Public forum to discuss Senate version of AB 1634 in Palo Alto on Sat., June 23rd

Notice that this article is written by a Peta employee. Peta's agenda is that no animal should be owned or used by people - eg. no pets, no guide dogs, and we all eat a vegan diet.

Supporters try to frame this as being breeders versus pet lovers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Of the dozens of people I know who oppose AB1634, only a few are breeders (and they only breed a litter every other year or so, place their puppies carefully – mostly on spay/neuter contracts, and take them back at any age if the person can no longer keep them, for any reason). Most like me, are responsible dog lovers, not breeders, who have done our research and who do not think the government should mandate when or if our pets are altered.

My research has shown that mandatory spay/neuter laws have not worked in other places they have been passed, a review can be found at Best Friends, a nationally respected animal advocary organization that is no friend of breeders.

Leading organizations in the No Kill sheltering movement that started in San Francisco oppose mandatory spay/neuter legislation, for example, The No Kill Advocacy Center and Alley Cat Allies.

Spaying and neutering before maturity (1 - 2 years of age) has significant health risks, especially for large dogs. As a person with a scientific background I have read the research papers on the long-term results of spaying and neutering. The papers cited to say early altering is safe compare pediatric altering (6 – 12 weeks of age) with the usually recommended age of 6 – 9 months. The test samples mostly contained average sized dogs. They found some issues but concluded early altering is reasonably safe. However when studies compare dogs altered before physical maturity (1 – 2.5 years depending on the size of the dog) with dogs altered after maturity and with intact dogs, serious risks turn up for cancers, orthopedic problems, behavior problems, and other issues in the dogs altered before maturity. These issues were not noticed in the other studies because they occured in both groups being compared. A good balanced review can be found here. Additional articles on the subject by nationally known vets are here and here.

AB1634 is a bad law that seeks to punish me and my dogs because we MIGHT contribute to a problem. I don't think that is right.

I read your selfish concerns about your dogs and your dog's nuts, playing up "risks" that are virtually non-existent, but nothing about the issue of the very real hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats that are housed in shelters and euthanized in California every year. Is this not an issue for you?

Well...

"I read your selfish concerns about your dogs and your dog's nuts, playing up "risks" that are virtually non-existent, but nothing about the issue of the very real hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats that are housed in shelters and euthanized in California every year. Is this not an issue for you? Well..."

It is, but the Pet Extinction Act is not the answer to that problem. It makes no sense to reduce death by reducing birth. You might as well reduce freeway congestion by banning car keys.

But to answer the question, the problems cited in the studies are real and NOT non-existent. I'm a canine cancer survivor, and I've been there and know what it's like and why. The so-called overpopulation at the shelters has everything to do with shelters importing animals from overseas and out of state, and pursuing as much adoption fees as they can to fund their own enterprises. Meanwhile leash and license and puppy mill laws are lackadasically enforced. The solution is to have shelters go no-kill and implement catch-sterilize-release programs, which do work, and enforce the current laws on the books. Don't penalize responsible breeders and real dog lovers in a kindergarten-level effort of penalizing everyone for the actions of a few. Go after the few instead, educate them and make them responsible. Leave the law-abiding pet owners alone, and leave the laws off their paws!

Well, first of all, though there are some ups and downs, the overall downward trend that has been going on for decades continues.

Education, education, education. What are you doing to educate? I educate people all the time, as do most dog fanciers. (I fund-raise for rescue as well). I've talked quite a few people into altering their pets or not breeding them. But please remember, having an intact pet is NOT irresponsible. What is irresponsible is having unplanned, unsupported litters.

VOLUNTARY spay/neuter, especially more free and low-cost clinics, open convenient hours, and help to get pets to the clinics. Mobile clinics, etc.

Trap, neuter, release for feral cats. Recruit and train volunteers to manage colonies.

Behavioral hotlines to help people solve behavior problems BEFORE they give up on their pets. They need to be well-publicised, especially in poorer areas so people know they are available. Low cost puppy manners and training classes, as well as classes in cat and dog care. In my area classes cost $85-$100 for 6 lessons. That's too much.

Follow the roadmap on the No-Kill Advocacy Center's website.

Healthy and redeemable dogs and cats being uncessarily killed in shelters is an emotional issue. It's good to let that motivate us to change things. What is not good is to use our emotions instead of our brains to decide WHAT to do.

