Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Pet Board => Topic started by: knny187 on April 19, 2007, 08:47:07 AM
-
BILL NUMBER: AB 1634 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Levine
(Principal coauthor: Senator Padilla)
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Nava)
FEBRUARY 23, 2007
An act to add Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 122336) to Part 6
of Division 105 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to pets.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1634, as introduced, Levine. California Healthy Pets Act.
Existing law sets forth provisions relating to veterinary public
health and safety and provides for or regulates spay, neuter, and
breeding programs for animals.
This bill would prohibit any person from owning or possessing any
unaltered cat or dog over the age of 4 months, unless that person
possesses an intact permit, as specified. The bill would establish an
intact permit fee in an amount to be determined by a local
jurisdiction, as defined, and would require the revenue from these
fees to be used for the administration of the local jurisdiction's
permit program. The bill would make a violation of these provisions
punishable by a prescribed fine.
The bill would require all revenues derived from these fines to be
used for funding free and low-cost spay and neuter programs, and
outreach efforts for these programs, which would be required to be
established by each local animal control agency, to the extent that
funding is available, and for the enforcement of these provisions.
By increasing the enforcement responsibility of local agencies,
this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the
California Healthy Pets Act.
SEC. 2. Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 122336) is added to
Part 6 of Division 105 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:
CHAPTER 9. SPAY AND NEUTER PROGRAM FOR CATS AND DOGS
Article 1. Definitions
122336. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions
shall apply:
(a) "Alter" means to spay or neuter an animal, as performed by a
California licensed veterinarian.
(b) "Intact permit" means a document issued annually by a local
jurisdiction that authorizes a person to own or possess within that
locality an unaltered cat or dog.
(c) "Local animal control agency" means the municipal or county
animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing
animal-related laws.
(d) "Local jurisdiction" means any city, county, or city and
county.
Article 2. General Provisions
122336.1. (a) A person shall not own or possess within the state
any cat or dog over the age of four months that has not been spayed
or neutered, unless that person possesses an intact permit, as
defined in subdivision (b) of Section 122336.
(b) Any person who violates subdivision (a) shall be subject to
the following:
(1) Unless paragraph (2) applies, a person in violation of
subdivision (a) shall have his or her cat or dog spayed or neutered
within 30 days from the date of compliance as required under this
section or Article 3 (commencing with Section 122336.2), whichever is
applicable.
(2) If a person in violation of subdivision (a) provides a letter
from a California licensed veterinarian indicating that due to age,
poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or
dog within 30 days from the date of compliance under this section or
Article 3 (commencing with Section 122336.2), whichever is
applicable, and indicating that arrangements have been made to alter
the cat or dog within 75 days from that date of compliance, he or she
shall have his or her cat or dog spayed or neutered within that
75-day period.
(3) Any person who violates subdivision (a) shall, for each animal
for which a violation has occurred, be subject to a civil penalty of
five hundred dollars ($500) for each applicable period of
noncompliance, as set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2). This penalty
shall be imposed in addition to any other civil or criminal penalties
imposed by the local jurisdiction. (c) Any fines imposed under subdivision (b) shall be waived by the
local jurisdiction if the person in violation provides proof that
his or her cat or dog has been spayed or neutered by a California
licensed veterinarian or provides proof that he or she has obtained
an intact permit for the cat or dog.
Article 3. Permits
122336.2. (a) A local jurisdiction shall issue an intact permit,
as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 122336, if all of the
following conditions are met:
(1) The cat or dog is registered as a purebred with a pedigree
with any of the following organizations:
(A) The American Kennel Club.
(B) The United Kennel Club.
(C) The American Dog Breeders Association.
(D) The International Cat Association.
(E) A recognized registry approved by the local animal control
agency.
(2) The dog is appropriately trained and meets the definition of
guide dog, service dog, or signal dog, as set forth in subdivisions
(d), (e), and (f) of Section 365.5 of the Penal Code.
(3) The dog is documented as having been appropriately trained and
actively used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement and
rescue activities.
(4) The owner of a cat or dog provides a letter to the local
jurisdiction from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due
to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the
cat or dog. This letter shall include the veterinarian's license
number and shall be provided, upon request, to the local animal
control agency.
(b) An unaltered cat or dog for which an intact permit was issued
who ceases to meet the requirements of subdivision (a) is subject to
the spay and neuter requirements set forth in Section 122336.1.
(c) The amount of the fee for an intact permit shall be determined
by the local jurisdiction, and shall be no more than what is
reasonably necessary to fund the administration of that jurisdiction'
s intact permit program.
Article 4. Funding
122336.3. (a) To the extent that funding is available pursuant to
this chapter, a local animal control agency shall establish a free
and low-cost spay and neuter program for low-income individuals. The
agency shall undertake outreach efforts to inform qualified persons
about these programs.
(b) All fines collected pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision
(b) of Section 122336.1 shall be used for funding free and low-cost
spay and neuter programs and outreach efforts in the jurisdiction
where the violation occurred, and for the enforcement activities set
forth in Article 5 (commencing with Section 122336.4).
Article 5. Enforcement
122336.4. A local animal control agency shall be responsible for
enforcing and administering this chapter.
SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a
local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section
17556 of the Government Code.
-
So what do you think about that?
-
I am very 'mixed' about it.
For one...I think it's good because it may help reduce the amount of unwanted pets....
but
don't like the state telling me what I have to do as a responsible pet owner.
Not to mention, If I have a pure bred, now it's going to be extra work & money to keep his nuts intact.
-
It's bullshit. Once they get one law passed who knows what will be next.
And it is detrimental to the animals health, especially large/giant breeds. 4 months of age? They want to make it a law to take away necessary hormones for growth and health at the dogs child/puberty stage. Danes aren't "matured" til over 2 years. Who knows what problems early speutering is causing them. Well, some are known, bone problems can result. I think anything before 6 months is too early and much longer for large and giant breeds.
Now, I understand why shelters and rescues speuter before they adopt out, even though I think it is seriously messed up to speuter an 8 week old pup/kit, but if a person gets a pet from a breeder or breeds, it should be their choice if and when to speuter.
Something that went into affect I think here in February, is that if animal control picks up your dog you cannot get it back until it is speutered, if it isn't already, unless can provide paperwork that it is a show/competition dog.
Plus how are they going to enforce this? Couldn't the money be better spent elsewhere than to have the nuts and vagina squad patrolling? Most people don't license their dogs, and if you do the fee is higher for an intact animal (at least here it is).
-
Impact of AB 1634 on Working Dogs
April 5, 2007
Though we often think of dogs today only as pets, in California tens of thousands of dogs are employed to do useful work. Despite it's name, AB 1634 "The California Healthy Pets Act" would affect working dogs as well.
Working dog breeding requires selection for the specific traits required to do a job, in every generation. Otherwise, working abilities will gradually diminish over successive generations until they fall below the level required to do the work.
To produce useful working dogs, breeders must selectively breed from among the dogs with the best demonstrated working abilities. "You need to breed to the extreme [workers] to produce good workers" is a commonly understood maxim of working dog breeding.
Working abilities in dogs are generally not apparent until dogs are about 1 - 2 years of age, and sometimes even older. Dogs need to mentally and physically mature into adults before their working abilities are established. It's also necessary to wait until a dog is an adult to do many important genetic health screening tests for breeding purposes, including orthopedic tests of hip soundness.
Because of the need to selectively breed from among the best working dogs, and because there's no reliable way to select dogs for working dog breeding when they are puppies, it's mandatory to keep many more working dogs sexually intact into adulthood than end up being bred. These intact dogs are for the most part owned by working dog handlers, not breeders. This way, there is an adequate pool of intact working dogs from which to select the best breeding candidates. This time-proven process cannot work if only a tiny percentage of dog owners are allowed to keep intact dogs on account of mandatory spay/neuter laws and limited access to "intact permits".
Here's some examples of how AB 1634 would affect working dogs:
Police Service Dogs
A police service dog works with his human partner to search for and apprehend criminal suspects. AB 1634 appears to have an exemption for working police dogs, allowing an intact permit to be issued if
The dog is trained, or is documented as having been appropriately trained and actively used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement and rescue activities.
This is totally inadequate to protect law enforcement in California:
Most of the breeding dogs that create working police dogs are not themselves police dogs, but are bred and used in the protection dog sports where their working abilities are tested. These dogs are pet dogs under the law. Because they are not themselves police dogs, they would not be eligible for an intact permit under this exemption. Most would not be eligible under any exemption and so would have to be spayed or neutered.
AB 1634 would only protect the current generation of working police dogs from mandatory spay/neuter. Future generations would have to qualify for an exemption by 4 months of age to avoid mandatory sterilization. But there is no such thing as a 4 month old puppy who is "appropriately trained and actively used by law enforcement". A dog has to mature into adulthood before meeting that criterion. So future generations of police dogs would be spay/neutered before they even became eligible for this exemption. Spay/neuter cannot be undone, so the exemption doesn't help police dogs at all.
Nearly all working police dogs were once somebody's pet dog. They were bought as a young pup, raised, but were rehomed as young adults. If they pass all the working and health tests, eventually they may end up with a police department. Few of these dogs come with registration papers. Because working police dogs spent their first year or two of life as somebody's pet dog, there's no way to create a bright line in the law between the future supply of police dogs and other pet dogs. Most of these future police dogs, perhaps nearly all, would be sterilized before even making it into police work, if AB 1634 passes.
A few breeding dogs or potential future police dogs might qualify for an intact permit. The increased cost and bureaucratic hassle will cause many of these pet owners not to bother, further reducing the availability of these dogs. Remember, before a dog becomes a police dog, he's a pet.
For police service work, nearly all of the dogs are intact males. There may be no other K9 work where testosterone plays such an important role in the development of the dog's working abilities. Because of the demonstrated benefit of testosterone in the working ability of Law Enforcement dogs, leaving even non-breeding males intact plays an important role in the success of these dogs. The lives of police officers and citizens may be put at risk by the reduced working ability resulting from early neuter. Neuter these dogs when they are 4 months old, and it will massively reduce their odds of growing up to be police service dogs. Few would make it.
It is already very difficult for law enforcement to find dogs who are suitable for police work. A very large majority of dogs who are evaluated fail to pass the screening tests. Dogs have to be imported from all over the world just to supply the need in California. AB 1634 would make an already difficult task many times more difficult. AB 1634 would increase costs to the taxpayers to purchase dogs from a shrinking supply of suitable dogs. Crime could increase as there would not be enough dogs to fill all the law enforcement jobs.
So while it appears that AB 1634 has adequate protections for law enforcement work, it does not. There's really no way to create a mandatory spay/neuter law that would not do serious harm to law enforcement in the state of California.
Stock Dogs
Stock dogs are used to herd livestock or protect them from threats such as predators. California has thousands of working stock dogs. The dogs are bred from lines that have been used and proven in demanding stock work for decades, sometimes centuries.
Almost none of the working stock dogs in California would qualify for a spay/neuter exemption under AB 1634. Most of these dogs are unregistered, and many are mixed breeds. Of those that are registered few working stock dogs are trained for or compete in trials. As a result almost none would qualify for an intact permit. AB 1634 would destroy working stock dog breeding in California.
A number of stock dog breeds would simply go extinct in California. They would not be eligible for an intact permit at any price. Ironically, this includes the McNab, a working stock dog developed in California over 100 years ago. This unique part of our state heritage, handed down from generation to generation for over a century, would disappear in just over a decade if AB 1634 becomes law.
Agriculture is a multi-billion dollar industry in California. California's beef cattle industry alone, which uses stock dogs, is a $1.42 billion dollar business. AB 1634 would harm California agriculture by decimating stock dog breeding.
Other Working Dogs
It might be tempting to try to carve out more exemptions in AB 1634 for working dogs to try to address the deficiencies in the current language of AB 1634. This approach cannot protect working dog breeding.
One reason is that there is no way to write a law that can distinguish working dog breeding programs from pet dog breeding. There is no bright line that can separate them, as we see most obviously in the example of police dogs (above).
Another reason is that there are so many types of working dogs, that it's impossible to list them all in a law. New roles for working dogs are being developed all the time, as we learn more about the amazing talents of man's best friend. For example, cancer detection is a brand new working role for dogs.
Some of the many roles that working dogs are used for include those listed below. AB 1634 would harm all working dog breeding programs in California, and it would harm the citizens in California who depend on their working dogs.
Tracking/trailing Search & Rescue dog
Airscent Search & Rescue dog
Urban Search & Rescue dog
Water search dog (drowning victims)
Water rescue dog (retrieve swimmers in distress)
Avalanche dog
Guide dog for the blind
Signal dog for the deaf
Mobility assistance dog
Service dog for the disabled
Police service dog
Police trailing dog
Dual purpose police dog
Evidence dog
Narcotics detection dog
Explosives detection dog
Guard dog
Watch dog
Accelerant (Arson) detection dog
Military working dog
Cadaver dog / Human remains detection dog
Termite detection dog
Mine detection dog
Natural gas detection dog
Lost pet search dog
Sled dog
Sighthound
Wildlife detection dog
Cancer detection dog
Seizure alert dog
Livestock herding dog
Livestock guardian dog
Multipurpose farm dog
Agricultural produce detection dog
Terrier
Upland hunting dog - pointer
Upland hunting dog - spaniel
Hunting retriever
-
IN BRIEF LOS ANGELES COUNTY / LOS ANGELES
City supports state bill on spaying, neutering
From Times Staff and Wire Reports
April 18, 2007
The City Council unanimously voted to support Assembly Bill 1634 by state Sen. Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) that would require residents to spay or neuter their dogs and cats by the time their pets are 4 months old — unless they obtain a breeder's permit.
"Plain and simple, having thousands of animals stranded on our streets is animal cruelty and poses a risk to our public health," said Councilman Tony Cardenas, who is pushing for the bill and whose previous legislation created the city's animal cruelty task force.
Several council members expressed concerns about whether the city's animal services agency could enforce such a law and communicate to low-income residents that free spay and neuter services are available.
-
Update - April 13, 2007
Status
Based on information available to us, the California Assembly Business and Professions Committee (BNP) discussed Assembly Bill 1634 (Bill) on April 10. Those present were provided circa 6 minutes to state their name/address, organization (if any) and voice their approval or dissent with the Bill. No presentations per se were made.
Based such voting and also counting the letters received by the previous cut off date of March 31, 2007, there were 1318 (1100 Individuals and 218 Organizations) supporting and 1209 (1000 Individuals and 209 Organizations) dissenting. The USA is listed as one of the latter.
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine is also making another revision to Bill which he is required to produce to the BNP by April 16. It is expected to be made public by April 17 (also the tax deadline). The BNP will meet again in a week, on April 24,to make a final determination on the Bill. No presentations are anticipated to be possible on this date.
http://www.schutzhundusa-gec.blogspot.com/
-
This bill WILL pass unless you stand up to the plate and do your part.
Don't take offence with what I'm saying...........but TIME IS OF THE
ESSENCE!!!
*If you want to be able to continue making decisions about the health and
welfare of your own dogs, BE THERE.
*If you want to continue breeding without having to pay exorbitant fees, BE
THERE.
*If you want to still be able to obtain a healty, well-bred companion
dog from a responsible breeder, BE THERE.
*DO NOT think that there will be plenty of other folks there.... so I don't
need to come.
*DO NOT think that AB 1634 is so absurd, so flawed....that it won't
pass.....so I don't need to be there.
*DO NOT think that one less person - YOU - won't matter....so I don't need
to be there. ITWILL!
*WE NEED NUMBERS - Politicians might not listen to reason...but they WILL
LISTEN TO NUMBERS.
The time is here, folks, and ALL of you must be shaken to realize that these
AR's and PETA folks are counting on us to back down and not show.
Bodies WILL count at this hearing.
And, if you don't know what hearing I am talking about, then perhaps - as a
dog fancier -you need to start making plans to move out of state IF this bill passes.
Don't say, well I live 3 hours away, I have to baby sit, I have to shop, I
have an appointment- CANCEL IT.
WAKE UP - It's coming!!!!! The AR folks are behind this bill and WE NEED TO
STOP THEM!
Even if you live in southern CA, there are folks organizing vans to drive
up - and split the cost.
Fill your cars with other dog fanciers or your neighbors.
You sat on your laurels in LA Tuesday and let that bill pass - only 10
Opposes showed up.
YOU ALL NEED TO BE HERE THIS COMING TUESDAY - APRIL 24TH.
AKC will be there - show them that - the dog fanciers of CA - CAN come
together and defeat this bill.
Here's the information------------------
One email sent out recently said to meet on the capitol steps at 7:30.
We are suggesting you proceed directly to Room 447 on the fourth floor at 7
AM.
Make sure you get an identifying button from one of the volunteers - it will
say STOP AB 1634.
Keep your place by the chamber door until it is opened and take a seat.
Do NOT let the supporters of the bill push by you.
If you cannot get a seat, the proceedings will be displayed on the large TV
screen outside the room.
When the time comes for the public to be heard, you will be allowed to enter
the room,walk to the front microphone and state your name, affiliation (GGDC or NCDC, etc.) and say I OPPOSE the
bill.
Dress sharp. No sloppy clothes - you need to make an impression that you
are a professional.If you are a judge, wear your badge. If you have some clothing item with dogs on it, wear
it.
Call 916-319-330` by 5 PM on Monday, April 23 just to make sure that the
hearing has not been postponed.
DIRECTIONS -
Place: Capitol - Room 447 - it's a small room in the old part of the Capitol
Room: 447
From I-80: take the business exit.
Exit Downtown Sacramento.
Look for 10th and N or 10th and L.
Sacramento streets are numbered north to south with numbers and east to west
with alphabets.
The Capitol building is located at 10th, 11th, 12th streets and N St.
From 99 S: take signs leading to 80 (Reno) and get off on N St. exit. then
go over to P St. and drive to 10th. Then drive to N St.
From 80 Reno: take the P St. exit then drive west to 10th and make a right
on 10th.
A good parking lot is located on 13th Street between N St. and O St.
Capitol Ave. is the equivalent to M St.
<http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/
ab_1634_bill_20070417_am ended_asm_v97.html>http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/
bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20070417_amended_asm_v97.html
IF AB 1634 DOES PASS AND YOU WERE NOT THERE............DO NOT COMPLAIN TO US. IT WILL BE TOO LATE.
-
A site where you can sign a petition oposing the bill:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/414897802?ltl=1177030625
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/opposecaab1634
Site's oposing the bill:
http://saveourdogs.net
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=3188
The site for supporting this bill
http://www.cahealthypets.com/
-
The site for supporting this bill
http://www.cahealthypets.com/
>:(
-
Holy shit....they are all loosing their marbles .... :o >:(
I think this is total bullshit and i'm going to one of them sites to check it out so i can vote against that law, that means if i can vote from Europe.
And Knny...you are a bit too liberal to post a link to vote FOR the law...it's the petboard for gods sake!!!
-
I hear ya....but trying to be fair.
Sometimes you have to represent both sides to fully understand a situation.
Really, how can you argue the bill w/o knowing what it's about.
I personally don't like it....but I also hate seeing unwanted pets that have to be put down.
-
I hear ya....but trying to be fair.
Sometimes you have to represent both sides to fully understand a situation.
Really, how can you argue the bill w/o knowing what it's about.
I personally don't like it....but I also hate seeing unwanted pets that have to be put down.
screw being fair. I only care about what I want. :)
-
screw being fair. I only care about what I want. :)
Well, I wouldn't be fair posting news if I didn't look at both sides
-
From Laura Sanborn of saveourdogs.net:
Yesterday I made the rounds at the state capital to visit the offices of the Assembly Business & Professions Committee members to discuss AB 1634. I was accompanied by two police officers who discussed the harmful impacts AB 1634 would have on law enforcement. Also with us was the person in charge of
the breeding and training program at Canine Companions for Independence (CCI), who discussed how AB 1634 would harm programs that assist blind and disabled Californians. He also represented Assistance Dogs International, Inc., an umbrella organization over many guide/service/hearing dog organizations.
Similar to guide dog programs, CCI breeds and trains dogs to assist disabled people. They use Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, and Golden/Labrador
mixes. CCI breeds over 600 dogs a year.
My jaw nearly hit the floor when the CCI representative started describing research that CCI did in the early 1990s to understand spay/neuter impacts. CCI wanted to know if early s/n (less than 6 months of age) would yield results at least as good as their traditional spay/neuter age, which is usually over 12
months of age (typical is 17 months of age). So CCI did a controlled prospective research study... the gold standard of research. They assigned half the pups
in a number of litters to be s/n early, while the remaining pups in these litters were s/n at their traditional age. The results were very unexpected. The early age spayed females were significantly more dog aggressive than the traditional age spayed females. Urinary incontinence was a much bigger problem in the early spayed females compared to the traditional age spayed females. The early age neutered males were more fearful than the traditional age neutered males. The bottom line is that the early age spay/neuter dogs had a significantly higher failure rate in CCI's program... a smaller percentage of them grew up to be working dogs. CCI will not spay/neuter dogs before 6 months of age, and usually wait until dogs are more than 12 months old to spay/neuter. The CCI rep said this research has been repeated by others. I believe one of them may be Guide Dogs for the Blind, as I was told by one of their trainers that they recently stopped doing early apay/neuter owing to results they were seeing that they don't like.
I spent 6 years poring over the veterinary medical research literature trying without success to find research of this type, and here I was sitting in the office of a state Assembly member, listening to a scientist describe the work that his group did. It has not been published anywhere. Needless to say, I spent
the rest of the day bugging him to get this published.
This has implications far beyond AB 1634 and guide/assistance dogs. It has implications for the health and well being of most dogs. There are very few
controlled prospective research studies of dogs in veterinary medicine examining spay/neuter impacts. They are too costly for almost all researchers to do. Guide & assistance dog programs may be in a unique position to do these kind of studies, as they breed many dogs and they maintain a degree of control over their dogs that is beyond what other breeders can do.
