Healthy Pets Act Hearing! FREE Transportation Provided!!

AB1634 is not about healthy pets. This bill is sponsored b y PETA who gets million s of dollars indonations and never puts any of that money towards helping animals or shelters. AB1634 is about taking away my constitutional right to have a pure-bred dog. An d it is my right to have a pure-bred if I want. Don't tell me to only adopt a pound puppy when you don't know the kind of work I do with my dog. He's used in protection work and sheep herding.'

If PETA is so concerned about animal welfare, they why don't they and HSUS (worth $200 million) start plunking money into the shelters and make mandatory obedience trainging the criteria for ownning pets?

Keep your paws off my rights!

If you actually read the bill text rather than let yourself be brainwashed, you would learn that the bill is NOT "sponsored" by PETA (a complete myth), NOR does it have anything to with taking away purebred dogs (another out and out LIE). Follow the link to the full, up to date, and complete bill text. Free yourself from the radical rhetoric of those who have a vested interest in dog and cat over population. Here is a link to the sections of the bill that exposes the lies you have obviously been told: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/CHP%20Rebuttal.pdf

If Humane Society Funds are so short in the state, how can the SPCA affort to provide free transportation to Sacramento for the purpose of attending the Appropriation's Committee hearing on May 16th? I assume that this opportunity is open to both those in opposition and those that support AB1634. Please respond. There are those in opposition that would be interested in transportation to Sacramento to show their position as well.

Especially considering many pet owners are against this bill and for good reason.

All the proponents of AB 1634 have are emotional arguments. They use them because they're effective. People need to see past those to get to the facts.

The Humane Society of the US (an animal rights organization pushing hard for this bill) is committed to making it harder and harder for people to have pets. They'd like to "spay and neuter them out of existence".

Wayne Pacelle himself has stated he'd like to see no more dogs or cats born.

The animal rights agenda is clear - a meatless, petless society. No animals in our lives.

AB 1634 has virtually no exemptions for any but commercial breeders. The good breeders will be shut down. In addition there are many health issues with castrating animals especially at 4 months of age.

Learn more about the animal rights agenda, whats at stake in California and how animal rights groups like the Humane Society of the US are deceiving the public -

http://www.ab1634.com/index.htm
http://www.saveourdogs.net

For a profile of the HSUS -

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/136

Unfortunately, the opponents to AB 1634 are spreading inaccurate propaganda about the bill - either due to ignorance, or flat out deception. The interesting thing is that all we're asking is for people to read the bill... then it will speak for itself. The opposition has no grounds for argument when you've got the truth in hand. This doesn't take away breeding rights, this isn't sponsored by PETA, and it excludes service dogs, registered breeders, etc. If you read the bill (which isn't that long) you would know that. Unfortunately, the special interests of breeders and pro-vivisection organizations (Yes, AKC is teaming up with animal testers) are overpowering the truth. We hope that any of you reading these posts will know better than to believe me, them, or anyone else - think for yourself - read the bill, and decide from there.

And by the way, the bus is leaving from the Santa Cruz SPCA - it's being paid for by the AB 1634 coalition. So you can scratch the idea that we're using any of our funds for it.

Reading the bill will clear up ALL of the outlandish claims, propaganda, and lies.

Also, the statistics of the situation are clear enough. We dont need "emotional arguments" because there are plenty of facts to back up our position. It's all public record.

And come on, we want to get rid of pets? That's just silly.

The bus we are using is being provided by the AB 1634 coalition, NOT public money. It is a private bus that is very kindly being provided for supporters of the bill. We have absolutely no obligation, legal, ethical or otherwise, to provide rides for people who are against the bill. I’m sure there is an anti-AB 1634 coalition that will help get their supporters to Sacramento.

Not that this is really relevant since we did not in fact pay for the transportation, but on a side note I would just like to add that the Santa Cruz SPCA receives no public funding either way. Private donations pay for our operating costs, animal rescue efforts and programs for the people and animals of our community.

