed with because the puppies are too your at 4 months to screen for these problems.  No more mutts (usually healthier than pure breds) because any breeders that are left are going to be purebred breeders.  The problem isn't going to be the extinction of breeds, but the extinction of HEALTHY dogs. 

  You are correct the majority of litters are not produced for guide, service, police or other professional k9 use, but this bill will eliminate those programs. 

 You seem to have no problem with early altering causing more fear, aggression, and other behavioral problems?  Nor the increase in health problems one being cancer increases and the other mainly affecting females of urinary incontinence. How many of these dogs will end up being put in a shelter of put down because of those problems?  How many owners will go into debt trying to save their dog from something caused by a "law"?

   YOUR concern is only the welfare of those that will end up in the shelters, that is a justifiable and understandable concern.

   MY concern is for the health of companion animals and a persons right to make decisions that will impact the animals health. 

  When I look at the pet shelter rescue websites around here I see mainly older dogs and cats listed.  This bill will do nothing to stop people from dumping the pet they outgrew, or they got a younger model, or a baby, or we moved, but now we can add early alter aggression and behavior problems and spay incontinence to that list of reasons. 
 
   Right now as that bill stands, people are looking at the health consequences and service dog work as a way to stop that bill.   Defeat this bill and maybe a better one will be drafted based on all the input and facts that have been brought to light. 

  That is my concern at this time. Because if this bill passes, then it will be too late.  (and yes I am in NY, not CA, but once it passes somewhere it makes it easier for other states to do it)

  I did have a suggestion, maybe it couldn's solve all the problems, but it was a suggestion, and a pretty good one I thought, I find it insulting that you implied that I have no concern for the animals killed (see I can say killed) every day/month/year because of irresponsible people.   I do, I have a dog I rescued from one such place.  One dog saved, not a big deal I know in the grand scheme of things, but I drove 6hours to save her, so yes, I do care.  But I also care for the health of companion animals, and I see this bill being the downfall of healthy companions.

 I put out a suggestion that could probably get passed easier and have an effect, a more extreme bill like this one could be ironed out in the meantime.  What are YOUR suggestions for a bill that benefits ALL animals?

     

[Max_Rep]

Amy... retract your claws please. I am not nor have I ever been against you. I share your concerns and like you I love animals. My rhetorical questions are in no way intended as a personal attack against you as you seem to think. 

You do have me thinking about both sides of this issue and right now I'm still trying to determine what is truth and what is rhetoric on BOTH sides of the issue.

[Max_Rep]

The problem I’ve always had with breeders is this: outside of needed specific breeds for human needs (seeing eye, police, cattle etc.) why do we need to breed more dogs when the shelters and rescue groups are already full?

The same people adopting dogs being breed could be adopting a rescue.

You mentioned seeing older cats and dogs on rescue group sights. My experience has been that people come in wanting kittens and puppies first and the 1 or 2 year olds up are the later choice.

In California we have another problem that no-one has addressed and I don’t know the answer for it. Many apartment buildings have been taken over by management companies and buildings that were once “pet-friendly” are now “no pet buildings”. This means that people who have pets and can’t find a place to live. It also means there are fewer people able to adopt a new pet who would like to.

What about a bill that proposes mandatory spay-neuter at an older date, breeders have to be registered, licensed and have to have a strict adoption-screening policy (to prevent puppy-mills etc.). If someone wants to keep a dog, cat unaltered they have to go through a class to educate them and or prove they are responsible owners IF they want to keep their pet unaltered. Again, I don’t know how any of this would be enforced as it would require quite a bit of staffing.         

[~flower~]

I have permission from Dr. Charles A. Hjerpe, Emeritus Professor at
University of California Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine, to share
his letter to the California Veterinary Medical Association with the dog
clubs.
Please distribute this powerful and excellent letter far and wide, ASAP!!!
Sharon Vanderlip, D.V.M.

www.sharonvanderlip.com

_______

Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 10:18 AM
Subject: AB 1634

To President Ron Faoro and the California Veterinary Medical Association
(CVMA) Board of Governors:

Dear Dr. Faoro and CVMA Governors:

I hope that CVMA will learn something from the mess you have created by
writing and sponsoring AB 1634. The leadership of your organization
which, supposedly, represents the interests of all veterinarians, helped
to write a controversial bill in secret, without any input from rank and
file CVMA membership, or any broad consultation with the animal lovers
and their organizations that would be adversely impacted by the bill.
The bill proposes to deprive more than half of the citizens of
California of what they have come to believe, and have every right to
believe, is a basic civil and constitutional right: that every citizen
has the right to decide if they want to spay or neuter their animals
and, if so, when they would like to do it. CVMA has jeopardized the
reputation of the entire veterinary profession, by supporting a piece of
legislation which has enraged millions of animal owners and promises to
enrich one segment of the veterinary profession. Now that the
legislation you have helped to create has been high-jacked by some of
the most extreme elements in society, CVMA remains absolutely silent,
aloof from the problems and concerns of "the huddled masses" and,
seemingly, powerless or fearful to try to "fix" anything. Meanwhile,
thousands of rank-and-file veterinarians and animal lovers are being
forced to become involved in things that we hate doing: writing letters
to politicians, rallying support from breed organizations, meeting with
our elected representatives and attending legislative hearings. I am
attaching two of the letters I have written, as they provide examples of
the problems with the piece of legislation of which you are so proud.

The tragedy of this whole fiasco is that "it is all for naught". The
evidence from past experiences with Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws is that
they make the problems worse, rather than better. As an example, I have
copied (see below) some statistics from the web site of Save our Dogs
www.saveourdogs.net/population.html. There are plenty of other studies
out there that have come to the same conclusion. You should have
researched this whole issue more thoroughly, before you put the
collective heads of the veterinary profession "on the chopping block".

Sincerely,

Charles A. Hjerpe, DVM
former CVMA member and
Emeritus Professor of Veterinary Medicine, UC Davis

[~flower~]

California Veterinarians Against AB1634

The following veterinarians agree with the goal of lowering the number of animals impounded in shelters and reducing the number of animals euthanasias, but remain convinced that the methods proposed by AB1634 to accomplish these goals will be ineffective.