CCI's work is summarized in their letter to the California state
Assembly opposing AB 1634. Quoting from CCI's letter:
Calling AB 1634 the 'California Healthy Pets Act' is a misnomer Surgical sterilization of preadult dogs has been shown to increase the risk for several significant behavioral and health problems. CCI did a study on the effects of
prepubertal gonadectomy (i.e.,sterilization) in 1990, and found significant increases in failure rates due to both medical and behavioral reasons in those dogs that had been sterilized early. This research has been repeated elsewhere with the same results. Increased incidence of health problems such as urinary
incontinence, osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, obesity and orthopedic problems as well as behavioral problems such as environmental fear and interdog aggression are strong arguments against prepubertal sterilization for any dog, but especially those destined for a working role.
http://saveourdogs.net/documents/CCIPosition.jpg
Laura Sanborn
-
American Kennel Club News Article
AB 1634 - The More Than $100 Million Mistake
Date of Article: April 25, 2007
After passing the Assembly Business and Professions committee yesterday, California Assembly Bill 1634 has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. This is a new step in the legislative process requiring that all breeders and concerned dog owners write this new committee to express your opposition to AB 1634, as your previous letters to the Assembly Business and Professions committee are no longer valid. It is imperative that when writing your letters of opposition, please state that you “oppose AB 1634, as amended by the Business and Professions Committee on April 24th.”
No substantive changes have been made to AB 1634. It continues to require the mandatory spaying or neutering of all dogs or cats over four months of age, unless the owner acquires an intact animal permit. The American Kennel Club strongly supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously. In its current form, AB 1634 proposes to seriously restrict the property rights of responsible breeders and owners while imposing untold and unjust punitive costs upon their activities.
If adopted, the provisions of AB 1634 would have a profound negative economic impact on both the state and local economies in California. For example:
* In 2006, AKC exhibitors at all-breed dog shows, agility trials, obedience trials, and field trials held in California contributed approximately $92 million to local economies. This figure will be drastically reduced if AB 1634 becomes law.
* The 2006 AKC/Eukanuba National Championship, held at the Long Beach Convention Center, brought a significant economic impact of $21.7 million to the local economy. Under the provisions of AB 1634, an out-of-state dog entering California temporarily to compete would not be exempted from its provisions. This would make it virtually impossible for the vast majority of our exhibitors to attend this event. This would mean a major loss of revenue for California as well as the probable loss of this prestigious event to another state.
* Because localities would set intact permit fees, breeders would face an undefined but increased economic burden. As seen in other jurisdictions that have imposed permit regimes, many breeders will move out of state or may be forced to take their operations underground. As a result, the amount of licensing fees collected will be reduced significantly.
* AB 1634 provides an unfunded mandate for local governments to implement and enforce. Many local governments do not have the resources to impose the provisions of the bill.
WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW:
* Contact your representative in the California State Assembly. To find your Assemblymember, click here. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html)
* Contact the members of the California Assembly Appropriations Committee who will consider this bill. Tell them that you strongly oppose AB 1634 as amended by the Business and Professions Committee on April 24th.
It is imperative that clubs send official opposition letters to the committee consultants to ensure your club is listed in the bill analysis!
Assembly Appropriations Committee
ATTN: Chuck Nicol, Committee Consultant
State Capitol, Room 2114
Sacramento, California 95814
FAX: (916) 319-2181
Assembly Member Mark Leno (D), Chair
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA
94249-0013
Phone: (916) 319-2013
Fax: (916) 319-2113
Assemblymember.leno@assembly.ca.gov
Assembly Member Mimi Walters (R), Vice Chair
State Capitol
Room 6031
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 319-2073
Fax: (916) 319-2173
Assemblymember.walters@assembly.ca.gov
Assembly Member Anna M. Caballero (D)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0028
Phone: (916) 319-2028
Fax: (916) 319-2128
Assemblymember.Caballero@assembly.ca.gov
Assembly Member Mike Davis (D)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0048
Phone: (916) 319-2048
Fax: (916) 319-2148
Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov
Assembly Member Mark DeSaulnier (D)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0011
Phone: (916) 319-2011
Fax: (916) 319-2111
Assemblymember.DeSaulnie r@assembly.ca.gov
Assembly Member Bill Emmerson (R)
State Capitol Office
Room 4158
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 319-2063
Fax: (916) 319-2163
Assemblymember.emmerson@assembly.ca.gov
Assembly Member Jared Huffman (D)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0006
Phone: (916) 319-2006
Fax: (916) 319-2106
Assemblymember.Huffman@assembly.ca.gov
Assembly Member Betty Karnette (D)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0054
Phone: (916) 319-2054
Fax: (916) 319-2154
Assemblymember.Karnette@assembly.ca.gov
Assembly Member Paul Krekorian (D)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0043
Phone: (916) 319-2043
Fax: (916) 319-2143
Assemblymember.Krekorian@assembly.ca.gov
Assembly Member Doug La Malfa (R)
State Capitol, Room 4164
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0002
Phone: (916) 319-2002
Fax: (916) 319-2102
Assemblymember.lamalfa@assembly.ca.gov
Assembly Member Ted W. Lieu (D)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0053
Phone: (916) 319 - 2053
Fax: (916) 319 - 2153
Assemblymember.Lieu@assembly.ca.gov
Assembly Member Fiona Ma (D)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0012
Phone: (916) 319-2012
Fax: (916) 319-2112
Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov
Assembly Member Alan Nakanishi (R)
State Capitol, Room 5175
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0010
Phone: (916) 319-2010
Fax: (916) 319-2110
Assemblymember.nakanishi@assembly.ca.gov
Assembly Member Pedro Nava (D)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0035
Phone: (916) 319-2035
Fax: (916) 319-2135
Assemblymember.nava@assembly.ca.gov
Assembly Member Sharon Runner (R)
State Capitol, Room 5158
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0036
Phone: (916) 319-2036
Fax: (916) 319-2136
Assemblywoman.Runner@assembly.ca.gov
Assembly Member Jose Solorio (D)
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0069
Phone: (916) 319-2069
Fax: (916) 319-2169
Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov
For more information, contact AKC’s Canine Legislation Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
The Canine Legislation Department will continue to monitor developments in California, and will issue Legislative Alerts as they warrant.
-
You Californians should be doing something about this!!!
www.ab1634.com/index.htm
www.akc.org/canine_legislation/CA_action_center.cfm
www.cfainc.org/
www.CFODConline.org
www.doggonecalifornia.or g
www.dpca.org/Legisltv/
www.naiaonline.org
www.noab1634.com/
www.saveourdogs.net
-
ACT NOW to help California Pet Owners FIGHT CA AB 1634.
REMEMBER if it PASSES in California, PETA and HSUS will be using CA AB 1634 as model legislation for YOUR STATE NEXT YEAR.
California Pet Owners are in a no holds barred fight to save the right to own and love the pets of their choice.
California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine who legislates what
kind of light bulbs Californians can use is now in cahoots with HSUS
and PETA, a RADICAL Animal Rights Cult that is on the FBI's domestic
TERRORIST watch list for it's affiliation and funding of radical
groups like ALF and ELF. Levine, PETA and HSUS have legislation (CA
AB 1634) moving thru the California State Assembly that will MANDATE the PEDIATRIC CASTRATION / HYSTERECTOMY of EVERY PUPPY and KITTEN in the state of California by the time the pet is 16 weeks old.
Failure to comply will mean facing FINES of $500 per pet for each 30
days you are out of compliance. Additionally there will be CIVIL and
or CRIMINAL PENALTIES. Imagine having a CRIMINAL RECORD because you
did not have radical surgery performed on your puppy or kitten.
They say that there are exemptions for SOME pure breeds that are
registered with AKC for dogs or CFA for cats and a few other
registries but no rare breeds no designer breeds. The requirement for
these exemptions are all but impossible to meet. This MEAN SPIRITED
legislation mandates that the cities and counties write laws that are
incompliance with the legislation or more strict.
ACT NOW to help California Pet Owners FIGHT CA AB 1634.
REMEMBER if it PASSES in California, PETA and HSUS will be using CA AB 1634 as model legislation for YOUR STATE NEXT YEAR.
This is not just about the right to own the Pet of your choice it is
about the INSIDIOUS EROSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES and PROPERTY RIGHTS.
It is about the NANNY GOVERNMENT (city/county/state/federal) telling
AMERICAN CITIZENS WE ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH to CONTROL OUR OWN LIVES.
www.PetPAC.net
-
Welcome to California, No Pets Allowed!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPlDzl6KE2M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPlDzl6KE2M)
-
California Assembly Appropriations Committee just PASSED AB 1634 (the
mandatory spay/neuter bill) out of the committee. Votes were cast along
party lines with the Republicans voting against it, and the Democrats
voting for it, with the exception of two Democrats, Fiona Ma and Anna
Caballero,voting against it.
There were some Democrats overhead saying that they would vote against
it if the serious issues that have been raised are not addressed by the time
it reaches the Assembly Floor, where the bill is headed next. The serious
issues are those that the public has been raising over hobby breeders
responsible owners, undetermined fees, etc.
This means that we all will need to gather our strength and start anew with
our telephone calls, emails, and personal letters. Fiona Bennett will post
to the list precise information on what to do next, whom to contact,etc,once
she is back from Sacramento and today's rally scheduled for noon at the
Capitol grounds.
-
Long Term Effects of Early Spay/Neuter
Read why this bill may have serious health consequences:
http://naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf (http://naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf)
-
As someone involved in rescue. I see the neglect abuse and abanonment every single day. It baffles me to see so many here against this bill.
Watch this video and then tell me mandatory spay and nueter is wrong.
-
As someone involved in rescue. I see the neglect abuse and abanonment every single day. It baffles me to see so many here against this bill.
Watch this video and then tell me mandatory spay and nueter is wrong.
It is wrong from the standpoint that animals health will be compromised. 4 months of age? What about giant breeds that aren't mature till over 2 years of age? What health problems will those animals suffer?
I can understand why shelters/rescues do early spays/neutering before adopting out, but this Bill would take away a person's right to have a healthy companion.
Long Term Effects of Early Spay/Neuter
Read why this bill may have serious health consequences:
http://naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf
What about responsible breeders that breed for health and temperament? Can they judge by 4 months of age which dogs would bring those qualities? This Bill could be very bad for companion animals health and the responsible owners.
-
Guide and helper dogs would be eliminated by this bill:
http://saveourdogs.net/documents/CCIPosition.jpg (http://saveourdogs.net/documents/CCIPosition.jpg)
TOP TEN REASONS TO OPPOSE AB 1634
"THE PET EXTINCTION ACT"
1. Costs to local taxpayers of over $500 million to shelter, spay, neuter and euthanize newly abandoned dogs and cats.
Many owners who can’t afford or unwilling to pay for their pets mandatory surgical sterilization will abandon their pets to animal shelters. Past experience with spaying/neuter laws have proven this to be fact.
2. Leads to the extinction of all mixed breeds dogs and cats.
There are no exceptions. Proponents are saying “NO MORE MUTTS!”
3. Eliminates Guide Dogs for the Blind and Service Dogs for the Disabled.
Blind and disabled Californians have a legal right under the Americans with Disabilities Act to these dogs. The proponents claim these dogs will be exempted, but this exemption does not protect the breeding dogs used by these programs. Under AB 1634 there would be no dogs available in the future to be trained for this important service. That’s why Assistance Dogs International Inc., Canine Companions for Independence, and the International Association of Assistance Dogs Partners strongly oppose AB 1634.
4. Eliminates K-9’s for police departments in future years.
Producing the working-quality German Shepherd Dogs and Belgian Malinois for law enforcement is a process that is expensive, time-consuming and requires a high level of expertise. These dogs must mature (eighteen months to two years old) before they can begin to be tested in advanced training, obedience and protection work to determine their working abilities, temperament and physical characteristics. AB 1634 makes this breed-selection process impossible. The “exemption” for police dogs is meaningless beyond the current generation. That’s why the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs, North American Police Work Dog Association, Western States Police Canine Association, and Canine Specialized Search Team are opposed to this bill.
5. Creates new local government bureaucracies with the power to impound your currently licensed dogs and cats and force their surgical sterilization without your consent.
You can then face civil and criminal penalties for refusing to sterilize your pets. These local government bureaucracies cost taxpayers millions and will drain much needed local funding away from essential public services such as public safety.
6. Prevents Rescue Organizations from saving cats and dogs.
These practices become illegal under this legislation. Animal rescuers in California will face civil penalties of $500 per animal and possible criminal penalties for possessing unneutered or unspayed dogs or cats. AB 1634 Article 2, Section 122336.1 (a) and (b)
7. Penalizes law abiding pet owners and does not address issues such as feral cats and pet education.
Long term health problems may result from early sterilization of dogs and cats. Sterilizing dogs before maturity more than triples the risk of bone cancer. Shouldn’t law abiding citizens have the right to choose when to neuter or spay their pets?
8. Devastates California’s $1.5 billion beef cattle industry and $54 million sheep industry.
Both of these industries depend on working stock dog breeding that would be eliminated under AB 1634.
9. Facts show spaying/neutering ordinances can hurt more than help the problem of pet shelter populations.
New laws have proven to cause people to avoid licensing pets, as a result there is a loss of revenue for animal control shelters. According to data from Veterinary Public Health, while our citizen population has shows steady growth over the last 30 years, the impounds of dogs into shelters has declined indicating we are making progress on the overpopulation of dogs and cats.
10. Reduces tourism as dogs and cat shows disappear, losing millions of dollars in revenue to California business owners.
Say NO to AB 1634, it’s the Pet Extinction Act
This Bill is poorly written.
-
TOP TEN REASONS TO OPPOSE AB 1634
"THE PET EXTINCTION ACT"
1. Costs to local taxpayers of over $500 million to shelter, spay, neuter and euthanize newly abandoned dogs and cats.
Many owners who can’t afford or unwilling to pay for their pets mandatory surgical sterilization will abandon their pets to animal shelters. Past experience with spaying/neuter laws have proven this to be fact.
2. Leads to the extinction of all mixed breeds dogs and cats.
There are no exceptions. Proponents are saying “NO MORE MUTTS!”
3. Eliminates Guide Dogs for the Blind and Service Dogs for the Disabled.
Blind and disabled Californians have a legal right under the Americans with Disabilities Act to these dogs. The proponents claim these dogs will be exempted, but this exemption does not protect the breeding dogs used by these programs. Under AB 1634 there would be no dogs available in the future to be trained for this important service. That’s why Assistance Dogs International Inc., Canine Companions for Independence, and the International Association of Assistance Dogs Partners strongly oppose AB 1634.
4. Eliminates K-9’s for police departments in future years.
Producing the working-quality German Shepherd Dogs and Belgian Malinois for law enforcement is a process that is expensive, time-consuming and requires a high level of expertise. These dogs must mature (eighteen months to two years old) before they can begin to be tested in advanced training, obedience and protection work to determine their working abilities, temperament and physical characteristics. AB 1634 makes this breed-selection process impossible. The “exemption” for police dogs is meaningless beyond the current generation. That’s why the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs, North American Police Work Dog Association, Western States Police Canine Association, and Canine Specialized Search Team are opposed to this bill.
5. Creates new local government bureaucracies with the power to impound your currently licensed dogs and cats and force their surgical sterilization without your consent.
You can then face civil and criminal penalties for refusing to sterilize your pets. These local government bureaucracies cost taxpayers millions and will drain much needed local funding away from essential public services such as public safety.
6. Prevents Rescue Organizations from saving cats and dogs.
These practices become illegal under this legislation. Animal rescuers in California will face civil penalties of $500 per animal and possible criminal penalties for possessing unneutered or unspayed dogs or cats. AB 1634 Article 2, Section 122336.1 (a) and (b)
7. Penalizes law abiding pet owners and does not address issues such as feral cats and pet education.
Long term health problems may result from early sterilization of dogs and cats. Sterilizing dogs before maturity more than triples the risk of bone cancer. Shouldn’t law abiding citizens have the right to choose when to neuter or spay their pets?
8. Devastates California’s $1.5 billion beef cattle industry and $54 million sheep industry.
Both of these industries depend on working stock dog breeding that would be eliminated under AB 1634.
9. Facts show spaying/neutering ordinances can hurt more than help the problem of pet shelter populations.
New laws have proven to cause people to avoid licensing pets, as a result there is a loss of revenue for animal control shelters. According to data from Veterinary Public Health, while our citizen population has shows steady growth over the last 30 years, the impounds of dogs into shelters has declined indicating we are making progress on the overpopulation of dogs and cats.
10. Reduces tourism as dogs and cat shows disappear, losing millions of dollars in revenue to California business owners.
Say NO to AB 1634, it’s the Pet Extinction Act
-
Countless people let their un-spayed, un-neutered dogs and cats have liters and then give the kittens, puppies away to people they barely know. These kittens, puppies end up on the street to breed like crazy. I've had countless cats fixed at 8-9 weeks with no health problems what so ever.
Maybe large breed dogs are different.
If not THIS bill then some better one needs to be written and passed. There are just to many irresponsible idiots out there.
-
Countless people let their un-spayed, un-neutered dogs and cats have liters and then give the kittens, puppies away to people they barely know. These kittens, puppies end up on the street to breed like crazy. I've had countless cats fixed at 8-9 weeks with no health problems what so ever.
Maybe large breed dogs are different.
If not THIS bill then some better one needs to be written and passed. There are just to many irresponsible idiots out there.
I agree their is a lot of irresponsible idiots out there. And if you just glance at the general concept of this Bill it does seem like a good idea, but when reading what this Bill would actually mean, it should not pass. It just has too many flaws IMO.
If nothing else the proposal of this bill has gotten people thinking. Somewhere down the line a compromise may be made that can benefit everyone.
-
Here's a thought:
Why no leash laws for cats? How much would the cat population drop if cats had to be on a leash and not allowed to roam free? People would most likely spay or neuter their indoor cat so it doesn't spray or they have to deal with all those heats, so even if the cat got out, no population growth.
You have a better chance of getting rabies from an outdoor cat than from a dog (wildlife and bats are the major concern for rabies), my dog couldn't go crap or dig up my neighbors yard, but their cat can to mine. So why no leash laws for cats.
You still would have problems enforcing this, and exemptions may have to be made for farm and barn cats possibly, but couldn't this put a big dent in the number or cats euthanized every year?
I would support something like this.
-
Cats are like rabbits...I can see where this may apply to help control their population.
For dogs....I do think it's unhealthy.....espeically for the larger dogs.
-
AB 1634
Sorry Amy some of your points (on your ten reasons) don't even make sense. Dozens and dozens of rescue groups are behind this. So are veterinarian groups. Ed Boks has a stellar reputation and supports it. I talked to many vets about when is the right time to spay and neuter and never got “its unhealthy” as an answer. Most felt about 5 months was healthy. Sooner for cats.
From the desk of Ed Boks
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Three Reasons to Support AB 1634
http://laanimalservices.blogspot.com/2007/05/three-reasons-to-support-ab-1634.html
Assembly Bill 1634 – The California Healthy Pets Act – continued on its path to the Governor’s desk Wednesday, May 16th when it was passed by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a B roll call vote.
AB 1634 is designed to serve as a significant tool in helping end the incalculable suffering of lost and homeless dogs and cats in the State of California.
There are many reasons for supporting AB 1634. I want to highlight just three:
1. Public Health: According to the American and California Veterinary Medical Associations, dogs and cats have many transmitted diseases, many of which are fatal and some are potentially contagious to humans. Spayed and neutered pets are rarely exposed to these diseases.
The number one killer of cats and dogs, after euthanasia, is cancer. Spaying and neutering can prevent most of these deaths. Medical research shows that spayed and neutered cats and dogs live longer and healthier lives. For these and many other reasons, the American Veterinary Medical Association recommends early spaying and neutering because younger animals recover faster and with less pain.
This modest one time expense can save an incalculable amount of money in veterinary care as well as all the heartache resulting from unnecessary illnesses over the life of an animal.
2. Public Safety: Spaying and neutering reduces the dangers caused by roaming stray animals, the transmission of rabies, and injuries from dog and cat bites. Over 30,000 dog and cat bites are reported in California annually. Over 23,000 involve dogs. Unaltered dogs are three times more likely to attack humans and other pets.
According to the Center for Disease Control, California has the highest occurrence of dog bites, animal attacks and attack-related fatalities in the nation -- and children are the most common victims. In fact, 50% of all children are bitten by a dog or cat by age 12 according to the CDC. People over 70 years of age comprise 10% of all dog bite victims and represent 20% of those killed by dogs. 75% of all dog bites, attacks and fatalities involve intact male dogs.
The insurance industry estimates it pays more than $1 billion each year in homeowners’ liability claims resulting from dog bites. Hospital expenses for dog bite-related emergency visits are estimated at $102.4 million. There are also medical insurance claims, workmen’s compensation claims, lost wages, and sick leave and other associated business costs that have not been calculated.
3. Fiscal Responsibility: In 1998 the State enacted the Animal Shelter Law, SB 1785, commonly called “The Hayden Bill”. Since its enactment the provisions of the Hayden Bill have generated the third largest reimbursable fiscal mandate in the state. To date the Hayden Bill has cost the state $121.6 M and is conservatively growing at a rate of $30M a year.
-
Ed Boks
Ed Boks was executive director of both Maricopa County and New York City Animal Care & Control, the two largest animal care and control programs in the United States each rescuing over 50,000 lost pets, exotic, and wild animals annually. Maricopa County became one of the largest pet adoption agencies in the United States adopting nearly 22,000 pets into loving homes every year. Ed also established the first municipal no-kill shelter in the United States while in AZ. Ed was recruited by Mayor Bloomberg to replicate his programs in New York City in 2003. While there, pet adoptions increased 125% and euthanasia decreased 30%. Ed established strategic no-kill plans in both communities and now plans to do the same in Los Angeles. Ed brings over 25 years of experience in the animal welfare and control field to LA Animal Services. Ed and his team are working hard to transform the traditional catch-and-kill mentality into a recognition of the inherent value of the lives of the more than 50,000 animals LA shelters care for each year. To achieve this goal he plans to work with the community to institute a host of innovative programs to meet specific community challenges.