I am an engineer by trade and education. I deal in facts and figures. The fact is that there is not pet over population in CA. If there was, why are the shelter population and euth numbers down by over 50% in the last 10 years? If there was such a crisis, why are tens of thousands of puppies being smuggled in from Mexico every year? Smuggling only pays if there is a market.
I talked to my vet about spaying and neutering before 4 months of age. She told me that I would not be able to find a vet that would do the surgery at such an age for a family pet because it is NOT in the best interest of the dog or cat. She started to list all of the possible negatitive affects of the surgery and I had to stop her after 10 minutes. She agreed that it is not often that a dog or cat dies from the surgery, but it is possible.
In her opinion as a general vet and emergancy room vet that given the chronic conditions that early spay and neuter can cause, that most people will give up on the hassle and expense and dump their animal at the shelter. More animals that didn't need to die in a shelter will die in a shelter because of the AR agenda.
AR is behind this bill. It might be sponcered by others, but those people are members of the AR groups. The city of San Jose shelter is FULL of AR and all of their "educational" handouts are supplied by AR groups. So don't tell me that AR groups like PETA isn't behind this. They are just pulling the strings like on a puppet.
I have both spayed and neutered dogs and I have intact dogs. I will never spay or neuter another dog that I own because of the negative health effects that my spayed and neutered dogs have "enjoyed"- NOT. My intact dogs don't have those problems. I show my dogs and I can tell you that my dogs will not be exempted from this bill. If this passes, by law I will have to spay and neuter my dogs because I doubt that what my dogs have done in the last two years will count for the pleasure of paying for a permit. When I get another puppy, the odds are low that it will earn a qualifying title before it is 2. Requiring a title by the age of two is unreasonable. Another way to look good, but in reality just get everything spayed and neutered. What was the quote, "One generation and out", I think it was. One generation of spaying and neutering and then no more animals. Except they will be coming in over the border, sick, diseased, genetic health issues, unsocialized and underaged. Yep that will lower the euth rate in CA- NOT
And if anyone is wondering, this bill is a direct violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. If you don't know what those are, go google them. Get educated and then post your appology.

"AB1634 is about taking away my constitutional right to have a pure-bred dog. An d it is my right to have a pure-bred if I want. "

I'm sorry, but I have read both the state and federal constitutions, and I can assure you that neither of them (in any way, shape, or form) guarantee your right to a pure-bred dog. When you make arguments against a measure, you should at least attempt to not make things up.

"And if anyone is wondering, this bill is a direct violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. If you don't know what those are, go google them. Get educated and then post your appology."

I suppose I'll say right now I don't particularly care about this bill. What I care about is idiots like you people calling on the Bill of Rights to protect you when you don't even understand it. As a student studying civil liberties, I'll explain the three aforementioned amendments:

First amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
As you can see, there is no law guaranteeing your right to own an unneutered animal. You have the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech and press, the right to gather in large groups, and the right to oppose the government.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
The fourth amendment promises that yourself and your property cannot be searched or seized against probable cause. Again, nothing about pets. I suppose if it were illegal to own an unspayed cat and the cops busted in and found it without a permit, this particular amendment would help. Good luck with that...

The fourteen amendment is too long for me to be bothered with, but it was enacted to give rights to former slaves. Again, no mention of pets.

So what was it you were saying again? Maybe you were giving an "appology"?

No 'appology' forthcoming. Spelling aside, there is absolutely no way that ANYONE who knows anything at all about this issue can claim that there is no pet overpopulation. It's not disputed on either side. Everyone, those for this bill and against this bill, agree on the fact that there is an over population of dogs and cats in California. Is what's disputed is how to deal with it. I think it's you who needs to get educated. I can tell by your post that you either did not in fact read the bill, or did not understand it.

I would be wasting my time to address every silly claim made in that post. However, I work in an animal shelter, and I live in a town with a mandatory spay/neuter law. I've seen hundreds and hundreds of animals get spayed and neutered at 8 weeks. You know how many times i've seen a complication? Once. On the other hand, it would be impossible for me count how many unneutered stray dogs we've gotten in with aggressive tendencies.