In addition, the methods proposed by AB1634 will lead to unintended consequences that will have a serious negative effect on animal health, the public, and the economy. AB1634 may actually lead to an increase in the number of animals impounded and euthanized.

We, the undersigned veterinarians are licensed in the State of California, and we oppose AB1634 because:
* AB1634 will not work and will create additional problems for the State of California.
* AB1634 does not address the true sources of pet population problem, especially the feral cat population.
* Animal population issues must be resolved at a local level, not state level.
* AB1634 is poorly designed, cannot be successfully enforced and would be extremely costly to attempt to enforce.
* AB1634 unfairly penalizes responsible citizens.
* AB1634 will have a significant negative impact of the California economy.
* We were not consulted, nor informed about AB1634 during its development. Many of us were unaware of AB1634 or the CVMA’s intention to sponsor it.
* We object to state government intervention on this issue.


http://www.naiaonline.org/issues/opposeAB1634petitionList.cfm

[~flower~]

Smuggled puppies a concern to California

By Elysa Cross, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of Public Affairs

Everyone loves a soft cute puppy – those sweet brown eyes, short stubby legs, little wagging tail are hard to resist. Unfortunately, some people are willing to take advantage of that love and are smuggling very young puppies from Mexico into the United States.

Purebred and designer breed puppies are purchased in Mexico for between $50 and $150, then sold at street corners, parking lots and flea markets in Southern California for between $300 and $1,000 each, according to the Border Puppy Task Force. The Task Force is a group of 14 California animal welfare and law enforcement agencies including U.S. Customs and Border Protection and initiated by the San Diego Humane Society. The Task Force was formed in 2004 after a rash of complaints from owners who reported their dogs were getting sick and often dying.

The Border Puppy Task Force conducted a two-week statistic gathering operation at the Otay Mesa and San Ysidro ports of entry. The findings were announced at a press conference held on December 20, 2005 at the San Ysidro border crossing. The operation looked at animals brought from Mexico to the United States. During the two-week study 362 puppies under the age of 3 months were brought into the United States from the two points of entry. Over a year’s time, that equates to almost 10,000 young puppies entering San Diego County.

Puppies were found packed in glove compartments and truck beds. Some of them don't have teeth, are drenched in vomit, or are barely weaned. "Puppy peddling is better than selling drugs. The consequences are far less," said Simran Zilaro, with San Diego Humane Society.

"Most of these pups are bred in Mexico, pulled from their mothers at four to five weeks of age, sold south of the border and smuggled across into the United States for sale," said Capt. Aaron Reyes of the task force. "Each bust leads us to yet another seller and we're following up on leads as quickly as we can."

It is legal to cross the border with dogs if they are declared to CBP and they have rabies shots and health records.

The American public can put a stop to this practice by following the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ guidelines for people considering buying a puppy, regardless of the source:

    * Deal only with reputable breeders who screen dogs for heritable diseases and remove aggressive dogs from the breeding lines.

    * Make sure there has been no inbreeding.

    * Confirm that the breeder does not keep more dogs than can be properly cared for and ensures that the animals have proper veterinary care.

    * Make sure the breeder supplies an adoption/purchase contract in plain English that spells out the breeder’s responsibilities, the buyer’s responsibilities, health guarantee, and a return policy.

Puppy shipments

March 12, 2006
Twenty-four Poodles and two Chihuahua puppies were found stuffed in a duffel bag. When the car the puppies were in was moved into secondary inspection, the driver panicked, opened two duffel bags and began pulling out puppies.

April 12, 2006
Twenty-eight puppies, infested with parasites, dehydrated and too weak to stand, were seized after a CBP officer noticed a paw reach out from under the front seat Tuesday evening at San Diego's Otay Mesa border crossing. The puppies had been placed under the seat and duct tape had been used to seal the seat so that the puppies could not get out.

April 14, 2006
CBP officers discovered seven puppies hidden under the front seat of a car coming from Mexico into San Diego. Officers spotted the cocker spaniel and six poodles Thursday morning and pulled over the driver, a 60-year-old Los Angeles man. Each puppy is worth about $500. The driver, whose name wasn't released, was fined $3500 for failing to declare the puppies.

April 19, 2006
A woman met an officer of the Border Puppy Task Force, a coalition of animal law enforcement agencies, at the Los Angeles Monterey Park in a parking lot at Garfield and Newmark avenues where she was arrested for allegedly selling underage puppies from Mexico.

[~flower~]

http://www.petpopulation.org/exploring.pdf



http://www.saveourdogs.net/population.html

Facts about California Shelter Statistics
Data from the California Department of Health Services, Veterinary Public Health section shows that intake and euthanasia rates for dogs in California have been falling steadily for decades. Althought there is still a way to go, the state is on the right track. The NAIA Shelter Project has detailed statistics for local jurisdictions and the state as a whole.
Euthanasia rates of dogs are down an amazing 59% since 1995, and a whopping 86% from the mid 1970s.



Figure 1: Dogs in California Shelters: Impounds and Dispositions 1973-200
Line graph showing California state wide numbers per 100,000 population of dogs impounded, reclaimed, euthanized, sold/adopted from 1973 to 2004. The number of reclaimed and sold/adopted is fairly constant at 100 per 100,000 population. The number of impounded drops fairly smoothly from 800 per 100,000 in 1973 to 300 per 100,000 in 2004. The number euthanized follows the same pattern dropping from 550 per 100,000 in 1973 to just over 100 per 100,000 in 2004. There is a large dip in all four lines in 1999 followed by a rise back to the trend in 2000.
5


This huge success occurred without mandatory spay/neuter laws or other sweeping restrictions on dog owners.
The programs that were implemented statewide over this period and are responsible for this success are:

    * dog owner education programs
    * improved enforcement of leash laws and “at large” laws
    * low-cost voluntary spay/neuter outreach programs

These are programs that are proven to work. The state of California should encourage the expansion of these successful programs rather than try to a implement mandatory spay/neuter law which has proven it doesn't work.