-
SPONSORS
· California Animal Control Directors Association
· California Veterinary Medical Association
· City of Los Angeles
· Social Compassion in Legislation
· State Humane Association of California
ELECTED OFFICIALS
· Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, City of Los Angeles
· Mayor Dick Riddell, City of Yucaipa
· Councilmember Brian Calhoun, City of Fresno
· Council President Henry T. Perea, City of Fresno
· Councilmember Val Lerch, City of Long Beach
· Councilmember Tonia Reyes Uranga, City of Long Beach
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
CITY AND COUNTY AGENCIES
· City of Clovis Animal Services
· City of Elk Grove, Animal Services
· City of Fremont Animal Services Unit
· City of Lathrop Animal Services
· City of Los Angeles Animal Services
· City of San Jose Animal Care Services
· City of Stockton, Animal Control
· City of Turlock, Animal Control
· County of Contra Costa, Animal Services
· County of Madera, Department of Animal Control
· County of Riverside, Department of Animal Services
· County of San Bernardino Animal Care and Control
· Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority
· Southeast Area Animal Control Authority
-
Humane Societies and SPCA's
· Contra Costa Humane Society
· Animal Assistance League of Orange County
· County of Monterey SPCA
· East Bay SPCA
· Friends of Auburn/Tahoe Vista Placer County Animal Shelter
· Glendale Humane Society
· Inland Valley Humane Society and SPCA
· Lake Tahoe Humane Society
· PAL Humane Society
· Pasadena Humane Society & SPCA
· Placer SPCA
· Rancho Coastal Humane Society
· Sacramento SPCA
· San Clemente/Dana Point Animal Shelter
· Santa Cruz SPCA
· Santa Ynez Valley Humane Society
· Tehachapi Humane Society
· Victorville PAL Humane Society
· Friends of Long Beach Animals
Veterinarians & Veterinary Hospitals
· Dr. Darcey Barnes, DVM
· Dr. Alan Drusys, DVM
· Dr. Madeline Graham, DVM
· Dr. Jean Swingle Greek, DVM
· Dr. Barry Kipperman, DVM, DACVIM
· Dr. Paula Kislak, DVM
· Dr. Peter V. Mangravite, DVM
· Dr. Leticia Obledo, DVM
· Dr. Kristin Polci-Moger, DVM
· Dr. James Schulke, DVM
· Dr. Scott Smith, DVM
· Bellflower Veterinary Hospital
· California Animal Referral & Emergency Hospital
· Madera Veterinary Center, Inc.
· Your Neighborhood Pet Clinic
-
ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS (NATIONAL)
· American Humane Association
· Animal Protection Institute
· Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
· Doris Day Animal League
· Humane Society of the United States
· In Defense of Animals
· Last Chance for Animals
· United Animal Nations
CA STATE RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS
· Ace of Hearts
· Adopt-A-Chow Los Angeles
· Ali's Animail
· All Creatures Great & Small Animal Rescue
· Alpha Canine Sanctuary
· American Tortoise Rescue
· Animal Acres
· Animal Advocates
· Animal Advocates Harbor City
· Animal Alliance
· Animal Avengers
· Animal Friends Rescue Project
· Animal Kind Rescue
· Animal Kingdom Welfare
· Animal Lovers of South Bay
· Animal Match Rescue Team
· Animal Place
· Animal Rescue of Fresno
· Animal Rescue Volunteers Inc
· Animal Rules Placement Foundation
· Animal Shelter Assistance Program
· Animal Switchboard
· Animal Welfare Committee - Studio City
· Animals Anonymous
· Animals, People and Environment
· Another Chance Animal Welfare League
· Auburn Area Animal Rescue Foundation
· Baja Animal Sancturary
· Bardwell's Boneyard, Alhambra
· Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pit Bulls
· Beagles and Buddies
· Bill Foundation
· Boston Buddies
· Boxer Rescue
· Boxer Rescue Fund
· Boxer Rescue Los Angeles
· Bumper Foundation
· Bunny Bunch
· B-Wood-Dogs
· Canine Crusaders
· Canine Connection
· Cat Adoption Service
· Cat Assistance Referral and Education
· Cat Care Network of Colorado and New Mexico
· Cat Connection
· Cat Crossing
· Cat House on the Kings Rescue
· Cat/Canine Assistance Referral & Education
· Catherine Fund
· Cats At The Studio, Inc.
· Center for Animal Protection and Education
· Central Valley Coalition for Animals
· Chateau DuMeow
· Chico Boxer Rescue
· Chula Bella Dogs, Los Angeles
· Coalition for Cats and Dogs
· Collie Love
· Community Animal Network
-
· Dana Point / San Clemente Animal Rescue
· Dachshund Rescue
· Death Row Dogs Rescue
· Deborah's Rescues and Fosters
· Dedicated Animal Welfare Group
· Dog Adoption and Welfare Group
· Dog's Life Rescue
· Downtown Dog Rescue
· Echo Park Animal Alliance
· Emmie's Animal Rescue - Fresno
· Feral Cat Alliance
· Feral Cat Coalition - San Diego
· Forte Animal Rescue
· Friends of Fred
· Friends of Life Animal Rescue, Inc., Eureka
· Friends of Madera Animal Shelter
· Foundation for the Care of Indigent Animals
· Garfield Pet Alliance
· German Shorthaired Pointer Rescue
· Give a Dog a Home Rescue
· Got Boxers?
· Happy Tails Sanctuary
· Heaven on Earth Society for Animals
· Helping Out Pets Everyday
· High Desert Angels for Animals
· HMB Catworks, Penn Valley
· Hopalong Animal Rescue
· HOPE Animal Foundation
· It's The Pits
· K-9 Rescue
· Karma Rescue
· Kellen Rescue
· Kinder4Rescue
· Kitten Rescue
· Kris Kelly Foundation
· Lange Foundation
· Leg Up Rescue
· Lhasa Happy Homes
· Life 4 Paws
· Linda Blair WorldHeart Foundation
· Little Angels Pug Rescue
· Little Company of Mary San Pedro
· Little John Rug Rats
· Love of Animals Inc
· Lyons Perea Chihuahuas
· Many Little Cats Inc.
· Marley's Pit Stop Rescue
· Matchmaker & Adoption Center
· Matilija Canyon Wildlife Refuge
· Miss Kitty's Rescue
· Missing Pet Partnership
· Much Love Animal Rescue
· New Beginnings for Animals
· New Leash on Life
· Noah's Bark
· NorCal Aussie Rescue
· NorCal Boxer Rescue
· North Star Pet Assistance
· Open Arms Network
· Orange County Boxer Rescue
· Pacific Coast Dog Rescue
· PAL Animal Sanctuary
· Passion for Paws Rescue
· Paw Project
· PAWS San Diego County, Inc.
· People and Cats Together
· Pet Adoption Fund
· Pet Adoption League
· Pet Assistance Foundation
· Pet Care Foundation
· Pet Orphans of Southern California
· Pet Press
· Pet Project Foundation
· Pet Rescue of Unwanted Dogs
· Pet Save Foundation
· Peter Zippi Fund for Animals
· Pets 90210
· Pickett's Pets
· Pit Bull Rescue - San Diego
· Pocket Dogs
· Pooch Potty
· Progressive Animal Welfare Society
· Pryor's Planet
· Purr-fect Solutions Feline Rescue
· Quartz Hills Dog Lovers
· Rescue & Humane Alliance - Los Angeles
· Rescue House
· Rescue House - San Diego
· Rescue Me Inc
· Rescue Train
· Responsible Humane Force
· Resqcats
· Reva Foundation
· River City Cat Rescue
· Robin and Friends Rescue
· Rover Rescue
· Ruff Riders Animal Rescue
· Shelter Animals of Los Angeles Rescue
· San Diego Animal Advocates
· San Diego Special Needs Rescue
· Santa Ana For The Animals
· Santa Monica Boxer Rescue
· Sara Ford Foundation Rescue Group
· Saving Grace
· Second Chance Canine Rescue
· Shelter Pet Alliance
· Shelter Pet Partners
· Shelter Watch Inc
· Sisters Animal Sanctuary
· Small Paws Rescue - Tulsa, Oklahoma
· Sounds of Silent Spirits Rescue and Sanctuary
· Southern California Labrador Retriever Rescue
· Southern California Siamese Rescue
· Southland Collie Rescue
· Southland Sheltie Rescue
· Sparky & The Gang
· Stray Cat Alliance
· Streetsmarts Rescue
· Surfer Dogs
· Tahoe Dogs
· Take Me Home
· Thumping Tails Rescue
· TopCats on the Ridge Inc.
· Underdog Rescue
· Westie Rescue
· Westside German Shepard Rescue
· Wish For Animals
-
OTHER INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
· Keeley Shaye and Pierce Brosnan
· Emmylou Harris
· INXS
· Diane Keaton
· Jane Valez-Mitchell
· Naren Shankar, Exec. Producer, CSI
· Arkin Disc Dogs
· Bark Avenue Foundation
· California Federation for Animal Legislation
· California Lobby for Animal Welfare
· California Wildlife Center
· CaliMax
· Canine Communications (Trainers)
· Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
· Cesar Millan Inc. (Trainers)
· Cesar and Ilusion Millan Foundation
· Citizens for a Humane Los Angeles
· Coalition for Pets & Public Safety
· Coast Dermatology Medical Associates
· Commonwealth Action
· Custom Canine Quilts
· Dale's Doggie Daycare
· Dawnwatch
· Directors of Animal Welfare, Studio City Neighborhood Council
· Dog Land Spay & Neuter Hotline
· Dog Psychology Center of Los Angeles
· East Bay Animal Advocates
· Erika Brunson Design
· Fight for Animal Rights
· Firehouse Dogs
· Four Legged Friends Foundation
· Fox Companion Care
· Halt Overpopulation with Prevention and Education
· Herald Publications
· Home for Every Living Pet
· Humane Education Network
· Independence Alliance
· Jacqueline Green Public Relations Inc
· K-9 Pals - Santa Barbara
· Katcep Associates
· Keller Williams Realty
· League of Human Voters - California Chapter
· Lohr Insurance Agency
· Los Angeles Directors of Animal Welfare
· Ma Snak Superior Treats
· MacDonalds Trust
· Mariners Village Community Services Committee
· MaryJo and Hank Greenberg Animal Welfare Foundation
· Milo Foundation
· Network of Humane Organizations
· No Voice Unheard
· Orange County People for Animals
· Palisades Park Dog Walkers
· Pam's People Pals
· Panzar, Inc.
· Paws and Cues Dog Training
· PearlParadise.com
· Primo Love
· Production Line Design
· Responsible Humane Force
· Roy Dunlap Spay/Neuter Foundation
· Sacramento Area Animal Coalition
· Sauthier, Steele & Associates
· Seeds for Change, Humane Education
· Senior & Special Needs Animal Assistance
· Senior Citizens for Humane Legislation and Education
· Senior Dogs Project
· Senior Special Needs Animal Assistance
· Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council
· Social Compassion
· Southern California University People for Animal Welfare
· Spay and Neuter Intermountain Pets and Pet Placement
· Spay Neuter Action Program
· Spay Neuter Action Project
· Staged to Move
· Stop Torture Abuse & Neglect of Dogs Foundation
· Taxpayers for Responsible & Ethical Animal Treatment
· Teaching Everyone Animals Matter
· Tehama Wild Care
· The Pacific Pooch
· Tower Rescue Trainers, LLC
· Voice for Animals
· Volunteers for Inter-Valley Animals
· Weil Public Relations
· Walk With Wendy (pet sitting/hiking)
· WillyB
· Winchester Retriever Club
· Winogradsky Company
· Woody's House
· Xponent
-
Dave put in 1,000,000 yes votes for me.
-
AB 1634
Sorry Amy some of your points (on your ten reasons) don't even make sense. Dozens and dozens of rescue groups are behind this. So are veterinarian groups. Ed Boks has a stellar reputation and supports it. I talked to many vets about when is the right time to spay and neuter and never got “its unhealthy” as an answer. Most felt about 5 months was healthy. Sooner for cats.
These same vets that think it is okay to spay/neauter and vaccinate at the same time? The same vets that think feeding a carnivore like a carnivore is not right? According to those vets nothing will harm your pet. ::) Not overvaccinating, crap food, now early altering. There are also a lot of vets that are against this bill. Please don't blur the line between spaying and neutering and EARLY spaying and neutering. Did you read the link on early spaying and neutering, and health consequences? Why should responsible people be forced to have their pets altered and face health problems down the line?
One of the points mentioned in your post was this:
"The number one killer of cats and dogs, after euthanasia, is cancer. Spaying and neutering can prevent most of these deaths. Medical research shows that spayed and neutered cats and dogs live longer and healthier lives. For these and many other reasons, the American Veterinary Medical Association recommends early spaying and neutering because younger animals recover faster and with less pain."
Early altering increases the rate of bone cancers. As the owner of giant breeds already at risk for osteosarcomas, altering at 4 months is wrong. You are replacing some health risks for others with this bill, and not giving a person a choice in the matter. 4months for dogs? It used to be most vets said 6 months, so where did 4months come from? Responsible owners who would alter their pets but waited til they were mature for their breed would have that taken away. They would be forced to take on the future cost for health problems and have to watch quality of life problems with their companions.
What about guide dogs and helper dogs? Police dogs? This law would affect them. They can't judge a dog by 4 months to see if it will fit in those programs.
Same for responsible breeders. You can't do health certs on 4 month puppies to test for eyes, hips, etc, or even temperament. What puppies that will be available could have more and more health problems as time goes by because of this.
6. Prevents Rescue Organizations from saving cats and dogs.
These practices become illegal under this legislation. Animal rescuers in California will face civil penalties of $500 per animal and possible criminal penalties for possessing unneutered or unspayed dogs or cats. AB 1634 Article 2, Section 122336.1 (a) and (b)
What are rescues going to do? Only rescue altered animals?
This bill is flawed, the reasoning behind it may be a good one, but it needs to address these issues.
As a person who has tried to raise HEALTHY animals despite the uniformed, uneducated, close minded thinking views the majority of the veterinary profession go by, I say no way to forcing a potentially unhealthy surgery on my companions.
Responsible owners need to vote NO for the health of their companions.
-
originally posted by knny in the other thread:
Impact of AB 1634 on Working Dogs
April 5, 2007
Though we often think of dogs today only as pets, in California tens of thousands of dogs are employed to do useful work. Despite it's name, AB 1634 "The California Healthy Pets Act" would affect working dogs as well.
Working dog breeding requires selection for the specific traits required to do a job, in every generation. Otherwise, working abilities will gradually diminish over successive generations until they fall below the level required to do the work.
To produce useful working dogs, breeders must selectively breed from among the dogs with the best demonstrated working abilities. "You need to breed to the extreme [workers] to produce good workers" is a commonly understood maxim of working dog breeding.
Working abilities in dogs are generally not apparent until dogs are about 1 - 2 years of age, and sometimes even older. Dogs need to mentally and physically mature into adults before their working abilities are established. It's also necessary to wait until a dog is an adult to do many important genetic health screening tests for breeding purposes, including orthopedic tests of hip soundness.
Because of the need to selectively breed from among the best working dogs, and because there's no reliable way to select dogs for working dog breeding when they are puppies, it's mandatory to keep many more working dogs sexually intact into adulthood than end up being bred. These intact dogs are for the most part owned by working dog handlers, not breeders. This way, there is an adequate pool of intact working dogs from which to select the best breeding candidates. This time-proven process cannot work if only a tiny percentage of dog owners are allowed to keep intact dogs on account of mandatory spay/neuter laws and limited access to "intact permits".
Here's some examples of how AB 1634 would affect working dogs:
Police Service Dogs
A police service dog works with his human partner to search for and apprehend criminal suspects. AB 1634 appears to have an exemption for working police dogs, allowing an intact permit to be issued if
The dog is trained, or is documented as having been appropriately trained and actively used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement and rescue activities.
This is totally inadequate to protect law enforcement in California:
Most of the breeding dogs that create working police dogs are not themselves police dogs, but are bred and used in the protection dog sports where their working abilities are tested. These dogs are pet dogs under the law. Because they are not themselves police dogs, they would not be eligible for an intact permit under this exemption. Most would not be eligible under any exemption and so would have to be spayed or neutered.
AB 1634 would only protect the current generation of working police dogs from mandatory spay/neuter. Future generations would have to qualify for an exemption by 4 months of age to avoid mandatory sterilization. But there is no such thing as a 4 month old puppy who is "appropriately trained and actively used by law enforcement". A dog has to mature into adulthood before meeting that criterion. So future generations of police dogs would be spay/neutered before they even became eligible for this exemption. Spay/neuter cannot be undone, so the exemption doesn't help police dogs at all.
Nearly all working police dogs were once somebody's pet dog. They were bought as a young pup, raised, but were rehomed as young adults. If they pass all the working and health tests, eventually they may end up with a police department. Few of these dogs come with registration papers. Because working police dogs spent their first year or two of life as somebody's pet dog, there's no way to create a bright line in the law between the future supply of police dogs and other pet dogs. Most of these future police dogs, perhaps nearly all, would be sterilized before even making it into police work, if AB 1634 passes.
A few breeding dogs or potential future police dogs might qualify for an intact permit. The increased cost and bureaucratic hassle will cause many of these pet owners not to bother, further reducing the availability of these dogs. Remember, before a dog becomes a police dog, he's a pet.
For police service work, nearly all of the dogs are intact males. There may be no other K9 work where testosterone plays such an important role in the development of the dog's working abilities. Because of the demonstrated benefit of testosterone in the working ability of Law Enforcement dogs, leaving even non-breeding males intact plays an important role in the success of these dogs. The lives of police officers and citizens may be put at risk by the reduced working ability resulting from early neuter. Neuter these dogs when they are 4 months old, and it will massively reduce their odds of growing up to be police service dogs. Few would make it.
It is already very difficult for law enforcement to find dogs who are suitable for police work. A very large majority of dogs who are evaluated fail to pass the screening tests. Dogs have to be imported from all over the world just to supply the need in California. AB 1634 would make an already difficult task many times more difficult. AB 1634 would increase costs to the taxpayers to purchase dogs from a shrinking supply of suitable dogs. Crime could increase as there would not be enough dogs to fill all the law enforcement jobs.
So while it appears that AB 1634 has adequate protections for law enforcement work, it does not. There's really no way to create a mandatory spay/neuter law that would not do serious harm to law enforcement in the state of California.
Stock Dogs
Stock dogs are used to herd livestock or protect them from threats such as predators. California has thousands of working stock dogs. The dogs are bred from lines that have been used and proven in demanding stock work for decades, sometimes centuries.
Almost none of the working stock dogs in California would qualify for a spay/neuter exemption under AB 1634. Most of these dogs are unregistered, and many are mixed breeds. Of those that are registered few working stock dogs are trained for or compete in trials. As a result almost none would qualify for an intact permit. AB 1634 would destroy working stock dog breeding in California.
A number of stock dog breeds would simply go extinct in California. They would not be eligible for an intact permit at any price. Ironically, this includes the McNab, a working stock dog developed in California over 100 years ago. This unique part of our state heritage, handed down from generation to generation for over a century, would disappear in just over a decade if AB 1634 becomes law.
Agriculture is a multi-billion dollar industry in California. California's beef cattle industry alone, which uses stock dogs, is a $1.42 billion dollar business. AB 1634 would harm California agriculture by decimating stock dog breeding.
Other Working Dogs
It might be tempting to try to carve out more exemptions in AB 1634 for working dogs to try to address the deficiencies in the current language of AB 1634. This approach cannot protect working dog breeding.
One reason is that there is no way to write a law that can distinguish working dog breeding programs from pet dog breeding. There is no bright line that can separate them, as we see most obviously in the example of police dogs (above).
Another reason is that there are so many types of working dogs, that it's impossible to list them all in a law. New roles for working dogs are being developed all the time, as we learn more about the amazing talents of man's best friend. For example, cancer detection is a brand new working role for dogs.
Some of the many roles that working dogs are used for include those listed below. AB 1634 would harm all working dog breeding programs in California, and it would harm the citizens in California who depend on their working dogs.
Tracking/trailing Search & Rescue dog
Airscent Search & Rescue dog
Urban Search & Rescue dog
Water search dog (drowning victims)
Water rescue dog (retrieve swimmers in distress)
Avalanche dog
Guide dog for the blind
Signal dog for the deaf
Mobility assistance dog
Service dog for the disabled
Police service dog
Police trailing dog
Dual purpose police dog
Evidence dog
Narcotics detection dog
Explosives detection dog
Guard dog
Watch dog
Accelerant (Arson) detection dog
Military working dog
Cadaver dog / Human remains detection dog
Termite detection dog
Mine detection dog
Natural gas detection dog
Lost pet search dog
Sled dog
Sighthound
Wildlife detection dog
Cancer detection dog
Seizure alert dog
Livestock herding dog
Livestock guardian dog
Multipurpose farm dog
Agricultural produce detection dog
Terrier
Upland hunting dog - pointer
Upland hunting dog - spaniel
Hunting retriever
-
From Laura Sanborn of saveourdogs.net:
Yesterday I made the rounds at the state capital to visit the offices of the Assembly Business & Professions Committee members to discuss AB 1634. I was accompanied by two police officers who discussed the harmful impacts AB 1634 would have on law enforcement. Also with us was the person in charge of
the breeding and training program at Canine Companions for Independence (CCI), who discussed how AB 1634 would harm programs that assist blind and disabled Californians. He also represented Assistance Dogs International, Inc., an umbrella organization over many guide/service/hearing dog organizations.
