California AB1634 Mandatory Spay/Neuter (MSN)

[SemaviLady]

What should have been a good idea has now turned into an awful law. If you haven't actually read the bill, please don't defend it.

To see the bill and read it for yourself go here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1634& (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1634&sess=CUR&house=B&search_type=email)

If you want to cut to the chase, go here to AKC's legislative info on this bill (http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/CA_action_center.cfm)

To see information about pets "over population" issue check out the chart
http://saveourdogs.net/images/ratesgraph.jpg

To see more information which uses statistical study of the "over population" issue, go here to http://www.doggonecalifornia.org/ (http://www.doggonecalifornia.org/) or here http://saveourdogs.net/population.html (http://saveourdogs.net/population.html)

Basically what you have is essentially over 95% of all pets in California never showing up in a shelter & a significant number, possibly 80% of the ones seen by vets who reported these pets were already neutered.

Out of the probable 4% that do turn up in shelters, possibly a total of 2% of California pet animals are euthanized but there are a few shelters that are "no kill" and some that average kill rates well below 1/2. Feral cats are a special problem. Don't have time to discuss that now. But try this link (http://www.alleycat.org/) if you want to know more.

Keeping those proportions in mind, possibly 2 percent of all California cats and dogs are killed in shelters. One advocate of MSN said "Another argument that is widely used against legislation is that early age altering is detrimental to the health of the animal. Frankly, so is death in a shelter at the end of a needle. "

It is interesting that without the benefit of statistics, this rescue person chooses to place 2% population's "health" above the health of the remaining 98%. In other words, the greater good has lost its importance.

To see how this will affect law enforcement, see this letter that was sent to the Assembly to OPPOSE Mandatory Spay / Neuter

===================================
North American Police Work Dog Association
.Dedicated to Assisting Police Work Dog Teams Throughout the World.
Web site: http://www.napwda.com
E-mail address: ------
Jim Watson, National Secretary
4222 Manchester Ave.
Perry, Ohio, 44081
(440) 259-3169
(888) 422-6463 Toll Free & Fax


The California Assembly Business & Professions Committee
Re: California AB 1634
Introduced by Assembly Member Levine, (Principal coauthor: Senator Padilla)
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Nava)

March 21, 2007

To Whom it may concern,

I am the national secretary of the North American Police Work Dog
Association (www.napwda.com) and have been for the past 19 years.

We are one of the top two largest law enforcement work dog associations in
the United States and the 2nd oldest. We were formed in 1977 and currently
we have just under 4,000 law enforcement K9 officer members, from city
police departments all the through the federal system with members from the
FBI, CIA, DHS, ICE and the armed forces. Our association credibility is
unprecedented and our national certification testing and accreditation rules
are second to none. They have withstood the criminal court system challenges
and have always been upheld. We take all aspects of law enforcement K9 very
seriously.

We were contacted by concerned citizens of your state regarding AB 1634. We
as an organization have researched this proposal in great detail. We have
also been in contact with many of our California members and accredited
Master Trainer regarding AB 1634.

Lastly we brought this matter to the full attention of our national
Executive Committee. Every NAPWDA member and Executive Committee person
were in total agreement that AB 1634 is NOT a good bill nor will it do anything
other than to cause total harm to law enforcement K9. This proposal MUST BE
DEFEATED without question!

We have reviewed the information available from various groups and
organizations to date. We are in agreement with it. As this proposal relates
to Law Enforcement, we unanimously agree with the following statements:

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 rehoused 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.

In closing, I must restate the official unanimous opinion of the North
American Police Work Dog Association that California AB 1634 is NOT a good
bill nor will it do anything other than to cause total harm to law
enforcement K9. This proposal MUST BE DEFEATED without question IMMEDIATELY!

If anyone has any questions please contact me at your convenience either via
my direct e-mail of -------- or the toll free phone number of
888.422.6463 .

Respectfully,

Jim Watson, NAPWDA National Secretary
NAPWDA Master Trainer, Utility & Narcotic Teams
State of Ohio K9 Evaluator
Mentor Police Department K9 Unit, Retired
Mentor, Ohio

============================

If you want the original or to see what the Rotweiller Club of America wrote, plus more, go here (http://saveourdogs.net/letters.html)

The problem is that many pet owners are not aware of how the bill will affect them as pet owners or law abiding citizens. They haven't READ it. Many rescue workers and pet lovers were told, "this will be good for animals". Well yeah, of course, we all want that, but READ the bill.

Here's a couple letters from two different pet animal advocates
http://www.lodinews.com/ (http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2007/04/03/opinion/columnists/priest_julia_070403.txt)
Above is excellent reading

This one is from NAIAonline.com which supports all animal interest
http://valleynews.com/ (http://valleynews.com/SunValley/Stories/Pets/General-Pets/Story~290302.aspx)
Patty Strand looks out for us!

Does MSN work? Here's the track record from around the country (http://www.cfodconline.org/legislation.html)

I hate to see animals die for no good cause, but this legislation is not the right answer. Regulating the people that own the 90% of the dogs in the state for the actions of those that are under the radar of the law, is bad policy.

And the worst part of this is that the majority of groups supporting the bill have not read it.

As it stands, any puppy or kitten that is four months of age must be neutered. If it is a show dog or a rare breed, you are in deep doodoo. There is no provision as of the current writing of the bill to allow any cat or dog to get past four months of age with its gonads intact.

Anyway, I'm still really busy with other projects so if you don't see data above to study, do your own research please.

If you are concerned about this matter even if you are not Californian, there is a petition http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/414897802 (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/414897802) -- While I have no great faith in petitions, the current one is not even a day old as I write and it is already well over a thousand 'signatures' world wide.

IF you are Californian and you haven't yet emailed/faxed or otherwise contacted the assembly members please do so.
They can be contacted with info from this link (http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=129)

[crow_noir]

Permission to cross post your wonderful post please?

[SemaviLady]

Permission to cross post your wonderful post please?Works for me. Go ahead. There's a lot more but it gets pedantic... Some stuff is on my blog under the 'label' of animal_control (http://www.cobankopegi.com/blog/labels/animal_control.html)

[SemaviLady]

SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (ordinance passed in 1991)
• The ordinance requires spay/neuter of all dogs and cats in the unincorporated parts of the county unless the owner obtains an unaltered license or breeder’s permit. Chap. 8.02.090, Sec. 3332.4 (a) If an unaltered animal breeds accidentally, the owner must obtain a breeder’s permit. The license fee for unaltered animals is nearly twice that of spay/neutered cats and dogs. Any owner redeeming impounded unaltered animals must pay an additional fee. This fee is refunded if the animal is spayed or neutered within 30 days. Any unaltered animal impounded twice or more within a 3-year period will be altered at the guardian’s expense prior to redemption. Chap. 8.02, Sec. 3330.8 Penalties for violation include fines of up to $100 on the first offense, $200 on the second offense, and $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year.
• After the effective date of the ordinance, dog deaths in the areas governed by the ordinance, increased 126% and cats 86% while licenses declined by 35%. For the county as a whole dog deaths decreased 5% and cats 16% in 1993; in 1994 dog deaths declined 12% and cats 17%. From 1991-1994 there were no cat breeder permits and 50 permits for dog breeders, eight of which were renewals. In addition, licenses dropped dramatically. For 1998-99, the number dropped to 36,023, a dramatic decline from the 48,000-51,000 range of the previous two decades.

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (ordinance passed in 2000)
• Requires the spay/neuter of all dogs and cats unless the owner has obtained a $100 annual unaltered animal or breeder’s permit. Sec. 53.15.2 For any dogs that breed, the owner must obtain a $100 annual breeder’s permit for each animal which allows 1 litter. A second litter during the annual permit period may be permissible “to protect the health of the animal[,] avert a substantial economic loss to the permittee” or "if the first litter was euthanized". A breeder must register all dogs bred for sale and disclose their name and permit number in any ad and on any sale documents. The city also tracks the identity of subsequent owners of the animals sold by breeders. There is a $91.50 license fee for unaltered dogs and a $6.50 charge for animals that have been spayed/neutered. Sec. 53.15.3 Violators are subject to fines of up to $500.00.
• Since the passage of this 2000 “spay or pay” Los Angeles ordinance, there has been a decline in dog licensing compliance. The animal control budget after passage of the law rose 269%., from $6.7 million to $18 million. The city hired additional animal control officers and bought new trucks and equipment just to enforce the new law.

***** I don't have time to highlight all the problems in below right now (might do it later), but I know this is a great community of thinking and observant, concerned pet owners. Please note the results of failure of MSN in every case below ******* This is not a complete list but the thing to take away from all of this is that Public policy should be based on the reasonable prospect of achievement of success, NOT on propaganda and poorly researched concepts.

CAPITOLA, CALIFORNIA ordinance joined SANTA CRUZ COUNTY, CALIFORNIA's 1991 ordinance
• Requires spay/neuter of dogs with limited exceptions for breeding. Secs. 6.10.030, .050 The city requires a $15 certificate and charges twice the amount for a license for unaltered dogs. Dogs without the certificate must be spayed/neutered. There is a warning for a first offense, and a mandatory spay/neuter order is issued for a second violation.
• Since the law’s 1991 inception, licensing compliance has dropped significantly.

