TK, who are you???  You are so right on in all of your posts.  And to DrEnaDVM, I am truly sorry that you have such a bad perception of breeders.  Obviously the breeder you mention is not the type of breeder we are referring to.  I have a wonderful relationship with all the 19 vets on staff where I go...they all know I am a breeder and they all respect me, and refer clients who want Cavaliers to me...not because I breed much, but because I know who the other good breeders are in the area and they trust my judgement.  They also know I will do ANYTHING for my dogs to keep them happy and healthy.  They know I place my puppies in well screened homes, and will take those puppies back for any reason at any time if it doesn't work out.  I am a member of two national breed clubs, and I'm also the rescue chair for our local AKC affiliate.  And, not one puppy I have EVER bred has ended up in a shelter.

The "breeders" you should be railing against are the brokers who sell puppy mill dogs in this and other states.  When we outlaw the selling of puppies by brokers, you will see the incidence of purebred dogs in shelters go down dramatically.  Then go after the back yard breeders (who I suspect was the Basset breeder).  They truly do not care about their animals and are only out to make a buck, pure and simple. 

There ARE good, honest, ethical breeders out there and they are the ones the state should be encouraging, not trying to slap us with having to buy an intact animal permit that no one can possibly even qualify for. 

Just a few points Dr Ena: was the Basset's treatable disease hereditary?  Is the Basset breeder/owner affiliated with any national or local clubs or organizations?  Does the Basset breeder require a contract with every dog sold?  Does the Basset breeder compete in any field trials or conformation?  Did you see the puppy's mother for a pre-breeding exam, a pre-natal exam, a newborn/post-partum exam of mother and litter within 48 hours of birth?  Did this Basset breeder have you on telephone standby when the bitch began labor?  A responsible breeder would have had you involved before the conception.  How do you know this is not some backyard breeder or, worse yet, a puppy mill breeder?   

I am surprised that you never met a responsible dog breeder in your years of practice.  I worked many years with veterinarians in California, Maryland, and Iowa, and the vets I worked with loved getting the show/competition breeders because they would spend a fortune on their dogs.  Before I "got into" the dog world, I thought the breeder/show/competition dog people I met at work were a little cuckoo about their dogs.  They would bring them in for the tiniest thing; something the average dog owner wouldn't even notice.  The difference between the backyard breeder and a responsible breeder: I checked in a poodle bitch with a prolapsed uterus that had happened the night before (backyard) vs. I checked in a Weimaraner dog with a growth the size of a small split pea on his thigh (responsible). 

Dr Ena, if you would like to meet a responsible dog breeder, we call them hobby-breeders, I can introduce you to half a dozen tomorrow.  They are proud of the animals who carry their kennel name.  They compete in AKC and ARBA shows and field trials.  They can talk intelligently with you on skeletal structure, congenital defects, vaccination protocols, and nutrition.  Of course they stand to lose money if more fees are required for them to keep a couple animals intact.  Some of them will not be able to afford it and will have to retire their show dogs.  It won't be the loss of status that hurts them, it won't be the loss of income (they will actually be saving money by not showing dogs), the pain will be the loss of their bloodlines and the loss of their efforts over decades to improve their breed. 

I am a veterinarian with seventeen years of experience in clinical practice. I spent 12years becoming a veterinarian.  I have worked with Mastiff Rescue, Siamese Rescue and Brittany Spaniel Rescue. In my seventeen years as a veterinarian, I have not met a SINGLE responsible breeder. I hear of theretical responsible breeders existance, but I have yet to meet one in person.

Today, a breeder asked to have her Bassett Hound puppy with a treatable disease put to sleep--if she treated it, she would not make any profit on it.  Ask yourself, what sort of mentality does it take to look at a puppy with giant eyes and ears, and euthanize it?  In any argument, follow the money.  Who stands to lose it?   The context of breeding a dog or a cat at this time, is that you are adding a dog or cat to an overpopulation. We have an excess of a million pets a year in California. We are KILLING a dog or a cat EVERY 20 SECONDS in our state. We are killing about five million in our contry. What does that say about us?

You can argue all you want about constitutional rights, but unless we stop the flow of surplus animals, we are chosing to keep things status quo.  Breeders have no solutions. They are pointing fingers at someone else, and twisting the truth,  because if the bill passes, it will cost them some money.  The dogs and cats are not beings, they are widgets. When a bad one is born, you breed another one, until a judge gives you a prize, status and that earns you some more money and status.

I challenge you to walk into your nearest shelter tomorrow, walk out knowing that half of the animals you saw will be killed, and then... continue arguing.  In this argument--you are either for stopping the killing of innocent beings, or you are for continuing it.  If you want to stop the killing, DO SOMETHING.  Please.

Dr. Ena

Weebles,

YOu ask how do we stop the killing of pets?

How do you stop people from killing each other? Or beating their kids?  Education, Education Education.

Reading what people are saying,reading for yourself what the facts really are, and then MOST IMPORTANTLY- acting on it!

If you hear somebody say - I really love my dog and we're going to breed him to get one just like him - STOP them.  Tey are breeding NOT cloning - the chances of getting a dog just like precious Rover are slim and what about the other 5, 6, or 7 puppies?

If you hear someone say I really need some extra money and everybody just loves Piddy, she's such a wonderful cat - STOP THEM - breeding for money is the very worse reason - How much can you possibly make after special food for the mom, worming, first shots,  and what if the kittens are not sold - are they going to throw them in the nearest river or drop them off on some farmer, or dump them at a shelter?

If you care -act.

Do you realize that all states already have this law - it's called a dog license

It's more expensive for unaltered animals than for altered animals

Do you also realize - that unlike helmets or car seats - you have to register you dog or cat with a specific club?

And finally the people that are sending the UNWANTED puppies to the shelters  are the ones that are NOT buying licenses for their dogs.

The only section of society this bill is going to hurt are the ones that care for their pets in the first place and care for the government rules in the second place.

A breeder that dumps dogs on a shelter is quickly  labeled 'bad' by his fellow breeders and is quickly shunned by buyers.

The only people that don't care about that are the puppy mills breeders and guess which clubs are willing to accept their blood money.

Let me give you a choice of names:

As introduced, AB 1634 would create a new Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 122336) to Part 6 of Division 105 of the Health and Safety Code, providing "a person shall not own or possess within the state any cat or dog over the age of four months that has not been spayed or neutered, unless that person possesses an intact permit, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 122336."  Permits only available to:

(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. Or service/law enforcement/veterinary exemption.  

If no S/N within 30 days of compliance date, provide vet letter or s/n within 75 days after compliance date.  $500 civil fine(s), waivable if permit obtained or s/n done.

 

It's not choice E.

It is illegal to drive drunk, yet it happens.  It is illegal to cross the border without documentation, yet it happens.  Make it illegal to have unaltered pets, it will still happen.  I have a farm, I have cats that found us and help keep the rodent population in check.  They are not fixed, they have kittens, these kittens do not bother anyone.  Some fall casualty to coyotes, that is the circle of life.  You want a proposed solution...have our lawmakers focus on laws that are necessary and beneficial, not this garbage! 

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.

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.

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'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.

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.

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.

...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. 

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: 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?