Similar to guide dog programs, CCI breeds and trains dogs to assist disabled people. They use Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, and Golden/Labrador
mixes. CCI breeds over 600 dogs a year.
My jaw nearly hit the floor when the CCI representative started describing research that CCI did in the early 1990s to understand spay/neuter impacts. CCI wanted to know if early s/n (less than 6 months of age) would yield results at least as good as their traditional spay/neuter age, which is usually over 12
months of age (typical is 17 months of age). So CCI did a controlled prospective research study... the gold standard of research. They assigned half the pups
in a number of litters to be s/n early, while the remaining pups in these litters were s/n at their traditional age. The results were very unexpected. The early age spayed females were significantly more dog aggressive than the traditional age spayed females. Urinary incontinence was a much bigger problem in the early spayed females compared to the traditional age spayed females. The early age neutered males were more fearful than the traditional age neutered males. The bottom line is that the early age spay/neuter dogs had a significantly higher failure rate in CCI's program... a smaller percentage of them grew up to be working dogs. CCI will not spay/neuter dogs before 6 months of age, and usually wait until dogs are more than 12 months old to spay/neuter. The CCI rep said this research has been repeated by others. I believe one of them may be Guide Dogs for the Blind, as I was told by one of their trainers that they recently stopped doing early apay/neuter owing to results they were seeing that they don't like.
I spent 6 years poring over the veterinary medical research literature trying without success to find research of this type, and here I was sitting in the office of a state Assembly member, listening to a scientist describe the work that his group did. It has not been published anywhere. Needless to say, I spent
the rest of the day bugging him to get this published.
This has implications far beyond AB 1634 and guide/assistance dogs. It has implications for the health and well being of most dogs. There are very few
controlled prospective research studies of dogs in veterinary medicine examining spay/neuter impacts. They are too costly for almost all researchers to do. Guide & assistance dog programs may be in a unique position to do these kind of studies, as they breed many dogs and they maintain a degree of control over their dogs that is beyond what other breeders can do.
CCI's work is summarized in their letter to the California state
Assembly opposing AB 1634. Quoting from CCI's letter:
Calling AB 1634 the 'California Healthy Pets Act' is a misnomer Surgical sterilization of preadult dogs has been shown to increase the risk for several significant behavioral and health problems. CCI did a study on the effects of
prepubertal gonadectomy (i.e.,sterilization) in 1990, and found significant increases in failure rates due to both medical and behavioral reasons in those dogs that had been sterilized early. This research has been repeated elsewhere with the same results. Increased incidence of health problems such as urinary incontinence, osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, obesity and orthopedic problems as well as behavioral problems such as environmental fear and interdog aggression are strong arguments against prepubertal sterilization for any dog, but especially those destined for a working role.
http://saveourdogs.net/documents/CCIPosition.jpg
Laura Sanborn
Note the bolded portion, so dogs may actually become MORE aggressive because of early spay/neutering. And female dogs can get dumped or put down when they start to dribble in the house. Great news for pets.
-
Amy… first let’s agree that we BOTH want fewer and fewer animals entering shelters and facing certain EXTERMINATION. Let’s not call it pretty words like euthanasia.
Your comment on rescue groups:
It is NOT going to prevent these organizations from rescuing. I’m involved with one dog rescue group and three cat rescue groups who all endorse this Bill. Part of the responsibility of all the rescue groups in to have the animals altered as soon as they are able and before the animal is adopted out.
I see the effects of irresponsible pet owners EVERY single night. I see countless un-altered dogs and cats that have been abandoned out on the street breeding like crazy. Most are completely un-adoptable and always will be. I rescued a terrier last year that had been abandoned in an alley. I took him through Petco’s obedience training and with the help of Rover Rescue he was adopted to a great family and now he lives in a mansion in Palos Verdes, CA. But THAT is one of the few success stories compared to the horrible living conditions most of these animals live in.
The rest of what you say makes sense. I think that you also have to realize that the practicality of enforcing this Bill or any other is going to be difficult if not impossible. I don’t see this as a Bill AIMED at responsible people. There simply aren’t enough animal controls officers to go after all the “offenders”.
As a practical measure I see this as a Bill that would be enforced when there are other issues brought to light. Example; an animal control officer is called out to a home because of a barking dog or a dog not being licensed etc.
-
Yes, I would like less animals abandoned and killed, but not at the cost of companion animals owned by responsible people to face health consequences.
The rest of what you say makes sense. I think that you also have to realize that the practicality of enforcing this Bill or any other is going to be difficult if not impossible. I don’t see this as a Bill AIMED at responsible people. There simply aren’t enough animal controls officers to go after all the “offenders”.
As a practical measure I see this as a Bill that would be enforced when there are other issues brought to light. Example; an animal control officer is called out to a home because of a barking dog or a dog not being licensed etc.
So we should actually say yes to this bill because it probably won't be enforced anyways? In some states they are trying to make vets notify the county when they see a dog so the county can make sure it's licensed, you don't think that vets may be required to notify the authorities when they see an unneuterd animal? Or a responsible person who is going to alter but wants to wait till the dog is breed mature is afraid of pissing of a neighbor that will report them? Aimed or not at "responsible people" it will affect them. This is a pet extermination bill, or at least a HEALTHY pet extermination bill if passed.
http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html (http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html)
Early Spay-Neuter Considerations
for the Canine Athlete
One Veterinarian's Opinion
© 2005 Chris Zink DVM, PhD, DACVP
Neuter or not?
Those of us with responsibility for the health of canine athletes need to continually read and evaluate new scientific studies to ensure that we are taking the most appropriate care of our performance dogs. This article provides evidence through a number of recent studies to suggest that veterinarians and owners working with canine athletes should revisit the standard protocol in which all dogs that are not intended for breeding are spayed and neutered at or before 6 months of age.
Orthopedic Considerations
A study by Salmeri et al in 1991 found that bitches spayed at 7 weeks grew significantly taller than those spayed at 7 months, who were taller than those not spayed (or presumably spayed after the growth plates had closed).(1) A study of 1444 Golden Retrievers performed in 1998 and 1999 also found bitches and dogs spayed and neutered at less than a year of age were significantly taller than those spayed or neutered at more than a year of age.(2) The sex hormones, by communicating with a number of other growth-related hormones, promote the closure of the growth plates at puberty (3), so the bones of dogs or bitches neutered or spayed before puberty continue to grow. Dogs that have been spayed or neutered well before puberty can frequently be identified by their longer limbs, lighter bone structure, narrow chests and narrow skulls. This abnormal growth frequently results in significant alterations in body proportions and particularly the lengths (and therefore weights) of certain bones relative to others. For example, if the femur has achieved its genetically determined normal length at 8 months when a dog gets spayed or neutered, but the tibia, which normally stops growing at 12 to 14 months of age continues to grow, then an abnormal angle may develop at the stifle. In addition, with the extra growth, the lower leg below the stifle likely becomes heavier (because it is longer), and may cause increased stresses on the cranial cruciate ligament. In addition, sex hormones are critical for achieving peak bone density.(4) These structural and physiological alterations may be the reason why at least one recent study showed that spayed and neutered dogs had a higher incidence of CCL rupture.(5) Another recent study showed that dogs spayed or neutered before 5 1/2 months had a significantly higher incidence of hip dysplasia than those spayed or neutered after 5 1/2 months of age, although it should be noted that in this study there were no standard criteria for the diagnosis of hip dysplasia.(6) Nonetheless, breeders of purebred dogs should be cognizant of these studies and should consider whether or not pups they bred were spayed or neutered when considering breeding decisions.
Cancer Considerations
A retrospective study of cardiac tumors in dogs showed that there was a 5 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma, one of the three most common cancers in dogs, in spayed bitches than intact bitches and a 2.4 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma in neutered dogs as compared to intact males.(7) A study of 3218 dogs demonstrated that dogs that were neutered before a year of age had a significantly increased chance of developing bone cancer.(8) A separate study showed that neutered dogs had a two-fold higher risk of developing bone cancer.(9) Despite the common belief that neutering dogs helps prevent prostate cancer, at least one study suggests that neutering provides no benefit.(10) There certainly is evidence of a slightly increased risk of mammary cancer in female dogs after one heat cycle, and for increased risk with each subsequent heat. While about 30 % of mammary cancers are malignant, as in humans, when caught and surgically removed early the prognosis is very good.(12) Luckily, canine athletes are handled frequently and generally receive prompt veterinary care.
Behavioral Considerations
The study that identified a higher incidence of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in spayed or neutered dogs also identified an increased incidence of sexual behaviors in males and females that were neutered early.(5) Further, the study that identified a higher incidence of hip dysplasia in dogs neutered or spayed before 5 1/2 months also showed that early age gonadectomy was associated with an increased incidence of noise phobias and undesirable sexual behaviors.(6) A recent report of the American Kennel Club Canine Health Foundation reported significantly more behavioral problems in spayed and neutered bitches and dogs. The most commonly observed behavioral problem in spayed females was fearful behavior and the most common problem in males was aggression.(12)
Other Health Considerations
A number of studies have shown that there is an increase in the incidence of female urinary incontinence in dogs spayed early (13), although this finding has not been universal. Certainly there is evidence that ovarian hormones are critical for maintenance of genital tissue structure and contractility.(14, 15) Neutering also has been associated with an increased likelihood of urethral sphincter incontinence in males.(16) This problem is an inconvenience, and not usually life-threatening, but nonetheless one that requires the dog to be medicated for life. A health survey of several thousand Golden Retrievers showed that spayed or neutered dogs were more likely to develop hypothyroidism.(2) This study is consistent with the results of another study in which neutering and spaying was determined to be the most significant gender-associated risk factor for development of hypothyroidism.(17) Infectious diseases were more common in dogs that were spayed or neutered at 24 weeks or less as opposed to those undergoing gonadectomy at more than 24 weeks.(18) Finally, the AKC-CHF report demonstrated a higher incidence of adverse reactions to vaccines in neutered dogs as compared to intact.(12)
To spay or not to spay
I have gathered these studies to show that our practice of routinely spaying or neutering every dog at or before the age of 6 months is not a black-and-white issue. Clearly more studies need to be done to evaluate the effects of prepubertal spaying and neutering, particularly in canine athletes.
Currently, I have significant concerns with spaying or neutering canine athletes before puberty. But of course, there is the pet overpopulation problem. How can we prevent the production of unwanted dogs while still leaving the gonads to produce the hormones that are so important to canine growth and development? One answer would be to perform vasectomies in males and tubal ligation in females, to be followed after maturity by ovariohysterectomy in females to prevent mammary cancer and pyometra. One possible disadvantage is that vasectomy does not prevent some unwanted behaviors associated with males such as marking and humping. On the other hand, females and neutered males frequently participate in these behaviors too. Really, training is the best solution for these issues. Another possible disadvantage is finding a veterinarian who is experienced in performing these procedures. Nonetheless, some do, and if the procedures were in greater demand, more veterinarians would learn them.
I believe it is important that we assess each situation individually. For canine athletes, I currently recommend that dogs and bitches be spayed or neutered after 14 months of age.
References:
1. Salmeri KR, Bloomberg MS, Scruggs SL, Shille V.. Gonadectomy in immature dogs: effects on skeletal, physical, and behavioral development. JAVMA 1991;198:1193-1203
2. http://www.grca.org/healthsurvey.pdf
3. Grumbach MM. Estrogen, bone, growth and sex: a sea change in conventional wisdom. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2000;13 Suppl 6:1439-55.
4. Gilsanz V, Roe TF, Gibbens DT, Schulz EE, Carlson ME, Gonzalez O, Boechat MI. Effect of sex steroids on peak bone density of growing rabbits. Am J Physiol. 1988 Oct;255(4 Pt 1):E416-21.
5. Slauterbeck JR, Pankratz K, Xu KT, Bozeman SC, Hardy DM. Canine ovariohysterectomy and orchiectomy increases the prevalence of ACL injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec;(429):301-5.
6. Spain CV, Scarlett JM, Houpt KA. Long-term risks and benefits of early-age gonadectomy in dogs. JAVMA 2004;224:380-387.
7. Ware WA, Hopper DL. Cardiac tumors in dogs: 1982-1995. J Vet Intern Med 1999 Mar-Apr;13(2):95-103
8. Cooley DM, Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters D, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Nov;11(11):1434-40
9. Ru G, Terracini B, Glickman LT. Host related risk factors for canine osteosarcoma. Vet J. 1998 Jul;156(1):31-9.
10. Obradovich J, Walshaw R, Goullaud E. The influence of castration on the development of prostatic carcinoma in the dog. 43 cases (1978-1985). J Vet Intern Med 1987 Oct-Dec;1(4):183-7
11. http://www.akcchf.org/pdfs/whitepapers/Biennial_National_Parent_Club_Canine_Health_Conference.pdf
12. Meuten DJ. Tumors in Domestic Animals. 4th Edn. Iowa State Press, Blackwell Publishing Company, Ames, Iowa, p. 575
13. Stocklin-Gautschi NM, Hassig M, Reichler IM, Hubler M, Arnold S. The relationship of urinary incontinence to early spaying in bitches. J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl. 57:233-6, 2001
14. Pessina MA, Hoyt RF Jr, Goldstein I, Traish AM. Differential effects of estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone on vaginal structural integrity. Endocrinology. 2006 Jan;147(1):61-9.
15. Kim NN, Min K, Pessina MA, Munarriz R, Goldstein I, Traish AM. Effects of ovariectomy and steroid hormones on vaginal smooth muscle contractility. Int J Impot Res. 2004 Feb;16(1):43-50.
16. Aaron A, Eggleton K, Power C, Holt PE. Urethral sphincter mechanism incompetence in male dogs: a retrospective analysis of 54 cases. Vet Rec. 139:542-6, 1996
17. Panciera DL. Hypothyroidism in dogs: 66 cases (1987-1992). J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 204:761-7 1994
18. Howe LM, Slater MR, Boothe HW, Hobson HP, Holcom JL, Spann AC. Long-term outcome of gonadectomy performed at an early age or traditional age in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001 Jan 15;218(2):217-21.
-
http://www.littleriverlabs.com/neuter.htm (http://www.littleriverlabs.com/neuter.htm)
The Question Of Neutering and at what age
(Put together by Gregg Tonkin, Little River Labradors from postings by Pam Davol PHD and Chris Zink DVM, PhD, DACVP)
Owners who are considering neutering need to take all factors into consideration, not simply the benefits of neutering when making a decision as to when to neuter.
If one looks close enough, one will find that neutering is one of those topics in veterinary medicine that is extremely biased: that is, most often one will find more emphasis placed on the pros of neutering with more often than not, very little or no discussion of the cons. Veterinarians, and responsible breeders as well, face a true dilemma when discussing neutering. The overpopulation crisis presents a very real concern with regard to the necessity of ownership responsibility. Prepubertal/early neutering or required neutering provides a means for vets/breeders to enforce owner responsibility by ensuring surgical sterilization of dogs not destined to be used in breeding programs. Again, this enforced neutering is typically presented along with a preamble of all the benefits that go along with neutering. However, I believe that breeders, if not veterinarians, need to begin questioning the ethics of this approach to prompt or require owners to neuter; especially in light of the facts that early neutering may not be as benign a process to the health of a dog as one would believe.
Yes, neutering prior to the beginning of estrus does reduce risk for mammary cancer in females, but it also significantly increases risk for urinary incontinence in bitches which predisposes these bitches to diethylstilbestrol (DES) dependency (Stocklin-Gautschi et al., J. Reprod. Fertile. Suppl. 57:233-6, 2001 and many other references)--in some instances, DES is not effective at controlling incontinence and will force some owners to elect euthanasia. Though with lesser risk compared to females, early neutering also increases risk of urethral sphincter incontinence in males (A. Aaron et al., Vet Rec. 139:542-6, 1996.)
With regard to cancer, spayed females have a 4 times greater risk for developing cardiac hemangiosarcomas (vascular tumors) compared to intact females (neutered males also show a significant increase in risk for these tumors compared to intact males) (Ware and Hysper, J. Vet. Intern. Med. 13:95-103, 1999.). Additionally, both neutered males and females have a 2-fold greater risk for developing bone tumors (osteosarcoma) compared to intact males and females (Ru et al., Vet J. 156:31-9, 1998.).
Some evidence suggests that early neutering may also predispose to endocrine disorders later in life (Panciera DL. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 204:761-7 1994.). Furthermore, there is also an indication that early neutering (because absence of sex hormones delays maturation of osteoclasts and thus results in delayed closing of the growth plates in the long-bones) may predispose to increased risk for various orthopedic disorders (such as cruciate ligament disease as I had mentioned in a previous post). Also, some evidence suggests that there is a correlation between increased time for growth plate closure and incidence of HD in Labs (Todhunter et al. J. Am. Vet Assoc., 1997).
If one conducted a research of the literature on the detrimental effects on physiological development associated with sex hormone deficiencies during adolescent development in any other species other than the dog and cat, one will find a wealth of literature stressing the importance of sex hormones for sound physiological, endocrine and metabolic development. Additionally, if one examines the scientific research that reports the benefits of early neutering in absence of any side-effects in dogs, one will discover that the methodology of these studies are designed in very specific ways to assure that outcome in neutering is presented in a favorable light (this does not mean that the data is biased, this simply means that the comparisons made do not provide for adequate interpretation of long-term effects of neutering).
In light of this, though it is understandable for vets/breeders to urge dog owners to neuter their pets early with regard to the greater good (i.e. reducing risk of accidental breeding), the physiological soundness of the individual dog should take precedence over any other issues. As such, it is my opinion, based upon the literature that I have reviewed that to reduce risks to physiological soundness, etc, that I am of the personal opinion that dogs should be a minimum of 1 year of age before neutering.
-
1. Clinical and pathologic features of prostatic adenocarcinoma in
sexually intact and castrated dogs: 31 cases (1970-1987)
Ford W. Bell, DVM; Jeffery S. Klausner, DVM, MS; David W. Hayden,
DVM, PhD; Daniel A. Feeney, DVM, MS; Shirley D. Johnston, DVM, PhD; Dept. of Small Animal Clinical Sci; College of Veterinary Medicine; University of Minnesota; 1352 Boyd Ave.; St. Paul, MN 55108
- Retrospective study of 31 dogs with histologically confirmed prostatic
adenocarcinoma or undifferentiated carcinoma seen at the VTH between January 1970 through Oct. 1987.
PREDISPOSITIONS. Ages ranged from 6-18 years. No breed predispositions were seen. Most were medium sized dogs ie., 25-75 lbs (18/31), with 7/31 < 25 lbs and 6/31 > 75 lbs. There were 21/31 intact or recently (< 1yr) castrated dogs and 10/31 dogs castrated 2-8 years prior to admission. Castrated dogs had a 2.38 times greater risk of developing prostatic cancer than intact dogs when compared with the hospital population.
J Am Vet Med Assoc 199[11]: 1623-1630 Dec 1'91Retrospective Studies 45 Refs
2. Prostatic disorders in the dog.
Anim Reprod Sci 60-61[]:405-15 2000 Jul 2 36 Refs
Johnston SD, Kamolpatana K, Root-Kustritz MV, Johnston GR
"Two studies suggest that risk of prostatic adenocarcinoma is increased in neutered, compared to intact male dogs."
3. Reuters Health News Article: "Dog Study Suggests Hormones Linked to Bone Cancer"
"In a study of 745 purebred rottweilers, Dr. B. C. Beranek and colleagues from the departments of veterinary clinical science and veterinary pathology found that 15% of all the dogs developed bone cancer. However, the risk of bone cancer was 65% higher for castrated males and 34% higher for spayed females."
4. Canine prostate carcinoma: epidemiological evidence of an increased risk in castrated dogs.
Teske E, Naan EC, van Dijk EM, Van Garderen E, Schalken JA.
Department of Clinical Sciences of Companion Animals, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.154, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands. e.teske@...
The present retrospective study investigated the frequency of prostate
carcinoma (PCA) among prostate abnormalities in dogs and determined whether castration influences the incidence of PCA in dogs. During the years 1993-1998, 15,363 male dogs were admitted to the Utrecht University Clinic of Companion Animals, and of these dogs 225 were diagnosed with prostatic disease. ... Dogs with PCA were significantly older (mean age=9.9 years) than dogs with other prostatic diseases (mean age=8.4 years). The Bouvier des Flandres breed had an increased risk (odds ratio (OR)=8.44; 95% CI 4.38-16.1) of having PCA (prostatic adenocarcinoma - GA). Castration
(26/56) increased the risk (OR=4.34; 95% CI 2.48-7.62) of PCA.
PMID: 12431819 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
5. Dr. Mary Wakeman, a specialist in canine reproduction:
"The situation in dogs (male dogs), is not equivalent. It is no longer
medically justifiable to castrate dogs for prevention of cancer. The
overwhelming mass of data to the contrary can no longer be ignored, and publications are out there so that no veterinarian can use the excuse of ignorance. Castration predisposes to highly malignant prostatic cancer. Nearly all dogs afflicted with this nasty tumor are neutered individuals. Testicular cancers are very rare and almost always benign. Perianal adenoma can be treated by castration if and when it arises. It too is benign although messy."
http://www.showdogsupersite.com/kenlclub/breedvet/neutr.html
-
wow this is some Nazi--1984ish type shit
shit not only do they want to tell us how to live our lives now big brother has control of our pets >:(
-
wow this is some Nazi--1984ish type shit
shit not only do they want to tell us how to live our lives now big brother has control of our pets >:(
I can see some good to it, but for the most part, I disagree against it.
IMO, in the end, the responsible pet owner will be the one who gets the shaft.
-
Seems like generally a good idea.
If there is more gain than loss: go ahead.
I think the issue of when the spay and neutering is going to take place needs to be looked into though, making sure the animals don't suffer diseases.
But that's a given.
-Hedge
-
Seems like generally a good idea.
If there is more gain than loss: go ahead.
