CA Legislation - OT [Archive] - Cool2bCorgi Corgi Forum

sutulu

06-07-2007, 02:23 PM

1) That comment is made by Eric Precott who runs an AR web site. He is one person

2) There is a link on Eric's web page to the CA Healthy Pet Legislation

This opinion site is dedicated to the wonderful California Healthy Pets Act (AB 1634), currently moving through the California Legislature. When enacted into law, AB 1634 will eventually save millions of animals and millions of dollars in taxpayer money.

The California Healthy Pets Act (AB 1634) would require the spaying and neutering of most cats and dogs by the time the pet is four months old. It is authored and was introduced by Assemblymember Lloyd Levine.

Pet owners who have not spayed or neutered their pet would be cited and given time to spay or neuter their pets before a fine would be assessed.

Local animal control agencies would be responsible for enforcing the California Healthy Pets Act. A portion of the fines collected would be used to expand the availability of free or low-cost spay or neuter programs and other outreach efforts.

The California Healthy Pets Act exempts:

Licensed breeders
Dogs who work as guide dogs, service dogs, or signal dogs
Dogs who are used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement or rescue activities
Dogs and cats whose veterinarian determines that due to age, poor health, or illness it is unsafe to spay or neuter them
Non-resident show dogs and dogs brought into the state for exhibition

Susan

MissGambler's+Mojo'sMommy

06-07-2007, 02:35 PM

corgimom

06-07-2007, 02:43 PM

MissGambler's+Mojo'sMommy

06-07-2007, 02:52 PM

Really???? I am shocked, I had no idea that it could be done so early, now I really want to know how early that it can safely be done on a dog. I know they want to alter before the dog goes in heat for the first time, and I was told that smaller dogs, like Mojo, tend to sexually mature earlier, so we were very puctual with the six month mark, but that was the earliest that the vet would do it.

CorgiMum

06-07-2007, 03:00 PM

I knew what the answer would be, but I called our Vet's anyways before I posted this. Their hospital policy is to wait until the dog is 6 months old. I asked if the policy was 6 months because that is when the dog has they felt, developed internally enough to be altered, and was told yes.

They were aware of what is happening in Calf. If that is our Vet's opinion, then it is mine also.

They also said that there are some shelters here that are altering the animals at 4 months.
So to me, that means that those animals that are altered at 4 months of age are not getting the chance to develope fully, internally.

That is the information from way up here.

MissGambler's+Mojo'sMommy

06-07-2007, 03:03 PM

So our dear gov can not only control our bodies, but now our dogs. What's that saying, oh yeah, "it's not paranoia if they are really out to get you".

dcole

06-07-2007, 03:20 PM

I hope that I do not upset anyone by interjecting here, but my vet that I trust to alter will not alter before certain ages, says they are not mature enough, and that it could be too hard on them. Miss Gambler was altered at seven months, and Mojo at six. Are they going to force vets to do something that they think is risky? Four months sounds way too young to alter.

The bill actually allows for exemptions based on your vet's input. But, that is another piece of paperwork to fill out, I believe.

For the record, I believe strongly in spay/neuter (all my pets have always been) but I am in opposition to this bill. Not that it doesn't have it's good points but it is too broadly written. I do believe that the majority of our assembly members who voted for this bill did so out of thinking they were doing a good thing. As in all things, especially emotive and volatile, education is key. This is a good site that takes the opposing view point (against) AB1634:

http://petpac.net/action/

taflar

06-07-2007, 03:26 PM

For the record, I believe strongly in spay/neuter (all my pets have always been) but I am in opposition to this bill. Not that it doesn't have it's good points but it is too broadly written. I do believe that the majority of our assembly members who voted for this bill did so out of thinking they were doing a good thing. As in all things, especially emotive and volatile, education is key. This is a good site that takes the opposing view point (against) AB1634:

http://petpac.net/action/

You're right about it being too broadly written. In fact I don't think it's needed at all. I'm sure there are laws on the books now that would cover whatever is needed to prevent abuse and neglect and proper care of pets.

Also, there is a part that mentions that local governments can pass stiffer regulations but none can pass more leniant ones. The cost to have an intact dog will be on the local level and no fee cost has been set yet. Some areas might not allow any "hobby" breeders at all. (Including back yard breeders).

Commerical breeders will probably (as usual) not be affected as they can pay the fees or will have some sort of exemption. Or they'll just move out of state and go on with business as usual. That won't be so easy for dog show fanciers as their jobs are in CA.

Peggy

CorgiMum

06-07-2007, 03:29 PM

The California Healthy Pets Act exempts:
Licensed breeders
Susan

Susan, has there yet been any information yet given as to what the criteria will be, or how this particular exemption will be enforced?

dcole

06-07-2007, 03:34 PM

Peggy,

You are right; there are currently laws on the books here to deal with abuse & neglect. Also, in regard to your mention of fees and breeders; one thing I noticed on several prominant pro-AB1634 web sites is the confusion (maybe intentional?) of what is a "professional" breeder and what is a "hobby" breeder. They are not making the connection that "professional" means "commercial" means "puppy mill". Heck, I didn't know the difference until I got Trevor and started chatting with everyone here. Again, education is key.

FWIW, both of our siamese cats are rescues, two different rescue outfits, both in favor of the bill. Now, neither of these organizations wants to end the siamese cat - they love them! But, they truly believe this is bill is the answer to cats dying in the shelters. Again, education is the key. My 0.02.

glencorgi

06-07-2007, 04:04 PM

Are they going to force vets to do something that they think is risky? Four months sounds way too young to alter.

Yes, they are. It will be mandatory that any dog or cat at four months of age undergo castration or an ovahysterectomy, unless an intact permit is granted and to get one of those the animal must be competing in a recognized registeries sanctioned events or in the midst of training for say police work, guide dogs, etc. (Which is not possible.)

Debbie

taflar

06-07-2007, 04:05 PM

You are right; there are currently laws on the books here to deal with abuse & neglect. Also, in regard to your mention of fees and breeders; one thing I noticed on several prominant pro-AB1634 web sites is the confusion (maybe intentional?) of what is a "professional" breeder and what is a "hobby" breeder. They are not making the connection that "professional" means "commercial" means "puppy mill". Heck, I didn't know the difference until I got Trevor and started chatting with everyone here. Again, education is key.

IMO, when speaking of laws being proposed by AR groups, well, they don't make a distinction. To them a breeder is a breeder is a breeder. We're all the same, just awful in their books. All of us should be put out of "business". Doesn't matter WHY we're breeding, they just don't think we should be doing it at all.

FWIW, both of our siamese cats are rescues, two different rescue outfits, both in favor of the bill. Now, neither of these organizations wants to end the siamese cat - they love them! But, they truly believe this is bill is the answer to cats dying in the shelters. Again, education is the key. My 0.02.

They're not listening to everything the AR people are saying. Their goal is to end animal ownership. Many of them don't bother to look beyond what looks good and don't know the real agenda.

And too many don't want to belive it COULD happen.

Peggy

Penutsma

06-07-2007, 04:09 PM

What I want to know is why are they exempting service dogs - or K-9 law enforcement dogs.....Just because an animal is a service animal does not mean that it is preferable for being able to breed! Alot of the service animals and K-9 animals that I have met over the years were not purebred - just mutts that had the right attitude for their "job".

If there were a way to specifically target "commercial" (and I meant puppy mill) breeders without going after the responsible purebred/show breeder, then I might (and I emphasize MIGHT) be in favor of a bill like that. However, as is pointed out on alot of the opposition sites - they can't enforce the laws on the books now, how do they think they will enforce the new law when it goes into effect?

All of my animals have been spayed or neutered with the exception of the 11 wk old male puppy. I firmly believe in spaying and neutering a animal that will not be used expressly for the purpose of showing (or QUALITY purebred family animals). If the babies that your animal has are not healthy or are deformed in anyway, then of course you should not breed that animal!

