Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
July 30, 2014, 02:36:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: BILL NUMBER: AB 1634 - Mandatory spay & neuter - BILL DROPPED - kinda  (Read 9338 times)
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« 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.
Report to moderator   Logged
Princess L
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Female
Posts: 10206


I stop for turtles


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 19, 2007, 12:30:14 PM »

So what do you think about that?
Report to moderator   Logged

:
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: April 19, 2007, 01:18:11 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: April 19, 2007, 02:55:19 PM »

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).
Report to moderator   Logged
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: April 19, 2007, 04:54:55 PM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #5 on: April 19, 2007, 05:07:59 PM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: April 19, 2007, 05:10:18 PM »

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/
Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: April 19, 2007, 05:52:04 PM »

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.
   
Report to moderator   Logged
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #8 on: April 19, 2007, 06:10:46 PM »

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/





Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: April 19, 2007, 06:18:34 PM »


The site for supporting this bill

http://www.cahealthypets.com/
      www.catakeawaypetsrights .com

     Angry
Report to moderator   Logged
Euro-monster
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 7591


Team Dutchie style!!


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: April 20, 2007, 01:24:12 AM »

Holy shit....they are all loosing their marbles .... Shocked Angry
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!!!
Report to moderator   Logged

?
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: April 20, 2007, 07:46:26 AM »

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.

Report to moderator   Logged
gtbro1
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 6919



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: April 21, 2007, 08:54:33 AM »

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.   Smiley
Report to moderator   Logged
knny187
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 21925



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: April 21, 2007, 12:51:45 PM »

screw being fair. I only care about what I want.   Smiley

Well, I wouldn't be fair posting news if I didn't look at both sides
Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2007, 11:31:28 AM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: April 26, 2007, 10:16:09 AM »

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

    * 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
r@assembly.ca.gov">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.
Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: April 26, 2007, 10:18:06 AM »

  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
Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2007, 04:59:21 PM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: May 15, 2007, 06:02:22 AM »

 Welcome to California, No Pets Allowed!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPlDzl6KE2M
Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: May 17, 2007, 05:14:30 AM »

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: May 17, 2007, 11:08:40 AM »

Long Term Effects of Early Spay/Neuter

 Read why this bill may have serious health consequences:



   http://naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf
Report to moderator   Logged
Max_Rep
Max Rep
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3969

It’s about how hard you can GET hit...


View Profile WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 24, 2007, 12:23:09 PM »

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7Igf_X52OA
Report to moderator   Logged

and keep moving!
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: May 24, 2007, 12:34:02 PM »

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7Igf_X52OA


   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.



 
Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: May 24, 2007, 01:03:30 PM »

Guide and helper dogs would be eliminated by this bill:

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.
Report to moderator   Logged
~flower~
Getbig IV
****
Posts: 3582


I be dead and stinkin up teh place!!


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: May 24, 2007, 01:04:13 PM »

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
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!