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND (mandatory spay/neuter law was repealed)
• When the law was enacted, it was estimated that 550 breeding permits would be issued per year. In reality only an average of 30 permits were issued per year. There was an estimated 50% decline in licensing compliance.
• Although the euthanasia rate declined 21.5% after the ordinance was passed, it had declined 34% prior to enactment of the law. The Office of Legislative Oversight recommended in its 1997 report that the county eliminate the new breeder permit system and return to their former license fee structure. Under the current ordinance, Montgomery County requires a 3 year $75 license for unaltered animals and an annual $25 license for those that have been spayed/neutered; there are discounts for low income applicants for the license for a spayed neutered animal. Secs. 05.00.01.01, 05.401.01.02

FORT WORTH, TEXAS (ended its manadatory spay/neuter program)
• Licensing compliance fell off after passage of the ordinance. As a result there was a reduction in rabies vaccinations which lead to an increase in rabies in the city.

CAMDEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY (ordinance passed in 1996)
• Mandatory spay/neuter ordinance required a $500 permit fee to possess an intact dog or cat. In 2000 it was changed to $10, because of there were so few requests for it. But then again in 2001 the permit fee was again raised to $100, its current rate. As for the euthanasia rates since the effective date of the ordinance, the PAWS NJ website comments, “An analysis of these statistics shows the Humane Society of Southern NJ which operates the Camden County Animal Shelter, to be consistently one of the leading, if not the leading killers of animals in the state of New Jersey.” The report covers 1998-2001, well after the effective date of the mandatory spay neuter ordinance. The site’s report on the top 50 New Jersey animal shelters reveals some in Camden County have significantly lower euthanasia rates than others in the state, but at least 2 had the highest kill rates in New Jersey.

KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (ordinance passed in 1992)
• Requires all dogs and cats over 6 months old to be spayed/neutered unless the guardian buys an unaltered license for $60, $40 more than for an altered pet. Chap IV, Secs. 11.04.035, 11.04.210, 11.04.400. The ordinance provides for a breeder certification program. Sec. 11.04.570 It is illegal to advertise to King County residents the availability of any unaltered dog or cat without the animal’s license number; breeders, however, may advertise litters for sale. Chap. IV, Sec. 11.04.510. It is also illegal to sell or give away an unaltered animal in a public place or as a raffle or other prize. Sec. 11.04.235 Anyone selling or giving away an unaltered dog or cat must notify animal control in writing with the new owner's name, address, and telephone number. Sec. 11.04.570 There is also a provision for door to door canvassing to ensure compliance. Sec. 11.04.580
• License compliance has appeared to decrease since passage of the ordinance. Animal control expenses have increased 56.8% and revenues only 43.2%. In 1990 the total cost of animal control was $1,662,776; in 1997, it was $3,087,350. Euthanasia rates actually fell at a slower rate after passage of the ordinance. In the years prior to enactment of the law, euthanasia rates were plummeting in King County. The data shows that the one real success as a result of the ordinance was the increase in adoptions.

AURORA, COLORADO
• Requires breeder permits as part of its mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, licensing compliance has dropped dramatically. Secs. 14-42; 14-71(b), 14-101(a)(1). Pinellas County Florida has required breeder licensing since 1992. Sec. 14-29.
• Since then the animal control budget has increased 75% with revenue increasing only 13%. There have also been increases in shelter intake and euthanasia rates since the law took effect.

source: (scroll down below the map)
http://cfodconline.org/legislation.html

Also see what
http://network.bestfriends.org/ (http://network.bestfriends.org/animallawcoalition/news/4108.html) has to say about Mandatory Spay/Neuter.

Good ideas need to be examined for their merit. There is a track record for failure of MSN.

In cases cited where MSN has apparently "seemed" to work, such as Rhode Island, this is misleading because the population of euthanized pets had already dropped several fold before the MSN was implemented. And the current form of MSN only applies to cats and the data does not support that MSN works. Piggybacking on success and claiming it for all their own, is misleading and nothing more than propaganda.

Remember when we are talking about changing public policy, we need to demand that the evidence be examined before the legislation is adopted.

Framing the situation with the use of "Appeal to Emotion", profiling the pet owning population with a "Straw Man" argument, and instituting penalty fees and excise tax based on the above is not a democratic use of government policy.

A petition to OPPOSE AB 1634 (an analysis of what the bill really means)
http://network.bestfriends.org/animallawcoalition/news/4108.html

If you are in California, you should contact the assembly and let them know you oppose because the bill is not based on factual information and data.
See the details and the Assembly member contact info at the bottom of the following AKC link:
http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/CA_action_center.cfm


This is not about breeders vs rescue. This is about responsible government legislation based on factual information.

More links and resources at my blog under the label, animal_control
http://www.cobankopegi.com/blog/labels/animal_control.html

[flip195]

I see nothing wrong with this, infact I think it makes it to easy to leave the animals intact.


Article 3. Permits


122336.2. (a) A local jurisdiction shall issue an intact permit,
as defined in subdivision (b) (a) of
Section 122336, if all any of the
following conditions are is 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.
(1) The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or her
business license and federal and state tax number, or by other means,
as determined by the local entity authorized to issue permits, that
he or she is doing business and is licensed as a breeder by the local
jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency.

(2) The owner sufficiently demonstrates, as determined in the
discretion of the local entity authorized to issue intact permits,
all of the following:
(A) His or her cat or dog is used to show or compete and has
competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition
within the last two years.
(B) His or her cat or dog is a valid breed that is recognized by
an approved registry.
(C) The cat or dog has earned, or if under two years old, is in
the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting,
herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other title from an
approved purebred registry or association.
(2)
(3) 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
(4) 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.

(4)
(5) 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. and shall, if this
information is available, include the date by which the dog or cat
may be safely spayed or neutered.
(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) (1) 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.
(2) If necessary, by May 15, 2008, a local jurisdiction may adopt
a permit differential fee for any dog or cat that is not spayed or
neutered, and for which there has been issued an intact permit, or a
document that qualifies as an intact permit under subdivision (a) of
Section 122336, prior to the enactment of this chapter.
(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local jurisdiction
from adopting or enforcing a more restrictive spay or neuter program
pursuant to Section 122331, provided that the program allows for a
cat or dog to be temporarily or permanently exempted from a spay or
neuter requirement for the reasons set forth in paragraph (4) of
subdivision (a).

[lizbud]

You can always count on the breeders groups to oppose any regulation
or law that assesses a fee for having an intact animal., or regulates how
many breeding animals that can have & use or sell at any one time.

[Kfamr]

I like the law.

A responsible breeder should have no problem following it, either. :)

[SemaviLady]

Read it carefully:


(1) The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or her
business license and federal and state tax number, or by other means,
as determined by the local entity authorized to issue permits, that
he or she is doing business and is licensed as a breeder by the local
jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency.
Above are USDA licensed bulk producers of animals that have licenses to conduct regular business. They are exempted and allowed to carry on bulk production and sales as usual.


(2) The owner sufficiently demonstrates, as determined in the
discretion of the local entity authorized to issue intact permits,
all of the following:
(A) His or her cat or dog is used to show or compete and has
competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition
within the last two years.
(B) His or her cat or dog is a valid breed that is recognized by
an approved registry.
(C) The cat or dog has earned, or if under two years old, is in
the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting,
herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other title from an
approved purebred registry or association.
Have you ever competed in a dog show with a four month old puppy? Do you realize they must be 6 months of age before they can do so?


(3) 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.There are no 4 month puppies that can pass that tests of d, e, f of penal code 365.5

I strongly suspect you have not read the Penal code. ;)

No puppies at four months are certified, none are in training for use as service dogs.
see the code
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/365.5.html

Can a four month puppy do that?
Do you personally know otherwise?

If you don't also want to undermine police dog training, do check out my first post in this series. It is text in an letter written against AB 1634 from a major police dog training organization in this country. Source was provided.

Do take the time to comprehend what you read.

This may not even be a sticking point to many supporters, but the latest draft of amendments includes a BAIT and SWITCH now that it has the blind support of many who are not reading it.

For those that haven't read the amendment-------

Levine amended the bill just before the last Assembly meeting, because he
realized he would be asked how it would be funded and he was.

This is important: Whereas the bill was more 'feel good' previously -- originally the penalty fees to be collected from pet owners were going to be targetted for FREE or discount neuter...

HERE is the original wording:
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.

The amendment changed it to:
It would require all revenues derived from these fines to be used for funding the enforcement of these provisions , and, to the extent funding is available, free and low-cost spay and neuter programs, and outreach efforts for those programs, which would be required to be established by each local animal control agency Analysis: He moved the priority to ENFORCEMENT rather than for funding free/discount S/N.
(see
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/ (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1634&sess=CUR&house=B&search_type=email) )

Will we will be funding our own guillotines.

Do you have rescues you are rehabbing? Do you take back dogs that don't work out when initially placed? Does that put you just a little over the pet limit in your district? Are you babysitting a family member's dog while they are on vacation or in the hospital? Can you afford the licensing fees for every one of a whole litter of puppies you are trying to rehome for rescue?