Another opinion of age of spay/neuter - again, depends on the particular vet's point of view. My vet in Tacoma, WA had no problem spaying or neutering a 2-3 month old animal. Most vets prefer to wait until the 5-6 month mark (and this also depends on the animals rate of development) due to the internal development of that particular pet. Delilah was spayed at 5.5 months and our vet here told me she was just on the verge of starting her first heat cycle. My decision on spaying her was based on the problems her Mom had birthing the puppies. I didn't want to put her through that. My poodle, Jasmine, did not go into heat until she was almost 18 months old. Based on that, I did have her spayed as soon as I could afford it - she obviously had an internal/hormonal problem. Up to that point, with her personality and looks, I had thought of breeding her. I had a cocker spaniel that had one litter of puppies (4) many years ago and it was a good experience for me and my children. I would never do it again though. Finding homes for the babies was not easy even though they were really cute pups. Last one "Ewok" went to his new home "free".

Okay, that's it for my soapbox!

The Chipmunk's Mom

06-07-2007, 04:15 PM

Patricia

Jasmine is a mix from the shelter and I am a believer in spay neuter when they are six months old. Jasmine came in heat early, jumped the fence and proceeded to become pregnant. As soon as her heat cycle was finished, I had her spayed. The vet and I both knew she was pregnant and She had 14 puppies in her. I have always felt guilty about doing that but I never could have found good homes for 14 mixed breed puppies.

taflar

06-07-2007, 04:21 PM

What I want to know is why are they exempting service dogs - or K-9 law enforcement dogs.....Just because an animal is a service animal does not mean that it is preferable for being able to breed! Alot of the service animals and K-9 animals that I have met over the years were not purebred - just mutts that had the right attitude for their "job".

It's for the guide dog schools and their breeding programs. They breed their own dogs. And some service dog programs too, and they do breed purebreds mostly. The "mutts" you see as serivce dogs are those they take out of the shelters and train as service dogs.

Law enforcement usually buys their dogs from other breeders. Often from overseas. I've not seen any police dogs that have not been purebred. Usually either German Shepherds or Belgian Malinois. Often they import them from Germany. I don't know if they spay or neuter the dogs or not.

If there were a way to specifically target "commercial" (and I meant puppy mill) breeders without going after the responsible purebred/show breeder, then I might (and I emphasize MIGHT) be in favor of a bill like that.

The problem is that these bills are proposed by Animal Rights groups, PETA and such. And they DO NOT want to eliminate any breeder they want us all included. They want to do away with breeding period.

When the legislators give in and make an exemption to a specific breeding group, it's usually to the commerical breeders because they can afford the lobbyist to talk to them. The dog show fancy doesn't have a lobby (but some areas are starting to form one) and we don't have the money to pay one. We're not an organized group and the AR people know it. That's why the "divide and conquer" tatics.

Peggy

glencorgi

06-07-2007, 04:22 PM

Susan, has there yet been any information yet given as to what the criteria will be, or how this particular exemption will be enforced?

Oh I can answer that -- licensing will be next to impossible to get. Kennel license are not allowed within many city limits. Neither are business licensing within areas zoned residential, then there are the home owner associations on top of that. These are subject to annual renewal and while one might get a permit one year, there is no guarantee that it will be renewed the next. Same with intact permits. Outside the reality and fact that no puppy can actually begin formal training as a police dog, service dog or whatever, neither can they begin competing in any formal events. So for all you agility folks where there is a great debate about age of speuter in relation to soundness, the option to speuter later is gone or you're going to have to have your 4 month puppies out on those jumps and weave poles. Wait, they're not allowed are they? Same with conformation - no competition for them except for matches before six months of age. Additionally, EVERY animall with an intact permit has to be shown within a two year period. So no taking time off for litters for bitches.

Debbie

Penutsma

06-07-2007, 04:24 PM

The dog show fancy doesn't have a lobby (but some areas are starting to form one) and we don't have the money to pay one. We're not an organized group and the AR people know it. That's why the "divide and conquer" tatics.

Peggy

Unfortunately, Peggy, I have to agree with you. Until the opposition to these bills organize, they will continue to be pushed through. We have the same problem in the trucking industry - with bills being pushed through for the "benefit" of the trucker, without any input from the truck drivers themselves. No organization means no representation.

glencorgi

06-07-2007, 04:31 PM

The problem is that these bills are proposed by Animal Rights groups, PETA and such.

Don't leave out the richest one of all HSUS.

And they DO NOT want to eliminate any breeder they want us all included. They want to do away with breeding period.

What part of "breeder exploiter" wasn't understood? What part of Alicia Silverstone's proclaiming "death to all breeders!" at an AR awards banquet isn't clear? How many quotes do I have to posts by ARA's that include eliminate breeding and extinction of domestic animals do I have to post?

Debbie

taflar

06-07-2007, 04:38 PM

What part of Alicia Silverstone's proclaiming "death to all breeders!" at an AR awards banquet isn't clear?

Now, wait a minute, telling me I have to alter my animals is bad enough, now she wants me dead?????

How absolutly nice of her. Hope I never meet her in a dark alley, I may not come out of it....

Peggy
(P.S. I want roses and carnations at my funeral. I HATE gladolias!!!)

sutulu

06-07-2007, 06:30 PM

Susan, has there yet been any information yet given as to what the criteria will be, or how this particular exemption will be enforced?

This is the official website for the CA Healthy Pet legislation: http://www.cahealthypets.com/

At the bottom of the page after Bob Barker’s supporting letter is a button that takes you to the actual information.

This is the one paragraph that talks about breeders:

******

"Hobby Breeders" and "Amateur Breeders" are subject to the same rules as the larger breeders.

The titles hobby breeder and amateur breeder have been coined by "low volume" breeders in an effort to make themselves seem innocuous, but the terms do not reflect any legal standing.

According to a 2001 analysis by the State Board of Equalization, "any breeder making more than two sales of puppies or kittens during any 12-month period is required to obtain a seller’s permit and report the tax on those sales". (2)

In other words, anyone in California who sells two or more animals per year is already required by law to obtain a permit and pay taxes on the income. The vast majority of current breeders in California do not follow this requirement.

Beyond that, I don’t know.

My reason for my first post is simply this: Some of us have thrown around opposing opinions on this subject over the last few days and some feelings have been hurt. I’m all for sharing opinions but when they are inflammatory as this issue is, let’s at least be fair and share the source of the information.

And if it's a personal opinion, have the guts to admit it. I think that way we can respect each other.

This is a quote from cahealthypets.com:

Taxpayer savings

Nearly one million unwanted and abandoned cats and dogs are born in California every year. Reducing the number of California’s unwanted animals will reduce the costs associated with caring for and euthanizing them.

************

That paragraph goes on to say the ten (10) year cost for shelters and euthanizing animals is $2,750,000,000. That’s $2.75 billion.

One of the criticisms I’ve heard about mandatory spay/neuter programs is that confirmation folks bringing their intact dogs to a show in a state w/ mandatory spay/neuter would face fines. I’m glad to see CA addresses this and exempts those dogs.

IMO, when speaking of laws being proposed by AR groups, well, they don't make a distinction. To them a breeder is a breeder is a breeder. We're all the same, just awful in their books. All of us should be put out of "business". Doesn't matter WHY we're breeding, they just don't think we should be doing it at all.
They're not listening to everything the AR people are saying. Their goal is to end animal ownership. Many of them don't bother to look beyond what looks good and don't know the real agenda.

And too many don't want to belive it COULD happen.

So this is a vendetta against breeders? I remain one of those who doesn’t buy it.

Oh I can answer that -- licensing will be next to impossible to get. Kennel license are not allowed within many city limits. Neither are business licensing within areas zoned residential, then there are the home owner associations on top of that.

Do you really know this is true? I haven't read far enough into it, have you?

So for all you agility folks where there is a great debate about age of speuter in relation to soundness, the option to speuter later is gone or you're going to have to have your 4 month puppies out on those jumps and weave poles. Wait, they're not allowed are they?

????? My breeder doesn't advise stairs before 6 months and certainly not taking agility jumps until at least a year. Is this an issue?

Susan

taflar

06-07-2007, 06:57 PM

This is the one paragraph that talks about breeders:

******

"Hobby Breeders" and "Amateur Breeders" are subject to the same rules as the larger breeders.