Also, you're 50% statistic is a stat from my town, NOT the whole of California. The law here has been extremely successful, i've seen it firsthand, so groundless propaganda wont work on me or anyone else who knows anything about this law.

"The animal rights agenda is clear - a meatless, petless society. No animals in our lives."

Yeah, have you ever met an ANIMAL RIGHTS activist who doesn't have a ton of pets? No one cares more about pets than an animal rights activist, the last thing they'd want is a petless society. In fact they'd love for every person to make a pet out of the abandoned dogs and cats that have to be killed.

>>I am an engineer by trade and education. I deal in facts and figures. The fact is that there is not pet over population in CA.

sorry, Francis, but that's your opinion and not a fact. fact is that 300,000 animals are put down a year in California. a great number of people are of the opinion that that is simply too many. when you factor in that California annually spends hundreds of millions housing and euthanizing unwanted animals, even more people think that's too many (source: http://www.doggonecalifornia.org/)

>>If there was, why are the shelter population and euth numbers down by over 50% in the last 10 years? If there was such a crisis, why are tens of thousands of puppies being smuggled in from Mexico every year? Smuggling only pays if there is a market.

yes, the pure breed market. people who must have that "pure" poodle and don't want to pay US prices. that has absolutely nothing to do with there being a shortage of dogs in California. there is no shortage when hundreds of thousands are put down every year.

>> I talked to my vet about spaying and neutering before 4 months of age. She told me that I would not be able to find a vet that would do the surgery at such an age for a family pet because it is NOT in the best interest of the dog or cat. She started to list all of the possible negatitive affects of the surgery

totally misleading. the law says older than 4 months, not younger. please, don't lie, or read the law you claim to have read closer. besides, under four months is sometimes easier for the animal than waiting until they are an adult. those interested in the real story on spay/neuter and animal health can read it for themselves from a variety of sources:
http://www.google.com/search?q=spaying+dog+health

>>and I had to stop her after 10 minutes. She agreed that it is not often that a dog or cat dies from the surgery, but it is possible.

that's a far-fetched fear tactic. it's way more likely that your "pet" will die by being hit by a car or testicular cancer or feline leukemia.

>>In her opinion as a general vet and emergancy room vet that given the chronic conditions that early spay and neuter can cause,

again, do your own google search on this. the info listed on the first page of that search is not from "radical" animal rights groups

>>that most people will give up on the hassle and expense and dump their animal at the shelter. More animals that didn't need to die in a shelter will die in a shelter because of the AR agenda.

again, hundreds of thousands of animals are already being dumped or otherwise left for shelters to deal with. and the cost is relatively low, very often under a hundred bucks, sometimes even lower if you look around. for a list of reputable lo-cost spay and neuter locations in California: http://www.lovethatcat.com/stca.html.

>>AR is behind this bill. It might be sponcered by others, but those people are members of the AR groups. The city of San Jose shelter is FULL of AR and all of their "educational" handouts are supplied by AR groups. So don't tell me that AR groups like PETA isn't behind this. They are just pulling the strings like on a puppet.

scary, scary, PETA. boo! you want the SJ shelter to feature dog-breeding-is-great pamplets? then how 'bout you volunteer there and actually deal with all of the unwanted pets they put down every year?

Of course, "The city of San Jose has enacted a spay/neuter (voucher) program beginning in October 1994. The program has so far been well-received, and while it is still early, the Humane Society is reporting an unusually "light" kitten (euthanasia) season, with no other explanation other than the (spay/neuter) voucher program." (source: http://www.fanciers.com/npa/sdsolution.html). And over 10 years later, somehow there are still dogs and cats for loving homes in San Jose.

>>I have both spayed and neutered dogs and I have intact dogs.

you must have a lot of dogs, at least 4. good for you.