So I ask - why do you support a bill that advocates an approach that has failed everywhere it has been used and does not deal with the causes that put the the vast majority of dogs and cats in the shelters?

BTW, I am not a breeder.

tannim says "it is" an issue, hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats being euthanized yearly, and then goes on to call it "so-called overpopulation." that's about what I thought -- people who are anti basically are not very concerned with the problem. and the "Pet Extinction Act" claim is typical of the hysteria I read from the anti crowd. no. more. dogs. ever. be afraid. be. very. afraid. and the suggestion of every shelter going no-kill is unrealistic with the current volume of animals coming in. we couldn't possibly build shelters fast enough to hold the millions of unwanted animals that would pile up in them in little time. and who in the world wants to pay for housing millions of animals forever? what sort of quality of life would they have living in cages?

"It makes no sense to reduce death by reducing birth." au contraire -- it makes perfect sense.

as to linda's claims of spay/neuter failing everywhere it's been tried, Santa Cruz shelter officials report otherwise: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/06/09/18426466.php

in fact, shelter workers across the state support this act. they are the ones that have to deal with the incredible number of unwanted animals that come through their doors every year. suggestions of behavioral hotlines and training classes are for those in no rush to stop the slaughter, those who think their dog keeping its balls is worth the price in hundreds of thousands of animals euthanized every year. those who actually have to deal with the death of so many animals think that's a small price to ask pet-fanciers to pay for the greater good.



Here's a list of who supports AB1634:


Supporters

The California Healthy Pets Act was developed by a diverse coalition of veterinarians, animal control officers, government officials, and animal advocates.

An overview of supporting groups and individuals is listed below, and logos for some of these groups are shown to the left. Supporters are being added daily, with the full list of organizations and individuals available to Legislators on request. For more information about the current supporter's list or to add your name / organization please contact us.

Sponsors

* California Animal Control Directors Association
* California Veterinary Medical Association
* City of Los Angeles
* Social Compassion in Legislation
* State Humane Association of California

Elected Officials

* Over 25 Mayors and Councilmembers from across the state

Law Enforcement

* Over 20 Police Departments and Sherrifs from across the state

City and County Agencies

* A long list of Animal Control and Animal Services agencies from across California, with new agencies added almost daily

Humane Societies and SPCA's

* 40+ Humane Societies and SPCA's including virtually every major group in the state

Veterinarians & Veterinary Hospitals

* The California Veterinary Medical Association and a myriad of individual veterinarians and vet clinics

National Animal Welfare Organizations

* Virtually all the major animal welfare organizations involved in California, including:

- American Humane Association
- Animal Legal Defense Fund
- Animal Protection Institute
- Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
- Doris Day Animal League
- Humane Society of the United States
- In Defense of Animals
- International Fund for Animal Welfare
- ast Chance for Animals
- National Cat Protection
- United Animal Nations

CA State Rescue Organizations

* Over 220 California based animals rescue organizations including virutally every major rescue group.
The logos to the left represent only a fraction of the participating groups.

Individuals & Other Organizations

* Over 40 "Celebrity" endorsements
* Over 100 other organizations across California
* Over 10,000 individual Californians have written their Legislators so far, a volume of support described as "unprecedented" by lawmakers.

This is a social problem, not an overpopulation problem. Top flight breeders place carefully, care for the animals always, place on contracts, etc. Their dogs are not in the shelter system. EVERY pet is spayed and neutered and only a few show animals go to homes intact, with mega strings attached so their owners can't breed themselves!

Shelters take the leftovers from people who are NOT responsible owners. Purebred buyers are NOT going to shelters. That is not what they want, even if the dog IS a purebred. It's not pedigreed from known lines.

Those purebreds in shelters come in from commercial breeders, who get a free pass on this bill. That is the only way you get intact purebreds. Or BYB. In fact, 1634 makes it easier for them than the hobby breeder.

Whether AR's LIKE that there are different kinds of buyers is not pertinent. A dog is not a dog to a police officer. S/he needs a dog with certain qualities. Only Dogs for the Deaf takes shelter dogs to apply to work. The rest are BRED for their qualities.

To argue it's all the same sort of dogs and you 'save' a life if you don't breed exposes an incredible lack of knowledge of this issue.