The titles hobby breeder and amateur breeder have been coined by "low volume" breeders in an effort to make themselves seem innocuous, but the terms do not reflect any legal standing.

None of us have said that the terms we use give us an legal standing. The terms are just a way to make a distinction between different levels of breeders. Hobby breeders ARE amature breeders in that they don't breed to make a profit or a living.

And by saying the terms have been coined to make "low volume" breeders seem innocuous" just goes to show what they think of ALL breeders. Including the breeders you got your dogs from.

In other words, anyone in California who sells two or more animals per year is already required by law to obtain a permit and pay taxes on the income. The vast majority of current breeders in California do not follow this requirement.

That's still different from having to get a permit to have an intact animal and to "prove" it's showing or working by the age of 4 mos.

My reason for my first post is simply this: Some of us have thrown around opposing opinions on this subject over the last few days and some feelings have been hurt. I’m all for sharing opinions but when they are inflammatory as this issue is, let’s at least be fair and share the source of the information.

I think you're reading in things we are not saying. I certanially haven't been trying to hurt anyone's feelings. Just stating my opinion and feelings.

And if it's a personal opinion, have the guts to admit it. I think that way we can respect each other.

I belive I have said several times that such and such was my opinion.

That paragraph goes on to say the ten (10) year cost for shelters and euthanizing animals is $2,750,000,000. That’s $2.75 billion.

[QUOTE]One of the criticisms I’ve heard about mandatory spay/neuter programs is that confirmation folks bringing their intact dogs to a show in a state w/ mandatory spay/neuter would face fines. I’m glad to see CA addresses this and exempts those dogs.

That remains to be seen. Remember that local (county/city) governments can impose stricter regulations. So maybe, maybe not. And for many it won't matter. Many will boycott CA shows anyway.

Belive it or not, a city where a dog show is held benefits from the show being there. There is the rent of the facility, the exhibitors stay in local hotels, they eat at local resturants, and they buy gas during the visit. Exhibitors didn't stay in Louisville this year, didn't eat there or buy gas there, and the Chamber of Commerce took note.

So this is a vendetta against breeders? I remain one of those who doesn’t buy it.

You can belive it or not, but it is. And a vendetta against pet owners. If we can't breed there will be no next generation, and eventually no pets to for people to own. So yes, there is a vendetta. Eliminating breeders is one step in eliminating animal ownership or use.

Do you really know this is true? I haven't read far enough into it, have you?

If it's not then a lot of people are being fooled. It's being discussed on all the dog fancier lists, such as Showpem, Showcardi, Showdogs, Sheltie Breeders, etc. If you want to hear more join Pet Law
http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/pet-law/?yguid=129341596

????? My breeder doesn't advise stairs before 6 months and certainly not taking agility jumps until at least a year. Is this an issue?

It could be. Many people who run their dogs in agility like to wait till their dogs are about a year old before altering. They say that allowing the dog to be at least that old helps the dog mature better and make it sounder for running agility.

With this law they lose that option, as to keep the dog intact it must be competing by 4 mos. And as your breeder says, most don't advise puppies taking agility jumps as young as 4 mos.

You can belive what you want, but there is a movement to stop all of us from owning dogs (any animal really). It's not just breeders they're targeting. Breeders are just one of the first targets. They're easy to target as they can be blamed for the problem of all the dogs in the shelters. (Although most are adult dogs and not puppies. Dogs that were bought as puppies but owners didn't keep for whatever reason.)

Peggy

sutulu

06-07-2007, 06:59 PM

Oh and by the way.... Lulu was spayed at 10 weeks. Her show breeder who does health checks didn't want one of her puppies out there unaltered.

I was not thrilled but I saw Lulu 2 days after her surgery and she was acting normal. One of things I read as side effects of early spay is that dogs sometimes were incontinent.

Lulu used to do "happy pee" as a puppy and it really worried me. That has stopped. If it were up to me, I would hold off until my Vet recommended spay/neuter. Even if it meant filing paperwork.

glencorgi

06-07-2007, 07:15 PM

Do you really know this is true? I haven't read far enough into it, have you?

YES, I have. Been following admendment after amendment from the beginning.

????? My breeder doesn't advise stairs before 6 months and certainly not taking agility jumps until at least a year. Is this an issue?

The debate does go on on the Performance Corgis list quite often. I know several breeders who have quite pleased with results of pediatric spay neuter. There is an elongation of the long bones, not readily detectable, but it is still there according to the data. Among some agility enthusiasts, they want to wait until at least a year of age for sexual maturity to set in as they feel (and some data and scientific research support) it is much healthier for their dogs soundness wise. Under AB 1634 the choice for what one feels is in the best interest of their pet in consultation with their veterinarian is taken away.

Debbie

sutulu

06-07-2007, 07:17 PM

Peggy:

I know you are not trying to hurt anyone's feelings and I would not accuse you of that.

And you are right that I and others may be reading things into posts.

But so many thing posted seem to me to be based in perception and emotion and not necessarily fact. And I can't just sit back and ignore it.

And when you think I am posting something less than accurate, I expect you to call me on it.

For example:

The way I read Debbie's initial post to start this thread, it was as if the CA legislature was making the statement "now if we could only stop breeding altogether".

When I took the time (because this subject is important to me) to read the link she quoted from, I discovered it is one man and his web site. It was his opinion.

And another example:
You can belive what you want, but there is a movement to stop all of us from owning dogs (any animal really). It's not just breeders they're targeting. Breeders are just one of the first targets. They're easy to target as they can be blamed for the problem of all the dogs in the shelters. (Although most are adult dogs and not puppies. Dogs that were bought as puppies but owners didn't keep for whatever reason.)

Is this your opinion or is this fact? Because for someone reading this, it comes across as fact. You don't say.... In my opinion......

I don't mean to be disagreeable but consider how this looks from outside your own shoes.

Susan

glencorgi

06-07-2007, 07:20 PM

So this is a vendetta against breeders? I remain one of those who doesn’t buy it.

I'll ask again, what part of "breeders and other exploiters" wasn't clear? That means ALL breeders, no distinction.

Debbie

sutulu

06-07-2007, 07:26 PM

I'll ask again, what part of "breeders and other exploiters" wasn't clear? That means ALL breeders, no distinction.

Debbie

Is this your opinion or is this a fact? And if it is a fact, can you share the legislation that says spay/neuter laws will end breeding and pet ownership?

Animal Rights positions are not legislation as far as I know.

Susan

CorgiMum

06-07-2007, 07:52 PM

A request please:

Would posters please make sure that when a Quote is put in a post from someone, please make sure that there is a name attached to each quote, not just the word Quote.

It will make things much smoother to read & understand and save any confusion:CONFUSED:

Thanks.

taflar

06-07-2007, 08:09 PM

Susan,

Read these sites and see what you think:
http://animalscam.com/
http://www.mofed.org/The%20Twelve%20Steps%20Agenda.htm
http://www.pet-law.com/
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/aragenda.htm
http://www.raot.org/legislation/animal_rights.htm
http://www.nabr.org/animallaw/Quotes.htm
http://purebredcatbreedrescue.org/animal_rights.htm
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/guardian.htm
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/article_detail.cfm?article=134
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_quotes.cfm/oid/136
http://www.activistcash.com/biography_quotes.cfm/bid/3366

Peggy

glencorgi

06-07-2007, 09:22 PM

Is this your opinion or is this a fact? And if it is a fact, can you share the legislation that says spay/neuter laws will end breeding and pet ownership?

Let me connect the dots.

A stated goal of the animal rights agenda is the end of ALL animal use including pets. This includes ending breeding; from Animals' Agenda magazine in November 1987: "#10. We strongly discourage any further breeding of companion animals, including pedigreed or purebred dogs and cats. Spay and neuter clinics should be subsidized by state and municipal governments. Commerce in domestic and exotic animals for the pet trade should be abolished." Since, John Bryant, Ingrid Newkirk, Michael Fox, and many others have stated all breeding should be ended. In the legislative workshop I attended May 16th this year, one of our local most true believer AR activists voiced the opinion, all breeding needed to be stopped.