I think the issue of when the spay and neutering is going to take place needs to be looked into though, making sure the animals don't suffer diseases.
But that's a given.
-Hedge
Well, as a responsible owner....I do not want to pay extra $$$ a year to keep my dogs nuts intact
-
Seems like generally a good idea.
If there is more gain than loss: go ahead.
I think the issue of when the spay and neutering is going to take place needs to be looked into though, making sure the animals don't suffer diseases.
But that's a given.
-Hedge
I merged the thread started by Max Rep into this one. You can read his views on it, and my responses.
Pet health with be greatly affected by early spaying and neutering, along with guide and helper dog and police dog programs suffering also. Aggression has been proven to be greater in early altered dogs. Female incontinence is another, so will these dogs end up in a shelter and put down when they other wise would of had a normal healthy life because of this law? Certain cancers increase from early altering. People are going to have to spend tons of money for treatments of get rid of their companions, both which will cause suffering and heartbreak for all, that may not have had to suffer that fate.
This Bill is severely flawed and needs to address these and other concerns, because as it is written, it should be called the Healthy Pet Extinction Bill.
-
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?
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".
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.
-
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"
-
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?”
-
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?
:-\
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 (http://www.naiaonline.org/issues/opposeAB1634petitionList.cfm)
-
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.
-
http://www.petpopulation.org/exploring.pdf (http://www.petpopulation.org/exploring.pdf)
http://www.saveourdogs.net/population.html (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.
(http://www.saveourdogs.net/images/ratesgraph.jpg)
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20070605/pl_usnw/_california_healthy_pets_act__assures_unintended_consequences__elimination_of_california_s_healthy_pets (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
-
http://www.k9snaturally.com/stopab1634.htm (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!"
-
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
-
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§
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
A mandatory spay & neuter your pet bill? :o
Wow, I think Bob Barker just got his first hardon in years ;D
-
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.
-
FAQ:
How will AB 1634 work?
AB 1634 will require all dogs and cats in California to be spayed or neutered at 4 months of age unless they are registered purebreds and have special, government-issued permits.
How do I get a government permit to stop my dogs and cats from being sterilized?
You can only get a permit if you can prove you're a licensed breeder, or if your pet is a valid purebred and has been in at least one legitimate show or is in training.
A 4-month-old dog is too young to either compete OR be in training, yet those are the requirements under AB 1634 to get a permit?
Yes.
What about service dogs for the blind and disabled?AB 1634 will require all potential service dogs to be sterilized at four months unless they have begun training — an impossible criteria to meet since training doesn't start until dogs reach maturity.
How about police and rescue dogs?
There is no such thing as a 4-month-old puppy who is either "being trained or... is actively used by law enforcement," yet that is what AB 1634 requires to avoid forced sterilization of dogs used for police work, search and rescue, and narcotic and bomb detection. Nearly all police dogs are unaltered males. Neutering their offspring will wipe out decades of established bloodlines in just one generation.
Will the passage of AB 1634 at least provide more low-cost spaying and neutering programs?
AB 1634 does not provide ANY state funds for programs that are proven to reduce shelter in-takes and euthanasia rates: pet-owner education and low-cost spaying and neutering programs.
Does any other state require all dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered?
No. The backers of AB 1634 continue to claim Rhode Island has such a law, but it does not apply to dogs.
Our 12-year-old family dog is a mutt, not a purebred. Will she have to be spayed?
Yes. All mixed breed dogs and cats over four months old must be spayed or neutered – or you'll be fined $500. If AB 1634 works as intended, all mixed breed dogs and domestic cats will be systematically eliminated from California.
I want to get my pet neutered, I just feel that four months is too soon. Can't I wait until he's older?
No. Under AB 1634, surgical sterilization will not be a decision made between you and your vet – it will be a government requirement.
I've been breeding dogs for 22 years. How will Assembly Bill 1634 affect me?
If you currently breed, show or sell dogs or cats in California, you will have to qualify and pay for a government permit or be forced to sterilize all your cats and/or dogs. Permits fees will be "determined by a local jurisdiction" and commonly start at $100-150 per animal, paid each year, but can go much higher.
-
*Permission to cross post*
CVMA dues are due by 7/1. My employer just wrote across his renewal form "AB1634 - Drop my membership". I have it first hand that other veterinarians have done the very same. In most cases, your own veterinarian is opposed. You could ask them to consider not renewing their CVMA membership. Just another way to hit AB1634 where it hurts and try to get CVMA to admit their mistake.
-
flower, I just asked a vet about what problems spay and neuter could cause in dogs.
She said there is only one thing: Male dogs can in some instances gain weight if they're not excersised, since their metabolism is altered.
However, the risk for health benefits are many:
*No risk of prostate cancer
*LOWERED risk of ovary cancer, and lowered risks for other cancers as well
But no negatives.
She told me however, that many dog owners were opposed to having spay and neuter, particularly people living in rural areas.
Reason was that they had some belief that "the dogs aren't whole without their balls".
Also, this vet is a long-time dog owner herself.
You claim there are health problems, even cancer risk increases, and then this vet tells me otherwise. Something doesn't add up.
-Hedge
-
Maybe your vet should read the studies done. Early altering makes the risk of bone cancers greater for one. Behavior problems in both males and females rises, as well as urinary incontinence in females. This could lead to more animals being dumped in shelters that otherwise would not have been.
I have answered this before in this thread and provided information. If you are not going to read it, then stop asking the same questions.
And I will say this again in bold:
THIS IS ABOUT EARLY SPAY & NEUTERING, NOT ALTERING AT BREED APPROPRIATE AGES. THAT IS ONE OF THE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THIS BILL.
Now go ask your vet if altering a Great Dane at 4 months is a good idea.
-
Your Vet sounds pretty misinformed.
I've seen females gain weight...but not usually the males. Usually in males...I've seen it stunt or alter their full growth potential. Neuter a Male before he fully matures sets up a lot of issues.
I've seen (especially larger dog breeds) affect the size of the head, length of legs, & thickness in chest. I'm sure it also may affect how well the bones develop & form. Lets also include joints & connective tissues.
-
I respect your opinions, and both of you have lots of experience with dogs.
But IMO, you don't seem to offer any alternative, just wanting to fight the spay and neuter.
Would you support a bill for mandatory spay and neuter at a higher age?
FWIW, I believe the breeding situation with dogs and cats is going overboard right now. People are trying to create either smaller and smaller dogs, or tougher and tougher dogs, crossbreeding from Staffordshire and Rottweiller's, Dobermann's, et al.
Some kind of regulation has to be made, in order to protect the animals.
-Hedge
-Hedge
-
Hedge, I posted this that was just passed in Conn. The key is EDUCATION and programs to help people afford to alter there pets. They estimate at least 10,000 puppies are smuggled into CA from Mexico. This bill passes and that number will rise because puppies will not be available. These are puppy mill puppies that will bring with them hosts of problems from poor breeding.
The majority of shelter animals are juvenile or adults. This bill does nothing to address that. Nor does it do anything for the feral cat population, provides no help to people that try to cut down the population by trapping, altering and releasing. Education and affordable options are what should be implemented. Not compounding the problem by harming pets that would of stayed in a home, but are instead going to be surrendered because they have behavior problems or incontinence that could of been avoided. And what about the responsible owners who are going to spend tons of money and watch their pets die from the increase in bone cancers?
They call this "The Healthy Pet Act" but is should be "The UNHealthy Pet Act"
What passed in Conn:
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
-
And one other suggestion I have mentioned: leash laws for cats. If cats are not allowed to roam that would drastically cut down the number of kittens. And most people would voluntarily get them altered because they won't want to deal with a cat in heat or a male cat spraying. There may be some conflict by farmers that use outdoor cats for rodent control, but I think that could be satisfactorily addressed with exception rules.
Responsible breeders that breed for health and temperament will be numbered. What will rise is the backyard breeders churning out ill bred dogs and the problems that come with them. The responsible breeders that continue to breed will have a limited gene pool which also will affect the quality of puppies available.
Just because no other solution has been put on the table,that is not a reason to pass a bill that will make matters even worse. Don't pass anything and work on these issues that have been brought to light
If you currently breed, show or sell dogs or cats in California, you will have to qualify and pay for a government permit or be forced to sterilize all your cats and/or dogs. Permits fees will be "determined by a local jurisdiction" and commonly start at $100-150 per animal, paid each year, but can go much higher.
-
Well, from an 'American' standpoint.....
first - I am extremely leary of an new law that puts the state or government more in control of our personal life & less out of the people's hands.
second - I strongly believe that only the responsible pet owners are going to suffer from this & pets of the responsible pet owner
third - for a 4 month old dog....this is not a good law for us or them. If they have more health issues...who's going to end up paying for it & who is going to suffer?
fourth - there's certain laws in place that are 'ridiculous'. For example....if there's a feral cat in my back yard living & spitting out kittens every couple of months....do you think animal control will come out & get them? (mind you...a cat can carry two separate litters at once) Well, unless the cat "mysteriously" has a collar on it...they won't come. It's MY responsibility to jump out from behind a bush like Rambo...box them up...& bring them in. My other choice is to ignore all the cat shit all over the place & the constant meowing at night. Where I'm original from (from a small country town)...it was common practice just to pull out a 22 & shoot them. I believe there should be a better way than this practice. One thing we used to do...was take a litter of kittens & place them in a farmers barn. Typically a farmer would take on a bunch of cats to minimize the mice population getting into the feed. Sure...that's not an answer for everyone & every situation because there's millions of cats out there...but hell...I was a kid & came up with a simple idea.
-
If you currently breed, show or sell dogs or cats in California, you will have to qualify and pay for a government permit or be forced to sterilize all your cats and/or dogs. Permits fees will be "determined by a local jurisdiction" and commonly start at $100-150 per animal, paid each year, but can go much higher.
What's ridiculous about this...is I know "responsible" breeders (not puppy mills/farms) that have 6-8 dogs that they also show. This is just one more expense that makes things 'dumb'.
Every town/city has an ordnance of how many (dogs per se) you can have & maintain on your property. How about enforcing that law? There's laws in place...that are not even me enforced. So....lets come out with new laws. Does that make sense? I know one breeder that has 6. Her town ordnance only allows 6 per household. If she decides one of the dogs is not going to work out for show, or has issues....she places the dog in a good proper facilitated home before taking on another dog.
-
Even if a breeder is willing to pay that fee every year that does not mean they will get an exemption. The county can deny the request. A county can not grant any, or a certain number. That further takes away a persons right to make.
The AKC has stated that if this passes they will no longer have dog shows in CA. That is a MAJOR loss of money for Long Beach (I believe that is where that one show is held). They have contracts for 2007 & 08, but will not renew after that.
They could take some of the money generated by the dog show revenue and put it into programs that could help people be responsible, and help groups deal with the feral cat population and it would be a win win situation.
http://www.akc.org/press_center/fact_vs_fiction/index.cfm?#061407 (http://www.akc.org/press_center/fact_vs_fiction/index.cfm?#061407)
FICTION: Moving the upcoming 2007 AKC/Eukanuba National Championship from Long Beach is a tactic that will help us defeat AB 1634.
FACT: Cancellation of the show at this point would be tantamount to surrendering to those who would eliminate dog breeding and the sport of purebred dogs in California. In order to most effectively support the responsible dog owners and fanciers in California in their fight against AB 1634, we need to continue to be active in the state.
In his June Chairman's Report, Ron Menaker said, "The AKC/Eukanuba National Championship is scheduled to be held in Long Beach in December 2007 & 2008. Although we have considered making Long Beach the permanent home, I have communicated to both the Mayor of Long Beach and to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that enactment of AB 1634 would make that impossible." You can read the full text of this report.
AKC will not abandon our opposition to this bill. Moving our show at this point is premature, however if the bill becomes law, will not hesitate to do so in the future. Notwithstanding the fact that our event alone brings $21.7 million to the City of Long Beach, AKC events held throughout California generate well over $110 million annually for local economies. In the event of AB 1634 becoming law, revenue from our ongoing events would likely be shifted to the neighboring states of Oregon, Nevada and Arizona
In regards to the city of Long Beach, Assembly members Karnette and Richardson were initially committed to opposing the bill; however, after 10 hours of lobbying, Asm. Levine was able to convince them to reverse their vote. While we are deeply disappointed by this action, we should not forget that representatives of the City of Long Beach, the Long Beach Chamber of Commerce, the Long Beach Police Officers Association, the Long Beach Convention & Visitors Bureau, as well as a wide variety of business leaders within Long Beach have allied themselves with the AKC to stop AB 1634. AKC looks forward to working with the State Senate and specifically the Senators from Long Beach to defeat AB 1634.
It is also important to remember that the bill is only halfway through the legislative process. Now in the State Senate, we expect it to be assigned to a policy committee soon. Once that information is available we will post an update and ask fanciers and concerned dog owners to contact the members of that committee. Right now it is absolutely vital that Californians contact their State Senator and express their opposition to AB 1634. Legislators are most interested in hear from their constituents!
-
What's ridiculous about this...is I know "responsible" breeders (not puppy mills/farms) that have 6-8 dogs that they also show. This is just one more expense that makes things 'dumb'.
Every town/city has an ordnance of how many (dogs per se) you can have & maintain on your property. How about enforcing that law? There's laws in place...that are not even me enforced. So....lets come out with new laws. Does that make sense? I know one breeder that has 6. Her town ordnance only allows 6 per household. If she decides one of the dogs is not going to work out for show, or has issues....she places the dog in a good proper facilitated home before taking on another dog.
note the part in quotes: "determined by local jurisdiction". That means they don't have to give you an intact permit. They could deny everyone. Even if you are willing to pay, they could still say no. And you can't usually tell by 4 months of age if a dog is "show worthy". So even applying for a permit you have to have a showing dog, and I believe the dog must get it's championship by a certain age. Their are all kinds of crazy wordings that make it almost impossible to show a "reason" you want an animal left intact.
And most responsible breeders have clauses in their contracts that if the buyer is for whatever reason unable to care for the dog they must contact the breeder first, and the breeder will take the dog and place it. They don't want their dogs dumped somewhere down the line. They don't contribute to the shelter populations.
-
flower, with all due respect, but dog owners aren't going to have to watch their dogs die of bone cancer because of this law. You're making it sound like they will drop like flies if this law is passed.
That's just not true.
I'm sure that the increase in bone cancer cases is balanced out, and then some, by the decrease of ovarian cancer and the total disapperance of prostate cancer.
knny: you make a good point about the US law tradition. I think you have to take into consideration how the general public feels about legislation.
But there is one thing to be concerned about too much legislation. Another thing to be paranoid about it.
Rules and legislations can help prevent dogs and cats from being abused.
Why not get breeding under control, instead of waiting for a situation where the situation is really bad, with even more perverted breeds?
Why wait for the shit to hit the fan instead of being preemptive?
-Hedge
-
Do you think the studies were incorrect about behavior problems as a result of early neutering?
Do you think that will help the shelter population?
Do I have a RIGHT to a healthy pet? Does my pet deserve the RIGHT to have a good quality of life? Does a female dog deserve the chance to not be put down because she was early altered and now leaks pee all over the house? And no one will adopt that dog because of that, so she is doomed to die? Do people with kids deserve the RIGHT to add a companion to their family that they don't have the increased risk of aggression from early altering? People surrender animals because they get bored with them or a lifestyle change, these are the older animals. This bill does nothing to address that and will make the problem worse because animals will be surrendered because of problems brought on by early altering.
Giant breeds are already predisposed to osteosarcomas, that is a fact. And it is a fact that early altering can play a role in osteosarcomas down the line.
What health problems do you think people would have if they were "altered" when they were a baby, and their body did not have the benefit of hormones to have a healthy life? Do you think it is any different for animals?
I'm sure that the increase in bone cancer cases is balanced out, and then some, by the decrease of ovarian cancer and the total disapperance of prostate cancer.
Are you kidding me? Balanced out? How do you figure that? Is it okay if it is your dog that gets "balanced out" and dies after you spend tons of money on it? And you get the pleasure of watching it suffer?
Why not educate and get affordable programs in place so people could alter their pets at an APPROPRIATE age?
Like knny said why not enforce some of the EXISTING laws instead of making up new ones that will make an even bigger problem.
-
Here's another point that this bill ignores:
Vaccinations should not be given at the time of surgery. Rabies vaccination is required by dogs at 4 months of age in California. Are they going to IGNORE the vaccine manufacturers recommendations and do both at the same time despite the harm to the animal and lack of efficacy of the vaccine that may result?
'Don’t vaccinate under stress; corticosteriods inhibit lymphocyte metabolism and cell growth. Adrenalin releases lymphocytic AMP (cyclic) which is immunosuppressive. Stress decreases the activity of natural killer cells.
Don’t vaccinate within 2 weeks of surgery. Anesthetics are immunosuppressive.'
-
Repeat Posting for Hedge:
Early Spay-Neuter Considerations
for the Canine Athlete
One Veterinarian's Opinion
© 2005 Chris Zink DVM, PhD, DACVP
Neuter or not?
Those of us with responsibility for the health of canine athletes need to continually read and evaluate new scientific studies to ensure that we are taking the most appropriate care of our performance dogs. This article provides evidence through a number of recent studies to suggest that veterinarians and owners working with canine athletes should revisit the standard protocol in which all dogs that are not intended for breeding are spayed and neutered at or before 6 months of age.
Orthopedic Considerations
A study by Salmeri et al in 1991 found that bitches spayed at 7 weeks grew significantly taller than those spayed at 7 months, who were taller than those not spayed (or presumably spayed after the growth plates had closed).(1) A study of 1444 Golden Retrievers performed in 1998 and 1999 also found bitches and dogs spayed and neutered at less than a year of age were significantly taller than those spayed or neutered at more than a year of age.(2) The sex hormones, by communicating with a number of other growth-related hormones, promote the closure of the growth plates at puberty (3), so the bones of dogs or bitches neutered or spayed before puberty continue to grow. Dogs that have been spayed or neutered well before puberty can frequently be identified by their longer limbs, lighter bone structure, narrow chests and narrow skulls. This abnormal growth frequently results in significant alterations in body proportions and particularly the lengths (and therefore weights) of certain bones relative to others. For example, if the femur has achieved its genetically determined normal length at 8 months when a dog gets spayed or neutered, but the tibia, which normally stops growing at 12 to 14 months of age continues to grow, then an abnormal angle may develop at the stifle. In addition, with the extra growth, the lower leg below the stifle likely becomes heavier (because it is longer), and may cause increased stresses on the cranial cruciate ligament. In addition, sex hormones are critical for achieving peak bone density.(4) These structural and physiological alterations may be the reason why at least one recent study showed that spayed and neutered dogs had a higher incidence of CCL rupture.(5) Another recent study showed that dogs spayed or neutered before 5 1/2 months had a significantly higher incidence of hip dysplasia than those spayed or neutered after 5 1/2 months of age, although it should be noted that in this study there were no standard criteria for the diagnosis of hip dysplasia.(6) Nonetheless, breeders of purebred dogs should be cognizant of these studies and should consider whether or not pups they bred were spayed or neutered when considering breeding decisions.
Cancer Considerations
A retrospective study of cardiac tumors in dogs showed that there was a 5 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma, one of the three most common cancers in dogs, in spayed bitches than intact bitches and a 2.4 times greater risk of hemangiosarcoma in neutered dogs as compared to intact males.(7) A study of 3218 dogs demonstrated that dogs that were neutered before a year of age had a significantly increased chance of developing bone cancer.(8) A separate study showed that neutered dogs had a two-fold higher risk of developing bone cancer.(9) Despite the common belief that neutering dogs helps prevent prostate cancer, at least one study suggests that neutering provides no benefit.(10) There certainly is evidence of a slightly increased risk of mammary cancer in female dogs after one heat cycle, and for increased risk with each subsequent heat. While about 30 % of mammary cancers are malignant, as in humans, when caught and surgically removed early the prognosis is very good.(12) Luckily, canine athletes are handled frequently and generally receive prompt veterinary care.
Behavioral Considerations
The study that identified a higher incidence of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in spayed or neutered dogs also identified an increased incidence of sexual behaviors in males and females that were neutered early.(5) Further, the study that identified a higher incidence of hip dysplasia in dogs neutered or spayed before 5 1/2 months also showed that early age gonadectomy was associated with an increased incidence of noise phobias and undesirable sexual behaviors.(6) A recent report of the American Kennel Club Canine Health Foundation reported significantly more behavioral problems in spayed and neutered bitches and dogs. The most commonly observed behavioral problem in spayed females was fearful behavior and the most common problem in males was aggression.(12)
Other Health Considerations
A number of studies have shown that there is an increase in the incidence of female urinary incontinence in dogs spayed early (13), although this finding has not been universal. Certainly there is evidence that ovarian hormones are critical for maintenance of genital tissue structure and contractility.(14, 15) Neutering also has been associated with an increased likelihood of urethral sphincter incontinence in males.(16) This problem is an inconvenience, and not usually life-threatening, but nonetheless one that requires the dog to be medicated for life. A health survey of several thousand Golden Retrievers showed that spayed or neutered dogs were more likely to develop hypothyroidism.(2) This study is consistent with the results of another study in which neutering and spaying was determined to be the most significant gender-associated risk factor for development of hypothyroidism.(17) Infectious diseases were more common in dogs that were spayed or neutered at 24 weeks or less as opposed to those undergoing gonadectomy at more than 24 weeks.(18) Finally, the AKC-CHF report demonstrated a higher incidence of adverse reactions to vaccines in neutered dogs as compared to intact.(12)
To spay or not to spay
I have gathered these studies to show that our practice of routinely spaying or neutering every dog at or before the age of 6 months is not a black-and-white issue. Clearly more studies need to be done to evaluate the effects of prepubertal spaying and neutering, particularly in canine athletes.