Incidently, Albuquerque's MSN has just gone into effect. Albuquerque is talking about canvassing neighborhoods. Stopping people with pets on the street and asking for proof of compliance with the new Ordinance.

[Giselle]

I was first strongly opposed to this bill, but now I am in favor of it.

However, there are some serious serious flaws. For one, dogs and cats are entirely different species. Thus, they need different time frames. 4 months for a cat is vastly different from 4 months for a dog. A 4-month-old dog is sorely underdeveloped and I'm a strong believer that a well-balanced dog should not be fixed until s/he is physically mature.

Additionally, their prerequisites for an animal to remain intact/be allowed to breed is in dire need of editing. This...

(1) The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or her
business license and federal and state tax number, or by other means,
as determined by the local entity authorized to issue permits, that
he or she is doing business and is licensed as a breeder by the local
jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency.
... gives even more freedom to BYBs and puppy mills.

And this...

(4) 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.
... is completely arbitrary. What qualifies as trained?! As far as anybody is concerned, a simple "Sit" could mean that the dog is trained.

This bill is a good idea and it's heading in the right direction. However, I'm hoping someone will create a better bill to take its place.

[SemaviLady]

This bill is a good idea and it's heading in the right direction. However, I'm hoping someone will create a better bill to take its place.In reality, once a law that seems like a 'good idea' is in place, it is extremely difficult to change.

The fact remains that the data and analysis shows that MSN does not reduce the euth stats and creates more administrative issues. It divides the community into Us vs Them. Therefore it is illogical to support it.

A plan of action that will formulate public policy has to be to be based on fact and data.

BSL was promoted in a few areas, not enough people spoke out, and now it is getting out of control.

A famous quote- "In Germany, the Nazis first came for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Finally they came for me, but there was not one left to speak up." - Martin Niemoeller, Lutheran Pastor sent to Dachau Concentration Camp in 1938.

[crow_noir]

Being a responsible breeder has nothing to do with being licensed.

Many unethical licensed breeders will have no problem complying with it.


I like the law.

A responsible breeder should have no problem following it, either.

[crow_noir]

The serious flaws are what scare me.

If they're putting this much effort into this bill, why can't they just put the same effort into optional low-cost spay/neuters for the whole state? It would also be a lot more effective if they did a month long TNR program and got everyone involved. They should put as much effort into public education about smugglers and scams.


I was first strongly opposed to this bill, but now I am in favor of it.

However, there are some serious serious flaws. ...

[caseysmom]

I think its about time.

[CathyBogart]

That bill is a monstrosity and I couldn't have been happier to see it shot down. Their hearts are in the right place but the execution is all wrong.

[Giselle]

I don't know about the rest of California, but there are numerous low-cost spay/neuter programs in my area. In most cases, pitties are even altered for free. However, it's true that exposure is very low and I doubt many people even know that low-cost s/n programs exist.

*sighs* I don't think any law will do any good now. At this point, rigorous education seems to be our only option.

[SemaviLady]

I think its about time.Even though the premise behind MSN is not proven to work? ;)

And at four months, treating every breed of dog exactly the same way as a kitten? :D

In 2006, Deborah L. Duffy, Ph.D., and James A. Serpell, Ph.D., Center for the Interaction of Animals and Society, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania presented material on "Non-reproductive Effects of Spaying and Neutering on Behavior in Dogs". This is part of a worldwide symposium of Animal professionals who have collected data on thousands of animals.

Their very interesting slide show is available to the public in a PDF document.
http://www.acc-d.org/2006%20Symposium%20Docs/Session%20I.pdf

I am taking the liberty of posting some images here. I will however remove the images if asked. Everyone can go to the source and get the full document from above.

http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/msn01.jpg
http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/msn02.jpg

http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/msn05.jpg
http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/msn07.jpg

http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/msn09.jpg
http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/msn10.jpg

http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/msn13.jpg
http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/msn14.jpg

Do go check it out
http://www.acc-d.org/2006%20Symposium%20Docs/Session%20I.pdf

I'm not advocating to stop spay and neuter, I am however advocating that the decision to spay or neuter a pet that is not from a shelter be the choice of the owner and the veterinarian to make for themselves.

The government should not be involved with forcing everyone to comply with policy that is not based on fact. As you can see above, this is NOT about HEALTHY PETS.

If I am asked to remove the slides, I will do so. There are many more, and more detail than I can put here.

But the main document is at this site which also has quite a bit of other animal health info in relation population control issues.
http://www.acc-d.org/

Once again, public policy should be based on facts. MSN has proven that it doesn't work. And from the facts above, it's quite clear that there is a lot of outdated information floating around. Some of the problem sets above are actually reasons that animals are surrendered to the shelters.

[CathyBogart]

I for one am VERY glad you posted these slides! There are other effects of early age altering that need to be considered.

For example, sex hormones play a role in the closing of the growth plates, so animals altered before they are done growing have a slightly different conformation, and some evidence suggests that athletic animals altered early run a higher risk of injury because of this conformation.

FORCING someone who wants to have a canine athlete or a working dog to put their animal at higher risk for something like and ACL injury is inhumane IMO.

[Lady's Human]

This should be a cautionary tale for ANYONE who says in response to a problem "Gee, I wish the Government would do something about that".

[SemaviLady]

I for one am VERY glad you posted these slides! There are other effects of early age altering that need to be considered.Thanks Cathy. We'll see how long I can leave them up.

Here's a fact- Due to the forced nature of MSN, some canvassing of insurance companies for Veterinarians has taken place informally. It appears that malpractice coverage is going to go up -- to cover anticipated problems.

This will at the very least, indirectly affect free and discount neuter services.

The whole picture must to be taken into account.

One of my favorite web pages right now is http://saveourdogs.net/

[SemaviLady]

I now have official permission from the lead supervisor and scientist to use these captured images from the symposium slide show for this and multitude educational efforts. I will continue to ask people to go to the source to get original documents, as well.
http://www.acc-d.org/2006%20Symposium%20Docs/Session%20I.pdf

Edited to provide easy link to this specific posting (http://petoftheday.com/talk/showthread.php?p=1797710#post1797710) number for other lobbying efforts and forwarding.
------------------- 8< ------ cut here ------ 8< -------------------

From: James Serpell <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: ATTN: Dr. James Serpell - Mandatory Spay Neuter as Law in
California?
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 12:46:28 -0400

Dear Janice,

You are welcome to use the ACC&D presentation for your lobbying efforts.

The legislation appears to be ill-considered and premature considering
how little we know about the long-term impact of pediatric spay/neuter
on the health and behavior of dogs and cats. At 4 months of age, dogs
and cats are also too immature for us to be able to predict reliably
their adult temperament and physical soundness. The legislation as
written could therefore have a significantly adverse effect on our
future ability to select the best animals for breeding purposes.

You may quote me, if you like.

Kind regards,

James A. Serpell, PhD
Marie A. Moore Professor of Humane Ethics & Animal Welfare,
Director, Center for the Interaction of Animals & Society,
Department of Clinical Studies, School of Veterinary Medicine,
University of Pennsylvania.

------------------- 8< ------ cut here ------ 8< -------------------

If you have already studied these images, scroll below for further information......


In 2006, Deborah L. Duffy, Ph.D., and James A. Serpell, Ph.D., Center for the Interaction of Animals and Society, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania presented material on "Non-reproductive Effects of Spaying and Neutering on Behavior in Dogs". This is part of a worldwide symposium of Animal professionals who have collected data on thousands of animals.

Their very interesting slide show is available to the public in a PDF document.
http://www.acc-d.org/2006%20Symposium%20Docs/Session%20I.pdf

http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/msn01.jpg
http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/msn02.jpg

http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/msn05.jpg
http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/msn07.jpg

http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/msn09.jpg
http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/msn10.jpg

http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/msn13.jpg
http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/msn14.jpg
Additionally a significant collection of abstracts on spay/neuter and other important bill related issues can be found at http://www.ab1634.com/

It has now been shown without dispute that there is a need to research this matter more thoroughly because the outcome of the studies have not been promising in the support of pediatric S/N.

Realize that sensitized/reactive temperaments are among the things documented to be significantly increased with neuters. This involves pet animals that are part of children's lives throughout the STATE.

Furthermore, the bill endorses bulk production of animals for profit but seeks to control everyone else.

My initial letter of inquiry to Dr. Serpell included the following (in part):


The language of the law itself doesn't actually address the fact that there are no dogs at 4 months of age that qualify for the automatic higher permit fees and the only exemptions provided are continual 75 day renewals in coordination with a veterinarian up through the time that the dog can actually qualify for phenotype testing (2 years and more) such as orthopedic soundness (hips, elbows, shoulders, etc) correct character, working ethic, lack of sound and touch sensitivity (storms), etc. Dogs that are shown in conformation can only go to a show at 6 months, working dogs require more time for structural maturity, so entire litters of 5 to 15 puppies would be necessitate decision making at a point where all these things cannot be determined. The administrative issues will include vets and owners individually applying for repeated extensions of permit fees. This will include dogs used in police training, search and rescue, considerable impact.

Genetic diversity in purebreds will be affected since more decisions will be forced when an untested working dog is merely four months or less in age. The average COI's within breeds will be affected and protector alleles could further be lost.