HSUS, PETA, AHA and a myraid of other acronyms are animal rights organizations. HSUS has a PAC called Humane Alliance that when founded Wayne Pacelle stated would become the NRA of the animal rights movement.

The 2004 OK proposed legislation (also proposed in VA, NC and a number of other states) I used as an example in another thread was based on model legislation provided by PETA's No Birth Nation (for animals). In NC it was taken to our legislature and pushed by NCVAW, an animal rights activist organization. A PETA rep spoke for the bill in NC. Albuquerque and St. Louis were introduced by animal rights activists and heavily supported, promoted and backed by HSUS, PETA and other AR groups local and national. IF you like I can provide a litany of quotes stating that all breeding should be ended. Now we come to CA, again proposed, backed and bought by AR's. (Check the supporters and contributions to get it passed.) As the bill is written and let's take it at face value. Everyone who owns a pet in CA beginning with 4 month old puppies & kittens has all their animals speutered - the next generation of pets will come from where? The commercial kennels will continue business as usual. There is already a black market of puppies being smuggled in from Mexico. http://network.bestfriends.org/california/news/3658.html

Animal Rights positions are not legislation as far as I know.

They are now in Albuquerque and in St. Louis to mention two. Long Beach, CA just repealed a breeding ban for dogs that had been in place for nearly two decades, now it is illegal to breed cats there.

Susan also stated:
"If it were up to me, I would hold off until my Vet recommended spay/neuter. Even if it meant filing paperwork."

That doesn't get you an intact permit under 1634. The animal has to be actively participating in whatever "sport" for the exemption and permit.

more to come
Debbie

glencorgi

06-07-2007, 09:48 PM

More sites to check out:

http://www.petpac.net
http://www.cfodconline.org
http://www.saveourdogs.net

Debbie

glencorgi

06-07-2007, 10:10 PM

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/209429.html

Pet sterilization bill is narrowly approved by Assembly

By Jim Sanders - Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, June 7, 2007

Millions of California dogs and cats would have to be sterilized under legislation passed Wednesday by the Assembly to reduce the burden on local animal shelters.

The measure, Assembly Bill 1634, would require spaying or neutering in an attempt to reduce the number of unwanted animals by making it impossible for most pets to reproduce.

Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, said more than 400,000 dogs and cats are euthanized every year at a cost of $300 million.

"This is a hugely serious problem at the local level, and we need to do something about it," said Levine, who crafted AB 1634.

The bill teetered for hours Wednesday, initially attracting only 37 Assembly votes, four shy of the number needed for passage.

More than 10 hours later, shortly before 10:30 p.m., the Assembly approved the bill by a bare-minimum margin of 41-38. Republicans opposed the bill, which now goes to the Senate.

The deadline for passing bills out of their house of origin is Friday, but legislators are trying to wrap up their business by today.

Levine and others say it is inhumane to allow indiscriminate breeding of hordes of unwanted animals that are destined to be euthanized. But opponents lambasted AB 1634 as largely unenforceable and said spay and neuter decisions should be left to local government.

"I think it's micromanagement at its worst," said Assemblyman Doug La Malfa, R-Oroville.

"It's a prime example of why this Legislature becomes a laughingstock."

Hundreds of animal lovers on both sides of the issue have attended legislative committee hearings on AB 1634, making it one of the most contentious bills of the year.

Assemblyman Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar, said legislators' time would be better spent wrestling with crumbling roads, underfunded schools and other serious public issues.

"We're spending our time dialoguing about doggies and kitties," he said. "This is nonsense."

AB 1634 would require dog and cat owners to have their animals sterilized by the age of 4 months or risk a $500 fine.

Exceptions would be made for police dogs, guide dogs, signal dogs, service dogs and various other working canines.

Pets also would be excused if a veterinarian states that they should not be sterilized because of age, illness or poor health.

Breeding permits could be purchased, for an unspecified fee, to allow reproduction of purebred dogs or cats that participate in shows or sporting competitions.

In its current form, AB 1634 would leave it up to cities and counties to decide whether to issue permits allowing reproduction of mixed-breed dogs, often called mutts.

During Wednesday's floor debate, however, Levine said he was willing to accept an amendment to permit the owner of a mixed-breed animal to have one litter per year.

Levine also said he was willing to waive the $500 fine if owners sterilized their animals after receiving a "fix-it" ticket.

AB 1634 is not meant to spark a door-to-door search for violators, legislators have said. But if a roaming dog or cat were impounded, a citation could be issued.

Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, gave a detailed and graphic description of how unwanted, impounded animals are dragged, muzzled, killed by lethal injection and then dumped into 55-gallon drums with other carcasses.

Nava contended AB 1634 would reduce the number of animals housed and killed in shelters.

"I'm not asking anyone to do anything that I'm not prepared to do myself," said Nava, who said he has three sterilized pets of his own.

Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento, said it makes little sense to spend $300 million annually on unwanted animals in a state rife with crime, gangs and other problems.

"We have all sorts of issues that money could be better spent on," he said.

Opponents of AB 1634 claim that restricting the kinds of animals that could reproduce, and charging for breeding permits, would put many hobbyist breeders out of business.

Assemblyman Bill Emmerson, R-Redlands, said the bill essentially responds to the acts of irresponsible pet owners by forcing responsible families to bear the cost of sterilizing their pets.

"That's not fair," he said.

Assemblyman Anthony Adams, R-Hesperia, said many people have legitimate concerns about spaying or neutering their animals at 4 months old.

"Make no mistake about it, this would criminalize otherwise very decent people," he said.

Opponents claim AB 1634 could backfire by prompting some people to abandon their pets rather than pay to sterilize them.

Levine, who does not personally own a cat or dog, said numerous free or low-cost clinics are available to minimize the cost of sterilizing a pet.

Failure to require spaying and neutering costs everyone, he said.

"We can do better for the state -- and we can do better for our animals," Levine said.

Assemblyman George Plescia, R-La Jolla, said passage of AB 1634 could inspire someone to propose a bill requiring legislators to be spayed or neutered.

"It would probably pass," Plescia said.

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

glencorgi

06-07-2007, 10:18 PM

Some numbers from Santa Cruz County, the "model" for this bill;

Santa Cruz County:
1980: Intakes-6,606 Euths: 4,105

1990: Intakes-*2,475 Euths: *595 (big drop!--no mandatory spay and neuter,
but programs for education, training and low cost clinics!!)

(zeroing in on the mandatory spay and neuter years)
1993: Intakes- 2,995 Euths: 710
1994: Intakes- 2,928 Euths: 966
1995: Intakes- 2,725 Euths: 860
*Mandatory spay and neuter voted in and takes effect.
1996: Intakes- 2,952 Euths: 838
1997: Intakes- 4,418 Euths: 613 (where do you see this working so wildly
successfully so far?)

2000: Intakes- 2,176 Euths: 482 (it seems they had abandoned enforcing the
ordinance by/before this time..perhaps because it was unenforceable?)

2002: Intakes- 1,995 Euths: 486

*SOURCE: *source: Department of Health Services, Veterinary Public Health
Unit Data Reports--the state agency AC shelters report their numbers to)
---------------------

1997 illustrates what has happened whenever MSN has been introduced, an increase in shelter intakes.

glencorgi

06-07-2007, 10:34 PM

http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=fff5d556-ee5a-4c35-b708-a6c50892faf5

And from the sponsor himself: "Levine said he sponsored the bill “from a humanitarian standpoint” and because he is “an animal lover, so much so that I think it would be irresponsible to own pets...”

So gee, I guess that makes us all "irresponsible" and we don't love animals as much as Mr. Levine. Add in the few of us who are also "exploiters" I guess we should all go hang our heads in shame.

Debbie

MVons

06-07-2007, 11:55 PM

So do I have pity living in CA? Here is a surprise for you, Los Angeles county has the law on their books of spaying at 4 months! Guess their data can't be skewed to look good to have it mentioned that the law doesn't work!

My husband said the popular L.A. radio hosts "John and Ken" covered the bill last week saying how absurd it was and interviewed someone who didn't convince the audience otherwise. I thought it was interesting that Levine, the bill author, doesn't even have a pet!!!

