I personally find this bill just discusting. I cant justify the government telling me weather my dog should be steril or not. who are they to decide if my dog can have pups or not, what is this Nazi Germany. I might as well just give the dog to them if they get to make the desition for me. What makes them the almighty power on desiding which of our dogs is good enough for breading. Oh yeah, the people that support this bill do, how dumb of me.

I also find it extremely naive to assume that an irresposible pet owner is not going to just abandon there dog to escape the fine they will recieve for having an unsteril animal, utimatle defeating the purpose anyway. Someone please explain how they are going to inforce this law onto cat owners because the last I heard the only owner of a cat is itself, or have I been missinformed.

 Compairing seat belt laws and contractors licenses to the sterilation of dogs is just asinine.It makes absolutely no sense to be agianst a seat belt law because you feel youre adult enough to make the desition to wear one your self, but you cant make the decision on what happends to your animal your self. The reson adults, as well as children, have to wear a seatbelt is that even if only one in your car has no seat belt on he will fly around the car during a  crash, injuring or killing others. Seat belts save human lives,  sterilizing dogs prevents dog lives. Im not agianst sterilizing animals, Im against being forced to do it by an other party. My dog happends to be spayed but that was my choice. This whole thing sounds like a great way to squease more money from resposible tax payers, and take just one more little freedom away from us. I find this law extremley invasive and I am completely against it.

AB 1634 does not and will not address the problem of pets being euthanized at shelters.  It will not reduce the number of pets being euthanized in fact it may have the opposite effect as some owners may start dumping pets instead of paying outrageaus fees in order to keep them.  On the other hand it will criminalize responsible pet owners if they choose to not identify themselves as owning unaltered pets.  It would be better if shelters would focus on making shelters visitor friendly, having operating hours on the weekends which allow for times that people are off work and may be looking for a pet, starting low cost spay/neuter programs available to the general public if they so choose, promoting responsible pet ownership. 

CA should look at writing laws that are enforceable and do not violate owners rights.  Write laws which enforce leash and containment laws, nuisance laws, minimal care laws and good cruelty laws which send people to jail for animal cruelty. 

OPPOSE AB 1634 this law should not be passed!!!

 

Weebles wrote:
"The bill allows for guide dog and service dog exemptions. "

Sort of.... but I have yet to see an under 4 month old puppy who can be described  as a service dog or even a service dog in training. By the time a dog does qualify for the exemption, he will already be neutered.

and....
"As far as assistance dogs, people receiving the dogs do not pay for them at all, so there is no cost increase to the end user."

I wish.  ;>  I have had three excellent service dogs over the years and not one was free to me. While it's true that there are some agencies that have ongoing fund raising programs and provide trained dogs to disabled individuals free of charge, they are few and far between. There are some other agencies that charge a fee that covers part of the cost of procuring, raising, and training the dog (typically about $5,000) and make up the rest of the cost (estimated at $15-20k per dog) through donations.

If AB1634 is enacted, guide and service dog programs that have spent many years building their own breeding programs will face increased costs due to the unspecified increased licensing fees who so far have had no limits at all placed on them and are entirely up to the whim of local animal authorities., or be forced to abandon their programs because they cannot get healthy breeding stock anymore.

Ironically, hobby breeders, who will be severely impacted if AB 1634 is enacted have traditionally been the people who have donated their healthy, well bred puppies to the guide and service dog organizations, providing the orgs not only with puppies to evaluate and train as service animals, but also with future breeding stock to improve their own lines.

The downside to applying to service dog organizations is that there are many more people who need service dogs than there are trained dogs available so the waiting lists can be problematic. A good friend of mine died while he waited for his name to get to the top of one organization's list.

Disabled people who cannot wait so long can find organizations or individuals who will claim to train service animals, however the costs can be outta sight, and they may or may not get a dog who is an appropriate service animal. Unfortunately some unscrupulous individuals have seen the $$$ in SDs the same way others have found $$ in 'designer dogs.'

Some disabled folks have been fortunate to have healthy dogs with stable temperaments before they had a need for service animals, as well as training skills and experience, and have opted to train their own. So far over the years I'm 3 for 3, which is pretty amazing when you consider that 50% or more of the puppies trained by agencies wash out before graduation.

My first dog was a middle aged purebred male who came from known parentage with a history of excellent temperament and proven trainability, as well as generations of  genetic health testing behind him.  When he retired, his middle aged daughter stepped into the role and was equally capable. Interestingly enough, her mother came from an excellent and conscientious California breeder who has raised other puppies who have gone on to become therapy or service dogs.