>>I will never spay or neuter another dog that I own because of the negative health effects that my spayed and neutered dogs have "enjoyed"- NOT. My intact dogs don't have those problems.

that's a lie. again, anyone who cares to can see that google link above for the real facts on dog health and spaying/neutering

>>I show my dogs and I can tell you that my dogs will not be exempted from this bill. If this passes, by law I will have to spay and neuter my dogs because I doubt that what my dogs have done in the last two years will count for the pleasure of paying for a permit.

so your dogs, whom you show, are not worth registering? how do you show them if they are not already signed up with a group like the AKC? isn't that a requirement for show? and if they're not worth the trouble of registration with a dog group or the state of California, are you then admitting that you might very well be one of those people who will decide to contribute to "More animals that didn't need to die in a shelter will die in a shelter" with your own dogs?

>>When I get another puppy, the odds are low that it will earn a qualifying title before it is 2. Requiring a title by the age of two is unreasonable. Another way to look good, but in reality just get everything spayed and neutered. What was the quote, "One generation and out", I think it was.

you think it was? is that another "fact" of yours without a single citation? and an animal does not have to win a title, but merely be registered with the new law

fact: "Exceptions to this regulation would be for working police dogs, service dogs, dogs/cats registered with a recognized kennel club, or a dog/cat that has medical issues which a veterinarian states would compromise the animals life."

>>One generation of spaying and neutering and then no more animals.

more facts, huh? your predictive ability is 100%? or is it just more fear-based hyberbole? again, did San Jose's spay/neuter program in 1994, while somewhat different, end dogs and cats?

>>Except they will be coming in over the border, sick, diseased, genetic health issues, unsocialized and underaged. Yep that will lower the euth rate in CA- NOT

people who are crazed about pure breeds will keep this sick market alive regardless of spay/neuter requirements in California. besides, both sides in this debate over the proposed law agree that the spay/neuter law will cut down on unwanted animals that shelters must house and euthanize. you just take the hyperbolic position that it will mean ALL dogs will be put down except for the mexican dogs

>>And if anyone is wondering, this bill is a direct violation of the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. If you don't know what those are, go google them.

yes, people should do a google search, and stop listening to you. perhaps you'll come back here and detail how the constitutional rights to freedom of speech, unreasonable search and seizure, and due process you tossed off are violated by the new spay/neuter requirements

>>Get educated and then post your appology.

stop misinforming people and playing yourself off as some objective arbiter of "facts"

and when this law passes, will you dare to come back here and apologize yourself when your fear-based claims of doggie extinction don't come true?

----------------------

here's some interesting "facts" about spaying/neutering from a dog aficionado site:

"Many think that sterilization is cruel; they project their own feelings about loss of reproductive capacity on their pets. Many men have a difficult time dealing with neutering of their male pets.

And many pet owners and welfare advocates say that the cost of surgery keeps many families from having it done.

There are many myths about canine reproductive needs. Chiefly among these are the suspicion that neutering turns a male into a sissy and spaying causes a female to get fat and to lament her lost capacity.

...

As far as we know, dogs do not lament their lost capability to reproduce. This is a different species than ours; they reproduce to ensure survival of their kind, not to nurture a pup for 18 years, watch it go off to college, marry, establish a career, and produce grandchildren."