My breeder has no problem with a 6 month spay. But Pepper's Dad's breeder sold a cardi to Hollywood who spayed the male at 4 months and it always looked female with long legs. She recommended waiting as long as 10 months if it takes that long for the male features - chest - to come in. She said we weren't talking about an oversexed breed.

An alpaca breeder mentioned the same problem if you spay them too early - they develop long legs. I didn't mention this phenomenon to my short legged son.:NAH: I do wonder what it is about testosterone absence that would cause legs to grow long?

I am anxiously awaiting the senate. I had called my Republican officials and thanked their support. My mom called her democrat last month but we haven't heard if they were one of the vote switchers.

Merrie

MissGambler's+Mojo'sMommy

06-08-2007, 03:17 AM

First, I would pay the $500 penalty to wait till 6 months to alter, I would just figure that into my cost of purchasing and owning a dog, and it would be worth it. And I will never own a show dog, unless it's a dancer:BIGGRIN" , so bottom line, this legislation only makes me worry just how would I ever get another Corgi, and how hard will it be to get one, and can you just imagine the cost??? (That's what all the legal talk boils down to.)

Penutsma

06-08-2007, 06:43 AM

glencorgi

06-08-2007, 07:09 AM

First, I would pay the $500 penalty to wait till 6 months to alter, I would just figure that into my cost of purchasing and owning a dog, and it would be worth it.

And IF the fine becomes $500 a day? (Local municipalities can strengthen it any way they see fit.) You can afford the fine, but what about the families who can't? seniors on fixed incomes? They may be saving up to have their pet speutered, but can't afford it at the 4 month time. So what happens to their dog? Historically, evidence shows they relinquish it; so a dog that once had a home now becomes a part of the shelter system. (San Mateo, Montgomery County and other areas I have posted about before where MSN was passed.)

sutulu

06-08-2007, 07:17 AM

Debbie:

Thanks for connecting the dots.

I will take some time over the weekend to read the links you suggest.

Susan

MissGambler's+Mojo'sMommy

06-08-2007, 07:43 AM

Glencorgi: good point about the bill, it is going to allow each area to make some changes as they wish, and when they wish, and that's never a good thing with politicians, especially not with the liberal Northern California politicians. Why do you think I hate the area so much??? As for the Santa Cruz stats, I've never seen those, never seen or heard anything remotely close to that, I was only going by what I have been told, by my husband and friends, and by the media, I watch news clips on the net from several networks because I have a big interest in the area. Trust me, Santa Cruz has been a flagship in the media for pet reform, but not according to the stats you put on this thread. Not arguing with you, or anyone else, about this. Good debate is healthy, and that's how you learn, but something has to be done in CA, and even here. I'm familiar with the shelters in both areas, and conditions are getting worse.

glencorgi

06-08-2007, 07:44 AM

More dots to connect:

I hope by now that it is clear that animal rights activists want to do away with all breeding and they are using legislation to get to that end. Betty Breeder decides she wants to continue breeding, goes to get her kennel license because that's the only way she can get her intact permits.

These are e-mails from CA residents who are breeders.
"AB 1634 requires for the intact breeding permit be issued to only those
who have a legal right to do business in the state. Do not forget this
fact. In order to be a legal business in the state of CA you will need
to obtain a resale permit. In some counties that do not have license
requirements, this will be all you need to be in the business of
breeding and selling animals. You will also be required to fill out
forms for the state Board of Equalization to pay sales tax on your sales
of animals. In order to obtain a business license in a city, you will need to
contact your local city administration office for the requirements."
==============================

Some may be thinking, no big deal. The below response takes things to another level.

This is all good information but to the majority of us useless. Most
cities will NOT give business licenses to anyone in a residential area
and some county governments also will not. MOST important is the fact
that quite a large number of cities have already made breeding animals
with in the city limits illegal. In those cases getting a business
license is pointless. We quite simply can not let this pass. The
majority of us will not qualify and of course that is the point of
AB1634 to begin with. Levine wants it to look like there are exemptions
that are easy to obtain but in the real world of city/county zoning
there are no real exemptions. Remember that the Federal courts have
found that what we do is a hobby and the IRS views it also as a hobby.
See DDAL vs Vannaman, the appeals court found that the government had no
interest in regulating the hobby of dog/cat breeding and that regulation
was a burdensome intrusion of government into private citizens homes.

Debbie

sutulu

06-08-2007, 07:52 AM

Here's a link you might want to check out regarding CA Healthy Pets Legislation. it addresses some of the common questions about that specific spay/neuter law:

http://www.ab1634.org/AB1634_opposition.htm

For Our Opposition - Answers to your Questions

If you oppose AB 1634, this area is for you.

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

Am I exempt?

If you breed purebred or other generally recognized breeds of dogs or cats in California, you are EXEMPT from AB 1634. You can receive an intact permit for your animals, as long as you show the local jurisdiction that you are a "licensed breeder".

If a license is not available in your jurisdiction, you can show "other proof, as requested by the local jurisdiction" that you are breeding animals. Proof for a local jurisdiction, especially in rural areas, might be as simple as a written statement that you are breeding.

The bill also contains 20 common sense exceptions for purebred animals, guide dogs, show dogs, sporting dogs, law enforcement dogs, search and rescue dogs, service dogs, signal dogs, pets that are elderly, pets that are in poor health, pets that are ill, pets that are in training as for conformation, obedience, agility, carting, protection, rally, working or herding.

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

Can out of state dogs come in to visit or for competitions?

Yes, the bill provides for intact animals to visit and be shown.

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

Can hobby breeders still breed?

The bill makes no distinction between professional and hobby breeders. As long as you have an intact permit, you can breed.

Animals that can receive intact permits include purebred animals, guide dogs, show dogs, sporting dogs, law enforcement dogs, search and rescue dogs, service dogs, signal dogs, pets that are elderly, pets that are in poor health, pets that are ill, pets that are in training as for conformation, obedience, agility, carting, protection, rally, working or herding.

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

What will it cost?

In Los Angeles an intact permit will not cost anything, the cost will be wrapped into the current intact dog license and the license fee will not be increased. We can expect other jurisdictions to follow suit, or to set low-cost permit fees.

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

I don't believe that shelters kill puppies and kittens. I don't believe that shelters kill purebreds.

We have a network of shelters with a standing offer for anyone who believes this statement to come and spend a day in the euthanasia room. You will not oppose this bill after that day. If you are interested in visiting the room, please contact the official website here.

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

Education and local programs are the solution, not a bill like this. The euthanasia numbers are going down already.

Education and local programs have been tried for over 30 years in California and have not alleviated the ethical or fiscal burden whatsoever.

The numbers of animals brought into our shelters and the number ultimately killed has slightly decreased in some years over the last decade, and slightly increased in other years. The rate of animal entry is actually currently on the increase, based on the most current year available (2004 to 2005). At the current rate, the problem will remain severe well past our lifetimes.

Opposition groups have been disputing the actual numbers provided by the State Veterinarian and are taking issue with the fact that extrapolation, a common statistical technique, is used to estimate the total number of animals coming through our shelters. The extrapolation used on the State Veterinarian numbers is only used to estimate the approximately 14% of jurisdictions missing from the official reports. The figures are highly accurate, and do not take private organizations into account, meaning that the euthanasia rates cited by the California Healthy Pet Coalition are somewhere between conservative and very conservative.

sutulu

06-08-2007, 07:56 AM

sutulu

06-08-2007, 08:03 AM

And I can't resist, this is from a breeder in CA. Also from the CA Healthy Pet site:

http://www.ab1634.org/AB1634_blog_mrsd.htm

Mrs. D.
Licensed AKC Breeder

Blog posts are the opinions of the author and are not endorsed or reviewed by the offical CA Healthy Pets Coalition.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 2 2007