Experiences with Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws
Where mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) laws have been introduced, they have failed to reduce euthanasia rates, have increased enforcement costs, and have decreased compliance with legally-mandated licensing and rabies vaccination compliance:

    * San Mateo County California* – dog euthanasia rates increased by 126%, dog licenses declined by 35%
    * Los Angeles City, California – enforcement costs rose 269%, from $6.7 million to $18 million; and compliance to mandatory dog licensing declined
    * Fort Worth, TX -- ended its mandatory spay/neuter program. Rabies vaccination and licensing compliance declined after passage of the ordinance. This led to an increase in rabies in the city
    * Montgomery County, MD – repealed its mandatory spay/neuter law. Euthanasia rates declined more slowly than they had been prior to the mandatory spay/neuter law; licensing compliance declined by 50%
    * King County, WA -- euthanasia rates fell at a slower rate after mandatory spay/neuter. License compliance has decreased. Animal control expenses have increased 56.8% and revenues only 43.2%
    * Camden County, NJ -- mandatory spay/neuter ordinance hasn’t stopped it from being called “consistently one of the leading, if not the leading killers of animals in the state of New Jersey” (ref: PAWS NJ)
    * Aurora, CO – euthanasia and shelter intake rates increased. Licensing compliance dropped dramatically, compliance costs have increased 75% with revenue increasing only 13%

* in unincorporated areas of the county which are the areas covered by the ordinance.

Why Dogs are in Shelters
A study Exploring the Cat and Dog Surplus Problem listed the top 10 reasons that dogs are relinquished to shelters as

   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

Most of reasons that dogs are relinquished to shelters have nothing to do with spay/neuter.

AB 1634 is being sold as the solution to a pet overpopulation problem. Yet more spay/neuter cannot put a significant dent in that problem, because the problem is largely one of adult dogs being relinquished to shelters, not an excess of unwanted/unplanned litters that spay/neuter addresses. The real problem at California animal shelters is not due to an excess of irresponsible dog breeding. It is an undersupply of responsible dog ownership.

Most of those who back AB 1634 do so because of their legitimate concerns about dogs having to be killed in shelters. But AB 1634 won't help. It will actually make the real problem at shelters worse.

In animal shelters, what one finds are regional and local variations in the supply vs. demand balance for puppy adoptions. Some communities have an excess of unplanned puppies being born, some have a balance between supply and demand for adoption of puppies at shelters, and some have an inadequate supply of puppies at shelters to supply the local demand. Some shelters are importing puppies from other regions to supply their local demand for puppy adoptions. This is a big change from years ago, when there was an excess of puppies for adoption. Leash laws, voluntary spay/neuter, and owner education have been a huge success.

Again, the lingering problem with dogs in shelters in America is the adult dogs being brought there by people who, for various reasons, decide to get rid of their dog. We live in a throwaway society, where some will discard a dog in a shelter as readily as they throw away a broken toaster. This problem cannot be addressed by spay/neuter laws, or with any new laws.

What AB 1634 will do is reduce the number of responsible dog breeders. They are the ones who license their dogs in their county, socialize their puppies, vaccinate their puppies, research their puppy buyers carefully, do health checks on their breeding stock, and carefully select mates for their breeding dogs. Many of these people will not be able to afford "intact permits". In many cases they won't be eligible for them at any price under AB 1634.

Because there will be fewer responsible breeders in California, the supply of well-bred puppies will decrease. Since the demand will still be there, puppies imported from Mexico or from other states for sale at pet shops and sold over the Internet will fill the supply gap. These puppies will for the most part be from large-scale commercial breeders. With an increase of poorly-bred pets who suffer many more health and temperament defects, the problems with dog bite statistics in California will increase. Even more dogs will get dumped in California shelters. And even more dogs will have to be euthanized each year in California shelters. Just as we've seen where mandatory spay/neuter laws have been implemented elsewhere, AB 1634 can backfire, and make the shelter euthanasia problem it seeks to address worse.

If California's mandatory spay/neuter legislation passes it will decimate working dog breeding in the state. Tens of thousands of working dogs would be ineligible for an "intact permit" under the law, at any price. While the proposed legislation appears to have exemptions for a small subset of working dogs, in reality it does not, since a dog would have to be a working law enforcement dog, a working guide dog for the blind, a working signal dog for the deaf, or a working service dog for the disabled by 4 months of age in order to be eligible for an "intact permit". There is no such thing as 4 month old working dogs, so nearly all future working dogs would be required to be spay/neutered if this law passes before they grow up.

[~flower~]

Dave, the answer really lies in education. No matter how hard a good breeder screens what is to say that a few years down the line the buyer "outgrows" the dog, has to move, has a baby, my boyfriend/girlfriend doesn't like pets (I say to that, they were there first dump the person!) etc etc.  Their are a lot of older dogs dumped in shelters.  Lollypop Farm here used to have on their website the adoptable animals and a reason why they were surrendered.   I remember reading a few that were "got a new puppy and the older dog doesn't get along with it", yes, they are getting rid of the dog they have had for 10 years for the new puppy.  Great thing to teach your kids, that animals are replaceable.  "Owners moving to new home, don't want to take dog"  dog 13 years old.   Who is going to adopt these older dogs?  These people have to know that chances are their pet is going to die in the shelter.  But they probably tell themselves "some wonderful person/family" will adopt Rover.  Or the assholes who drive out to "the country" and just dump them, thinking someone will take them in.   Mandatory altering is not going to stop those idiots from getting pets.

  Educating on what the actual commitment will be for a pet.  Expected life expectancy, estimated food bills, vet costs, boarding if you want to vacation, scheduling your day around taking care of them (more so with a dog that needs to get let out), etc etc.  And willing to be there for the WHOLE of that animals life barring some catastrophe that makes you legitimately unable to care for them.

  Making people more aware of low cost altering and vet checks.  Here in Rochester they city will alter for a resident for $85.00  no matter how large the dog, spaying or neutering(IE spaying a great dane will cost $400 and up at a vets, $85 is great!).  They also instituted a policy in January that if Animal Control picks up your dog and it is not altered you can not get it back til it is altered unless you can prove a medical reason or that is a show/working dog.   I wonder how many people are aware they can get their pet altered for $85?  My 6# male Chihuahua cost me over $200 to neuter! Maybe asking Pet Stores and supermarkets to place a sign in the store advertising this will get people to take advantage of it?   Newspapers might place a free ad in the Pets section, people looking for a puppy might see that and remember when it is time to alter their dog/cat.