http://www.canismajor.com/dog/spayneut.html

My first amendment right is to be able to associate with people and groups of my own chosing. This bill will require me to associate with private organizations/associations in order to not be proscuted. This bill requires my local AC to decide what is an approved registry and what are legitimate show or sporting competitions sanctioned by approved purebred registry or associations. I don't decide what organizations or associations, my government does.
I happen to own a dog that is registered with the CKC- that is Canadian Kennel Club. AKC will not allow my dog to compete in their events no matter how much I would want to. It is against their rules for my dog to do so. Their right as a private organization. So every so often I head up to Canada and compete with my dog there. Can you say with absolute certainly that my local AC will put in their new regulations that the Canadian Kennel Club is an approved registry? Will Canadian shows and sporting events be legitimate? I think so, but I have no confidence in my local AC in even thinking of it.
Will I then be forced to get an AKC registered breed as my next dog so that I can continue with my hobby? There is my government sticking its nose into what breed of dog makes me happy. The 14th amendment deals with equal proction of the law. Why should I be descriminated aginst because my favorite breed of choice isn't recognized by my government but my neighbor's golden retriever is? The AKC only recognizes a fraction of the purebred breeds in the world.
I didn't see anything in this bill that allows for due process(5th and 14th amendment). It just says that if I am caught with an intact dog/cat over the age of 4 months and I don't have the proper permit, I will be fined $500, in addition to any other criminal or civil penalties my local government wishes to impose. I don't see anywhere where I have to be found quilty by a court of law before being fined and deemed a criminal.
It is against my 4th amendment rights because just being in possession of an intact dog/cat will cause me to be deemed quilty. I should be secure in my person, house, papers and effects(AKA property) from unreasonable searches and no person or property to be seized without a proper warrent. Dogs are property and there is no provision in the bill about a warrent needing to be issued before assessing fines and penalties.
I did forget about the 5th amendment. I could make a case that by forcing the neutering or spaying is taking private property for public use without just compensation. I am not seeing any payment for doing the surgery in this bill. This bill is supposely to save the taxpayers- the public from having to foot the bill for the so called pet over population. That sure sounds like for the public use to me. Deny my dog his testicles without paying me so the public will be saved a few cents. I happen to know that my intact dog is worth $75,000 US.
I have read this bill. I have read it more then a dozen times. Each time I read it, I get angry because I realize that it is taking another God-given right away from me. My dogs have not harmed one person and has not been responsible for one dog in a shelter. But this bill assumes that I am guilty because I wish to own an intact dog. This bill allows for a person to be "innocent" if they conform to the rules and regulations of a private organization and pays a yearly tax (that is what the permit is, a tax). How backward and un-American is that?

Purebreds are exempt. Show dogs are exempt. Dogs who are in the process of being trained for any kind of showing/sport/service are exempt. Dogs who's veterinarians feel would be put at risk by the spay or neuter surgery are exempt. I've read the bill. There are over 20 exemptions. This bill seems very reasonable to me. If someone does not want to spay or neuter their dog, they simply pay for an intact permit.

This might help put out of business back yard breeders who sell sick, diseased animals. It seems to me that the bill is mainly targeting irresponsible people who let their unneutered dogs roam the streets with no rabies shots. That kind of thing is very, very common. California has the highest number of dog bites out of all of the states, and according to the statistics, most of those bites are from dogs who have not been neutered. It seems pretty unlikely that someone who would let their dog roam like that would keep them current on their shots. Maybe the risk of a $500 fine will give them a little incentive to keep their dogs from roaming the streets.

Yes, it's a shame that a minority of responsible individuals should pay for those who are not responsible, but it's even less fair for those of us who spay and neuter our pets, those of us who are without a doubt not contributing to the problem in any way, to have to pay for it. California has a HUGE financial problem right now. Why waste millions of dollars killing countless unwanted animals, when their births could be prevented and the money could be better spent in our schools?

It's interesting that those against AB1634 talk incessantly about their constitutional rights to have pure-breds taken away. Why do you need to have a pure-bred that you purchase from a breeder? Why not a shelter dog? I worked at a shelter and saw thousands of beautiful, healthy dogs and cats (yes, quite a few pure-breds included) killed because of selfish jerks who don't want to spay and neuter. The people I know who have pure-breds don't tend to have any interest in stopping the killing that goes on in shelters every day because of pet overpopulation. I have a question for Donna Sue Jacobi and the rest of you who are against this bill: have any of you worked on behalf of shelter animals in any capacity? Have you volunteered time at a Humane Society, or worked at one? Have you helped fundraise for these organizations? Or do you only "love" the pure-breds that you "own", instead of caring about the welfare of all animals.

By the way, Donna Sue, I don't happen to give money to PETA but your claim that PETA never puts any of their money toward helping animals is inaccurate. You should do your research before you make a claim like that on a public forum, especially one you've signed your name to!