I have a licensed dog kennel, I am a breeder in California and I own 9 AKC registered dogs. I participate in dog shows all over the country with my dogs and I have finished numerous champions from my breedings. I've shown my dogs at both Westminster and Eukanuba. I am a member of 3 breed specific dog clubs. I have been on the board of our regional club in one capacity or another for 8 years and I love my sport. I state these facts to hopefully add to my credibility. I am IN FAVOR of AB 1634. I think it would be a viable and preventative measure to curb the pet over population in CA. AB 1634 would still allow breeders to continue breeding and showing their dogs and cats, as we have been under the laws already in place. The encumbrance of AB 1634 to breeders would be the fee for the intact permit, which I trust would be reasonable and non-prohibitive. For breeders who are currently operating within the law, this bill would not have a significant negative impact. And, for breeders who are not currently operating within the law, this bill would not make them any more "legal" or "illegal" than they already were.
When I first realized that I was in the minority of breeders who were in favor of AB 1634, I was shocked and dismayed. I feel it is the least we breeders can do to help the situation of so many dogs and cats who are unfortunate enough to end up in the shelters. When I talk with my non dog/cat breeding and showing friends and family about the negative reaction from the breeders to this proposed bill, they are shocked as well! They just assumed that if we were animal lovers we would see that this is the correct and ethical thing to do. I am sorry to say that (in my opinion) AB 1634 has shed light on a negative side of the breeding and the showing community...and that is, we can sometimes be a selfish and self-centered group. What the breeders who are opposed to AB 1634 don't seem to realize is "it's not all about them". AB 1634 would still allow us to carry on with our hobby, and the beauty of it is, it would also help to prevent the deaths of so many helpless and innocent dogs and cats.
I hope those who determine the fate of this bill would take into consideration the needs of the weakest and most vulnerable party here, the one who's lives will be the most affected by either the success or defeat of AB 1634. That has to be for the animals in the shelters. This is about life and death for them, it's not about the life and death of a hobby.

Susan

bayoucorgi

06-08-2007, 08:18 AM

I had to sit down and think about this one. I have to say I am ambivalent - I feel strongly about this issue on both sides - because I was both a breeder and a rescue chairperson in California.

As a breeder, I do feel we are poorly portrayed, misunderstood, and unfairly persecuted. I was conscientious. I sold my puppies on spay/neuter, followed up on their progress, and had a lifetime return policy. I sold one of my puppies to the Guiding Eyes in Sylmar. Her sire was a BIS Ch. sire and my Ch. dam and she was from a carefully planned litter for temperament, soundness, biddability and structure, not just a mutt that had talent.

I am a responsible pet owner. All my pets are sterilized. All now come from rescue. Personally I don't believe in 4 months for my animals. There are studies of increased CHD, increased limb length and unsoundness from endocrine issues. BUT, for MOST pets you HAVE to get them BEFORE they can physically reproduce or there will be accidents.

As a rescuer, I stood with the animal rights agencies and spoke to the City Council in Riverside to stop pound seizure. I wrote in pet magazines and spoke at every dog and kennel club that would have me. I spoke from NorCal to San Diego and informally at shows as far away as Toronto, Canada. I was part of the lobby that pressed the AKC into offering breeders the Limited Registration.

Generally I distance myself from the "humaniacs" and view myself as apolitical but I would have lobbied for this bill. Just as the Siamese Cat rescuers. In California, it IS different. Unless you've lived there, you can't understand. I noticed a few of our posters are in California, but even then, unless you've walked the death-watch like the California rescuers you can't even begin to believe the magnitude of the problem.

I moved out of California in 1990. That was 17 years ago. And the animal overpopulation issues were unbelievable then. In the spring the animal techs work overtime on rotation in Los Angeles County to kill all the babies. The purebred pet trade is unbelievable. We were voted the Rescue Organization of the Year in LA Co. I rescued hundreds of red, long-legged, poorly bred Goldens a year from shelters. Some came with papers with noted show dog grandparents. Many breeders I showed against were in it for the buck. It isn't always about improving the breed. Some actually referred their puppy buyers who couldn't keep their dogs to me. They made the buck but didn't want to clean up their mess. Fighting breeds are a whole set of issues in themselves. Thousands of sweet, cute, terriers go straight to euth because they are not allowed to be adopted in many counties. In LA Co. there were 28 county, public and private shelters. And many other breed and humane rescues. They can't kill the animals fast enough.

It is overwhelming. I suffered from PTSS after I resigned. I cried at night. I kept seeing the faces. They die. They die. They die. It's not just numbers. They die horrible wrenching deaths. Let me be graphic. The dogs KNOW when they are on the "bump list". The tech gets that poly leash and drags them out of the run. They're put in a cage cart and taken to the med room in the back of the shelter. The techs are not horrible beasts, but they do this literally hundreds of times A DAY. They try to be gentle but they must protect themselves and be fast and efficient. They have to be rough with some of the terrified animals. The dog's eyes are WIDE and some cry. They're stiff and shaking. They defecate. They urinate. It stinks. And if the animals are LUCKY enough to be in an injection county, they get the needle. If NOT they were still killing with decompression chambers when I was there. I think that was outlawed after I left. I'm shaking as I write this. 17 years later I'm not OVER it. They throw the limp bodies in 55 gallon drums that go to the landfill. Ever see a barrel of dead kittens?

Okay so bottom line. Many of these breeder restrictive laws were on the books even when I was there. The whole crux of this is ENFORCEMENT. LA Co. is not going to go door-to-door to see if you had a litter of well-bred, well cared for, responsibly-owned puppies. They aren't going to show up and MAKE you spay your 4-month old if it isn't barking all day, running wild in the neighborhood, killing other pets, and biting children. They could. But they won't. Because they are TOO BUSY and too broke enforcing on the people who AREN'T doing it. I had a recent non-animal legal issue - what the law says and what the law does is two completely different things.

I'll admit it's not the best law. It's not a good trend in animal ownership but I don't think the humaniacs are out there to get US. Despite what some of the ignorant ones say. They don't use their words carefully. They're in it for the sound bite. The shock value. We live in a completely different universe than the animals and animal-breeders that this law is intended to restrict. It's up to us good owners and breeders to make a difference in our little world, our clubs, communities, counties and states.

Fluffypants

06-08-2007, 09:04 AM

Wow Pam.

I started several other sentences after that to try and express what I was thinking/feeling after reading your post, but none seemed right, so I'll just leave it at that. What a horrible situation. Thanks for adding your perspective. I'm going to go cry over that barrel of kittens now . . ."NO:":

glencorgi

06-08-2007, 09:23 AM

And I can't resist, this is from a breeder in CA. Also from the CA Healthy Pet site:

http://www.ab1634.org/AB1634_blog_mrsd.htm

Mrs. D.
Licensed AKC Breeder

This opinion is highly suspect as being authentic. Why? There is no such thing as an AKC "licensed" breeder. AKC does NOT license breeders.

Debbie

glencorgi

06-08-2007, 10:22 AM

Here's a link you might want to check out regarding CA Healthy Pets Legislation.

I read it, many moons ago. For clarification purposes what will be in quotes is from the blog.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I exempt?

If you breed purebred or other generally recognized breeds of dogs or cats in California, you are EXEMPT from AB 1634. You can receive an intact permit for your animals, as long as you show the local jurisdiction that you are a "licensed breeder".

See my post preceding this one as to just how easy a permit and kennel license will be to get.

The bill also contains 20 common sense exceptions for purebred animals, guide dogs, show dogs, sporting dogs, law enforcement dogs, search and rescue dogs, service dogs, signal dogs, pets that are elderly, pets that are in poor health, pets that are ill, pets that are in training as for conformation, obedience, agility, carting, protection, rally, working or herding.

The bill was amended so many times and in the final version even includes an exemption for someone wanting to breed a litter of mixed breed puppies. Each time it was amended, a new letter of opposition/support had to be written for the current version.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can out of state dogs come in to visit or for competitions?

Yes, the bill provides for intact animals to visit and be shown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are already postings on the fancier lists of litter announcements with the caveat NO puppies will be sold to residents of CA, Albuquerque, St. Louis or Denver.

There is already talk of boycotting CA for any travel or visiting including dog shows. There is already a movement to have AKC withdraw the Eukanuba Invitational from Long Beach, CA. (Whether AKC will have the cahoonas to do so will remain to be seen.) That will be a $19 million hit to the city's economy and the assemblymen from Long Beach were very much in favor and voted for the bill.