<--snippage: bill information detail omitted-->

I have contacted local vets and apparently the California Veterinary Medical Association has filed an opinion in favor of the bill despite vets in the trenches feeling differently on the matter, and with malpractice insurance companies considering that state mandated neuter of pediatric animals will have far reaching implications. So I understand that they are not of one mind.

Basically, 90% of owned dogs in the state of California, never become part of the shelter overcrowding problem. The so-called overpopulation problem tends to be due to localized issues, since the entire state of Califonia has had significant drop in shelter statistics since 1970.

Statistics are available here:
http://www.doggonecalifornia.org/

I'm concerned about individual health and genetic soundness.

Thanks for your attention to this matter.


Go here (http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/CA_action_center.cfm) to get reader friendly information on how to contact the Assembly on this bill. Faxes appear the be the best way to ensure that your position on the bill is counted.

Here is a direct link to the bill (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1634&sess=CUR&house=B&search_type=email) information itself.

Related, but not in California, I have been reading that the implementation of MSN in Albuquerque is proving to be a disaster.

MSN does NOT work:
http://network.bestfriends.org/animallawcoalition/news/4108.html

[SemaviLady]

I had a little time last night to do some image captures from a couple more studies (studies that can be downloaded free from the links below), so that those that are interested can review these.

These studies are older than the one from which images I posted earlier in this thread. They are 1996 and 2002. based on publishing date (it can take a while to get papers published after the study is actually complete).

One scientist in the 1996 paper and the newer one previously referred (2006) is James A Serpell, PhD. who has work that has been published (2 dozen or more). This is inclusive of many papers in peer reviewed journals, some dated from the late 1980's up to the current time.

Info about James A. Serpell Ph.D.
Section Chief, Behavior and Human-Animal Interactions
Professor of Humane Ethics and Animal Welfare
Director, Center for the Interaction of Animals & Society
Department of Clinical Studies -Philadelphia
School of Veterinary Medicine
University of Pennsylvania

That is considerably more authority on the subject than a general practice vet, or anyone working for a spay clinic, to say little of an Animal Rights fanatic :D , . . . or absolutely ANY of the following people behind AB 1634 "California Healthy Pets Act"

Assembly Member Levine
(Principal coauthor: Senator Padilla)
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Nava)

...to say little of AB 1634 Campaign Director Judie Mancuso who is now on record saying that the opposition is "Spreading the word that [...] neuter and that spaying at 4 months causes medical issues (they really are desperate)."

Whatever her intent in her comment, this just goes to show that much of the information circulating about spay and neutering IS out of date and HAS been selectively acknowledged.

What do you think of selective acknowledgement? If if there are peer reviewed studies that have shown that a prescription drug seems to be causing serious problems to some people in the population, would you like to know what those problems are before someone you care for is put at risk? Here's one report about Zelnorm (http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/news/852571020057CCF6852572AE0061888F?OpenDocument&id=48DDE4A73E09A969852568880078C249&c=Angina%20Pectoris%2fMI&count=10) being taken off the market.

Apparently with the recent Melamine issues, some chose to ignore patterns that were becoming evident. So it is with spay and neuter.


How SELECTIVE do YOU as a pet owner want to be?

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) on its website, says "Spaying or Neutering Is Good for You" (seriously, that's what it says!) and that "Spaying and neutering makes pets better, more affectionate companions.".
(source: http://www.hsus.org/pets/pet_care/why_you_should_spay_or_neuter_your_pet.html)

Better? Better than what?

"Stepford Pets" anyone? :rolleyes:


Okay, two studies:
Vol. 11, 1434–1440, November 2002 Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Endogenous Gonadal Hormone Exposure and Bone Sarcoma Risk
Dawn M. Cooley, Benjamin C. Beranek, Deborah L. Schlittler, Nita W. Glickman,
Lawrence T. Glickman, and David J. Waters


Male and female [Rottweiler] dogs that underwent gonadectomy before 1 year of age had an approximate one in four lifetime risk for bone sarcoma and were significantly more likely to develop bone sarcoma than dogs that were sexually intact.
http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/rottweiler-neuter-cancer-risk.jpg
You can download this study from my website. (PDF 60 KB)
http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/cancer-neuter.pdf

Another study.
A study which is actually ten years old (has Dr. Serpell as one of the scientists) found a significant relationship between neutering and aggression as far back as 1996.
Podberscek, A.L. & Serpell, J.A.
The English Cocker Spaniel: preliminary findings on aggressive behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 47: 75-89, 1996.

Some images here but you can download the study here (http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/Serpell96.pdf). (PDF images 718 KB)

http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/serpell-study-neutered-aggression.jpg

..... images in the PDF break up the paragraphs after this. These image files can be big for a dialup, so download the PDF for the full discussion

http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/serpell-study-neutered-aggression2.jpg

Young children and potentially REACTIVE pets.
Hrm... could it be that some of these neutered females are in the shelter for this VERY reason?

Should the STATE endorse this for EVERY one? Think of the legal implications...

Upon reading the quoted letter below, I inquired of Professor Serpell about the studies mentioned below because these were not published studies, unlike above. I also asked Laura about the qualifications of the person she mentioned below (I had no idea and was skeptical :p ). These studies are unpublished but the information has been used in policy making in the management of several associations where service dogs are trained for the disabled. I was surprised when Professor Serpell acknowledged these studies, saying that his organization works closely with Canine Companions for Independence (CCI) on a number of projects and that he was indeed aware of these findings mentioned below. He added that these Service Dog studies did not contribute in any way to the published 2006 study which I previously cited here.

Apparently SD organizations have known about the problems of early spay and neuter for the past decade.

He also said, "The legislation appears to be ill-considered and premature considering how little we know about the long-term impact of pediatric spay/neuter on the health and behavior of dogs and cats. At 4 months of age, dogs and cats are also too immature for us to be able to predict reliably their adult temperament and physical soundness. The legislation as written could therefore have a significantly adverse effect on our future ability to select the best animals for breeding purposes."

Keeping the above in mind-
Laura Sanborn of saveourdogs.net wrote that Representatives of the two largest law enforcement K9 associations in California, along with a representative of the organization that represents 10+ guide/service/hearing dog organizations in California, made the rounds in the Capital last week.

This is some of the information she shared on that experience.


Yesterday I made the rounds at the California 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 to understand cause-and-effect.

CCI 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-age 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. As a result, 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 spay/neuter owing to results they were seeing that they don't like.

Long before I ever heard about mandatory spay/neuter laws, I spent 6 years poring over the veterinary medical research literature trying without success to find research of this type. 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.pdf

Laura Sanborn


These studies are publically available and have not been hidden from those who are interesting in sourcing issues. Many of you probably would not spread an Urban Legend without checking to see if it's listed on Snopes. And there are many who have pet animals who are skeptical about what passes as public information.

Want more?
You can see a catalog of related studies at the follow website: http://www.ab1634.com/

Orthopedic Considerations: abnormal bone growth due to lack of sex hormones; lower bone density due to lack of sex hormones; increase incidence of CCL rupture; increased incidence of hip dysplasia
Cancer Considerations: greater risk for hemangiosarcoma and bone cancers
Incontinence Considerations: in both sexes due to lack of sex hormones, estrogen and testosterone
Behavioral Considerations: increased incidence of fearful behavior and phobias; aggressive behavior
Metabolic Considerations: increased risk of hypothyroidism, acute fatal pancreatitis, diabetes, obesity...
Infectious Disease considerations: increased incidence of infectious disease
Surgical Considerations: surgical complications, anesthetic complications pediatrics and geriatrics, cardiac arrhythmias
Vaccine Considerations: increased incidence of adverse reactions to vaccines

Yes, we all want fewer unwanted pets to be killed. But those of us who ARE keeping our pets would like to give our HEALTHY PETS optimal chances to have healthy lives.

And... Mandatory Spay and Neuter does NOT work.
http://network.bestfriends.org/animallawcoalition/news/4108.html

Here's a fact: L.A. has already implemented mandatory spay and neuter
LAST YEAR (2006)--

* Los Angeles (CA): Since the passage of the "spay or pay" law there has been a decline in dog licensing compliance. To counter this, the city hired additional officers and equipment, increasing the animal control budget 269% from $6.7 million to $18 million

from Cardenas statement at a recent meeting to support AB 1634:
"This year alone, the city's animal control has seen a 36% increase in services due to the increase in stranded animals."

According to Ed Boks: "Over the past six years the City Council had to increase Animal Services' budget by 36%, with a 28% increase in the current fiscal year alone, even in the face of an extremely tight City budget."

I can't knowingly support MSN as a STATEWIDE EXPERIMENT on baby animals, when it has already been proven, time and again to cause problems in animals whose history is recorded.

Unlike the animals in the studies above... Neutered animals at shelters are not tracked for their lives. They also cannot be compared to unneutered siblings. Owners that have them and have some problems with them, cannot compare the issues that they have with their pets to the rest of the siblings. This is why MSN of shelter animals proves nothing about the effect it will have on the population as a whole.

[caseysmom]

Update:

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/160246.html

I sure hope this passes.

[crow_noir]

Could you please quote the article here for us please?

Not everyone likes making accounts for news sites they rarely go to. :-/

Or post the title of the article so that we can look it up.