This bill is ridiculous. You can't make it mandatory to spay or neuter your pets just because there is an overpopulation. And making it so that puppy mills are exempt from this law is just encouraging bad treatment of purebreds for profit. Why should only the expensive dogs be able to reproduce? Immigrant women often have lots of children and use goverment services (wellfare, food stamps) to support them, does that mean it sould be mandatory to sterilize people on welfare to slow the growth of that part of the population and save tax dollars? You can't make it mandatory to modify a person's body, or a person's pet's body.....it's just ridiculous to make it mandatory with a penalty of a fine. Say someone didn't get their dog neutered because they couldn't afford the cost of the surgery....you're going to burden them with a $500 fine? Suppose they don't have the money to pay that fine, they want to keep their dog, they end up in jail for not paying their fine, their dog ends up in a shelter anyway where the taxpayers pay to have it fixed and then maybe euthanized. Good intentions but really, come on, how enforcable is this thing?

Well there was a huge turnout on both sides today to the appropriations hearing in Sacramento, but as we already knew, the facts were on our side! Both sides had a chance to present their case, and the committee voted in favor of AB 1634. It was a huge victory for the animals, the taxpayers, and for those of us who work in the animal welfare field.

In answer to Ann, i'll just say that the Santa Cruz SPCA has been compiling the most comprehensive free/low cost spay and neuter resource list. We were able to find multiple free/low cost programs in every single county in California. Some cities, such as LA, San Francisco and San Diego (to name just a few), had a HUGE number of programs; two very small rural communities had very few resources, but there was at least one or two programs in each of those areas. Free spay and neuter programs are WIDELY available. Since under this bill, people who are in violation are issued a warning first, and there are so many free programs, I don't see too much danger of additional financial burden on already economically underprivileged individuals.

Thank you to everyone who came out and showed their support! It was also great to see so many service dogs there with support buttons; especially because most of the blind/disabled people were so upset that they've been incorrectly used as another outlandish claim made by the opposition. They asked me if the opposition had even read the bill since service dogs are exempt. Again, thank you all for your dedication and hard work!!

There is a lot of misinformation flyng around about this bill. First, the bill will mandate spay, neuter except for dogs owned by commercial breeders (not necessarily prize winning dogs) and pure bred dogs that are show dogs or competitive dogs. If you have a pure bred dog but are not showing it or competing in trials, you will be required to spay or neuter. The numbers re impounds are estimates, though any number of unnecessarily destroyed dogs or cats are still little lives lost. The impound numbers include pets that are lost for a day or two, say Fido gets out and takes off after his bath. The cost makes no sense. Every city I have checked (which includes LA and many others that post data on the web) spends about 3 dollars per capita, net, on ALL animal services. sOme spend more gross, but recover more in fees. Some spend less and recover less in fees. The net doesn't vary much, though. In my city that $3 per capita includes costs for the no-kill shelter, barking dogs, coyotes in school yards, raccons wndering into kitchens, etc. There is something bizarre about the numbers here. Perhaps Laura Chick should look into it. She pretty sharp and has held other people's feet to the fire.

Oops. Left out a key NOT. There is a lot of misinformation flyng around about this bill. First, the bill will NOT mandate spay, neuter except for dogs owned by commercial breeders (not necessarily prize winning dogs) and pure bred dogs that are show dogs or competitive dogs. If you have a pure bred dog but are not showing it or competing in trials, you will be required to spay or neuter. The numbers re impounds are estimates, though any number of unnecessarily destroyed dogs or cats are still little lives lost. The impound numbers include pets that are lost for a day or two, say Fido gets out and takes off after his bath. The cost makes no sense. Every city I have checked (which includes LA and many others that post data on the web) spends about 3 dollars per capita, net, on ALL animal services. sOme spend more gross, but recover more in fees. Some spend less and recover less in fees. The net doesn't vary much, though. In my city that $3 per capita includes costs for the no-kill shelter, barking dogs, coyotes in school yards, raccons wndering into kitchens, etc. There is something bizarre about the numbers here. Perhaps Laura Chick should look into it. She pretty sharp and has held other people's feet to the fire.