   Education, education, education.  That is what needs to be stressed. 

[~flower~]

LAW ENFORCEMENT
· City of Beverly Hills Police Department
· City of Capitola Police Department
· City of Fremont Police Department, Animal Services Unit
· City of Los Angeles Police Department
· City of Santa Ana Police Department
· City of Salinas Police Department

  Retracted Support of Bill:


From: Daniel Ortega <danielo@ci.salinas.ca.us>
To:XXXXXXXX@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 5:10:39 PM
Subject: AB1634


Dear XXXXXX:

Thank you for your enlightening e-mail regarding AB1634. Your concerns have
been expressed by others to me and without going into a lot of detail,
suffice to say I errored and am in the process of retracting my support. I
was swayed by a convincing letter from a group called "California Healthy
Pets Coalition" and had my Animal Shelter staff research their request. The
bottom line though is I signed the letter without having the proper research
done. I apologize for any inconvenience or concern that my actions have
caused. As stated I am in the process of retracting my support of AB1634.

Again, thank you for bringing this to my attention.

Daniel M. Ortega
Chief of Police
Salinas Police Department
222 Lincoln Avenue
Salinas, CA 93901
(831) 758-7287
FAX: (831) 758-7982
danielo@ci.salinas.ca.us
www.salinaspd.com

   

[~flower~]

CASTRATION IN DOGS

 taken from Mary C. Wakeman, D.V.M.
 2003 for BREEDERVET

 ISSUES REGARDING CASTRATION IN DOGS


 Politically correct conventional wisdom is not
necessarily biologically correct. Also, old wives tale
regarding testicles and behavioral matters are often
just that.The only true justifications for castrating
dogs are

1) aggressive behavior toward other dogs in the same
household,and 2) perianal adenoma in old dogs.

Aggression to other dogs in situations outside the
house is pretty normal dog behavior. Appropriate
behavior. Since your dog will be on lead or inside a
secure fence at all times, there should be no problem
with dogs outside your household. However, if male
house mates fight, and both need to stay with you,
castration of one or both may solve the aggression
problems. If you fault your dog for being aggressive
to acquaintances while being walked on lead, you
should not. He is guarding you. That simple.

Honorable behavior. If you fault your dog for
aggression in a 'dog park' where he is running free,
or on the beach, or in the woods, well shame on you;
you're the one at fault for risking his life in such
an uncontrolled situation. Dogs that can manage such
encounters without aggression are fine, but you
cannot automatically expect a dog to have friendly
relations with animals from outside his own 'pack'.
It goes against his whole evolution.

 Perianal adenomas, benign but messy tumors in old
dogs may be treated by castration.

 In terms of your dog's health, two overriding
concerns are present.

Castration at an early age will cause the dog to
become overly tall, as the growth plates in the long
bones will not close at the appropriate time;
additionally, the dog will lack breadth of chest. The
combination of these two factors sets the stage for
your dog to have painful orthopedic problems. The OFA
has published articles on this subject. An early age
means below 1 year i small and medium sized dogs,
and below 2 to 2.5 years in large and giant breeds.

 The statement that your dog will not automatically
gain weight is rubbish. Removing sexual hormones will
change his metabolism and make your dog more sluggish,
resulting almost inevitably in weight gain.

 Also, muscle tone will decline after castration, and
the classic result of this is a fat dog in poor
muscle tone that ends up having a cruciate ligament
rupture in the knee. Can you avoid the consequences
to weight and condition? Sure in the ideal world it's
possible, but in the real world, the overwhelming
proportion of owners do not succeed in this endeavor.

 The second concern regarding your dog's health is
highly malignant prostate cancer. Virtually all
malignant prostatic tumors in dogs occur in castrated
dogs. Castrating your dog puts him at risk for one of
the worst cancers he can get. While you remove the
very slight risk of testicular cancer in castrated
dogs, that's a small matter; the incidence of
testicular cancer is so minimal. Also, almost all
testicular cancers in dogs are benign. If we find a
testicular tumor, we normally remove the testicle
with the mass and leave the remaining one intact.
The relative incidence and severity of the tumors of
the prostate relative to tumors of the testicle make
the decision to keep your dog intact a virtual
no-brainer. Th information on the incidence
prostatic malignancies was obtained through a very
large study of the records at veterinary colleges.
These findings have been published for several years.*

Infection or inflammation of the prostate may occur
in intact male dogs that are chronically exposed to
bitches in heat. These are often worrisome to owners
who seem to confuse prostatitis with the more
serious prostate cancer. Prostatic infections are
easily treated, and not, per se, a reason for
castration.

So, the bottom line is:
 1. Never castrate your dog because it is Politically Correct
 2. Only castrate your dog if his home life is at
 risk due to dog- to-dog aggression, or if, at the age of 11 years or
 so, he develops a perianal adenoma.

[~flower~]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070605/pl_usnw/_california_healthy_pets_act__assures_unintended_consequences__elimination_of_california_s_healthy_pets

'California Healthy Pets Act' Assures Unintended Consequences: Elimination of California's Healthy Pets!

To: POLITICAL EDITORS

Contact: National Animal Interest Alliance, Patti Strand, National Director, +1-503-761-8962, naia@naiaonline.org

SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The anti-pet movement has found a sponsor in the California legislature for a bill that strips pet owners of their traditional rights and, in the process, sharply reduces both the quantity and quality of purpose-bred dogs and cats -- including those bred for assistance to the disabled, and for search & rescue operations.

AB 1634 is backed by the extremist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and sponsored by Assembly Member Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys). If it passes, most California pet owners will have to sterilize their pets.

"This bill comes with a noble-sounding name but AB 1634, the so-called California Healthy Pets Act, will not improve the health of California pets," says Patti Strand, National Director of the National Animal Interests Alliance, one of the nation's most respected animal welfare groups.

The bill is fraught with unintended consequences. Among them: a predictable flood of unregulated -- and typically unhealthy -- dogs from Mexico, already the proven source of up to 10,000 illegal dogs sent to California each year according to US Customs and Border Protection: (www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2006/jun_jul/other/puppies.xml). "In a global marketplace," according to Strand, "over-regulating the AKC and CFA hobby breeders who are the best source of healthy, well-socialized, home-raised puppies and kittens, creates a vacuum, effectively 'outsourcing' pet production to other countries that don't come close to reaching US standards of animal health, care or quality." The increasing demand for puppies has also led to the importation of strays rescued from foreign countries that are being marketed through non-profit organizations like The Animal Place (www.animalplace.org) and Compassion Without Borders (www.cwob.org). This influx harms California consumers and poses a significant public health threat.

