California AB1634 Mandatory Spay/Neuter (MSN)

[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]

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&

[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]

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]

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 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 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 (sample)

[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.

- 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 . 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.

"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.

[SemaviLady]

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

"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 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.

[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]

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.