Currently, I have significant concerns with spaying or neutering canine athletes before puberty. But of course, there is the pet overpopulation problem. How can we prevent the production of unwanted dogs while still leaving the gonads to produce the hormones that are so important to canine growth and development? One answer would be to perform vasectomies in males and tubal ligation in females, to be followed after maturity by ovariohysterectomy in females to prevent mammary cancer and pyometra. One possible disadvantage is that vasectomy does not prevent some unwanted behaviors associated with males such as marking and humping. On the other hand, females and neutered males frequently participate in these behaviors too. Really, training is the best solution for these issues. Another possible disadvantage is finding a veterinarian who is experienced in performing these procedures. Nonetheless, some do, and if the procedures were in greater demand, more veterinarians would learn them.
I believe it is important that we assess each situation individually. For canine athletes, I currently recommend that dogs and bitches be spayed or neutered after 14 months of age.
References:
1. Salmeri KR, Bloomberg MS, Scruggs SL, Shille V.. Gonadectomy in immature dogs: effects on skeletal, physical, and behavioral development. JAVMA 1991;198:1193-1203
2. http://www.grca.org/healthsurvey.pdf
3. Grumbach MM. Estrogen, bone, growth and sex: a sea change in conventional wisdom. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2000;13 Suppl 6:1439-55.
4. Gilsanz V, Roe TF, Gibbens DT, Schulz EE, Carlson ME, Gonzalez O, Boechat MI. Effect of sex steroids on peak bone density of growing rabbits. Am J Physiol. 1988 Oct;255(4 Pt 1):E416-21.
5. Slauterbeck JR, Pankratz K, Xu KT, Bozeman SC, Hardy DM. Canine ovariohysterectomy and orchiectomy increases the prevalence of ACL injury. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Dec;(429):301-5.
6. Spain CV, Scarlett JM, Houpt KA. Long-term risks and benefits of early-age gonadectomy in dogs. JAVMA 2004;224:380-387.
7. Ware WA, Hopper DL. Cardiac tumors in dogs: 1982-1995. J Vet Intern Med 1999 Mar-Apr;13(2):95-103
8. Cooley DM, Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters D, Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Nov;11(11):1434-40
9. Ru G, Terracini B, Glickman LT. Host related risk factors for canine osteosarcoma. Vet J. 1998 Jul;156(1):31-9.
10. Obradovich J, Walshaw R, Goullaud E. The influence of castration on the development of prostatic carcinoma in the dog. 43 cases (1978-1985). J Vet Intern Med 1987 Oct-Dec;1(4):183-7
11. http://www.akcchf.org/pdfs/whitepapers/Biennial_National_Parent_Club_Canine_Health_Conference.pdf
12. Meuten DJ. Tumors in Domestic Animals. 4th Edn. Iowa State Press, Blackwell Publishing Company, Ames, Iowa, p. 575
13. Stocklin-Gautschi NM, Hassig M, Reichler IM, Hubler M, Arnold S. The relationship of urinary incontinence to early spaying in bitches. J. Reprod. Fertil. Suppl. 57:233-6, 2001
14. Pessina MA, Hoyt RF Jr, Goldstein I, Traish AM. Differential effects of estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone on vaginal structural integrity. Endocrinology. 2006 Jan;147(1):61-9.
15. Kim NN, Min K, Pessina MA, Munarriz R, Goldstein I, Traish AM. Effects of ovariectomy and steroid hormones on vaginal smooth muscle contractility. Int J Impot Res. 2004 Feb;16(1):43-50.
16. Aaron A, Eggleton K, Power C, Holt PE. Urethral sphincter mechanism incompetence in male dogs: a retrospective analysis of 54 cases. Vet Rec. 139:542-6, 1996
17. Panciera DL. Hypothyroidism in dogs: 66 cases (1987-1992). J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc., 204:761-7 1994
18. Howe LM, Slater MR, Boothe HW, Hobson HP, Holcom JL, Spann AC. Long-term outcome of gonadectomy performed at an early age or traditional age in dogs. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2001 Jan 15;218(2):217-21.
-
Should we really be trying to increase the odds of cancer?
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Cancer is cancer, whether in people or pets, says expert
One in Four Dogs Will Die of Cancer - #1 Cause of Death in Dogs Over Age Two
Morris Animal Foundation (MAF) has launched a $30 million effort to cure canine cancer within a dog's lifetime - the next 10 to 20 years.
World-renowned specialists agree that this effort will not only save countless dogs from premature death, but should also help produce breakthroughs for human cancers – in particular childhood cancers.
Endorsement of this initiative has been received from: Children's Oncology Group, Animal Cancer Foundation, MIT/Harvard (Broad Institute), and the Mayo Clinic.
This global cancer cure initiative is attracting major corporate support, including a $1.1 million donation from Pfizer Animal Health for a canine tumor tissue bank, to help researchers uncover new cancer therapies.
"One in four dogs will die of cancer. Cancer is the number one cause of disease-related death in dogs over the age of two. Sadly, many of the most popular dog breeds are especially susceptible to developing cancer. Your donation may very well save your own beloved pet dog from suffering cancer’s effects,” states Dr. Patricia N. Olson, CEO and president of MAF.
"This is the ultimate win-win situation," says Dr. Olson. "As we treat and cure cancer in our pet dogs, we may help alleviate the ravages of cancer among humans. This animal-human bond is simply inspirational."
To learn more, visit: www.curecaninecancer.org .
According to Dr. Stephen Withrow, director of the world's largest Animal Cancer Center at Colorado State University, "Dramatic progress has been made in the last several decades on understanding the causes and treatment of cancer.
“Cancer is cancer regardless of species; discoveries in either dogs or humans will have rapid acceptance in the other species." says Dr. Withrow. "Humans really are the dog's best friend. For example, surgical and chemotherapeutic techniques in dog's bone cancer have helped guide treatment in children and visa versa."
The National Cancer Institute, the global leader in human cancer research, has included the study of cancer in dogs within its Comparative Oncology Program since 2003. NCI's Comparative Oncology Program integrates the study of cancer biology and therapy in dogs with the broader cancer research community.
Dr. Richard Gorlick, Children's Oncology Group, whose members treat 90 percent of all children with cancer in North America, says canine-human research is invaluable.
"Cancer in pet dogs strongly resembles the cancers we see in pediatric patients. We strongly support MAF's initiative and believe that results will be ultimately helpful for both children and canine cancer patients."
All Dogs Face Serious Cancer Threat -- These Breeds Are Most Susceptible
Bernese Mountain Dog: Histiocytic sarcoma (soft tissues)
Boxer: Lymphoma (lymph nodes) Brain Cancer
Cocker Spaniel: Lymphoma (lymph nodes)
Golden Retriever: Lymphoma (lymph nodes), Hemangiosarcoma (blood vessels/spleen); 60% of golden retrievers die of cancer
Labrador Retriever: Lymphoma (lymph nodes), Hemangiosarcoma (blood vessels/spleen)
English Springer Spaniel: Mammary gland (breast)
Pug: Mast Cell (skin)
Shar-pei: Mast Cell (skin)
Greyhound: Osteosarcoma (bone)
Rottweiler: Osteosarcoma (bone)
Any large or giant breed: Osteosarcoma (bone)
Collie: Nasal Cancer
Scottish Terrier: Transitional cell carcinoma (bladder), Melanoma (skin/mouth)
Chow Chow: Stomach Cancer
Flat-coated Retriever: Transitional cell carcinoma (bladder), Melanoma (skin/mouth)
-
I read the reference number 6 at pubMed:
Here is the conclusion:
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Because early-age gonadectomy appears to offer more benefits than risks for male dogs, animal shelters can safely gonadectomize male dogs at a young age and veterinary practitioners should consider recommending routine gonadectomy for client-owned male dogs before the traditional age of 6 to 8 months. ;D
For female dogs, however, increased urinary incontinence suggests that delaying gonadectomy until at least 3 months of age may be beneficial. ;)
So spay and neuter at around the age of 4 months seems like a good idea, according to this study, that you cited.
Case closed.
-Hedge
-
Glad you look at the whole picture Hedge. I guess aggression and other behavior problems as well as the increased cancer risk doesn't really matter. :-\
-
I read the reference number 6 at pubMed:
Here is the conclusion:
CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Because early-age gonadectomy appears to offer more benefits than risks for male dogs, animal shelters can safely gonadectomize male dogs at a young age and veterinary practitioners should consider recommending routine gonadectomy for client-owned male dogs before the traditional age of 6 to 8 months. ;D
For female dogs, however, increased urinary incontinence suggests that delaying gonadectomy until at least 3 months of age may be beneficial. ;)
So spay and neuter at around the age of 4 months seems like a good idea, according to this study, that you cited.
Case closed.
-Hedge
Flower, from the study that your own article used as a reference:
Because early-age gonadectomy appears to offer more benefits than risks for male dogs,
I don't know how it can be put any more blunt than that? :-\
And this wasn't even my source. It was your.
The facts seems to point in favor of spay and neutering.
-Hedge
-
Again, we are talking EARLY spaying and neutering, not spaying in neutering in general.
EARLY spaying and neutering poses significant increase of health and behavior problems that could be avoided with breed appropriate altering. There is a big difference in when a Chihuahua could get altered as to a Great Dane.
Considering you don't have pets, and I believe you have stated you are not really a pet person (?), I can see how people having to deal with these consequences is of no concern to you. To people that do care about the quality of life for their companions, they are a concern. To owners of large and giant breeds where this would have the greatest affect on health it is an even bigger concern.
I have a right as a responsible pet owner to make decisions in my pets best interest. Any surgery is dangerous, I think that is my right to decide when my pet is able and ready to go through surgery.
People won't take their pets to the vet if this gets passed. They won't get the mandatory rabies. They will be afraid they will be fined because they have an unaltered pet. Where is anything in this bill to help people pay for altering, one of the main reasons people don't do it. The cost. It cost me over $200 to neuter my chi. My female dane I have been quoted up to $600.
Their are a lot of different flaws with this bill. I just pointed out another one, the mandatory 4 months rabies vac. Rabies vaccines are only licensed to fgive to healthy dogs over 16weeks of age. If an animal is under stress or has had surgery the efficacy of the vaccine is questionable. So what does a person do? Or does California not care about the possible rabies epidemic because the vaccines won't have taken? That could be a lot of dogs running around able to get and pass on rabies!
You, like a lot of people see the "reduce shelter population" and go YES! I am for that! On the surface that sounds great to me. But when you look at what may result from this bill you see that it can bring more harm and problems without addressing the underlying problem. Where are the programs to help people alter? Where is the feral cat population being addressed? Where is the educating of the people? No where. This bill will do nothing and make people that otherwise would of been responsible avoid doing some other things required by law because they will fear getting fined. The pet gene pool will suffer. The gene pool for service and working dogs will diminish. You can't do a health assessment on a 4mo. puppy to see if it will bring health to your lines? Or check for hips or eyes? What puppies that will be available will be smuggled in or be of poor health.
I can not support a Healthy Pet Extinction Bill.
Sorry, I look at the whole picture.
-
How many of your dogs have you had neutered or spayed?
I am not really a pet person, no.
But I care about animals rights.
Also, the study YOU referred to, recommended neutering and spaying at around age 4 months for female dogs, and even earlier for male dogs.
That study claimed the benefits outweighed the negatives.
And when faced with these facts, you're resorting to using cost of spay and neutering as an argument?
Is this about money all of a sudden?
I thought it was a health issue?
As far as your opinion on the lack of education: I believe there may be some merit to it, but one bill can't solve everything. One step at a time.
-Hedge
-
my position has never changed
people need to have the rights for their own pets & not determined by the state or government.
secondly...my dog wants his nuts intact...I asked him ;D
third...I understand over population....but I also see where premature neutering or spaying slowing down, altering, changing, the developmental stage in dogs. I 'doubt' it has a health benefit.
-
You didn't look at the studies on increased hypothyroidsim, cancer rate increases, the study done by the CCI (service dogs) that showed aggression and fear problems in early altered dogs. You are taking one study, that doesn't address all the concerns and basing it on that?
I have had 4 dogs altered. All were over the old standard recommendation of 6 months of age. My male dane was done after 2 years of age. Giant breeds should minimally wait until they are at least a year of age, preferably older.
It is a health issue for me, but this bill does nothing to address one of the main reasons people do not alter, the cost!
This bill punishes the responsible people and their pets. It does nothing to address the people that still will not be able to afford to alter their pets. Nor will these people even vaccinate for rabies because they won't want to risk a $500 fine if they are found with a dog over 4mos unaltered. People won't license their dogs. People may not get medical attention for their pets because of the risk of being fined.
This bill is all fluff, it sounds good on the surface, but inside it's lacking.
You care about animal rights? Well so do I, and mine and everyone else's pets have a right to a healthy life. Pets deserve to get medical attention and not be left to suffer and die because their owner couldn't afford the altering on time and now risks a $500 fine so they don't take them in to the vets. Or their dog gets hypothyroidism (increases with early altering) which requires medication for the rest of their life but the owner can't afford it so they surrender them. Hip dysplasia already common, will be even more common, again, expensive surgery and pain and less of a quality of life even if the owner can afford surgery. Certain cancers that are already common in some breeds (particularly large and giant breeds that this 4mos altering affects the most). Most people can't afford treatment for that.
Or how about the dog that bites a kid, brought on by fear and aggression as a result of early altering? Is that acceptable?
Did you ask your vet friend if they recommend altering a Great Dane at 4mos of age?
-
Also, the study YOU referred to, recommended neutering and spaying at around age 4 months for female dogs, and even earlier for male dogs.
Actually I did not refer to that study, it was a reference used by the vet that authored the article I posted. Did you read it? Did you see his reasoning behind why he believes EARLY altering is a health/behavior risk? I think he makes some very valid points, one that people should be aware of when deciding when to alter their pets. He looked at the whole picture. Same as the canine service dog organization did when they did their study.
The responsible people that would be altering their pets anyways, will now be doing it at an age that gives more risks to the animal. The unresponsible people will still not be altering. The responsible persons pets will face the possibility of a poorer quality of life, along with a shorter one from the increased joint and cancer risks.
Meanwhile the underlying problem is still there. We just have a lot more unhealthy pets for the responsible people.
That certainly does not seem like a benefit to animals. :-\
-
You didn't look at the studies on increased hypothyroidsim, cancer rate increases, the study done by the CCI (service dogs) that showed aggression and fear problems in early altered dogs. You are taking one study, that doesn't address all the concerns and basing it on that?
That "one study" was based on studies of over 1800 dogs. And seemed good enough for the guy you quoted. I guess he chose to interpret the study to fit his own agenda.
That "one study" concluded that early neutering was recommended, since the good outweighed the bad.
I have had 4 dogs altered. All were over the old standard recommendation of 6 months of age. My male dane was done after 2 years of age. Giant breeds should minimally wait until they are at least a year of age, preferably older.
I've heard from a various sources that Great Danes are one of the breeds that suffers the greatest from humans desires to breed new dog breeds. They apparently suffers many diseases.
It is a health issue for me, but this bill does nothing to address one of the main reasons people do not alter, the cost!
This bill punishes the responsible people and their pets. It does nothing to address the people that still will not be able to afford to alter their pets. Nor will these people even vaccinate for rabies because they won't want to risk a $500 fine if they are found with a dog over 4mos unaltered. People won't license their dogs. People may not get medical attention for their pets because of the risk of being fined.
This bill is all fluff, it sounds good on the surface, but inside it's lacking.
Very good point. This is a Catch 22 of sorts. Perhaps a temporary amnesty could be instated? And also, the spay and neutering business will surely become cheaper once more people will have to get their pets done, it's simple capitalism - supply and demand.
Another thing: Perhaps the time limit should be set at a later date, eg 12 months or something like that. But the general idea is a good one.
You care about animal rights? Well so do I, and mine and everyone else's pets have a right to a healthy life. Pets deserve to get medical attention and not be left to suffer and die because their owner couldn't afford the altering on time and now risks a $500 fine so they don't take them in to the vets. Or their dog gets hypothyroidism (increases with early altering) which requires medication for the rest of their life but the owner can't afford it so they surrender them. Hip dysplasia already common, will be even more common, again, expensive surgery and pain and less of a quality of life even if the owner can afford surgery. Certain cancers that are already common in some breeds (particularly large and giant breeds that this 4mos altering affects the most). Most people can't afford treatment for that.
Hip dysplasia is often (not always) a result of perverted breeding. Big breeds often gets this. Breeds with stocky builds as well.
Or how about the dog that bites a kid, brought on by fear and aggression as a result of early altering? Is that acceptable?
A dog who isn't obedient and calm enough, is clearly a dog that is mistreated by its owner. An aggressive dog, attacking people, has not been properly trained.
Did you ask your vet friend if they recommend altering a Great Dane at 4mos of age?
No. I asked about dogs in general.
Read the study. The sooner the better (males) and after 3 months (females).
It was a study that your article referenced, so why are you even argueing these facts?
-Hedge
-
I've heard from a various sources that Great Danes are one of the breeds that suffers the greatest from humans desires to breed new dog breeds. They apparently suffers many diseases.
The length of time it takes for a giant breed to mature has nothing to do with how it was bred or that it came from a poor lineage. Because they are a giant breed it takes them longer to mature. Small or toy breeds mature faster. Every breed suffers from it's own particular breed "problems" which may be a result from poor breeding practices. That does not change the affect early altering will have on giant breeds. That argument has no merit in this topic. :)
That "one study" was based on studies of over 1800 dogs. And seemed good enough for the guy you quoted. I guess he chose to interpret the study to fit his own agenda.
That "one study" concluded that early neutering was recommended, since the good outweighed the bad.
He referenced more than that one study. What about the increased incidence of hypothyroidism and certain cancer studies? The canine service study and their behavior problem study? I am looking at the overall picture, not just one aspect of it.
The good outweighing the bad is a personal decision. I don't find the risks that the study concluded outweigh the benefits, not when I could alter at a breed appropriate age and get the benefits of the dog being able to mature and then the benefits of altering. Why do I have to say those risks are acceptable? Why does my companion have to take that risk? The government now wants to tell me that it is acceptable that my companion will suffer a problem from early altering? If I am the one caring for them I will decide what is acceptable or not.
This bill would shut down a lot of responsible breeders. The one litter every year or 2. The ones that breed for the betterment of their breed, and for health and temperament. You know who will continue to breed though? The backyard breeders. They who just throw 2 dogs together and just sell the puppies later on. No health checks, no breeding for temperament and probably no vet checks because they won't want to get fined. Unhealthy and ill bred puppies are going to be what is out there. The responsible breeders who decide to still give it a go will be faced with breeding stock shortages to chose from. Out of state breeders won't be sending puppies to CA because they don't want them early altered. The healthier lines will go extinct. You can't tell at 4mos of age if a puppy will have health problems or temperament issues so they will take a chance and hope the pup or 2 they pick will be an asset to the breed. If not they will breed them anyways because what else are they going to do?
The smuggled puppies in from Mexico will rise because the demand will be even greater in CA. Then those ill bred dogs will be used in back yard breeding, not to mention what the puppies have to live through if they make it across the border. I bet the Mexican puppy mills make some of the state ones look like resorts.
This bill will effect CA economy also. They won't have some of the tourists because they won't be able to bring their dogs. The dog shows are going to be pulled from CA, and that alone is a great amount of money. Money that even part of it could be used to put into place affordable altering options for people.
A dog who isn't obedient and calm enough, is clearly a dog that is mistreated by its owner. An aggressive dog, attacking people, has not been properly trained.
That is such bullshit. So those canine service people weren't socializing and training the possible future service dogs properly? They set out to make them dog aggressive or fearful? I highly doubt that.
To quote the ONE study that you are determined is the be all to end all:
'Among male and female dogs with early-age gonadectomy, hip dysplasia, noise phobias, and sexual behaviors were increased'
I suppose the noise phobias and sexual behaviors were a result of them not training the dogs properly. ::) And that hip dyslpasia increase, well that is no biggie, what's a couple grand to fix a dogs knee right?
Last I knew this was still America, and if people have the right to bear arms, then I have the right to have a healthy pet, and to decide what benefits outweigh the risks.
-
The length of time it takes for a giant breed to mature has nothing to do with how it was bred or that it came from a poor lineage. Because they are a giant breed it takes them longer to mature. Small or toy breeds mature faster. Every breed suffers from it's own particular breed "problems" which may be a result from poor breeding practices. That does not change the affect early altering will have on giant breeds. That argument has no merit in this topic. :)
He referenced more than that one study. What about the increased incidence of hypothyroidism and certain cancer studies? The canine service study and their behavior problem study? I am looking at the overall picture, not just one aspect of it.
The good outweighing the bad is a personal decision. I don't find the risks that the study concluded outweigh the benefits, not when I could alter at a breed appropriate age and get the benefits of the dog being able to mature and then the benefits of altering. Why do I have to say those risks are acceptable? Why does my companion have to take that risk? The government now wants to tell me that it is acceptable that my companion will suffer a problem from early altering? If I am the one caring for them I will decide what is acceptable or not.
This bill would shut down a lot of responsible breeders. The one litter every year or 2. The ones that breed for the betterment of their breed, and for health and temperament. You know who will continue to breed though? The backyard breeders. They who just throw 2 dogs together and just sell the puppies later on. No health checks, no breeding for temperament and probably no vet checks because they won't want to get fined. Unhealthy and ill bred puppies are going to be what is out there. The responsible breeders who decide to still give it a go will be faced with breeding stock shortages to chose from. Out of state breeders won't be sending puppies to CA because they don't want them early altered. The healthier lines will go extinct. You can't tell at 4mos of age if a puppy will have health problems or temperament issues so they will take a chance and hope the pup or 2 they pick will be an asset to the breed. If not they will breed them anyways because what else are they going to do?
The smuggled puppies in from Mexico will rise because the demand will be even greater in CA. Then those ill bred dogs will be used in back yard breeding, not to mention what the puppies have to live through if they make it across the border. I bet the Mexican puppy mills make some of the state ones look like resorts.