Despite the claims of the bill's supporters, many respected California veterinarians oppose AB 1634, including one the state's most distinguished vets. Dr. John Hamil is past president of the California Veterinary Medical Association, founder of the California Council of Companion Animal Advocates that sponsored biannual Pet Overpopulation Symposia (now the Animal Care Conference), member of the American Veterinary Medical Association's Animal Welfare Committee and the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy and author of the CVMA and AVMA positions on early spay/neuter.

Dr. Hamil, a leader in spay/neuter programs, terms AB 1634 "divisive legislation [that] will not help and may aggravate the situation." Noting that young puppies and kittens are not biologically mature enough for spaying and neutering in many cases, Dr. Hamil states: "It is inappropriate to mandate a controversial and possibly life-threatening surgical procedure."

Also strongly opposed to AB 1634 is Sharon Vanderlip, DVM, former shelter animal veterinary clinician and surgeon, a longtime advocate of voluntary spaying and neutering. "This bill is not a 'healthy' pet act," said Dr. Vanderlip. "It will not help animals or improve their health. It will not reduce the shelter animal population. It will not reduce the number of animal euthanasias. To the contrary, the number of animals in shelters and the number of euthanasias will increase as people who cannot afford to alter their pets, or pay fines associated with non-compliance, will abandon their animals, relinquish them to shelters, or have them euthanized. This has already happened in municipalities that attempted similar legislation."

Christian Osmond, DVM, board-certified veterinary surgeon, opposes the bill on similar grounds. Dr. Osmond says he cannot reconcile his professional oath to "above all else ... do no harm" with programs that place political agendas above sound veterinary practice, a priority that could put pets at risk.

Canine Companions for Independence, an organization supporting assistance dogs for the disabled, opposes AB 1634 because even with exemptions for today's carefully supervised dogs, the bill's long-term effects would greatly reduce genetic diversity and threaten the existence of their breeding program.

Law enforcement groups -- representing tens of thousands of uniformed officers -- oppose AB 1634 because it will drastically reduce the future supply of dogs suitable for apprehending criminal suspects and performing vital Homeland Security tasks. (www.saveourdogs.net/letters.html). The U.S. Congress has recognized the critical need to breed more dogs for Homeland Security work with pending legislation HR 659. AB 1634 would send this important bipartisan effort into a tailspin.

"AB 1634 would shrink the pool of dogs that are suitable for search and rescue, undermining our ability to do this life-saving work," says Laura Sanborn, California K9 search and rescue volunteer.

The Mixed Breed Dog Clubs of America supports spay and neuter programs and in fact requires compliance for all MBDCA registered dogs. But president Cindy Leung said that AB 1634 will not solve the problem it claims to address. Instead, she said, the bill "punishes organizations, animal shelters, businesses and responsible breeders that have been among the few sources of education in regard to responsible pet ownership and breeding. Over 87% of animals relinquished to shelters are there due to behavioral problems; if California truly wants to solve the pet overpopulation problem it should promote training and behavior education rather than mandatory spay and neuter."

Animal shelter studies demonstrate that pet owners are well on their way to solving the pet population problems of yesterday. Today, California's largest animal problem is feral cats (cats without owners); but AB 1634 establishes no programs for these cats. Worse yet, it imposes penalties on cat breeders who breed and place their kittens with care.

NAIA director Strand notes that AB 1634's chief advocates claim they have "no relationship to animal extremists." However, PETA operatives play key roles in Social Compassion, a sister group to the bill's public supporter, CA Healthy Pets Coalition.

"Beyond AB 1634 itself, the issue at stake is responsible political process," NAIA's Strand concludes. "Will the California Assembly rely on the expertise of the state's animal professionals - including leading veterinarians, experts in law enforcement and service dog breeding programs, dedicated breed enthusiasts, animal welfare groups, the leading organizations for cats and dogs like Cat Fanciers Association (CFA) and the American Kennel Club (AKC), county Boards of Supervisors, and other respected individuals and organizations - or will they listen to groups that oppose all pets, healthy or not?"

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
-- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis For more information contact: National Animal Interest Alliance Patti Strand, National Director 503-761-8962 naia@naiaonline.org http://www.naiaonline.org

SOURCE National Animal Interest Alliance

[~flower~]

http://www.k9snaturally.com/stopab1634.htm  SEE WEBSITE FOR INFO

join us in showing the California State Senate that the Dog Fancy will not lie down and accept a bill that forces mandatory spay/neuter on our breeds! "Biscuits Against AB1634" hopes to show California Legislators that there is a national outcry against taking away even more rights for pet owners.

What You Can Do
write letters announcing your disapproval on this bill and mail or fax them to the California State Senators. You do not have to be a resident of California to do this.

if you are a breeder, put a disclaimer on your website that you will NOT sell any puppies or kittens from upcoming litters to any resident of California if this bill passes.

Donate to PetPac to help them fight this bill.

SEND A BISCUIT! Starting on June 11th, K9's Naturally will package and send dog biscuits with the message "Vote NO on AB1634" to the legislators of California in our attempt to get them to understand just how many lives this bill could affect, and how far-reaching the outcry is to VOTE NO NOW!

SEND YOUR OWN BISCUIT!

For every $1 donation, we'll send a dog biscuit with a label attached that says "VOTE NO on AB1634!"

[~flower~]

Pet vote breeds discontent

AKC may pull major dog show from L.B. after local lawmakers vote in favor of neutering bill.

By Don Jergler, Staff writer
Long Beach Press Telegram

LONG BEACH - A pair of local Assembly members who voted for a bill to require cats and dogs to be spayed and neutered broke their promises and delivered a multimillion-dollar blow to the city's economy, some bill opponents said Thursday.

Assemblywoman Betty Karnette's and Assemblywoman Laura Richardson's votes on Wednesday night for Assemblyman Lloyd Levine's AB 1634 helped pass it, 41-38.