Update:

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/160246.html

I sure hope this passes.

[CathyBogart]

SemaviLady: Thank you so much for taking the time to do this research and share it with us!! Would you mind if I shared this with a friend outside of the forum who is actively campaigning against this bill?

[crow_noir]

:D

http://petoftheday.com/talk/showpost.php?p=1791015&postcount=3

I'm guessing she won't mind.


SemaviLady: Thank you so much for taking the time to do this research and share it with us!! Would you mind if I shared this with a friend outside of the forum who is actively campaigning against this bill?

[SemaviLady]

Could you please quote the article here for us please?

Not everyone likes making accounts for news sites they rarely go to. :-/

Or post the title of the article so that we can look it up.
Heya! I'm not Caseysmom but here ya go!

This is the text of http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/160246.html :
Pet neutering bill clears committee
By Jim Sanders - Bee Capitol Bureau

Published 11:23 am PDT Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Legislation to require sterilization of nearly every dog and cat statewide in hopes of reducing the burden on animal shelters cleared its first legislative hurdle Tuesday.

The measure, Assembly Bill 1634, is meant to curb the impact of irresponsible animal owners by making fewer dogs and cats capable of reproducing.

The Assembly Business and Professions Committee passed AB 1634 on a party-line vote, 7-2, with Republicans opposed.

Public testimony on the bill, taken two weeks ago, attracted hundreds of animal enthusiasts on both sides of the issue.

Tuesday's session was limited to a statement by the author, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, and to questions or comments by committee members.

Levine said a statewide spay and neutering standard is needed because cities and counties have limited control over feral or unwanted pets.

"Dogs and cats don't know where one city ends and the other begins," he said.

Levine contends AB 1634 would crack down on irresponsible breeding that leads to about a million unwanted pets being born each year, costing shelters an estimated $250 million.

Levine's bill would require that dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered by four months old. Violators could be subject to a $500 fine.

Exceptions are provided for service animals - such as police, guide or signal dogs - and for animals excused by a letter from a veterinarian because of illness, age or poor health.

The bill faces massive opposition, with critics claiming it would interfere with the rights of pet owners, pose a financial hardship on hobbyist breeders, be ignored by the worst offenders, and be largely unenforceable.

Opponents note that animal shelter populations have fallen during the past 10 years, and that AB 1634 could backfire because some pet owners would abandon their animals rather than pay to sterilize them.

After Tuesday's committee vote, critics claimed the bill's exemption for service dogs does not go far enough to ensure that an adequate supply of puppies will enter such programs in years to come.

Assemblywoman Shirley Horton, a San Diego Republican who voted against AB 1634, said she does not think the Legislature should mandate spaying and neutering.

"I really do think this is a local issue," she said.

[crow_noir]

Thank you :)


Heya! I'm not Caseysmom but here ya go!

This is the text of http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/160246.html

[SemaviLady]

The fight is not over yet, but great news today because CVMA has withdrawn support (http://www.cvma.net/morenews.asp) of the bill.

Comments from many vets are online... here's one link
http://naiaonline.org/issues/Hjerpe%20to%20CVMA.htm

more-
http://naiaonline.org/issues/opposeAB1634.htm

As of 27 June, ALL Supporters of AB1634 are not only advocates for the previously exempt puppy mills which they supported earlier, but now, animals bred for research are exempt. (I'm a scientist, so I'm not stating that to start comments about animal testing but to show that reading the bill is an ongoing thing and that many "pro" bill arguments do not have awareness about what is ON the bill).

The new rewrite also endorses breeding of immature dogs, because as written intact PERMITS cannot be renewed after one year . Many dogs are not adult until two or three years of age. Adult dogs of many breeds are normally given tests for such things as hip dysplasia, cardiomypathy and CERF before they are bred. More explained in link below.

Still, the Bill pushers are taking advantage of "bleeding hearts" pet owners to capitalize on appeal to emotion and no facts are given about the dozens of problems in the "rest of the bill" some of which are mentioned above. They say such things as if you do not support this, you are Pro-Kill. Which is ludicrous but gullible people buy the guilt trip.

I have an update on my blog and more details including hypothetical scenario on how this will affect farm dogs because I think given perspective, more people will understand why this is so wrong.
http://www.cobankopegi.com/blog/2007/07/ab1634-cartoon-support-for-animal.html

[momoffuzzyfaces]

We always had our dogs neutered but the vet wouldn't do that until they were at least a year old. They weren't fully developed until that age. :(

If the government wants to be really useful, they should neuter rapists. :(

[mugsy]

You can take statistics and skew them anyway you want them skewed, so I don't buy into that. The new statistics say that what is posted isn't right, so, there you have it... I also have a friend in Boston who is a vet and actively advocates for juvenile spay/neuter.

I am totally in favor of mandatory spay/neuter. I also think the AKC needs to pull itself out of the Dark Ages and not require the show dogs to be unaltered. They do enough to further puppy mills, they don't need to make more pups! I know the old story of "better the breed" but, that's just ridiculous...they don't bother to look at the millions of dogs and cats that are killed each year because no one wants them...most times their response is, "they're just mixed breeds, why are you worried, we're furthering the good of the breed." OY!

[RICHARD]

My big bugaboo is with the use of any dogs by a police department to apprehend/subdue suspects.

I do not mind drug and bomb sniffing dogs, but to have any officer send a dog-who does not realize the danger invovled - into a situation where harm may come to the animal, shows a disrespect for the animal and the bond, loyalty and fearlessness that it shows to it's handler.

-----

A while back there was a post about some idiot cop who left his K-9 partner out in the yard. The dog traveled into a neighbors yard where the dog was shot-because the neighbor thought it was a threat.

The question was -should the man who shot the dog face charges?
Sure, but so should the officer-and he should pay for the training costs of that dog.

It really angers me is to see dogs hurt or killed by some crazed AH because they were put into those situations by a K-9 handler.

---------


I'd be aggressive if someone snipped my batonga wongasm THEN I'd run after people and bite them.

The plea from a PD for funds to buy a "flakjacket/BP vest" after a dog is killed or mained is especially maddening.

-------------------------

Breeders sell animals for beau coup dollars- for them to pretend that they care for the animals they breed and love -but balk at spending the money to keep them doing "What they love" make me wonder.

A nice "donation" to the local PD looks good on anyone's taxes.
Pets or profit?

[caseysmom]

Good for you Bob Barker

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=30059

[lizbud]

Here is an online list of people's comments concering this Healthy Pets
Bill. There is also a nice concise Summary of Provisions that lists exactly
what this bill does & does not do. Interesting.

http://community.livejournal.com/ab1634/

[SemaviLady]

Good for you Bob Barker
Actually a lot of women cannot stand him as you probably know. (You can add men to that group of anti-fans as well, lol) He has a huge ego and he likes to win.

He does not own pets (it is slavery), he's a vegetarian and an animal extremist. His funding for animal rights law school (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=pHZ&q=animal+rights+law+bob+barker&btnG=Search) is no secret. I think we're very likely to see more in the way of the sort of legal help used for helping PeTA get out of their recent animal killing (http://www.petakillsanimals.com/) and dumping spree in North Carolina. They got a handslap for "littering". Research labs are under attack by ALF and they certainly get some legal help as needed as well. Interesting in light of the medical issues Bob has had. Generally Animal Rights advocates are okay with animal testing that helps "them".

A brilliant bit by yet another celebrity regarding biomedical research- "To those people who say, `My father is alive because of animal experimentation,' I say `Yeah, well, good for you. This dog died so your father could live.' Sorry, but I am just not behind that kind of trade off." Bill Maher, PETA celebrity spokesman

Anyway, Bob loves being in the limelight and having power. He now has more time to nurture projects that from his level of the world, need fixing.

He was successfully sued for millions for harassment in separate law suits by at least half a dozen different women.

Celebrity doesn't (or shouldn't?) give anyone immunity to the law but Bob gets more respect than Paris does. He's got money, he knows how to manipulate people. He is also behind why on the eighth writing of AB 1634, just about anything goes. The main thing is he hates to lose. People see him behind the bill, everything goes out the window. They no longer have to read and comprehend the bill. The hero of "The Price is Right" makes it 'all good'.

I don't even want to go there but we either actively choose our politicians and their supporters whose ethics will lead our children into the future or sit back and let it happen.