OK got it this time:
There is a lot of misinformation flyng around about this bill. First, the bill will mandate spay, neuter except for dogs owned by commercial breeders (not necessarily prize winning dogs) and pure bred dogs that are show dogs or competitive dogs. If you have a pure bred dog but are not showing it or competing in trials, you will be required to spay or neuter. The numbers re impounds are estimates, though any number of unnecessarily destroyed dogs or cats are still little lives lost. The impound numbers include pets that are lost for a day or two, say Fido gets out and takes off after his bath. The cost makes no sense. Every city I have checked (which includes LA and many others that post data on the web) spends about 3 dollars per capita, net, on ALL animal services. sOme spend more gross, but recover more in fees. Some spend less and recover less in fees. The net doesn't vary much, though. In my city that $3 per capita includes costs for the no-kill shelter, barking dogs, coyotes in school yards, raccons wndering into kitchens, etc. There is something bizarre about the numbers here. Perhaps Laura Chick should look into it. She pretty sharp and has held other people's feet to the fire.

Once again, the facts were on our side! Despite all of the hysterical outlandish claims made by the opposition, the California State Assembly acknowledged the facts and voted to allow AB 1634 to pass on the Senate. Thanks to everyone who has put their time into working on this long overdue bill!

It's not as easy as simply "cost-shifting" from animal control to education. There will ALWAYS be need for control of stray animals from a public-health point of view. And given the freedom of choice we enjoy in society unless we are willing to give away those rights, or allow them to be taken from us, people will always make bad decisions about things including pets. Simply outlawing intact animals, or the majority of them, will not stop people from giving up their animals due to divorce (and subsequent loss of pet-friendly housing), due to allergies, due to "moving," due to "not enough time" and sadly finally because they cannot afford some expensive veterinary treatment. People also die and leave their pets behind. And you will not and cannot control people's very strong desire to adopt puppies. If puppies are not available here, they will import them. Is outlawing intact animals everywhere next?

The real solution is not the easy one but would involve (I'm sorry it's true) truly affordable spay/neuter in EVERY city. It would involve much greater efforts at public education in responsible pet ownership (PETA and HSUS can help me out here..? !). It would involve having every pet owner involved in supporting necessary animal control costs by making sure all dogs (and I would argue cats) were licensed. Thus we could more easily protect against dangers such as Rabies and other diseases. It would involve better intervention techniques BEFORE people give up on a training or behavior issue and give the pet up to a shelter.

The numbers of dogs/felines killed at 'shelters' are OVER a million.

How'd I know?
1) A third of agencies required to report kill stats didn't. The CONSERVATIVE AB1634 estimate was derived by comparing known stats of comparable communities w/those missing reports.
a) Problem: stats employed were REDUCED figures. Agencies under pressure to show a reduction in kill rates, "Showed" a lowered number not reflecting reality.
Common practices among shelters reporting (whose reports were used as basis for estimating non-reporting entities:
Example: neo-natal litter= 'One' animal killed
Example: Severe allergies labeled 'irremedially suffering' NOT counted
Example: adopter returns, routinely "euthanized per request" NOT COUNTED
b) Adopted dog returned then placed with rescue, COUNTED a second time

2) At least 104 agencies, police departments, SPCAs, private shelters, 'holding facilities' are not required to file kill stats w/ State Vetrinarian.
a) These kill 25 - 70 dogs per week and higher numbers of felines based on 'best guesses' of interviewed officers.
b) Calculated on low figures, these facilities account for over 260,000 pets destroyed annually.
c) Even Rescues occassionally kill dogs which are not adopted. BABR kills 20% of the dogs they take in. Most rescue kill numbers are unknown, but probably amount to several thousands per year. These were also shown as 'adopted' in the AC figures.

CONTRARY TO OPPOSITION BUNK: DOAs and deceased on premise are NOT included. Most shelters do not count animals destroyed for disease or age. In short; methodology varies and political pressure MINIMIZES kill numbers.

"AB1634 is about taking away my constitutional right to have a pure-bred dog. An d it is my right to have a pure-bred if I want. "


I'm sorry, but I have read both the state and federal constitutions, and I can assure you that neither of them (in any way, shape, or form) guarantee your right to a pure-bred dog. When you make arguments against a measure, you should at least attempt to not make things up. - PETA