Those votes, however, threaten the AKC/Eukanuba National Championship in Long Beach, which brought 30,000 people to the city last year, local tourism officials said. They estimate that the AKC/Eukanuba show will have a $65 million impact on the city's economy and $850,000 in hotel bed taxes through 2014.

Karnette and Richardson had told lobbyists and local tourism officials they would abstain from supporting the bill to help keep the dog show in Long Beach.

But the Democratic lawmakers maintained on Thursday that their votes Wednesday gave them leverage to alter the bill, called the California Healthy Pets Act, at a later date, to make it more breeder-friendly, although what changes they sought were not clear Thursday.

The bill would require most cats and dogs four months old and up to be spayed or neutered. Failure to do so could result in a $500 fine for owners.

Levine said the bill was needed to ease a huge population of unwanted pets that is costing state and local governments $300 million a year.

The bill includes several exceptions, including for show animals, police dogs and guide dogs and for animals that are too old or ill to be spayed or neutered.

Many breeders and dog owners say the bill adds unneeded bureaucracy, and that collected fees would go toward maintaining the program's bureaucratic infrastructure.

Levine's bill passed the Assembly floor with 41 "aye" votes - meaning abstentions or "no" votes by Karnette and Richardson would have killed the bill, which now heads to the state Senate.

"AKC is very frustrated that two representatives at the Assembly level for the city of Long Beach voted `yes' on a bill when they had previously told others that they would abstain," said Steve Goodling, president and CEO of the Long Beach Convention and Visitors Bureau. "They feel that their value to the city is not being recognized."

The group's 600 delegates will gather at a quarterly meeting in Las Vegas on Monday, and Goodling believes there's a chance those delegates will seek cancellation of the contract to hold the show in Long Beach.

"Their membership is furious with what transpired in the Assembly yesterday," Goodling said. "There is concern that their members will ask that they explore their existing contract."

The last show was in December, and the group has signed contracts to hold shows in Long Beach this year, and in 2008, with a verbal agreement for 2009, according to the CVB.

The group has asked the CVB to hold dates through 2014, Goodling said.

"They wanted Long Beach to be their home for this show," Goodling said.

The show garners live coverage on the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet.

"It's a big disappointment and it will be a big loss for the city of Long Beach," Goodling said.

He said the CVB and local lobbyists are talking to state Senators and the governor's office, but that all may be too late because of Monday's meeting.

"Everything at the moment is in jeopardy," he said.

Both Karnette and a spokesman for Richardson confirmed the lawmakers had promised not to support the bill.

"That's what I told my office and I told the lobbyists," said Karnette, adding, "Democracy is the art of negotiations."

"The author has agreed to really work on the bill," Karnette said, adding, "I have made no promise to continue to support it.

"The idea of all these animals being killed bothers all of us. I care about tourism a great deal. And I really do understand the concerns. I think we can work out the problems."

Stan Diorio with Richardson's office said her vote was a strategic move to convince Levine that he needs her support for final passage of the bill.

"She leveraged her vote to get a commitment from him to work with (the breeders)," he said.

Richardson was not immediately available for comment.

A lobbyist for AKC said the votes by Karnette and Richardson have already generated negative feelings about Long Beach from several members.

"It's already true that there are individual dog owners and breeders who are not interested in participating in a show in Long Beach because of what's happened," said lobbyist Jeff Leacox.

Long Beach Police Officers Association President Steve James, who takes up many local lobbying causes, was upset with the pair.

"I was given the very distinct impression that Laura would not be supporting the bill," James said. "Staff assured us she was not going to be voting for the bill. We got the same assurance from (Karnette's) office that she would not be supporting it."

He added, "There's a lot of animosity right now for both of these legislators. It certainly appears to be underhanded for both of them say one thing and then vote for this bill."

Don Jergler can be reached at don.jergler@presstelegram.com or (562) 499-1281. The Associated Press contributed to this report.


http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_6088981

[Hedgehog]

The Bill was voted a go.

And I'm not sure if all you people who are against it have been entirely honest.

I found out when reading about it now that those who legit reasons to have a dog, eg a blind person et al, could get a pass on getting the neuter, if they feel it would hamper the capacity of the dog.

Essentially, I believe this law will be mostly good.

Much less dogs and cats dieing and suffering.

-Hedge§

[~flower~]

This Bill has been re-written during this process to supposedly address some of the concerns raised.  The altering at 4 months of age is going to have serious health consequences on dogs, especially large and giant breeds, this was NOT addressed. I don't know where the 4 months for altering came from, used to be 6 months. This bill  does NOTHING to address all the juvenile and adult dogs/cats that make up the MAJORITY of shelter and rescue animals.  Nothing is going to stop people from dumping their pet when they are bored, or get a new one, or it eats their couch. It does nothing to address the feral cat populations.

  In essence this bill is going to do shit and make more problems. People and animals are going to suffer.  Animals because of health problems from early altering, and people who are going to have be paying for these problems or resort to giving up their pet.

  If you read all the posts you would also see that California has a lot of puppies coming in from Mexico.  This will increase now.  More dogs will die in the smuggling process, more ill bred dogs will be churned out, that problem is going to get WORSE.

   The bill barely squeaked by and may still get vetoed.  For the sake of companion animals being given the chance to be HEALTHY, I hope it gets vetoed.   If it goes to other states, soon the whole USA will not have the RIGHT to have a healthy companion. 


Over 87% of animals relinquished to shelters are there due to behavioral problems; if California truly wants to solve the pet overpopulation problem it should promote training and behavior education rather than mandatory spay and neuter."


If you read the studies that were done they show aggression and behavior problems as a direct result from early altering.   How many pets are going to be dumped that otherwise would not have been because they have behavior problems?  How many female dogs will get dumped because they have spay incontinence as a result from early altering?   Who is going to adopt these problem dogs?  No one.  They will be put down because they are "unadoptable".

  How many responsible people will have to make the decision on what to do with their "problem" pet, that might not have been a problem if allowed to have been altered at a more appropriate age?  How many animals will DIE from this bill?



   

 

[Vet]

Reading through all of this thread, there are some things I agree whole heartedly with, some I disagree with, but by and large, I think this California bill is going to open up a can of worms....  a potentially big can of worms.   