If AB1634 is enacted, half of a line of proven service dogs will likely become extinct and the disabled individuals who could have enjoyed a better quality of life with the assistance of a good service dog will just be disenfranchised once more.

My current  partner is a grandson of  my original boy ... both were bred by a good friend of mine who is also a veterinarian. He has proven to be as steady, as trainable, and most of all as willing to assist me as his auntie and granddad were and I am convinced that this is far more a factor of genetics than anything else.  It is very discouraging to me to even think about what kinds of service dog candidates I'll be left to choose from if AB 1634 passes, or how  much of my independence I will have to relinquish when I cannot find an appropriate dog to train once my current boy retires.

You also stated:
" And, as much as some of us would like it to be true, there will always be shelter dogs to choose and train for the tasks you mention."

I would disagree... although there has been some success in training some shelter dogs as hearing alert dogs for instance, many disabled people need dogs for mobility assistance.  Unfortunately studies have shown that early neutering has been responsible for osteosarcoma in dogs, and it also impedes normal bony and musculature development. Mobility dogs need strong bones and musculature in order to perform their jobs safely. 

Dogs also end up in shelters due to temperament and behavioral  problems.  Service dogs who are out in public need to be absolutely bombproof, nonreactive, and able to deal with ever changing situations and environments. The odds of finding a shelter dog who can handle this sort of responsibility is not very high and trainers I know who have attempted to develop shelter dogs into public access service dogs have not had very encouraging experiences.

Dogs from known parentage with demonstrated stable temperaments, proven trainability, and generations of genetic testing behind them will always be a more successful and cost effective option when it comes to choosing service dog candidates.

It also disappoints me that a proponent of AB 1634 would appear to be resigned to the idea that, if enacted, the bill is not going to even resolve the problem of homeless dogs in shelters, which is the stated goal.  I have to think that the folks who see this bill simply as a ploy to eliminate hobby breeders are probably onto the real purpose and motive behind the bill.

If AB 1634 is enacted, families who hope to have companion dogs in their lives once their current dogs pass over the bridge need to consider where those new companions will come from....  midwest or Pennsylvania puppy mills that sell to pet shops?  Underground backyard breeders? Internet puppy mills? Puppies smuggled in illegally from Mexico perhaps? The odds of finding a responsible, conscientious hobby breeder in CA will be slim to none, and conscientious breeders in other states will be very reluctant to send their puppies to a state that mandates pediatric neutering either because it's not in the best interests of the puppy's proper development.

Voters who value companion animals in their lives need to seriously consider whether this bill is really about the welfare of the animals, or simply another step in the animal rights agenda to eliminate pet ownership. Having spent my entire life enjoying  the company of  animals, I oppose AB 1634.

A response to Weebles, and a compliment to TK...I show and breed Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, and I am also opposed to AB 1634 for reasons you may not have even thought of.  AB 1634 is wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to start.  Most importantly, four months of age is far too young to alter any animal.  Sexual hormones play a very big role in the growth of that animal, helping to close growth plates at the proper time (around one year of age, usually). 

Secondly, not one puppy I have sold has ever ended up in any shelter.  I sell only on spay/neuter contracts with a clause that the puppy MUST come back to me if for any reason the buyer cannot keep it.  I reinforce that there are no questions asked, and no judgements passed...but the pup must come back to me.  If I cannot legally qualify for an intact animal permit (which the current way the law is written, no one can), then people who want purebred dogs will be forced to buy from commercial breeders and puppy mills (yes, those awful, inhumane places) and have the puppy shipped to them in California.  I will tell you flat out that it is THOSE puppies that will end up in shelters.  They are not socialized properly, and are often unhealthy.  I am also the rescue chair for our Cavalier club, and the only dogs we see anymore coming into rescue are from puppy mills--I have seen that first hand, so I know it is those dogs who will be coming in to shelters.  Tell me again how this is going to reduce the number of animals euthanized??  Irresponsible breeders will continue to fly under the radar, and this bill will probably make some of them not get proper veterinary care for their animals because they will be afraid their vets might turn them in.  How is that going to help their animals???

Lastly, EVERYONE agrees that people should spay or neuter their pet!  Responsible breeders of purebred cats and dogs feel the same way.  Not all dogs should be bred, and it should be left to the experts in each breed as to which animals are the right quality to breed.  Responsible breeders are going to be the ones who are paying the price in unregulated (by the state) fees that can be astronomical, depending on what your local bureaucrats decide on. 

