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