The best statement I saw through this whole thing was this:  The real problem at California animal shelters is not due to an excess of irresponsible dog breeding. It is an undersupply of responsible dog ownership.

I used to work at one of the larger humane societies in Missouri when I was a veterinary student.   It wasn't uncommon to euthanize 40, 50, or 60+ dogs and cats per day at that humane society.  Our record high was over 80 animals in one day, including entire litters of perfectly healthy kittens and puppies because of the simple fact that people didn't want them and we absolutely had no other room for them in the shelter.    We tried our damndest to adopt every one of those dogs and cats we could, but finding responsible owners was the problem.   There simply weren't enough of them for the numbers of animals.   

[~flower~]

This was just passed in Conn.  It seems to be much more reasonable than what CA is trying to pass:

AN ACT CONCERNING THE EXPANSION OF THE ANIMAL POPULATION CONTROL PROGRAM.

SUMMARY:
This bill expands the state's Animal Population Control Program (APCP),
requiring the agriculture commissioner to establish programs to (1)
sterilize and vaccinate the pets of low-income people and (2) assist
registered nonprofit rescue groups with feral cat sterilization and
vaccination. Under the bill, the commissioner must use APCP funds to pay for
the two new programs.

Specifically, the bill allows the commissioner to (1) use up to 20% of APCP
funds for the two new programs (up to 10% for each) and (2) seek funds for
them. It also increases, from $180,000 to $225,000, the amount of APCP funds
that the Agriculture Department may use for administrative costs. It
eliminates a provision of current law that allows the commissioner to set
aside APCP funds to assist in the sterilization of feral cats.

The bill requires the agriculture commissioner to distribute a standard dog
licensing form to pet shop operators, grooming facilities, municipal pounds,
or dog training facilities that offer to make it available to dog owners.
Under current law, the commissioner distributes this form only to
veterinarians.

It makes a minor change and conforming and technical changes.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 2007, except a conforming change is effective
upon passage.

APCP FUNDING AND NEW PROGRAMS
By law, residents must pay a $45 adoption fee for any unsterilized dog or
cat they buy or adopt from a municipal impound facility, for which they
receive a sterilization voucher and vaccination benefits.

By law, a resident may redeem an APCP voucher at a participating
veterinarian's office; the voucher is valid for 60 days. The $45 sale or
adoption fee goes to APCP. Additional funding for the APCP comes from (1) an
annual surcharge on Connecticut dog licenses ($2 for a sterilized and $6 for
an unsterilized dog), (2) proceeds from the sale of “Caring for Pets�
commemorative license plates, and (3) donations. APCP funds are placed in
the animal population control account that the law required the agriculture
commissioner to establish.

Under current law, the commissioner may solicit and accept funds from any
public or private source to help carry out APCP goals. The bill allows him
to do so for the existing voucher and the two new programs and allows a
donor to earmark funds for any or all of the programs.

Under current law, the commissioner may suspend the APCP voucher program
when less than $300,000 is available for it and the commissioner may
reinstate the program when funds exceed that amount. The bill expands this
provision to include all three programs, allowing the commissioner to
suspend and reinstate any or all of them.

Low-Income Pet Sterilization and Vaccination
Under the bill, pet owners receiving or eligible for certain forms of public
assistance are eligible to receive financial assistance to have their pets
sterilized and vaccinated. It defines a “low income person� as someone
receiving or eligible for one of the following programs:

1. the food stamp program,
2. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,
3. Medicaid Fee-for-Service or HUSKY A,
4. state-administered general assistance, either medical or cash assistance
components,
5. state supplement, or
6. any other public assistance program that the commissioner determines
qualifies a person as low-income.

Feral Sterilization and Vaccination
The bill requires the commissioner to establish a program to assist
nonprofit rescue groups with feral cat sterilization and vaccination. The
bill defines a “feral cat� an animal of the species felis catus (1) that is
unowned and exists in a wild or untamed state or has returned to an untamed
state from domestication and (2) whose behavior is suggestive of a wild
animal. It eliminates a provision that allows the agriculture commissioner
to provide up to $40,000 in APCP funds per year, if available, to charitable
organizations to sterilize feral cats.

BACKGROUND
APCP Veterinarian Reimbursement
The commissioner must pay participating veterinarians for the sterilization
and vaccinations of a dog or cat when he or she submits a signed APCP
voucher (CGS § 22-380i(c)).
COMMITTEE ACTION
Environment Committee
Joint Favorable Change of Reference
Yea24Nay4(03/21/2007)

Finance, Revenue and Bonding Committee
Joint Favorable

[knny187]

Reading through all of this thread, there are some things I agree whole heartedly with, some I disagree with, but by and large, I think this California bill is going to open up a can of worms....  a potentially big can of worms.   

The best statement I saw through this whole thing was this:  The real problem at California animal shelters is not due to an excess of irresponsible dog breeding. It is an undersupply of responsible dog ownership.

I used to work at one of the larger humane societies in Missouri when I was a veterinary student.   It wasn't uncommon to euthanize 40, 50, or 60+ dogs and cats per day at that humane society.  Our record high was over 80 animals in one day, including entire litters of perfectly healthy kittens and puppies because of the simple fact that people didn't want them and we absolutely had no other room for them in the shelter.    We tried our damndest to adopt every one of those dogs and cats we could, but finding responsible owners was the problem.   There simply weren't enough of them for the numbers of animals.   

Good GOD!

80 animals in one DAY?

Man...hearing stuff like that depresses the hell out of me.

[Vet]

Good GOD!

80 animals in one DAY?

Man...hearing stuff like that depresses the hell out of me.

Yeah, but it happened... and it happens in humane societies across the US every single day.   

[knny187]

Yeah, but it happened... and it happens in humane societies across the US every single day.   

Man...I tell you...I could work in a morgue...no problem.  Dealing with humans dying is no big deal.

I could never work in that type of an environment...putting down healthy animals.  I do not blame the H.S. or Shelters for doing this...but I try to do my part & be a responsible pet owner.