Bob Barker to face courtroom battle after model's suit ruled valid (http://www.courttv.com/people/2004/0917/barker_ctv.html) (sample)

[SemaviLady]

Here is an online list of people's comments concering this Healthy Pets
Bill. There is also a nice concise Summary of Provisions that lists exactly
what this bill does & does not do. Interesting.

http://community.livejournal.com/ab1634/LOL. Actually, that's not a site that gives unbiased information and it does not tell you what the bill will really do. :)

Here's where you get unbiased information.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1634& (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1634&sess=CUR&house=B&search_type=email)

:D

[lizbud]

AB 1634 Summary of Provisions
Jul. 5th, 2007 | 10:55 pm
posted by: ldragoon in ab1634
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

OVERVIEW: AB 1634 would


· Require a cat or dog over the age of 6 months to be spayed or neutered, unless issued an intact permit or given a veterinary extension or waiver (see below)

· impose an intact permit fee, limited to an amount ‘reasonably necessary’ to help pay for the cost of the permit program, replacing the current ‘unaltered’ animal license

· make failure to obtain a permit or spay/neuter one’s pet punishable by a civil penalty ($500) to be waived if the owner has his or her pet spayed or neutered

· require revenues derived from civil penalties to be used for funding outreach efforts, as well as administration and enforcement, and to the extent funding is available, fund free and low-cost spay and neuter programs and outreach efforts for those programs (i.e., be fiscally neutral or positive)


EXTENSIONS, WAIVERS AND INTACT PERMITS:


Owners of intact dogs or cats may delay spay/neuter if they obtain a veterinary letter, authorizing a delay for medical reasons (see below for permits for pets to remain unaltered due to permanent health problems)
Complete exemption for dogs or cats visiting the state temporarily, as well as guide, signal and service dog programs
‘Intact permits’ are available for the following:

licensed breeders of pure or mixed breeds
owners of dogs or cats registered with an approved breed registry that qualify under any of the following conditions:

(a) shows or competes in a show or sporting competition, or is being trained to do so (if too young currently);
(b) has earned or is working towards a title in conformation, obedience, carting, protection, agility, rally, herding, sporting or other activity
dogs being bred for work (police, fire, rescue, etc.)
dog is trained or being trained as service, guide or signal dog
dog is trained or being trained for law enforcement or rescue work
dog is being used to herd or guard livestock
dog or cat is determined by veterinarian to be too old or sick for spay/neuter
‘Family dog permit’ allows one litter for dog owners committed to breeding
responsibly under the terms of the law
Permit fee:

only what is ‘reasonably necessary’ to administer permit program
fee waived for police and rescue dogs and breeders of such dogs
local jurisdiction may waive fee for veterinary exemption-based permits

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 2008

[SemaviLady]

My big bugaboo is with the use of any dogs by a police department to apprehend/subdue suspects.

I do not mind drug and bomb sniffing dogs, but to have any officer send a dog-who does not realize the danger invovled - into a situation where harm may come to the animal, shows a disrespect for the animal and the bond, loyalty and fearlessness that it shows to it's handler.
Taking consent to a new level. :)

I have enough problems with the complicated EULAs on software. Yeesh. When one has almost trusted the vendor for years, they sometimes slip a new rule in that you would never have clicked to agree, if you knew what it meant.

But yes, it makes sense to me at some level, more like idealism if it could happen. On the same token with the same logic, we would then need animal consent forms for neutering. :confused:

- Do they understand what is going to happen to them?
- Do they agree with the reason that it is done?
- Do they agree that the belief system of another species to surgically alter them to in order to effect convenient behavioral traits to them is appropriate?
- Would they rather reproduce? (LOL)

And right there at that level, one is eye to eye with the dichotomy of Animal Rights Extremism (http://www.cfapurebredrescue.org/animal_rights.htm) . We don't have a right to own them and make decisions for them.

[Giselle]

From what I've heard, the bill has been withdrawn until further amendments in Jan 2008.

I'm happy. That bill was hypocritical. "Family Dog policy"?? How stupid can you get? I read about it in the newspaper. Apparently, Levine introduced that amendment so that California won't be devoid of mutts. :rolleyes:

"It's okay guys! Breed one litter per family and we won't have a surplus of kittens or dogs! That's how it works, don'tcha know?"

Politics. Psch.

[ratdogg]

http://www.ktvu.com/news/13663488/detail.html

yup, the bill has been withdrawn. Good riddance.

[crow_noir]

Just an idea... If CA wants to be this draconian could they be a little more fair about it? (Sorry for the contradiction.)

I had an idea but had no idea who to write to for this to be more effective.

I know we don't want the pets being put down but i figure this solution is more fair than the negative effects AB1634 would have had.

What about REQUIRING ALL canine and feline pets in CA be microchipped. IF an unmicrochipped pet ends up in the shelter it is held for a minimum number of days then euth'ed (scare tactic to keep the irresponsible responsible.) If a local jurisdiction decides otherwise or has the necessary funds it may still decide to keep the unchipped pet for so long. Have HUGE fines for re-claimed unmicrochipped unsterilized pets. (have a mediocre fine for chipped pets that end up in the shelter.

I'd also like to see some sort of sponsorship for increased Trap Neuter Release. (Sure I'm against all ferals, BUT I'm willing to keep an open mind to compromise and working towards a solution that WILL work.)

[RICHARD]

Just an idea... If CA wants to be this draconian could they be a little more fair about it? (Sorry for the contradiction.)

I had an idea but had no idea who to write to for this to be more effective.




Here in Cah Lee Fuh Nee Ah we are trying to get a bill passed to neuter Gavin Newsome and ANtonio Villaraigosa.

Those two morons are human and it seems that the cats and dogs in the state have more disgression on who they sleep with than they do.


Neuter and spay your State Officials.

[SemaviLady]

AB 1634 Summary of Provisions
Jul. 5th, 2007 | 10:55 pm
posted by: ldragoon in ab1634
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

Sorry, the difference between linking to it and pasting it doesn't change its meaning. It is essentially "The Reader's Digest Version" of the "intent" of the bill.

The bill has a lot of fine print that the summary neglects to mention.

Mancuso herself for one, has LAUGHED, and said that extermination of mixed breed pets is not possible. Because there will be more, they keep on coming.
TOUCHE! YES, Judie, we all agree this bill will not accomplish the proposed “INTENT” of the bill. You are too proud to admit it.

It is had EIGHT rewrites with line after line, conflicting its own text. (see the lines in the bill regarding vets for one)

1. This bill ENDORSES commercial producers with the broadest and complete exemptions. Commercial breeders are for profit, they do not waste time and money on health testing. They do not follow up on their placements which may well be brokered just about anywhere.

2. Since 27 June, this bill actually mandates the breeding of immature and untested dogs because their one year ticket cannot be renewed til the dogs are old enough to have any kind of offical health test.

3. The bill does not grandfather in many owners who will NOT be able to dole out the cash. Elderly, disabled, young couples, singles, poor folk of every kind, hundreds of rescuers who are working out of their pockets and homes. Where are these animals going to go? Will pets will be torn from their settled homes and euthanized if the owner doesn’t have the means?

4. Every different jurisdiction can have a different way to define many of the rules. It is a Tower of Babel with local jurisdictions being given total control.

5. NO FIT. The bill heavily profiles all owners and all breeders alike and therefore has numerous NO FIT and illogical assumptions. The majority of problems in the bill are right here.

Do you know what ‘no fit’ means? Example:
Someone is put in charge of all vehicle regulation, mandates that all vehicles with NO exceptions, must have four tires in good condition plus a spare (sounds good so far maybe?), and be parked in a garage next to the owner’s residence - or each will be fined $500. Unleash this on the constituents and THEN watch out for the bicycle, the boat, the plane, the semi, the tractor owners. What about people living in condos or apartments? What if car owners have four vehicles, is it time to hire a contractor, what if there is no room on the property that will allow them to get a permit? They have all been profiled into a law that didn’t take them into consideration. They are gonna get awfully upset. Now some of the nicest people are law breakers. Righteous people who live in a house with a garage and have a car with the requirements will of course, say, “It’s all about money!”. They are going to say to those selfish tractor drivers, “if you weren’t so selfish, you would get your act together and you too could be exempt.”

This bill is horrendously guilty of profiling and no fit. It will increase the numbers of animals killed.

It does NOTHING to promote ethical breeding nor healthy pets. The principle designers of this bill do not even own pets nor understand the population that they are trying to control.

[SemaviLady]

Just an idea... If CA wants to be this draconian could they be a little more fair about it? (Sorry for the contradiction.)
I'm with you. I think something should be done but I'm not going to reinvent the wheel when some groups have already written very well on what the solutions might be and they are actually doing it.

I cannot get this PDF to convert, but it is important for all rescue oriented persons to read.
See http://www.nokilladvocacycenter.org/pdf/mandatorylaws.pdf

Also see this movie clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1r9GJ_N7WU)

First we have to realize that many issues are local ones. Punishing everyone is not the solution. There is also too much profiling. The lady with 5 Portuguese Podengo dogs and struggling with a tiny gene pool that she does genetic testing on as well as hunt tests, is not in the same population as the teenaged pit bull owners and fighters in her neighborhood who are at an age where they feel immortal, above the law, and testosterone is a native fuel. :(


I had an idea but had no idea who to write to for this to be more effective.Here is good! Perspective from other sources is educational.


What about REQUIRING ALL canine and feline pets in CA be microchipped. IF an unmicrochipped pet ends up in the shelter it is held for a minimum number of days then euth'ed (scare tactic to keep the irresponsible responsible.)Well we already have a problem here. Animals going into shelters are not routinely scanned for chips.