This bill will effect CA economy also. They won't have some of the tourists because they won't be able to bring their dogs. The dog shows are going to be pulled from CA, and that alone is a great amount of money. Money that even part of it could be used to put into place affordable altering options for people.
That is such bullshit. So those canine service people weren't socializing and training the possible future service dogs properly? They set out to make them dog aggressive or fearful? I highly doubt that.
To quote the ONE study that you are determined is the be all to end all:
'Among male and female dogs with early-age gonadectomy, hip dysplasia, noise phobias, and sexual behaviors were increased'
I suppose the noise phobias and sexual behaviors were a result of them not training the dogs properly. ::) And that hip dyslpasia increase, well that is no biggie, what's a couple grand to fix a dogs knee right?
Last I knew this was still America, and if people have the right to bear arms, then I have the right to have a healthy pet, and to decide what benefits outweigh the risks.
Again, the study mentioned an increase in hip dysplasia. Still, the scientist concluded, that the benefits outweighed the risks, and even went so far as to RECOMMEND early gonadectomy.
So the increase can't been that great then.
And you're concerned about this would be a blow to the Cal tourist economy too...
What can I tell you, I doubt very much that people won't travel to California because of this. Hollywood, San Franscisco...
I think it's great that Cal will be free from rabies.
You raise one good point though: that the backyard breeders and the smuggled dogs could gain ground.
A good idea would be to include some kind of effort against backyard breeding in this bill.
-Hedge
-
What is with you and that one study that you ignore all the other ones? ???
Again, the study mentioned an increase in hip dysplasia. Still, the scientist concluded, that the benefits outweighed the risks, and even went so far as to RECOMMEND early gonadectomy.
That was that authors opinion, that those were acceptable risks. I don't happen to think increased risks of hypothyroidism, cancers, hip dysplasia, noise phobias, and sexual behaviors are acceptable. Not when I can alter at a breed appropriate age and not have to take on those risks and can still get the benefit that altering at an appropriate age can bring.
If you read the article that referenced ALL those studies you would see why that vet doesn't think early altering is worth the risk. I happen to agree. There is no benefit to be gained. None.
I should not be forced to take on additional risks. Is the government going to pay the medical bills? Are they going to get me another dog when it dies an early age from cancer? No? Then they can't tell me what risks I am going to take on.
I don't really care about tourism or the economy in California. It just is another part of the flaws and affect this bill would have if passed.
If you could stop obsessing over that one study you'd see the whole picture. ::)
http://dogplay.com/Articles/MyArticles/counterpointAB1634.html
Arguing AB1634 - Counterpoint
One web site supporting AB 1634 lists arguments by opponents and attempts to counter them. This page responds to that attempt.
In many cases there is a significant difference between what the proponents believe the language does, and the effect of the actual language. Much of this comes from not being aware of the various dog breeds and registries, unfamiliarity with genetics and responsible breeding practices, lack of knowledge about the sources that supply law enforcement dogs, service dogs, ranch and farm dogs and finally a significant lack of factual information.
Claim: The State of California spends almost three billion dollars every decade to house and euthanize (kill) excess animals. Almost one billion animals pass through our animal shelters each decade.
Response: The "one billion animals" figure is just not credible. And if the proponents can't present credible figures how can the rest of their information be believed?
HSUS estimates that 6-8 million cats and dogs enter shelters every year. That is for the entire United States, not just California. Just for the sake of looking at the numbers let's just accept them. Assuming that the numbers remain static from year to year that would be 60-80 million in a decade. Proponents of AB 1634 have inflated their figures by 920 million animals. HSUS figures aren't much more than a wild guess and give us very little indication as to the populations in California. No matter how generously one reads the statistics the claim of one billion animals passing through our shelters over a decade is not true.
Claim: These animals are generated by many factors, including pet owners who allow either accidental or intentional pregnancies. Most people who allow their pet to breed do not understand the enormous fiscal and emotional impact to California.
As a taxpayer, this fiscal burden sits directly on your shoulders. The California Healthy Pets Act is a simple, straightforward way to begin to reduce this enormous fiscal burden, and to reduce the number of animals entering into and being killed in our shelter system.
Response: There are certainly too many people breeding who do not place the pet responsibly. But it does not automatically follow that stopping casual breeding will lead to any significant reduction on the number of animals entering into and being killed in our shelter system.
What percentage of animals killed in shelters come directly from the breeder? What information has been collected to estimate the rate at which people will change the source of their dog from local "backyard breeder" to a commercial breeder or out-of-state backyard breeder? Today's easy ability to order dogs over the internet is a very different world from ten years ago. Will there actually be significant savings or will the animals killed just come from a different source? There are no facts to show that this bill will save either pets or money.
The facts show the opposite of what the proponents claim. Looked at in isolation it looks like the Santa Cruz ordinance "caused" a reduction in shelter intake and kill rate. But a comparision with other jurisdictions paints a different picture. And Santa Cruz costs went up. It saved neither money, nor lives.
Claim: If you currently breed, show and sell animals in California, you will be able to obtain an intact permit under AB1634 for a nominal fee, and continue breeding and selling animals as you do today. This fee is set by the local jurisdiction and is not "hundreds of dollars" as some breeder groups have been stating.
Response:
1. AB1634 does not require a local jurisdiction to make intact permits available. If the local jurisdiction does not currently have such permitting they can simply decline or fail to act and no permit will be available.
2. AB 1634 severely restricts those who are allowed intact permits. Many people who today can continue important lines will not qualify under the restrictive limits. The world of dogs is not only AKC vs badly bred. There are many good dogs that are not AKC dogs that cannot meet the requirements.
3. AB1634 does not set or cap fees set by local jurisdiction. There is nothing in AB1634 that will ensure that fees are "nominal."
Claim: An animal may be safely altered at almost any age, and animals can start reproducing as early as 6 months of age. (3)
Response: The benefits and risks of early spay and neuter are certainly under dispute.
1. The CVMA did not obtain support of its membership, and many of its member have objected to their position.
2. None of the studies describing pre-puberty spay/neuter have involved working dogs, performance dogs or similar dogs. The studies have not involved dogs that are challenged physically.
3. Agreeing that early spay and neuter is an acceptable procedure for the purposes of population control is not the same as deciding that it is a net health benefit to the individual animal. In terms of dealing with placement situations where there is little to no follow up it may be a net population benefit. However, where the animal is in responsible hands the evaluation of the risks and benefits of spay and neuter should be solely a decision of the pet owner.
Claim: If you feel that your animal is too young for spaying/neutering, the law provides for a delay, if approved in writing by a veterinarian. And, the bill provides an exemption if your vet feels that your animal is too unhealthy or old to be safely altered.
Response: This does not provide for the option of simply making the best health decision for a particular dog. The language of the bill does not use the term "unhealthy" it uses the term "unsafe". The May 31 version reads as follows:
(c) If an owner of a cat or dog provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian indicating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog and that arrangements have been made to spay or neuter the cat or dog within 75 days from the date the cat or dog reaches the age of four months, and the owner has his or her cat or dog spayed within that 75-day period, the owner shall not be in violation of this act
That language leaves it highly questionable whether the veterinarian can consider future health risks, or is restricted to immediate acute dangers resulting directly from the surgery itself. This language is not sufficient to encompass a decision based on long term health risks.
Claim: The California Healthy Pets Act does not prohibit or regulate dog shows in any way. In fact, there is a specific exemption for show dogs from both California and out-of-state in Section 122336.2.
Response: One of the problems with this bill is that it is so badly written that apparently even its proponents don't understand the difference between their intent, and the language. This is the only provision that applies to non-residents:
Section 122336.2(e) Any owner of a cat or dog who is not a resident of California shall be exempted from the permit requirements set forth in this chapter if the owner provides proof, as determined by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that the cat or dog is temporarily in California for training, showing, or any other legitimate reason.
Just how does one "prove" the reason for being in California? And why would anyone enter California subject to the whims of the local jurisdiction about whether the reason is "legitimate?" Is "just visiting" legitimate?
Claim: Some breeder groups are distributing information that is outdated and misleading, and some are even distributing medical information written by "medical" experts who are not even licensed veterinarians.
Response: Medical experts are not in agreement as to the benefits and risk of spay and neuter, especially early spay and neuter. The decision as to what health balances to make should be that of the animal owner. Plenty of veterinarians have expressed their opinion in opposition.
Claim: In the best case scenario, the excess animals entering our shelters will be significantly reduced, but not eliminated, under a universal spay & neuter law.
There simply is no realistic scenario that leads to a shortage of animals or difficulty in obtaining an animal from either a shelter or a breeder. Cities and states with universal spay & neuter laws have been able to reduce the number of excess animals, but there has never been an instance where the law resulted in a shortage of pets or difficulty in obtaining pets.
Response: Even if one reduces populations coming from one set of breeders that does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that the law will reduce shelter populations.
1. People facing higher costs than they can afford dump their pet
2. Irresponsible people get their pet from a different source and still dump it.
Even where shelter populations have been reduced during the period in which the law existed is not sufficient to demonstrate effectiveness. This is because other influences may be responsible for those reductions. To learn whether there is true effectiveness or simple correlation it is necessary to analyze statistical information in comparable situations. It is just as likely that drops in shelter populations have occurred not because mandatory spay and neuter but because of changes in the base culture and attitudes in the affected areas.
There are many factors that play a role in pet reliquishment and this bill address absolutely none of them
Claim: California has a history of enacting laws that reach into areas that some people consider personal freedom, when our fiscal health is grossly impacted or when public health and safety issues are at stake.
Response: This bill will increases costs, and it will increase threats to public health and safety by (a) increasing dumping on streets and rural areas and (b) discouraging rabies vaccination in an effort to avoid detection.
It impinges on personal freedom with absolutely no compensating public benefit. The actual effects will be quite different from what is envisioned, to the detriment all.
Claim: An enormous number of animals are generated each year from accidental pregnancies, many from responsible pet owners who thought there was no chance that their animal would become pregnant or contribute to a pregnancy.
Response: How many? How many animals are generated each year from accidental pregnancies? How many of those from responsible pet owner who thought there was no chance that their animal would become pregnant or contribute to a pregnancy? How was this information collected and quantified? What are the factors that affect these numbers - i.e. regional differences, breed differences, cultural differences etc. "Responsible" pet owners dont' dump litters in the pound even if they have an accidental pregancy. How many of the "breeder dumped" pets are licensed today? Well if they aren't licensing then what makes you think that they are suddenly going to obey a new law? The irresponsible pet owners who have "accidental" litters will still be irresponsible, still have accidental litters, and will dump them in parks and on roadsides.
Claim: This law has no provisions for reporting or tracking litters. If your purebred animal has an intact permit, you may breed them.
Response: It is false to state that "If your purebred animal has an intact permit, you may breed them." That is subject to local law. If the statement were true and actually pre-empted local jurisdiction breeding restrictions there might actually have been breeder support. But as it is the statement is simply misleading and incorrect.
Claim: Unaltered dogs are three-times more likely to attack humans and other animals. California suffers the nation’s highest occurrences of dog bites, animal attacks and attack-related fatalities in the nation and children are the most common victims. We can reasonably expect to see this number reduced as the number of roaming, unaltered dogs is reduced.
Response: The expectation of reduction of bites will only be realized if the statistical correlation between sexual status and aggressive behavior is also one of causation. But it is just as reasonable to suggest that this difference is explained by differences in owner responsibility behavior. Since the law takes the place of actually behaving responsibly it could just as easily be that the law will simply see a change in the ratios.
Local jurisdictions with high shelter rates have been pretty unsuccessful in enforcing local ordinances prohibiting free roaming dogs. If they actually did enforce those ordinainces there would be few "accidental" litters. Pediatric spay in particular has been shown in increase aggressive behavior in bitches. This law is unlikely to do much to reduce bites.
Claim: Most of our overburdened city and county animal services do not have the time or resources to develop appropriate local ordinances. Also, a uniform state law stops the undesirable "patchwork" effect of local laws.
Response: Well, this bill certainly doesn't solve that problem. This law is anything but uniform. And it certainly isn't appropriate in many regards. It leaves out the best and most effective evaluations of breeding quality simply because they don't involve titles or even competitions. The language regarding registries is so vague as to be useless. The bill specifically authorizes local jurisdictions to enact more restrictive provisions, thus creating that patchwork. It increases the patchwork effect by forcing jurisdictions that did not feel a need for any legislation into enacting legislation just to create a permitting system it previously had no need for, and to give meaning to all the vague terminology in the bill.
Claim: The enormous amount of excess animals in our state ensures that there will always be a large supply of mutts, regardless of the success of this law. The goal is to reduce the number of animals entering and euthanized in our shelters, not to eliminate mutts or any specific breed.
Response: The goal is important. The question isn't whether the goal is worthy because it is more than worthy. The question is whether the selected means will be worth the burdens placed on the shoulders of all dog owners. At least where dogs are involved the twin pillars that support the problem are those who place animals, and those who obtain animals. Not one provision of this bill improves either placement or obtaining a pet.
Claim: We expect a 2 to 3 year lag before we see significant reductions and up to 10 years before the fuller effect of the law is seen.
Response: Based on? Available statistics show that in every case, including in Santa Cruz, the effect was to slow or reverse the current trend that is reducing shelter populations, It increases dumping and shelter killing.
Claim: This law does not mention any specific breeds and does not stop anyone from breeding their animal, provided that the animal is registered with a recognized organization outlined in the bill and has an intact permit.
If a city or county has a stricter law or one that is breed specific it will supersede this law.
Response: Right. This bill allows stricter laws. It does not identify or define what is required for "recognition" of a registry organization. There are no guidelines. There is no provision for time to petition a local agency if it does not recognize a particular registry. You have imported a kelpie registered in Australia from working lines with great potential. The dog is 6 months old. You won't even consider whether to breed until you see the quality of the dog. You won't put the dog on stock until it is at least a year old. What assurance is there that its registry will be recognized? And what does the person do about the fact that there is no pedigree registry in which the dog can compete? There are many competitive venues, just not ones that are also pedigree registries.
-
AB 1634 will not work and will only cause more problems for the State of California.
Similar forced spay/neuter laws have failed and subsequently been repealed following sharp increases in shelter intakes, higher euthanasia rates, skyrocketing animal control costs, and unprecedented reductions in voluntary pet licensing and rabies vaccines.
Unintended consequences following enactment of forced spay/neuter laws:
SAN MATEO COUNTY, CA
Dog euthanasia Up 200%
Cat euthanasia Up 86%
Dog licensing Down 35%
LOS ANGELES, CA
Animal Control expenses Up 269%
Dog licensing Down
PINELLAS COUNTY, FL
Animal Control expenses Up 75%
Shelter intakes Up
Euthanasia rates Up
FORT WORTH, TX: Repealed
Licensing Down
Rabies vaccinations Down
Rabies cases in City Up
AURORA, CO
Animal Control expenses Up 75%
Shelter intakes Up
Euthanasia rates Up
Licensing Down
CAMDEN COUNTY, NJ
Euthanasia rates Up
Breeder permitting Failed
KING COUNTY, WA
Animal control expenses Up 75%
Licensing Down
CAPITOLA, CA
Licensing Down
Funding Down
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD: Repealed
Licensing Down 50%
AB 1634 undermines proven successful programs.
The number of dogs impounded in California has been falling dramatically for decades – down 86% over the past 30 years — because local agencies utilize programs that work: Pet owner education, enforcement of “at large” and leash laws, and subsidized free or low-cost spay/neuter services. NONE of these programs are state funded under AB 1634.
-
Animal population issues must be resolved at a local level, not state level.
AB 1634 will blanket all 58 counties in California with a mandate to enact expensive enforcement and government permit bureaucracies – regardless of local needs, necessity or desire.
Arbitrary and expensive government permits will eliminate guide dogs, police K9s, and working dogs.
Exemptions under AB 1634 for mixed breed cats and dogs are illogical and impossible to meet. As a result, police dogs, search and rescue dogs, service dogs for the blind and disabled, and working stock dogs serving California’s $6 billion livestock industry will be wiped out in one generation.
AB 1634 is poorly designed, cannot be successfully enforced and will be extremely costly to administer.
AB 1634 will harm animals, punish millions of responsible pet owners, cost taxpayers billions, and increase the both the abandoned pet population and euthanasia rates across the state.
-
Do you think we will see a drop of total dogs in California?
-Hedge
-
Do you think we will see a drop of total dogs in California?
-Hedge
Are you in PeTA's camp now with the goal of no animals being kept as pets, for work, or for food? In other words all animals are free and man doesn't use them for anything?
As you can see by the graph I posted the population of California has increased, and the number of animals has dropped considerably over the years. One other thing to consider when looking at shelter statistics is that shelters routinely send animals to other shelters in the same state or other states. In some places the shelters are looking for dogs! The question of "double counting" the same animal has come up. Shelter A counts it in it's yearly total, and so does Shelter B that the animal was sent to. Or the animal is returned to the shelter, it is counted again even though it is the same animal. This could inflate the numbers.
What will increase will be backyard breeders, smuggled puppies from Mexico, unhealthy and ill bred dogs, shelter dumps because they can't afford to alter, and rabies because people will not be vaccinating because they do not wish to get caught. These ill bred and unhealthy dogs will be dumped at the shelters be cause they have medical problems and/or behavior problems from poor breeding. What will decrease is licensing, rabies vaccinations, and people seeking help for their pets because they do not want to be caught and fined. The counties that already tried mandatory s/n prove that this is what will happen. And it ended up costing more money and shelter numbers and euthanasia rates did not drop! What has been proven to work is education and low cost s/n programs. Neither is part of this bill.
One thing that they just did here was that if animal control picks up your dog and it is not altered you can't get it back til it is altered unless you can prove it is a working or show dog or their is a valid reason that it can't have surgery. They also have low cost s/n for any resident. I would not even be aware of this except for the fact that one of my dogs got out and was picked up. I think that is a very reasonable law. But have I seen or heard about this or the low cost altering available? No. How many other people are unaware that this option is available to them? How many people that would take advantage of that but are instead not altering because the vets quoted them over $300 to spay their female and they can't afford that right now so they will just keep an eye on her so she doesn't get pregnant?
You can see by the wording of this bill that it leaves a lot open to interpretation and is not clear on a number of things. Why not enforce the existing laws, educate, and offer low cost s/n? Each county can implement stricter laws if it needs too, such as number of dogs allowed in a household.
This bill punishes the responsible and rewards the irresponsible. If people are willing now to buy a puppy off the street corner, what do you think will happen when responsible breeders are not allowed to breed and the availability of puppies goes down? The number of backyard and smuggled puppies will increase.
Fact - Numbers in shelters are down and have been going down.
Fact - Mandatory spay & neutering attempted has failed miserably and cost more money with no benefit.
Fact - Education and low cost altering have proven to work
-
Why Dogs are in Shelters
A study Exploring the Cat and Dog Surplus Problem (http://www.petpopulation.org/exploring.pdf) 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.
-
Current Amendments, I have looked at all of it, but they have changed 4mos to 6, better but still not good for large and giant breeds.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20070627_amended_sen_v93.pdf (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20070627_amended_sen_v93.pdf)
-
Do you think we will see a drop of total dogs in California?
-Hedge
Answer: No
It's no different than the immigration laws. Illegal immigration is on the rise even with laws being enforced & new ones on the horizon.
In the end....it just costs the tax payers more.
-
Answer: No
It's no different than the immigration laws. Illegal immigration is on the rise even with laws being enforced & new ones on the horizon.
In the end....it just costs the tax payers more.
You live there, so I trust your opinion.
Thanks for the straight answer.
-Hedge
-
You live there, so I trust your opinion.
Thanks for the straight answer.
-Hedge
It's just like saying we have a drinking & smoking age.....you're trying to tell me there's not a climb every year in these two categories? Sure, there's been times with a decline, but it always comes back up like the price of gas.
I guess they need new laws instead of implementing & strictly enforcing the ones in place.
This will happen with dog registration & this mandatory spay/neuter. The honset American citizen will pay for it...the illegal & neglegant activity will remain (or increase) because of the bill.
-
It's no different than the immigration laws. Illegal immigration is on the rise even with laws being enforced & new ones on the horizon.
they will just smuggle across a puppy or 2 with them to sell when they get here!
-
CURRENT BILL STATUS
MEASURE : A.B. No. 1634
AUTHOR(S) : Levine (Principal coauthor: Senator Padilla) (Coauthors:
Nava and Solorio).
TOPIC : California Healthy Pets Act.
HOUSE LOCATION : SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 06/27/2007
TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy
LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 06/28/2007
LAST HIST. ACTION : Withdrawn from committee. Re-referred to Com. on
L.GOV.
COMM. LOCATION : SEN LOCAL GOVERNMENT
HEARING DATE : 07/09/2007
TITLE : An act to add Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 122336)
to Part 6 of Division 105 of, and to repeal Section
122336.21 the Health and Safety Code, relating to pets.
-
They have made some amendments, a few worth noting:
(4) A person in possession of a cat or dog to be used for any of
the purposes set forth in the federal Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C.
Sec. 2131 et seq.) shall be exempt from the provisions of Section
122336.1, provided the person is licensed by or registered with the
United States Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the provisions of
the Animal Welfare Act.
The Animal Welfare Act covers USDA licensed PUPPY MILLS.
This means PUPPY MILLS are exempt. PUPPY MILLS are going to ramp up production in CA if this passes! PUPPY MILLS are a main contributor to shelter dogs. They supply pets stores that don't give a shit who buys a dog or what happens to it, unlike responsible breeders. Nor are PUPPY MILLS known for how they treat their breeding dogs and health checks, and how they "dispose" of them when they are of no use to them. This is BAD BAD BAD news for pets.