The Louisville cluster went on as always, the city of Louisville took a big financial loss as exhibitors would not risk their dogs by staying within its city limits. Entries were somewhat down and attendance was lower as many entered to support the club but did not go. So just because it is allowed, does not mean the dog, cat, rabbit, bird, etc., fanciers will go.

Can hobby breeders still breed?

The bill makes no distinction between professional and hobby breeders. As long as you have an intact permit, you can breed.

Animals that can receive intact permits include purebred animals, guide dogs, show dogs, sporting dogs, law enforcement dogs, search and rescue dogs, service dogs, signal dogs, pets that are elderly, pets that are in poor health, pets that are ill, pets that are in training as for conformation, obedience, agility, carting, protection, rally, working or herding.

The devil is in meeting the requirements for the permit and being able to keep one.

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

What will it cost?

In Los Angeles an intact permit will not cost anything, the cost will be wrapped into the current intact dog license and the license fee will not be increased. We can expect other jurisdictions to follow suit, or to set low-cost permit fees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everywhere MSN has been tried, licensing has gone down along with vaccinations including rabies which creates an increased public health risk.

I don't believe that shelters kill puppies and kittens. I don't believe that shelters kill purebreds.

We have a network of shelters with a standing offer for anyone who believes this statement to come and spend a day in the euthanasia room. You will not oppose this bill after that day. If you are interested in visiting the room, please contact the official website here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emotional blackmail card. And yes, I've read Pam's post and I have experienced the whole nine yards with my own unadoptable fosters - the fear, defecation, urination, the fighting. I am blessed not to have to deal with the volume or on a day to day basis. I have the greatest respect and admiration for those who do work in this kind of shelter environment on a day to day basis. I've met them and talked with them and worked with them. Perhaps PETA employees should take over this, Ingrid and some of her minions seem to enjoy it per their own words.

Education and local programs are the solution, not a bill like this. The euthanasia numbers are going down already.

Education and local programs have been tried for over 30 years in California and have not alleviated the ethical or fiscal burden whatsoever.

It was working in Santa Cruz before they went MSN. San Francisco has reached no-kill status on adoptable pets all because of these type programs.

The numbers of animals brought into our shelters and the number ultimately killed has slightly decreased in some years over the last decade, and slightly increased in other years. The rate of animal entry is actually currently on the increase, based on the most current year available (2004 to 2005). At the current rate, the problem will remain severe well past our lifetimes.

Opposition groups have been disputing the actual numbers provided by the State Veterinarian and are taking issue with the fact that extrapolation, a common statistical technique, is used to estimate the total number of animals coming through our shelters. The extrapolation used on the State Veterinarian numbers is only used to estimate the approximately 14% of jurisdictions missing from the official reports. The figures are highly accurate, and do not take private organizations into account, meaning that the euthanasia rates cited by the California Healthy Pet Coalition are somewhere between conservative and very conservative.

Some interesting figures to consider.
Human Population:
California: 36 million
UK: 60 million

% dogs s/n:
California: about 70%
UK: about 20%

# dogs euth'd annually in animal shelters:
California 115,000
UK: 7743

There is no MSN in the UK.

sutulu

06-08-2007, 10:36 AM

per Glen Corgi:
Some interesting figures to consider.
Human Population:
California: 36 million
UK: 60 million

% dogs s/n:
California: about 70%
UK: about 20%

# dogs euth'd annually in animal shelters:
California 115,000
UK: 7743

There is no MSN in the UK.

There is lot in this coutry that there is less of in the UK.

Unfortunately, I live in the US where within the 36 million people they allow 115,000 do be euthanized each year. That is the world I live in.

I wish people had the sense and commitment to care for their pet's lives for their entire lives and not treat them as disposable. I wish I lived in a country where people had the sense and cared enough for their pets to not let them breed at will. But again, I don't.

I don't want the gov't telling me what I can and can not do anymore than the next person. But again, I live in a less than perfect world and sometimes hard choices have to be made.

Susan

glencorgi

06-08-2007, 11:14 AM

If I'm boring anyone, I apologize!

http://www.ab1634.org/AB1634_blog_mrspay.htm

Also from the CA Healthy Pet site:

Point 1 - AB 1634 will not result in a shortage of pets.

In the best case scenario, the excess animals entering our shelters will be significantly reduced, but not eliminated, under a universal spay & neuter law.

It will reduce the number of well, purposefully bred pets. In breeds with small gene pools - in Cardigans alone I can think of 2 or more studs we've considered using that would no longer be available to us. Additionally in rare breeds with very limited gene pools, they could easily become extinct. Not only *my* opinion, but one shared by many fanciers who do have those rare breeds and have done their numbers.

There simply is no realistic scenario that leads to a shortage of animals or difficulty in obtaining an animal from either a shelter or a breeder. Cities and states with universal spay & neuter laws have been able to reduce the number of excess animals, but there has never been an instance where the law resulted in a shortage of pets or difficulty in obtaining pets.

Some truth here, the shelters will still be full and one can easily get a pet there. Commercial kennels will still be going, the back yard breeders and underground breeding operations will still have puppies available on a black market along with those being smuggled in from Mexico or imported from abroad. Shelter numbers will rise and more "laws" will be needed to restrict breeding. Partially *my* opinion, but one supported by what is already going on in CA, as well as places where there are shortages of dogs such as the NE where dogs are being imported from southern shelters, Puerto Rico, and so on. Shelters still had dogs and in MA a bill was proposed to label anyone who bred ONE litter a commercial breeder.

Point 2 - The Assembly has received over 7,000 letters from supporters, the stack of letters is over 5 feet high and we have heard this dwarfs the response that any other bill has received in years. Nice work!

hearsay

Point 3 - AB 1634 has no relationship to animal extremists.

AB 1634 was originated by local animal control directors across the state, who realize that the ethical and fiscal burden caused by the overpopulation crisis needs a state-wide solution. Disingenuous members of the opposition who attempt to tie the bill to animal extremists are searching for a way to deny the scale of the problem, and think it useful to their cause to paint the bill with a simple, reactionary brush.

AB 1634 is a common sense, proven solution to a fiscal and ethical crisis in our state and is not related to animal extremists in any way. Some animal rights groups have written support letters for the bill and are therefore listed as 'supporters' in our documentation.

The supporters' list speaks for itself:
AHA
ALDF
API
ASSOC OF Veterinarians for Animal Rights
DDAL
HSUS
IDA
United Animal Nations
Bob Barker
Pierce Brosnan and wife
Alicia Silverstone
and so on

Point 4 - This is not a "local government" issue.

The bill was actually originated by local government entities who realize that a state-wide solution is the only way to combat this problem. The fight to implement this bill could never be waged at each of the individual levels of local government. It is state money, not local money, being lost to this issue through the "Hayden" mandate, currently costing the state millions of dollars each year. It is state taxes, not local taxes, that are being evaded by current breeders who do not report their income.

If you believe that this issue is serious enough to require local intervention, it follows that you should support a solution that addresses the issue in a much more successful way than local government ever could.

Local communities have been far more successful at turning things around than have on larger scales. I cite San Francisco as an example. DDAL vs Vennaman ruled hobby breeding is not a "business" and the IRS does not recognize it as one either. Try to deduct expenses off your tax return.

Point 5 - Pets are routinely safely and successfully altered at 4 months of age. Vets can delay the procedure if they feel it is in the animal’s best interest.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (“AVMA”), the California Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, HSUS, ASPCA, UC Davis Veterinary College and other respected veterinary colleges all advocate early spay & neuter as a safe and effective practice.

Under AB 1634, a vet can delay spay or neuter until 6 1/2 months if they desire, and a vet can also deem that an animal is unfit for spay & neuter at any age if they believe there are health risks to that animal.

The time to spay/neuter should be left as a decision between's one's vet and oneself. In the case of a breeder who elects to do pediactric spay/neuters, at that time those puppies are his/her property and he/she can choose to do whatever he/she deems in their best interest. The same with spay/neuter clauses in contracts. A buyer is under no obligation to purchase from any individual breeder IF they do not like the terms and conditions of a contract.