1634 will increase animal abandonment as people try to get out of the fines.
1634 will cause more death.
1634 will create an decrease in rabies vaccination as people 'hide' dogs to avoid fines.
1634 will cause an increase in pet production by commercial breeders.
1634 will cause an increase in pet imports, both legal and illegal, into CA.
1634 will cause the extinction of mixed breeds.

EVERYONE wants to gain a better handle on shelter issues. Rescue has helped a LOT. But 1634 is not the answer. Education. Spay neuter clinics. Spay/neuter feral colonies. These things work. Our society allows a disposal attitude of an animal. WHY?

Fining and taxxing won't change the real issues one iota. It doesn't even begin to address it.

NO on AB 1634.

tannim says "it is" an issue, hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats being euthanized yearly, and then goes on to call it "so-called overpopulation." that's about what I thought -- people who are anti basically are not very concerned with the problem.

Not true, but to do something about a problem you need to identify what the source of the problem is. The primary reasons most dogs end up in shelters is not too many being born. If it was, most of the dogs in shelters would be puppies that never had a home. But that isn't the case. California is not a closed system. If puppies aren't availalble from local breeders, people will still get them from pet shops, imports from overseas, smuggled from Mexico, from the Internet, etc. Some of these puppies will grow up to be turned in to shelters for exactly the same reasons they are now. Spaying and neutering doesn't address the rasons dogs get turned in. If you really cared, you would be looking for real solutions, not bogus ones that make it look like something is being done.

the suggestion of every shelter going no-kill is unrealistic with the current volume of animals coming in. we couldn't possibly build shelters fast enough to hold the millions of unwanted animals that would pile up in them in little time.

You need to read the proposals on the No Kill site, www.nokillsolutions.com, before you say it won't work. They are not advocating stockpiling unwanted animals. And read their analysis of why mandatory spay/neuter laws are counter-productive, http://www.nokillsolutions.com/pdf/mandatorylaws.pdf.

as to linda's claims of spay/neuter failing everywhere it's been tried, Santa Cruz shelter officials report otherwise: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/06/09/18426466.php

Analysis of the statistics reported by Santa Cruz county to the California Department of Health, as required by law, show a different picture, and analysis of their budget reports show costs have risen during the same period, www.saveourdogs.net and http://tinyurl.com/39xmhn. You can do the research yourself, if you wish. In addition, anaylsis of the Santa Cruz budget shows a rise in costs as well, http://tinyurl.com/3dt5cc.

I had a female spayed and we lost her in the middle of the night do to post operative complications. We had no intention of breeding her and we consider ourselves responsible pet owners. Our young son didn't see it that way. He was very angry. Cinder was his best friend. He had anger issues for several months at home and in school. We had to send him to therapy which cost us thousands of dollars. Hind sight is 20/20 and if I would have known the problems we were about to endure I would have never had her spayed.

If you are thinking this is a rare incident, well it is not. A study I found on the internet demonstrate that it is not a rare Here is a small portion of a study I found on the internet:

""Complications from Spay/Neuter Surgery
All surgery incurs some risk of complications, including adverse reactions to anesthesia, hemorrhage, inflammation, infection, etc. Complications include only immediate and near term impacts that are clearly linked to the surgery, not to longer term impacts that can only be assessed by research studies.

At one veterinary teaching hospital where complications were tracked, the rates of intraoperative, postoperative and total complications were 6.3%, 14.1% and 20.6%, respectively as a result of spaying female dogs. Other studies found a rate of total complications from spaying of 17.7% and 23%. A study of Canadian veterinary private practitioners found complication rates of 22% and 19% for spaying female dogs and neutering male dogs, respectively.

Serious complications such as infections, abscesses, rupture of the surgical wound, and chewed out sutures were reported at a 1- 4% frequency, with spay and castration surgeries accounting for 90% and 10% of these complications, respectively."

If this law was in effect during this time period I would have sued the State. The State cannot exempt itself from compensating a property / pet owner if the State mandates this surgical procedure. There is no difference between condemning a piece of property and/or the loss of property do to a State or municipalities action.

So when you consider your support for this bill keep in mind the other issues that may arise from it. It may end up costing this State more than anyone expected and I would suggest that this money is better spent else where.