Another thing people might not realize is that bills like this are funded by organizations such as Humane Society of the US, which is linked to PETA (identified by the FBI as a terrorist organization), Doris Day Animal League, and other radical animal rights organizations, whose ultimate goal is to outlaw owning of any animal as a pet.  Check it out for yourselves...it's sad but true.  There is animal welfare, and there is animal rights and they are two polar opposites.   Please just investigate for yourselves and don't blindly go along with anyone until you have educated yourself in what the real issues are.

TK, you have won my heart...you obviously understand this whole situation much better than Weebles does.  Weebles, you ask "how do you separate the back yard breeder from the responsible breeder"?  The answer is, you educate yourself in what to ask any breeder.  This is not hard to do...visit just about any web site for any national breed club, and you will find many useful hints to ask any breeder you are thinking of buying from.  It does not take too much work to do this, either...much of it is common sense.

The problem with the permit is this:  There are no standards to what any one locale can charge for this.  They can impose ANY requirements they want to, such as making the breeder get a kennel license (which none are being granted in my county any more).  Even if a kennel license is available, you would probably have to construct a whole separate building on your 1/4 acre property to house your dogs (even though you do perfectly well in caring for your babies in your home now).  Dogs are not meant to live in kennels, they are meant to be part of your family and live in your home.

The problem is that unless you have educated yourself in what you are talking about, you can mislead other people.  This bill is written and well funded by the likes of PETA and HSUS (who, by the way, is not your local shelter, for those who do not know).  We give regularly to our local shelter, but not one dime will ever go to these other organizations.  It is very poorly written, with so many loopholes you could fly a kite through them.  Public education is and always has been, the key to controlling animal overpopulation.

That is exactly correct.  PETA and HSUS consider owning pets to be speciesism.  They are dedicated to erasing breeds and seeing a time when we will not abuse animals by keeping them as pets or working companions.  HSUS and PETA financially support these types of bills precisely because, if enforced, they will eventually remove pets from our homes.

A previous writer asked what can be done other than this bill to reduce the unwanted pet population.  I don't think enough has been done to make pet sterilization available to low income people.  A friend of mine had a male cat adopt her family, as cats will do.  She wanted to get him neutered, but it was going to cost almost $100, which she could not afford.  I know another person who took in a couple dumped kittens and was able to get dollars-off vouchers for their spays, but it still cost her $40 per kitten.  I would donate to have a mobile spay/neuter truck to drive through neighborhoods and perform low-cost surgeries.  Better yet, ask PETA or HSUS for a donation.

Also, why is our Animal Control allowing intact animals to be adopted out?  No animal adopted from the shelter should be allowed to reproduce.  Instead of adding a spay/neuter deposit fee onto the adoption cost, do the surgery before the animal is allowed to go to its new home.  That could also prevent impulse adoptions.

Again, the problem is not with the responsible breeders, but AB 1634 will harm the responsible breeders.  Write and speak out against this bill.      

And another thing: trying to price out puppy and kitten producers will be less harmful to the puppy mills than to hobby-breeders.  The puppy mill is making tons of money because they don't get proper veterinary care; they aren't sending the bitch or queen out to mate with a carefully selected stud; they aren't providing quality living quarters.  The hobby-breeder spends money on all these things plus vehicles to drive their animals in (the bigger the dog = the bigger the van or suv), a sitter whenever they have to be away (I've known hobbyists who hire a midday sitter to check on things), plus the incidental expenses of attending club meetings and participating in club functions (gas, meals out, event donations). 

Since the enforcement of this law would depend entirely upon revenue from the intact permits, I will bet you the permit fee would be high in most local jursdictions.  When has any nanny-law been cheap to enforce?      

This is rediculous!  Why don't we mandate that illegal aliens be fixed?  They are a much greater burden than puppies or kittens.  There are far more important issues the government needs to address!

...and another thing.  Such a bill would not allow me to own dogs.  I have owned purebred dogs, they are difficult for the average person to train and they are often expensive.  I have had much better luck with pure bred muts!  A FREE puppy from a shopping cart at Wal-Mart is the best dog one could own. 

Well, it appears I am still waiting to hear a reasonable solution offered up by someone else. It's incredibly easy to sit back and complain about what others are trying to do, but if you're going to do it, how about offering up an alternative?

