While I understand that you are against AB 1634, perhaps people should be provided a link so they can objectively make a decision on this topic:
 California Healthy Pets Act

Here you'll find a number of the answers to issues that are raised above:
Frequently asked questions

The city of Los Angeles adopted this resolution last week.

Well if the city of LA is for this bill I'm against it :-)

Seriously, my husband and I adopted a Chihuahua at the beginning of February.  I plan on getting him neutered as soon as I can work it into my budget, but until then he is "intact".  If this bill had been in place back in February we would not have taken him in, and he might be dead by now if we hadn't.  I don't see how this bill is going to stop pet dumping.  I think that it would put people off of adopting animals.  If I knew I had to get my dog altered or face a fine I wouldn't get a dog.  I think in the short run this bill will cost animals their lives and in the long run cost other animals their health (if I were dishonest and had a puppy mill what would cause me to bring in a sick dog to the vet that might get me caught).

If this bill does pass, how long will it be before the "Puppy Police" fine me for not having my dog neutered and what would the fine be?

Our club's website has several links; one is a link to "leginfo" which is the official California website for information on legislative documents.  Your website is put up by supporters of the bill and is biased in favor of the bill.  The links available on our website allow people to read for themselves.  The fact that L. A. adopted such a law last week is even more reason we, in Kern County, should be very suspicious about what it actually says.  I hope L. A. is ready to say goodbye to their dog shows.  I guess they don't need the revenue.  I agree with dhall: if L.A. is for it then I'm probably against it.  The author of this bill is from Van Nuys, go figure.

By the way, the American Veterinary Medical Association does not advocate early sterilization as the biased website, cahealthypets.com, states.  The AVMA supports the concept to reduce the number of unwanted animals, but says that every veterinarian must make their own decision on whether or not to perform an early sterilization.  The health exemption in AB1634 gives a delay of 75 days.  What if the animal is still too old or too ill to undergo surgery after the 75 day reprieve?  May the owner file for another delay?  The bill doesn't say. 

The bill's website speaks to how healthy it is to sterilize an animal.  Generally, that is true, but, according to the AVMA, spayed female dogs have a greater incidence of vaginitis, incontinence, and aggression.  cahealthypets.com also states that there will be no shortage of dogs and cats from this bill.  Well, I'll agree with that one.  This bill will do nothing to curb the puppy-mills and very little to stop the backyard breeders.  Your quality animals will be drastically reduced, but not what gets into the shelters.The bill's website also states that Rhode Island has such a law.  I think the RI law pertains only to cats. 

Please read the bill for yourself, along with the analysis the committee wrote after it heard this bill on 10 April, then go onto the Tehachapi Mountain Dog Fanciers website that I entered previously and use our links to write the Committee members.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/b...

 

In 10-13 years would my only dog option be an expensive pure bred? 

An expensive purebred from a puppy mill.  This bill has an exemption for puppy mills.