[~flower~]

Letter from Delegate to CVMA President

Dr. Seibold gave me permission to share this and says it does not have to
remain confidential.
Sharon Vanderlip DVM



Dear Dr. Faoro:

I recently read your letter to the board members regarding the issues
surrounding AB1634. It is extremely disappointing that the leadership of
this great profession has chosen to align itself with politicians instead of
standing up for its members. Undoubtedly you and the rest of the executive
board have your reasons. I do believe that you initially did not intend for
this to become such a controversy but regrettably you have become so
defensive that you will not be gracious and just accept that you made an
error in judgment regarding the perspectives of the membership. It is ok to
make a mistake; it is not ok to be so arrogant as to think that the voice of
the membership does not matter.

I take issue with a few of your statements and would like to point out that
although this bill may pass it will not be because the veterinary community
stood behind it but because a few thought that politics and future favors
were more important than the integrity of the process and honesty to its
membership. I attended the meeting in November and voted for a task force to
be created to look at language for a spay/neuter bill. There was no urgency
at that time and it was specifically brought up that we would have a year +
to work on this very important topic. That process was violated.

As a delegate I was blindsided when I learned that the CVMA had agreed to be
a sponsor of this bill. I understand that "it was important to be at the
table" but I believe that your personal beliefs and aspirations have weighed
heavily on the decision making process. It was at that time that I began
polling my members and learned that they were almost 95% against this bill.
I know that many letters and faxes were sent to the executive office that
were apparently not passed down to the BOG, that is very worrisome and I
believe that was a strategic mistake because had the STAFF office listened
to the opposition we would not be in this situation right now. I believe
that it is our job to represent our constituents, not take on a path that we
think or ASSUME is right- I believe that is called
dictatorship/socialism/communism.

In addition, it was discussed that this bill was targeting a specific group
of people- namely the Hispanic/illegal's community in Levine's district
where there is a significant problem with pit bulls roaming the streets.
Political correctness dictates that you do not write a bill that is singles
out a specific race. It was also brought up that everyone knew that this law
was not enforceable and that it was being pushed as a political maneuver not
really a solution. SB 861 was enacted to allow cities to implement breed
specific mandatory S/N. San Francisco enacted the spay and neuter of Pit
Bulls because that is the problem in their district. Levine supported this
bill - why didn't he advise his district to implement it or something
similar?

Your inflammatory statements regarding Drs. Hamil, Pasten, and Hjerpe are
uncalled for and truly unprofessional. As the leader of the CVMA you should
be absolutely ashamed. When people resort to defending themselves by making
inflammatory comments it is usually because they know that they are usually
wrong and they feel compelled to attack their opponents on a personal level
instead of debating the issues at hand. Look at our President- for all the
condemnation and criticism that he has taken over the years he has never
stooped so low as to condemn and abash his opponents on a person level.

I personally take issue with your comments that many of the DVM's that are
opposed to the bill are misinformed. That is an incredibly condescending
statement and goes back to the point that the membership was left out of the
communication loop and was never allowed to participate in the discussion.
It is obvious that you are backed into a corner and that must be a very
uncomfortable feeling. I know that many members are considering dropping
their membership as well as insurance. I suppose that you will be happy if
the bill passes, but I wonder if the CVMA will be happy with the economic
fallout and the negative impact on camaraderie.

If veterinary associations or their representatives express a profound lack
of support for CVMA's alliance and co-sponsorship of this bill, and CVMA
does not listen, who will they be forced to express their opposition to
next? CVMA will be publicly exposed for its lack of judgment and poor
representation. It is also very troublesome that there is more and more
evidence that the animal rights group PETA have been working behind the
scenes in getting this bill passed. That in and of itself, should worry you
tremendously as a member of the veterinary profession. Maybe the reference
you made to the "stewardship" of animals should be investigated, as that is
a term that the animal rights groups use when pushing the guardianship issue
for animals. Guilt by association, I for one do not want to be aligned with
either of these groups and would bet that is the consensus of most of the
profession locally and nationally.

The proverbial ball is in your court, it always takes a man of integrity to
admit error and accept his mistakes. The choice is yours.

Please do not hesitate to contact me directly should you wish to discuss
this matter further. I look forward to seeing you with the BOG this coming
week in Anaheim.

Respectfully,


Karen E. Seibold, DVM, ACVECC
CVMA Delegate San Diego

cc. by fax Dr. Jeff Smith and the BOG, Mark Nunez

[24KT]

A mandatory spay & neuter your pet bill? 

Wow, I think Bob Barker just got his first hardon in years   

[knny187]

PetPAC is leading the fight to oppose California Assembly Bill 1634, "The Pet Extinction Act." Please sign the Petition to oppose this inhumane measure and save the lives of dogs and cats throughout the state.

AB 1634 will have a devastating impact on pets and their owners, not only in California but across the nation. Thank you for helping PetPAC defeat AB 1634

http://petpac.net/action/petitions/ab1634/


The PetitionTo California State Senators:


We oppose Assembly Bill 1634, an inhumane measure to eliminate all mixed breed dogs and cats in California. Only select registered purebreds that can get a government-issued permit will be legally allowed to breed. Owners with unspayed or unneutered pets will be fined $500 and face possible criminal penalties.

AB 1634 kills pets.
Supporters of AB 1634 may be well-intentioned but they are being misled. Statistics show that MORE dogs and cats are euthanized following mandatory spay/neuter laws as shelters are flooded with relinquished animals. AB 1634 will be an immediate death sentence for otherwise healthy pets.

AB 1634 hurts the blind, disabled and hearing impaired.
Any reduction in the number of service and assistance dogs will have a devastating impact on those in the disabled community who rely on these dogs to provide independence, safety and mobility. AB 1634 will also eliminate the gene pool from which to select the best breeding candidates for working dogs serving farmers, ranchers and law enforcement.

AB 1634 is a threat to our public safety.
Major law enforcement groups, including the United States Police Canine Association, the California Rescue Dog Association, the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs, and the National Coalition of Public Safety Officers, agree that crime prevention, bomb and drug detection, and search and rescue operations will be decimated if AB 1634 becomes law.

AB 1634 is bad for California.
The groups behind AB 1634 have made it clear that the intent of this legislation is to eliminate 85% of all family pets. If AB 1634 becomes law, California will be the poster child for an invasive and overreaching government mandate that is both irresponsible and inhumane.