Most of the people posting against it appear to have connections to breeding dogs, so it's pretty obvious why there would be opposition. What isn't obvious is what you proposed we do about the issue of pet overpopulation?

I'm a reasonable person and am happy to look at the viewpoint of another. Offer up a solution that's better than AB1634 and I'll be right there with you, but thus far you've yet to offer anything.

If you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Hey weebles, I offered two solutions.  Why can't you see beyond the PETA / HSUS rhetoric?  Why are you so anti-hobby breeder?  What is your experience with responsible breeders?  Have you ever met one?  Why do you think an intact permit would be affordable?  How much do you think will be needed to enforce AB1634?  Do you think that only the rich should be allowed to have breeding stock?  You say you've read the bill.  Have you read it critically?  Have you asked questions about it, such as how will we be able to replace the thousands of service / working dogs in this state?  What's your answer to that?  How will a retired person who has invested 30+ years to her bloodline be able to afford another fee?  She already pays 300% over the next person in license fees.  What will you tell her? 

You said earlier that breeders aren't asked to get a business license.  Why not?  That may be the answer (add this to my two other suggestions from above).  Define a business.  Most hobby-breeders will never meet the criteria for a business license because they produce so few puppies and kittens. 

 I'm waiting for your answer.

I'm not anti hobby breeder at all...and you cannot find one place in this entire blog that will say otherwise.

I've known a number of responsible breeders. people who truly and deeply care about the animals they bring into the world. Of the people I have known for decades who are hobby breeders, most of them believe that the day is coming soon when they will need some sort of professional credential or license, just as a way to distinguish themselves in the public's eyes from the backyard breeders that have infested the marketplace.

And i do have a bias against people who think there is a problem, agree that something needs to be done, but do not want one dime of it to come from their pockets.

There is already a mobile spay/neuter unit available in the county, through the SPCA. Did you know that? Unfortunately, there's no money to hire the staff to take it out. I'm sure they'd be happy to get a donation from you or your group to have an event up here.

And I completely agree with you regarding the current Animal Control policies. I'm hoping that now that they have a vet on staff that will change.

Again, it is clear you and I are on the opposite side of the fence on this issue, as I believe I stated quite a ways back. I respect that you may disagree with me. I won't change your mind, and you won't change mine. I started the blog post for those people who may feel as I do and want to do a little something about it.  Not to argue with someone who I truly believe is more in agreement than disagreement with me regarding pet overpopulation.

More questions about AB1634:  What happens to dogs coming in for shows or competitions?  There is no exclusion for visitors.  So, my brother will have to leave his collie bitch in a kennel or with a pet-sitter when he comes to visit me.  Sorry, Bro, stay away if you want to keep your girl intact.

Why does every surgery and health evaluation have to be performed by a California veterinarian?  Is it any wonder the CVMA is a supporter of this bill?  Where is the exception for the folks who live in border towns like Earp, CA?  They won't be able to use their regular vets in Parker, AZ (one mile away).  They will be required to travel 50 miles to Blythe (the closest California town with a vet).

Why is there no exclusion for the military?  Our military must follow orders on where to live and work.  Are we going to require our military assigned to California bases to either sterilize their animals or leave them outside the state during their tour of duty?  It's hard enough to pick up and move every couple of years without adding Rover's forced neutering to the mix.

Section 122336.2 states that ALL of the following  conditions must be met for an intact permit:  1) registered purebred, 2) trained service/guide/signal dog, 3) trained for law enforcement, 4) certified unhealthy by a California vet.  Where is the dog who can qualify for all four of the conditions?  Sounds like a set up to denying everyone a permit. 

I have an idea.  Since drunk driving is a terrible problem in this country, let's require everyone who wants to drive to install a breath-alyzer to their ignition.  The costs of installation and maintenance will be borne by the car owner.  That way, only sober people will be allowed to start up their car.  Drunk drivers will disappear from our streets.  Social ill corrected by a bit of legislature.

Weebles - you say you read the bill. I read it too, and the first time I interpreted it similarly to you, but read it again and more carefully to see what it actually says. For the official version go to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/b... and enter '1634'. It's not a long document and it should be thrown out purely on the basis of being so badly written.

In order to qualify for an exemption a dog must be registered with a recognized registry AND a trained service dog AND a working police dog AND have a letter from a vet  saying it is not healthy enough to undergo the procedure.

A cat must be registered and have a letter saying it is not healthy enough for the procedure.