Here is a recent story:


Robert Jaechens is a volunteer for the Nor Cal GSD rescue. He goes into the shelters looking for and pulling German Shepherds for rescue. I had the pleasure to meet him a week ago when he and rescue helped me retrieve a GSD of my breeding that was picked up as a stray. The dog was microchipped by me as a pup and sold to a family, (as of this moment I still have not been able to get hold of those people). The dog was being prepped for euthansia when they found the chip and got hold of me. Luckily they were able to help me by pulling the dog, and meeting me so I could bring him home. Having done what Robert does, I can understand his frustration with shelters and rescueing dogs. Other breeders frequently tell rescue they couldn't care less about one of their dogs in the shelter. This is one reason so many shelter workers are for this bill. I am a breeder (for 35 years) and proud of it, and yes, I am totally
against this bill!

Someone responding to the above story said:

Just think of how many animal/shelter days it would save them, not to mention the $$$ savings for that care, if they called pet owners when the animals arrived so that they could be retrieved promptly.

It makes me wonder if the shelter folks really want owners to be able to
redeem their animals, or if they really just want the animals dead.



If a local jurisdiction decides otherwise or has the necessary funds it may still decide to keep the unchipped pet for so long. Have HUGE fines for re-claimed unmicrochipped unsterilized pets. (have a mediocre fine for chipped pets that end up in the shelter.

I'd also like to see some sort of sponsorship for increased Trap Neuter Release. (Sure I'm against all ferals, BUT I'm willing to keep an open mind to compromise and working towards a solution that WILL work.)A problem with punishing people who obey the law and microchip their pets, is that what if part of the fence goes down, what if the kids forget to close the gate (anyone not familiar with kids here?), and dozens of other scenarios which can occur, it is up to the local jurisdiction to automatically assume guilt of the owner. And will act bureaucratically due to "principle".

In the New York case with Spartacus, they have put into their ordinance that the owner can get an exemption from their rulings from their pet's vet, yet when this guy did, the ACO vets overruled any voluntary exemption possible for the dog. They even threatened to euthanize the dog. The owner could not find a bail bondsman willing to bail out a dog. (I had some Monty Pythonish musings on what the guy might have gone through on that) and he had to post his own bail in cash. Most of us do not have money to get our case in the media. Most cases like this just 'disappear' and do not get into the news.

Check out this report from L.A.:

source: LA Voice (http://www.lavoice.org/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2846)
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa gets an "F" from the animals

Our Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa made a campaign promise to make Los Angeles a NoKill City for animals. After two years in office it is clear that he has failed miserably. Last week in order to stem the flow of animals coming into the shelters they decided to just refuse them because the shelters are full. The shelters are so overcrowded that now twice as many animals are dying from illness and injuries suffered in the shelters. Fewer are making it out alive. What went wrong? And is the Mayor going to do anything about it? L.A.VISION
Last week General Manager Ed Boks announced that he would only accept owner surrendered animals during a small window of time midweek. This caused a huge public out cry which caused him to "revisit" his policy twice. Even PETA chimed in with a national phone campaign demanding that people contact the Mayor. Ultimately he rescinded the new policy saying he never meant to enforce it anyway. The policy was just an attempt to "educate the public" he said. In response the Daily News released an article entitled "Animal Services head makes a fool of himself - and us."

Meanwhile, unofficially they are still trying to refuse as many animals as possible. They are telling people to TNR (trap neuter return) feral cats, bottle feed orphaned kittens themselves and to re-home their unwanted pets with private parties or rescue groups, who are of course all full. The Rescue and Humane Alliance of Los Angeles believes that most people will just dump these pets on the streets if refused at the shelter.

A crisis still looming over the shelters is the lack of veterinarians. March 28th of this year writer and animal rescuer Daniel Guss of the Stand Foundation wrote an op-ed piece for the Daily News about the lack of veterinarians. They only have two veterinarians to care for over 56,000 animals a year in seven shelters spread throughout our large City. Eight positions are vacant. Boks denied that this was a problem saying those empty vet positions are for the spayneuter clinics which haven't been built. If we look at the budget reports, there were ten shelter vet positions before the clinics were even planned.

Fortunately, Councilmembers recognized the problem and got involved. Councilmen Dennis Zine and Richard Alarcon made a motion to solve the problem even after Boks denied the problem in his "Fact vs Rumor" page in the Department website. Since then Boks merely sent a letter to City Council basically saying that "things are fine. Thanks for your concern." Why does he refuse their help? As of the writing of this article, only one new vet was hired after yet another vet quit so nothing has improved. We are still down eight vets and the shelters are completely full. We have more animals than ever before in larger shelters yet fewer vets and vet techs.

Why are the shelters so full even after three new larger shelters were just built? Boks has been trying to keep the euthanasia rate as low as possible in order to make it seem that he is successful. The euthanasia rate is the number of animals euthanized divided by the total number that enter the shelter. In the past 12 months the euthanasia rate was about 38% or 21,000 animals. In the previous 12 months it was 39%. Instead of euthanizing the animals which are not adopted or returned to their owner, they are warehousing them. This is causing overcrowding with many animals in each cage and kennel. This overcrowding is causing animals to die from disease and injuries suffered in fights in the kennels. Part of this is also due to the lack of vets to treat these animals. In the last 12 months, 2,075 animals died in the shelter. During the previous 12 months only 1,109 animals died. The number has almost doubled. The percent dying in the shelter has risen from 2% to 4% of intake. Some of these animals could be someone's lost pet.

Why would Ed Boks allow these animals to just die in the kennels? This is the harsh reality of his "NoKill" plan. If an animal dies in the shelter on his own, it is not included in the "euthanasia" column. Boks is allowing this to happen in order to improve his numbers. If we add the number of animals euthanized and the number of animals that died in the shelter together, we get a better indication of what is happening. In the last 12 months 23,145 animals were euthanized and died in the shelter or 41.59%. In the previous 12 months it was 23,117 or 41.62%. There has been no improvement in the number of dead animals. Does it matter how they died? I personally would prefer that they be euthanized humanely instead of being left to die a painful death from illness and injury.

Another way to gauge the success or failure of a shelter is to look at the live release rate. The live release rate is the number of animals that leave the shelter alive be it by adoption, rescue, foster or returned to owner. In the last 12 months 30,007 animals left the shelter alive or 53.92%. In the previous 12 months 31,173 animals left the shelter alive or 56.13%. Live release has gone down 2%. 1,166 fewer animals made it out alive in the last 12 months. In Boks first 12 months here in LA, 751 fewer animals made it out alive than the previous 12 months. Boks is now doing even worse than his first year.

At the very end of April Boks released the much anticipated Annual Report for 2006. In his report he stated that live release would go down 2%, which it now has. He said it will go down because intake will go up. Intake is about the same actually. After City Controller Laura Chick heard about this, she instructed the Public Safety Committee to investigate. She said she may even audit the Department. So what did Boks do? He merely rewrote his Annual Report. Now it reads that live release will go up 2% because of "new data." Two months later live release is indeed down 2% and going lower which shows that his second report was not honest.

Boks mentioned the budget in this same report. He went way over budget on veterinary expenses and medical supplies. This of course is caused from the overcrowding and lack of on-site vets. If we take a look at the 2004 audit of Maricopa Animal Control when Boks was the Director, they had these same cost overruns to the point that there was a large shortfall of cash. If we take a look at the depositions in the current lawsuit against Boks in New York City when he was the Director, we again have these same cost overruns, only this time Boks went to a bank and took out a line of credit without permission to make payroll. He was later reprimanded. He left both of these shelters a shamble on questionable terms. Most say he was pushed out though Boks said he left on his own.

In February of this year New York magazine stated that "workers unanimously point to (Ed Boks)" as the reason they were not able to meet their nokill goal. "One Alliance member snipes 'Boks' programs had catchy names, but they had no substance and weren't sustainable." Yet Boks claims to have made NY NoKill. People said the same thing about Boks in Maricopa. Boks claims in his bio to have "established the first municipal no-kill shelter in the United States while in AZ." Maricopa which is one county in the state had a 50% euthanasia rate. Later Boks revealed that he made one of the three shelters NoKill. It turns out there are only two shelters, and one adoption center. He later claimed to have made that center NoKill. After speaking to people who volunteered in that center, ill animals, animals with behavior issues and animals that just plain weren't adopted, were sent back to the shelter to be killed. That's not NoKill in my book.

Recently in LA, even more problems have surfaced. Dana Bartholemew of the Daily News wrote an article in May about a problem with the Animal Services Call Center. A threatening dog was running around a school playground while the teachers were frantically calling the Call Center. No one picked up the phone. They were on hold for 45 minutes then finally gave up. Fortunately a member of the public was able to lure the animal away from the children. Boks refuted this story saying that the well respected journalist made it up. I verified this same problem with the Call Center. I later discovered that Boks had changed the protocol which is what caused the call not to be routed to a live person at the shelter. Councilmen Dennis Zine and Tony Cardenas realizing that this was a definite public safety issue made a motion to investigate the problem. Boks has yet to respond to City Council.

Meanwhile Boks is having Town Hall meetings to brag about his "success!" He is saying that euthanasia is at it's "lowest ever!" Cat and dog euthanasia only is down a tiny bit at this moment because of the warehousing. Boks also bragged about success in the first half of last year. All he did was warehouse animals from the fist half of the year into the second half. When the shelters filled up, his euthanasia rate went sky high, yet he released absolutely no news about it. His year end results showed absolutely no improvement. I predict the same will happen this year.

