Easy link to this specific posting for forwarding use
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%20Symposiu...ession%20I.pdf
Edited to provide easy link to this specific posting 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......
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemaviLady
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 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 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/anima...news/4108.html
California Healthy Pets Act *NOT!*
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 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/wh..._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
Quote:
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/rottwei...ancer-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. (PDF images 718 KB)
http://www.cobankopegi.com/b/serpell...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...ggression2.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.
Quote:
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/anima...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.
The CVMA has withdrawn their support of AB1634
The fight is not over yet, but great news today because CVMA has withdrawn support 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...or-animal.html