Elsewhere it says the procedure must have been performed by a CALIFORNIA vet (what about people who move here with an already altered pet?)

What is worse, the bill specifically says it does not prevent local jurisdictions from enacting more restrictive legislation. Since it adds a lot of bureaucracy to local jurisdictions without adding funding except what could be earned from penalties and licenses, many will probably choose to simply refuse to allow permits, and where they do exist they will probably be unreasonably expensive.

It's hard to believe so little care is taken in drafting a bill that will have a big impact on people and their pets. I would be ashamed if I were them.

As for the title, HEALTHY PETS, it is not honest. There has been so much emphasis on spaying and neutering for population control that only the positive benefits have been publicized. It does reduce the risk of mammary cancers and eliminate testicular cancers.. But it increases the incidence of other, more common, and more devastating cancers, as well as orthopedic problems (hip dysplasia, anterior cruciate ligament ruptures), incontinence, dementia, susceptibility to infectious diseases, and some behavior problems. A complete review of the literature causes most to conclude that while spay/neuter may be beneficial for the convenience of the owner, it is detrimental to the health of male dogs, and neutral for female dogs (but not recommended before maturity). This does not include the fact that it is surgery and surgery is always a risk, even for healthy individuals. I personally know people who lost dogs during spay operations, or had a male dog injured during neutering.

For references regarding pros and cons of spaying/neutering with a very balanced analysis go to http://www.naiaonline.org/p... . Also see  symposium proceedings from The Alliance for Contraception in Cats and Dogs, an organization working to solve pet population problems worldwide, http://www.acc-d.org/2006%2... Scroll down to SESSION I, Non-Reproductive Effects of Spaying and Neutering.

It is not right for the government to force potentially damaging surgery on our pets. Balancing the pros and cons and deciding when and if to alter needs to be decided between an own and her veterinarian. Government mandate is too rigid and inflexible to respond to changing conditions and information.

Now to discuss effectiveness. Proponents of such legislation like to lump all causes for euthanasia together and make it sound like all are the result of healthy animals for which homes can not be found. This is not true.

Approximately a third of animals euthanized in shelters were turned in by their owners for euthanasia for health or behavior problems, for which they often pay a fee. Low income people often use shelters as a source of low cost euthanasia, just as those of us who are better off will take our suffering pets to a vet to be put to sleep. This number would not be affected by the proposed law.

A large percentage of cats and dogs in a shelter are feral cats or kittens produced by feral cats (approx 25 - 30% in many areas). Studies have shown that, depending on area, from 85 to 96% of owned cats, including kittens, are altered. Unaltered cats are not easy to live with - toms spray, and queens cycle over and over until bred, crying and carrying on. The number of kittens produced by owned cats is much lower than what would produce zero population growth. Feral cats would not be affected by the proposed law.

Most dogs turned in to shelters are not puppies, they are adolescent or older and have already had owners. The problem is not one of overpopulation, it is one of retention. These numbers will not be affected by the proposed law. Instead of enforcing draconian laws resources would be better used on programs that are proven to help people keep their pets - education, help with behavior problems, etc.

NOTE: the numbers of puppies, and in-demand small dogs being turned in to shelters in some areas is so low the shelters have taken to importing puppies and dogs from areas of the country that still have an over-supply and even from other countries.

A significant number of animals in shelters are euthanized because of poor health, injuries, aggression, or other behavior problems that makes it irresponsible to place them. This number will not be affected by the proposed law. 

There will always be animals who end up in shelters because of the owner's death, serious illness, or other legitimate, unavoidable, and unpredictable circumstances. These numbers will not be affected by the proposed law. 

The actual number of healthy, adoptable animals being euthanized in shelters is only a small percentage of the numbers being reported. And only a small percentage would be affected by the proposed law.

Yes, we want to reduce that number to as near zero as possible, but great strides have been made and can be continued without the devastatingly negative impacts of punitive legislation.  

Based on census numbers and lifespan estimates, California residents will want about two million new cats and dogs per year. Where will these animals come from? Smuggled from Mexico? Imported from overseas? Purchased over the Internet from substandard breeders in the Midwest? Certainly not from the good California breeders who put their hearts and souls into producing healthy, well-socialized puppies and kittens, who provide support to owners so they will be successful with their new pets, and who insist on taking back any animal of their breeding the new owners are unable to keep for any reason. These people will be unable to meet the onerous requirements of 1634 and stop breeding.