After my first article in March Boks wrote "Fact vs Rumor #4" refuting part of what I wrote. After documents which supported the claims were sent to the person who oversees the Department for the Mayor, Deputy Mayor Jimmy Blackman, Boks backpedaled and changed part of his rebuttal yet he still lied about a few issues. Again, Boks ordered a paid volunteer to write his own fan website and he provided the content. Imagine, the head of an LA City Department touting himself and attacking all naysayers.

Where do we go from here? I see no quick fixes to these problems. The shelters are totally full. They will have to start euthanizing animals to make room for more as we're in the middle of baby season. Boks' complete and utter failure to make LA NoKill is now a big ugly stain on Antonio's already stained term in office. Antonio's recent divorce, rumors of infidelity, loss in the LAUSD battle and his problems with LAPD and LAFD aren't helping his faltering reputation. He's losing control of the City. The Mayor needs to take charge, keep his campaign promises and make some major changes.

Past article
http://www.geocities.com/annangeleno

[SemaviLady]

Here in Cah Lee Fuh Nee Ah we are trying to get a bill passed to neuter Gavin Newsome and ANtonio Villaraigosa.

Those two morons are human and it seems that the cats and dogs in the state have more disgression on who they sleep with than they do.

Neuter and spay your State Officials.LOL, I guess my previous post gives a generous serving of gravy to support this idea.

[SemaviLady]

Apparently, Levine introduced that amendment so that California won't be devoid of mutts. :rolleyes:

"It's okay guys! Breed one litter per family and we won't have a surplus of kittens or dogs! That's how it works, don'tcha know?"

Politics. Psch.Agreed. FWIW, I don't think he and Mancuso wanted that in the bill, but they did promise one of the senators to work something in to address an issue she had with the bill.

It is quite true, especially for Family owners of larger breeds which have the bigger litters, that often they cannot find enough homes when they get a dozen pups that start eating them out of house and home by the time the cuties are four months and older!

Small dogs are much easier to place and shelters actually have a system to try and supply the demand for small dogs. They can sell small dogs and cute puppies of breeds in demand. The income from this can sometimes be used by the shelter to support the more problematic loads they have.

I am aware from other forums that owners of pure and mixed breed small dogs that have 'extra pups' usually get some cash by selling these to local pet stores. (which usually will advertise their pups as not being from puppy mills and are from local breeders).

My objection to that amendment included the fact that such litters would be coming from immature dogs, that could not be officially cleared for health issues because the one year permit would not allow the dog to become mature enough to be evaluated. Sure, few families even know about health testing.

So the whole matter doesn't help with education, responsibility nor healthy pets.

Now here is some education from research (http://www.petpopulation.org/research.html) by National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy.

Top 10 Reasons for Relinquishment*

Dogs:
1. Moving (7%)
2. Landlord not allowing pet (6%)
3. Too many animals in household (4%)
4. Cost of pet maintenance (5%)
5. Owner having personal problems (4%)
6. Inadequate facilities (4%)
7. No homes available for litter mates (3%) --Breeding?
8. Having no time for pet (4%)
9. Pet illness(es) (4%)
10. Biting (3%)

Cats:
1. Moving (8%)
2. Landlord not allowing pet (6%)
3. Too many animals in household (11%)
4. Cost of pet maintenance (6%)
5. Owner having personal problems (4%)
6. Inadequate facilities (2%)
7. No homes available for litter mates (6%) --Breeding?
8. Allergies in family (8%)
9. House soiling (5%)
10. Incompatibility with other pets (2%)

Specially trained researchers completed confidential individual interviews with pet owners who were relinquishing their dogs or cats to animal shelters. Pet owners were allowed to give up to five reasons for relinquishment. Interviewers did not, however, prioritize the responses. They simply recorded them in the order stated.

Characteristics of Pets Being Relinquished

In addition to the reasons for relinquishment, the study collected data on the pets being relinquished. According to the study: The majority of the surrendered dogs (47.7%) and cats (40.3%) were between 5 months and 3 years of age.

The majority of dogs (37.1 %) and cats (30.2) had been owned from 7 months to 1 year. Approximately half of the pets (42.8% of dogs; 50.8% of cats) surrendered were not neutered. Many of the pets relinquished (33% of dogs; 46.9% of cats) had not been to a veterinarian.

Animals acquired from friends were relinquished in higher numbers (31.4% of dogs; 33.2% of cats) than from any other source.

Close to equal numbers of male and female dogs and cats were surrendered.

Most dogs (96%) had not received any obedience training.

Characteristics of Pet Owners Surrendering Pets

During the confidential interviews, researchers also gathered data on the people surrendering the pets. "Owners represented a broad range of age, ethnicity, education, and income level, indicating continued efforts will need to reach wide and far into communities across the country," say Dr. Mo Salman, the article's senior author.

The major reasons for pets being in the shelter is NOT Overpopulation, but it is due to issues of convenience. These issues all need to be addressed as they are.

Profiling every situation as having one cause is about the same as deciding that all HUMAN children should be "neutered" to solve the problems we have of world hunger, violence and crime.

Yes, that solution would work, but you won't make many friends. :D

[SemaviLady]

You can take statistics and skew them anyway you want them skewed, so I don't buy into that.

The new statistics say that what is posted isn't right, so, there you have it... There were definite problems here. State law requires the shelters to report their statistics.

There were apparently two sets of data. Stats that were reported to the state as required and NEW stats that weren't reported and used in promotion of the bill.


I am totally in favor of mandatory spay/neuter. I also think the AKC needs to pull itself out of the Dark Ages and not require the show dogs to be unaltered.I do have problems with the AKC but there are no organizations without fault. Some of their most recent mistakes have alienated some of their former faithful.


They do enough to further puppy mills, they don't need to make more pups!They recently granted some interesting exemptions to commercial producers, in order to get them to register with AKC again. Yes, that's a problem.


I know the old story of "better the breed" but, that's just ridiculous...they don't bother to look at the millions of dogs and cats that are killed each year because no one wants them...most times their response is, "they're just mixed breeds, why are you worried, we're furthering the good of the breed." OY!Actually people can have any opinion they want and it may not be right. There are actually studies of why pets are in shelters, and it does have to do with issues of convenience.

If a pet isn't working out, or the people are moving, I think the pet may have additionally presented challenges (behavioral?) that their human caretakers have grown a little tired of, so the pet becomes disposable.

This is not an overpopulation problem any more than the one where human mothers refuse to care for their kids and the kids are put into limbo.

[crow_noir]

I'd want that to be mandated. Anyone in charge of scanning (must be at least two per shelter) would personally be fined if it was found that they were not scanning EVERY pet coming into the shelter.

and i agree... it would save shelters so much money if they actually made an effort to reunite pets with their owners.

I've actually see a number of tagged pets at my pound that were just never claimed. (Owners give up too soon and don't continue to look for their pet. The shelter seems to assume the worst about the owner.) The pound doesn't make the calls. And people assume if their pet is tagged that the pound will call them. *sigh*


Well we already have a problem here. Animals going into shelters are not routinely scanned for chips.

[Giselle]

You know what? Every dog in the my city is required to be licensed and microchipped (can't get the license without a chip).

You know what else? Nobody cares. Very few owners comply.

Licensing is easy. Get your rabies shot. Send in a small amount of money for an altered dog or a large amount of money for an intact dog, and you have your license.

Forcing people to fix their dogs is much harder. So if licensing failed, why shouldn't mandatory s/n?

[crow_noir]

True.

Sometimes I'm surprised at how many people in my city avoid registering their dogs even though they have the shots for the dog. ...and as I'm finding out we're fairly reasonable compared to most other jurisdictions. I know the price raised but but it was something like $6/yr. for "unsexed" dogs and $15 for intact dogs. The prices are even lower for cats. I really don't see what the big deal is. (Even when my parents were on welfare they got the dog its shots and license.) It's like HELLO! if it's registered that's legal proof it's your dog. UGGG... but some people just don't care.

Forcing people to do anything is going to fail. Responsible will comply while everyone else just ignores it.

I was just trying to look at things positively. It is a downer though thinking of how hard it is to implement rules.


You know what? Every dog in the my city is required to be licensed and microchipped (can't get the license without a chip).

You know what else? Nobody cares. Very few owners comply.

Licensing is easy. Get your rabies shot. Send in a small amount of money for an altered dog or a large amount of money for an intact dog, and you have your license.

Forcing people to fix their dogs is much harder. So if licensing failed, why shouldn't mandatory s/n?

[Giselle]

Oh, don't mind me. I was raised in a very pessimistic household, LOL. Obviously, the qualities have stuck :p

I'm just glad we don't have to battle this bill for another 6 months. Then, let's see what Levine churns out.

[SemaviLady]

See this link at Dog Health (http://petoftheday.com/talk/showthread.php?p=1953029#post1953029)


And quick a plug by me for...
http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/redemption.jpg
Redemption: The Myth of Pet Overpopulation and the No Kill Revolution in America (http://www.amazon.com/Redemption-Myth-Overpopulation-Revolution-America/dp/0979074304)


Brought to you with the help of my sweetie Helmut (http://www.cobankopegi.com/temp/helmut.html) . :)
http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/helmut-wink.jpg
Wink, wink ;) http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/midi/frech/d005.gif