122336.21. (a) The local jurisdiction or its authorized local
animal control agency may allow for issuance of an intact permit,
and imposition of an intact permit fee, for one male and one female
dog per household in order to allow the dogs to produce a single
litter of offspring. In no event shall the intact permits issued for
this purpose have a duration in excess of one year. In addition,
the following conditions shall be met for purposes of obtaining
and retaining the permit:
(1) The animal has been examined by a licensed veterinarian
and is following the preventative health care program
recommended by the veterinarian.
(2) The owner has not been convicted of one or more violations
of the following offenses:
(A) Section 121705 of the Health and Safety Code.
(B) Section 286.5 of the Penal Code.
(C) Section 596 of the Penal Code.
(D) Section 597 of the Penal Code.
(E) Section 597.5 of the Penal Code.
(F) Section 599aa of the Penal Code.
(G) Section 487e of the Penal Code.
(H) Section 487f of the Penal Code.
(I) Section 487g of the Penal Code.
(3) The owner has not been convicted of two or more violations
of any local ordinance involving the dog for whom the unaltered
animal certification is sought.
(4) The owner has not received an order from the local
jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency involving
the dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought.
(5) The dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is
sought has not been determined by local jurisdiction or its
authorized local animal control agency to be a “vicious animal.”
(6) The animal is properly housed and cared for as follows:
(A) The animal is provided sufficient quantity of good and
wholesome food and water.
(B) The animal is provided shelter that will allow the animal
to stand up, turn around, and lie down without lying in its feces,
and the area where the animal is kept is properly cleaned and
disinfected.
(C) The animal is fully contained on the owner’s property and
provided appropriate exercise.
(D) The animal owner otherwise complies with any applicable
state law concerning the care and housing of animals.
(7) The owner furnishes the director of animal control services
with a signed statement agreeing to the following conditions:
(A) Offspring of the unaltered animal may not be sold and may
be adopted without a fee only after they reach eight weeks of age.
(B) Records will be kept documenting how many offspring were
produced and who adopted them.
(8) The dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is
sought is currently licensed pursuant to local requirements.
(9) The owner has considered having the animal microchipped
for purposes of identification.
(b) The owner shall maintain records documenting how many
offspring were produced or adopted, or both, and shall provide
proof that the dog has been spayed or neutered after a single litter.
This information shall be made available to an animal control
agency upon request.
(c) The amount of the fee for an intact permit issued under this
section shall be determined by the local jurisdiction and shall not
exceed the cost of administering this section.
(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2012,
and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that
is enacted before January 1, 2012, deletes or extends that date.
I think the reasoning behind why you can't sell the one litter of puppies may be an attempt to discourage a person from breeding. That does seem like a good deterrent, but will that discourage someone from breeding anyways but not getting health checks and vet care for the mother because they will "not be breaking even, let alone making any money"? Responsible breeders actually lose money on litters most times, let alone make any money. And if someone does indeed give the puppies away for free, it is a fact that people value something more if it costs them something. Why put money into an animal that you haven't invested in? Are more animals going to be considered disposable? Or will people be taking "free" puppies, then turning around and selling them. Of course nothing prevents someone from taking money "under the table" or "giving" them to a friend and that person then sells them.
They have made vet exceptions to the 4 months, you can extend that out to a year with a letter from a vet, that is a good improvement.
But still, the way this bill is written makes me think that a bunch of idiots are just slapping it together with no real thought at all. :-\
It is not hard to see why PeTA and PUPPY MILLS are the major supporters of this bill. Their agendas are very clear.
-
How PUPPY MILL breeder dogs live their whole lives till they are of no use then they are usually killed. More PUPPY MILLS will sprout in CA if this bill passes because they are EXEMPT!!!
If for no other reason to say no to AB 1634!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdcNl5FqcKY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdcNl5FqcKY)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3P0HXRmfKg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3P0HXRmfKg)
Charlize Theron for PeTA. This video makes the conditions of the dogs in the above video look like they are living in luxury. Despite my reservations with PeTA, they have exposed a number of things in the pet industry.
Louie, Getbigs June DOTM, was rescued from a pet store by JimmyTheFish who saw that he was sick and needed to get out of there. Most PUPPY MILL puppies are sick. Their parents are sick, how can they have healthy litters in these conditions?
Don't buy from a petshop, adopt from a shelter or go to a reputable breeder. And if you ever do see puppies in pet shops that are ill or not being taken care of REPORT THEM.
Louie's story has a happy ending thanks to JimmyTheFish who not only have given Louie a great life, but helped shut down that store so no other puppies would be treated like Louie was:
Louie is a Pomeranian and I rescued him from a pet store of all places, he had bad mange and was severely mistreated (people suck) I took him and told the pet store owner I was calling the TV stations, radio, you name it -- he was out of biz in less than a week.
-
This has not be verified yet, but I just heard that Levine pulled this Bill!
:D
-
The lawmaker who proposed a controversial bill that would require most California pets to be spayed or neutered is dropping his effort.
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine made the announcement about his proposed bill Wednesday morning.
Levine told NBC11 News that he is very saddened that the proposal did not have enough support. He said he will allow Wednesday’s scheduled testimony to continue in the state senate but that he will pull the proposal after that.
Spay Neuter Bill Dies In Committee
The proposal would have meant that the state legislation would require pets to be spayed or neutered at six months or pay a $500 fine. There are some exceptions to the rule that would exempt breeders.
Retired game show host Bob Barker was in Sacramento on Monday to support the bill.
Famous TV dog Lassie and John Pprovost, star of the series "Lassie," lobbied against the bill.
-
Today's hearing is over.
The bill is NOT dead as was earlier reported by some news organizations...
It's been "passed over" until January. This has been the "strategy" all along to
keep it from being "killed". Every time Ass. Member LeVine knows he hasn't got the votes to pass it, he allows it to be "passed over" until such time as he
feels he has *done whatever* to secure the votes he needs.... He's in this fight
for the long haul, along with all of the AR "big guns" -- PETA, H$U$, etc.
They're just counting on the "little guy" opposition to tire out while they do their
politicking...... And they KNOW they far outweigh us in the wallet. This is typically
how all of the more local ordinances get passed "when nobody's looking".
He wants to bring it back in 2008, aimed at "irresponsible owners"
-
State bill to force dog and cat owners to spay or neuter their pets is put
on hold
By Patrick McGreevy, Times Staff Writer
12:08 PM PDT, July 11, 2007
SACRAMENTO -- A bill to require Californians to spay or neuter their pets or
face stiff fines was pulled today from consideration for this year by its
author after it ran into strong objections from members of a state Senate panel.
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) said he hoped to resurrect the idea in
January.
He said he would consider amending the legislation, as suggested by a member
of the Senate committee, to limit a proposed $500 fine to owners whose
unaltered dogs and cats were picked up by animal control officers while running
loose, or those discovered at homes during investigations into other violations.
"I think we can get to a solution," Levine told the Senate Local Government
Committee and an overflow crowd at a Capitol hearing room. "But the first
thing opponents must do is to acknowledge that there is a problem and work with
me to solve it."
Levine's legislation, Assembly Bill 1634, had cleared the Assembly with no
votes to spare on June 6, but ran into opposition in the Senate after some
10,000 pet owners, breeders, guide-dog owners and police officers objected that
it would infringe on their rights.
An equal number of pet owners and animal control experts had lobbied for the
bill, making it one of the most hotly contested pieces of legislation this
year.
Backers said the mandate for dogs and cats to be spayed and neutered at six
months is justified because 454,000 unclaimed cats and dogs are put to death
each year in California shelters at a cost of about $300 million.
Despite previous amendments to exempt work dogs, show dogs and breeder dogs,
it appeared the five-member committee was not prepared to move the measure
to the full Senate.
Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Chino), the committee chairwoman, told Levine
that her family had cared for stray dogs and cats for years and had always
acted responsibly and had them spayed or neutered.
"I don't think I appreciate being charged with something that I already do
naturally," she said.
Sen. Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach), another member of the panel, said his
family has had hunting dogs for years. He said the proposal to require dogs
to be spayed or neutered at six months would interfere with the breeding of
hunting dogs, which are often not selected until they are more than 18 months
old.
"There needs to be something in the bill for those working dogs," he said.
Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) suggested an amendment limiting the fine
and spay-and-neuter requirement to those animals picked up by shelter
workers.
"One of the fear factors around this bill, and there are a lot of them, is
that it's too broad, that responsible owners would be subject to having to
take action on their pets, that it's not fair," Kehoe told Levine.
The assemblyman offered to accept the amendment if the panel would vote the
bill out of committee, but there did not appear to be the votes.
"If you are talking about taking amendments this morning on the fly, that's
not acceptable," said Sen. Dave Cox (R-Fair Oaks).
As a result, Levine asked that the bill be shelved until January.
"We'll take our time," Levine told reporters afterward. "We've got six
months to work to educate the committee and work on the amendment.
"The amendment would have just said if you are in violation of other animal
laws, then you have to spay or neuter your animal. It would not have
penalized otherwise law-abiding citizens," he said.
But opponents, who have formed a group called PetPac, will continue to
organize in preparation for any attempt next year to resurrect the legislation.
"We're very pleased" that the bill was withdrawn, said Bill Henby, chairman
of PetPac.
"We will regroup and continue to grow our coalition so that by the time this
comes back in January, we hope to be representing over a million dog and cat
owners."
When asked about the proposed amendment that would narrow the legislation,
Henby said, "We are still concerned."
Levine said he ended this year's fight for the bill with a bitter taste in
his mouth.
"I've been personally attacked and vilified," he said. "I am very upset. I
will stipulate that my opponents love their animals. We have different
approaches to how to solve the problem. But I don't like the fact that it's gotten
personal."
patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com
-
> Permission to cross post from a friend in English Cockers:
>
> I think it is very obvious to all of us that yes, Levine will be
> back and PETA and HSUS and the many other backers of this bill.
> What we need to do now is be pro-active in this fight for our
> rights to own, breed, and do what we think is in the best interest
> of our animals.
>
> First, each and every one of us should register to vote no matter
> what state you live in. I personally would love to see voter
> registration tables at our dog shows around the country where we
> can take to as many dog lovers as possible, both exhibitors and
> spectators. This would start sending the message to legislatures
> that we are serious about our rights and we are not going to go away.
>
> We need to ask questions of those running for office or coming up
> for reelection, "How would you vote on a mandatory spay neuter
> law?" "Do you think keeping domestic pets is wrong?" "Are you for
> legislation that will allow animal control to go on people's
> property without a warrant and confiscate there property, based on
> an unsubstantiated claim by someone who legally cannot be held
> responsible, then allow the group who would be receiving the fines
> to be judge and jury?"
>
> We need to campaign for those who are with us and against those who
> aren't. At the very least, we need to get out and vote ourselves.
>
> We need to put pressure on the dog and cat food companies, pet
> store and other suppliers of animal products to support voluntary
> responsible pet ownership, not right-wing anti-pet organizations.
> It shouldn't take much to convince them that no pets means no
> business.
>
> We need to continue supporting PetPac and other political action
> committees that support reasonible legislation.
>
> And we need to work with local animal control and shelters to find
> a workable solution to the problem that doesn't require mandatory,
> punitive legislation to responsible owners. One of the things that
> really bothered me about this whole bill process was what came
> across to me as visible contempt from the animal control and
> shelter workers towards all pet owners. I realize they usually only
> see the seamier side of the fence, but the attitude that all owners
> of un-spayed or neuter pets allowed their animals to run free and
> breed indiscriminately on purpose really put me off. It scares the
> daylights out of me to think what the consequences would be if my
> guys ever got out accidentally and were picked up.
-
I'm sure the Bill will work out fine eventually.
-Hedge
-
I'm sure the Bill will work out fine eventually.
-Hedge
Thanks Hedgie for weighing in again. You put so much time and research that you base your opinions on that it is good to hear what you think. ::)
No bill needs to pass, better s/n programs and education needs to be put into place and the EXISTING LAWS ENFORCED.
What the attempting of this bill did that was good was get people thinking and more aware of the situation and the FACTS (and by facts I don't mean the skewed statistics that Levine and the others were trying to pass off). This bill brought to light WHAT HAS WORKED in other places and brought to light that MANDATORY S/N HASN'T WORKED. More people are hopefully aware of PUPPY MILLS and the horrors that go on at them and that this bill EXEMPTED PUPPY MILLS. So PUPPY MILLS could go on churning out puppies with no restrictions. PUPPY MILLS contribute more than RESPONSIBLE BREEDERS to the shelter numbers. PUPPY MILLS SHOULD BE BANNED and see how that affects shelters.
The government plays a role in PUPPY MILLS and they chose to look the other way.
-
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070716/news_mz1ed16top.html
UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
A deserved demise
Mandatory pet-sterilization bill went too far
July 16, 2007
Given the passions raised by the issue, members of the state Senate Local
Government Committee are certain to be inundated with nasty phone calls,
e-mails and letters in coming days over the panel's decision to effectively
kill a mandatory pet spay-neuter law this year in the Legislature. But we
believe lawmakers made the right call.
There is no question California has far too many unwanted dogs and cats -
and far too many irresponsible pet owners who fail to prevent their animals
from breeding and having unwanted offspring. It is appalling on several
levels that state shelters euthanize as many as a half-million animals a
year at a cost of $250 million. But legislation proposed by Assemblyman
Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, simply went too far.
Levine wanted all dogs and cats to be sterilized before they are 6 months
old, with a handful of exceptions, in particular for breeders of certain
specialized dogs. Pet owners caught with an unsterilized dog or cat older
than six months would have to comply within 30 days or pay a $500 fine.
But while Levine did weaken his measure in several ways, he never understood
why its mandatory nature was an affront to millions of responsible
California pet owners - or appreciated that it almost certainly would have
been ignored by the irresponsible pet owners it targeted.
These are large, basic problems. So while we welcome Levine saying he will
attempt to revise his measure so it can win broader support in 2008, we are
unsure if he will be successful.
A promising - and far less controversial - approach is to increase subsidies
for spaying and neutering programs. Another idea is to offer tax credits to
pet owners who can prove their pets are sterilized and tax breaks to
veterinarians who provide low-cost spaying and neutering.
The fact is - contrary to the rhetoric of many of Levine's supporters - the
problem is not getting worse. State animal shelters have reported a decline
in the number of unwanted pets over the past decade, thanks to effective
local initiatives. That holds for San Diego County, too.
"Our animal intakes in the last six to seven years are gradually going down.
I believe it's because we have such a strong spay and neuter program in the
community," Dawn Danielson, director of the County of San Diego Department
of Animal Services, told the Union-Tribune in February. She gives much of
the credit to the Spay Neuter Action Project, a nonprofit group that offers
inexpensive sterilization services to low-income pet owners.
This shows local initiatives can work. With a little state funding and/or
some tax breaks, the Legislature could quickly prompt their adoption and
expansion. We hope to see legislation along these lines, and soon. If Levine
cannot bring himself to abandon his mandatory scheme, then someone else -
perhaps Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, who has worked on pet bills -
needs to step in. The mass euthanization of cats and dogs in California is
both costly and heartbreaking. It must be addressed.
-
;D
(Cross-posted from pet law with permission)
A Modest Proposal
By Lyn Kalinoski
Each year, several thousand hopefuls run for political office in the
United States. Sadly one half of these will fail to find a sinecure
or will be thrown out of office due to term limits or voter disapproval.
The communities in this country cannot absorb these unwanted
political wannabbes any longer as we already have a surfeit of
candidates for the jobs available. Political parties, school boards,
lobbying associations are bursting at the seams with these poor
unwanted folk and something must be done to relieve the growing
numbers of candidates which puts so much pressure on society.
Therefore to give every politician a chance at finding a permanent
home, I propose that all politicians be spayed or neutered. This will
reduce the frivolous and hopeless candidacies and give much needed
surcease to the American public who are overwhelmed by the sheer
numbers of political ads which daily invade our homes on television,
radio, the internet and even through computer generated messages on our
phones.
A drastic remedy you say? Let's look at the good things such
legislation would do.
Left unspayed and unneutered, politicians propagate far beyond the
capacity of the community to accommodate them. There are only limited
homes available for would be politicians and too many young and vital
politicians wind up turning elsewhere while the old guard hangs on.
The financial and emotional cost to voters is extreme watching young
and healthy politicians struggle to gain office as voters sit through
endless campaigns that begin again as soon as the election night
results are tabulated.
Legislation requiring spaying and neutering of politicians is a
reasonable, effective and necessary means to greatly reduce the
number of unwanted candidates. Early spaying and neutering would
protect and improve the health and safety of voters by reducing or
eliminating endless exposure to political advertising, especially
negative advertising which is at epidemic rates.
Spaying and neutering also results in significant public health and
safety benefits, particularly in the reduction of dangers caused by
roaming politicians kissing babies and small children, and
glad-handing all and sundry who come into their purview. Reducing the
number of unwanted politicians in the US will necessarily reduce the
costs associated with caring for displaced pols who have been voted
out of office and now are appointed by friends in power to state
boards. This practice of creating innumerable positions reimbursed
from public funds to allow the defeated to collect both their public
pension and a salary or stipend is unhealthy and deleterious to the
public welfare.
A Politician Spay/Neuter Act will save millions of
taxpayer dollars in unnecessary salaries for defeated politicians,
reduce the ennui caused by endless political campaigns, secure a home
for every aspiring politician, reduce vicious innuendo and smear
campaigns due to competition and safeguard our communities from
over-population of politicians.
(with apologies to Jonathan Swift)
Lyn Kalinoski
Fireside Tervuren,Toledo, Oh
AKC Rally obedience judge #42594
"Well-behaved women seldom make history."
-
;D
(Cross-posted from pet law with permission)
A Modest Proposal
By Lyn Kalinoski
Each year, several thousand hopefuls run for political office in the
United States. Sadly one half of these will fail to find a sinecure
or will be thrown out of office due to term limits or voter disapproval.
The communities in this country cannot absorb these unwanted
political wannabbes any longer as we already have a surfeit of
candidates for the jobs available. Political parties, school boards,
lobbying associations are bursting at the seams with these poor
unwanted folk and something must be done to relieve the growing
numbers of candidates which puts so much pressure on society.
Therefore to give every politician a chance at finding a permanent
home, I propose that all politicians be spayed or neutered. This will
reduce the frivolous and hopeless candidacies and give much needed
surcease to the American public who are overwhelmed by the sheer
numbers of political ads which daily invade our homes on television,
radio, the internet and even through computer generated messages on our
phones.
A drastic remedy you say? Let's look at the good things such
legislation would do.
Left unspayed and unneutered, politicians propagate far beyond the
capacity of the community to accommodate them. There are only limited
homes available for would be politicians and too many young and vital
politicians wind up turning elsewhere while the old guard hangs on.
The financial and emotional cost to voters is extreme watching young
and healthy politicians struggle to gain office as voters sit through
endless campaigns that begin again as soon as the election night
results are tabulated.
Legislation requiring spaying and neutering of politicians is a
reasonable, effective and necessary means to greatly reduce the
number of unwanted candidates. Early spaying and neutering would
protect and improve the health and safety of voters by reducing or
eliminating endless exposure to political advertising, especially
negative advertising which is at epidemic rates.
Spaying and neutering also results in significant public health and
safety benefits, particularly in the reduction of dangers caused by
roaming politicians kissing babies and small children, and
glad-handing all and sundry who come into their purview. Reducing the
number of unwanted politicians in the US will necessarily reduce the
costs associated with caring for displaced pols who have been voted
out of office and now are appointed by friends in power to state
boards. This practice of creating innumerable positions reimbursed
from public funds to allow the defeated to collect both their public
pension and a salary or stipend is unhealthy and deleterious to the
public welfare.
A Politician Spay/Neuter Act will save millions of
taxpayer dollars in unnecessary salaries for defeated politicians,
reduce the ennui caused by endless political campaigns, secure a home
for every aspiring politician, reduce vicious innuendo and smear
campaigns due to competition and safeguard our communities from
over-population of politicians.
(with apologies to Jonathan Swift)
Lyn Kalinoski
Fireside Tervuren,Toledo, Oh
AKC Rally obedience judge #42594
"Well-behaved women seldom make history."
This poor attempt at satire, plagiating Swift, shows that some dog owners seem to have trouble with separating man and animal, trouble with accepting that dogs are animals and not humans.
To be honest, I don't understand what point "Lyn Kalinoski" is trying to get across.
Man and dog is not the same.
Her butchering of Swift's work doesn't make the case any stronger, either.
-Hedge
-
I find it humorous by itself without knowing it was written in response to the AB 1634 bill.
lighten up hedgie ;D
-
Do you guys understand that PETA, The Humane Society of the United States want to end all pet ownership? They want to end all pet home breeding. Home breeding is what keeps all cat and dog breeds robust. They are going to do this with laws like this. They want all animal farming ended. They want all domestic animals to stop being bred by man. They want all zoo's eliminated. They don't spend one red cent on animal welfare. they just euthanasize healthy animals and throw them in dumpsters in Virginia. "PETA".
-
Yup, that has been brought up a few times. The HSUS is currently under investigation for taking donations they said were going to help the displaced animals from Katrina which are unaccounted for. And recently the solicited donation under the guise they would be for the car of the dogs seized from Vick, and they had nothing to do with the care of those dogs. They changed their website after that, but who knows how much money they collected from people who thought they were helping? :-\
-
Yup, that has been brought up a few times. The HSUS is currently under investigation for taking donations they said were going to help the displaced animals from Katrina which are unaccounted for. And recently the solicited donation under the guise they would be for the car of the dogs seized from Vick, and they had nothing to do with the care of those dogs. They changed their website after that, but who knows how much money they collected from people who thought they were helping? :-\
The American Humane Society is a legit organization that helps animals in need. The Humane Society of the United States and PETA aren't. IMHO. Those other animal rights organizations have an agenda that has nothing to do with helping animals. What they care about is publicity and filling their coffers and the bigwigs like Wayne Pacelle lining his pockets.
-
So what's the latest on this bill?
Getting filibustered, and getting passed in the fall sessions?
-
Last I heard he was going to try an end run in January. ::)