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&

If you want to cut to the chase, go here to AKC's legislative info on this bill

To see information about pets "over population" issue check out the chart


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

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/
Above is excellent reading

This one is from NAIAonline.com which supports all animal interest
http://valleynews.com/
Patty Strand looks out for us!

Does MSN work? Here's the track record from around the country

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 -- 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

[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

[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/ 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/anima...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_legislatio...nter.cfm<br />

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/labe...l_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/ )

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.