Debbie

glencorgi

06-08-2007, 11:20 AM

Forbes magazine article:
Business Wire - Press Release
PetPAC Opposes AB 1634 to Eliminate Mixed Breed Dogs and Cats in California
06.07.07, 6:51 PM ET

"Unbelievable" was the reaction today after Members of the California State Assembly voted 41-38 to outlaw the existence of mixed-breed dogs and cats in the Golden State.

Assembly Bill 1634, authored by Los Angeles Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, will allow only select purebred dogs and cats to breed. Pet owners who don't sterilize their mixed breed pets by four months of age will face a $500 fine and possible criminal penalties.

"This crazy measure will end up costing families heartache and taxpayers billions," said Bill Hemby, Chairman of PetPAC, an organization dedicated to the rights of pets and owners. "California will be the poster child for an invasive and overreaching government mandate that is inhumane and impossible to fund, administer or enforce."

AB 1634 will blanket all 58 counties in California with an expensive forced spay/neuter law that not all shelters want - or need. According to the State of California, dog impounds have fallen 86% over last 30 years. Puppies and kittens are already being transferred between counties to alleviate a shortage of adoptable pets: San Francisco and Marin Counties need to bring pets in from other areas to be adopted locally. In San Diego County - which has no mandatory spay/neuter law - only one adoptable animal was euthanized in 2004-05.

Not only family pets, but police dogs, search and rescue dogs, service dogs for the blind and disabled, and working stock dogs serving California's $6 billion livestock industry will be decimated under AB 1634.

"The methods proposed by AB 1634 will lead to unintended consequences that will have a serious negative effect on animal health, the public, and the economy," wrote 125 licensed veterinarians in opposition to the measure. "AB 1634 may actually lead to an increase in the number of animals impounded and euthanized."

Experience has shown that local jurisdictions cannot recoup the costs to administer and enforce mandated sterilization laws from penalties and fees alone. As a result, funds will need to be taken from vital city and county services, including law enforcement and public safety.

The bill now moves on to the State Senate.

glencorgi

06-08-2007, 11:40 AM

pUnfortunately, I live in the US where within the 36 million people they allow 115,000 do be euthanized each year. That is the world I live in.

And of those 115,000 how many are adoptable? I am talking temperament problems, health issues, age, aggression?

Debbie

bayoucorgi

06-08-2007, 03:46 PM

Lots of the 115,000 are adoptable. But no one comes to get them in time. And there will be thousands more to replace them.

Will this law really make a difference? Statistically probably not, and realistically to good breeders, probably not. It's just a chance for both sides of the issue to get too emotional and grab sound bites and spew organizational propaganda. We can throw numbers at each other all day.

I just know I lived it. And many of the rescuers I rescued with are still there doing it. Emotional blackmail or not, California was animal Auschwitz there and they have to do something. The county pays by the barrel to dump the bodies so they smash them in there so they get more bodies in fewer barrels. I saw a kennel worker standing on the lid so the other guy could put the barrel band on. There is more ugliness to animal control than any of us could imagine. All the purebred people are upset, but the 4-month spay/neuter is primarily to lower the accidental, ignorant, and recreational breedings. And if bottom-feeder "breeders" are closed, then people shopping for a purebred dog will look harder, learn more and find better breeders like you and me.

I remember when I was answering the club "puppy line" where we sent info and the woman was all in arms about paying $1000 for a puppy. I can get a dozen of them from the Times for $200. Well, hopefully, not as many now.

taflar

06-09-2007, 05:37 PM

Here's another site with quotes from AR people. This is one I was looking for the other day and couldn't find.
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/articles/archives/animalrightsquote.htm

Peggy

glencorgi

06-10-2007, 02:28 PM

The exemptions:

Here is the exact text from the bill itself as it stands today (
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20070531_amended_asm_v94.html )
:

Article 2. General Provisions

122336.1.
(e) Any person who , on or after April 1, 2008,
is in possession of any document issued by the local jurisdiction or
its authorized local animal control agency that permits the owner to
possess an unaltered cat or dog shall be deemed in compliance with
this act until the document expires , or January
1, 2009, whichever occurs first.

(The original text has "on or after April 1, 2008," lined
out (amended out). For some reason that doesn't come through.)

So, when January 1st, 2009 rolls up... then what?

Debbie

MVons

06-10-2007, 11:18 PM

shall be deemed in compliance with
this act until the document expires , or January
1, 2009, whichever occurs first. So, when January 1st, 2009 rolls up... then what?DebbieWell I can guess, they'll charge another $500 fee to have an unaltered animal.

Merrie

sutulu

06-11-2007, 08:26 AM

MVons

06-11-2007, 11:38 PM

Merrie:

I'm not sure where you got the figure of $500 as a fee from but here is a quote from the official CA Halthy Pets web site:

If you currently breed, show and sell animals in California, you will be able to obtain an intact permit under AB1634 for a
nominal fee, and continue breeding and selling animals as you do today. This fee is set by the local jurisdiction and is not
"hundreds of dollars" as some breeder groups have been stating.

http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/CALIFORNIA%20HEALTHY%20PETS%20ACT%20FAQS.pdf

The fee is not set by the state it will be set by the local government.

Susan

PS: and I have been reading many of the links folks have kindly posted. Some interesting reading available if you use the "links" on many of these pages. Still hoping for a fair and balanced review of the facts.Just a guess adjusted for inflation for 2009. Our county doubled their fees on construction last year and why not for dogs. I don't have the renewal for Pepper to see how licensing went up.

I understand some of the sides to this law but 4 months is way too young for a male cardi if you want him to look like a male. And I don't like Government telling me when to spay my animal. Each breed is different on the best time to spay but there is no thought regarding that on this issue. I don't like being forced to go around the law when I am one of the few who license my dog here. So I am screwed because I can't get a license to breed because I don't want to breed my dog, I just want him to develop into a male! And if I get a female I'll spay at 6 months to not have the incontinence problem. As this goes, I may have to go to AZ to have the spaying done so my Vet doesn't get in trouble for not spaying at 4 months! That is if they make the Vet's be the law enforcement. Won't that just make a Vet's day.

I like the current law that an altered dog is half the price for licensing to encourage spaying. But they can't even enforce the licensing and refuse to try on cats. :ARG: We are a unique area that isn't overrun with cats thanks to the bobcats here.

Merrie

glencorgi

06-12-2007, 12:00 AM

Cats are different. You cannot apply dog husbandry practices to them, as was tried under PAWS. The issues with them have to be addressed differently than one does dog issues. (My source? Cat fanciers, the CFA, TICA, etc.)

Debbie

glencorgi

06-12-2007, 12:04 AM

Well I can guess, they'll charge another $500 fee to have an unaltered animal.

Merrie

Most likely there will be no renewals of intact license permits. And as outlined, the permits currently will be next to impossible to get in most jurisdictions.

Debbie

bayoucorgi

06-12-2007, 08:07 AM

Los Angeles County has had a tiered license structure for intact and neutered pets for at least 20 years. And it hasn't been abused by big government. I can't remember but I think it was significantly higher for an intact dog (maybe $50/year) and low, maybe ($10/year) for sp/n. It is irresponsible to conjecture what the possible (ie. $500/year) fees will be or that they are out to "get the breeders". I paid the intact license fee and complained bitterly as I wrote the check for my Ch. UD, JH, WCX, Can. UD, Can Ch. ptd. with OFA hips, CERF eyes, and Cardiologist Examined - so in retrospect I paid LOTS more money to have a dog worth being intact than the $50 license fee.

As far as the "I don't like government telling what to do". Well, neither do I in theory. But actually I do like the fact that the GOVERNMENT (most local jurisdictions, counties or states) have mandatory rabies vaccination. In China, they do not. And when rabies cases broke out they mandated that animals would be destroyed immediately (in the streets in front of their owners). And then people (who are much more oppressed under a much more powerful government) made them stop.

I like that they have speed limits. It's not that intrusive to me to have to drive responsibly within a guideline. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY - it gives law enforcement a tool to stop the idiots from driving like maniacs and killing my family and me. This law is designed to do the same thing. It gives animal control agencies the TOOL to enforce the common pet-owner must spay and neuter and quit LITTER-ing. And again, enforcement is going to be the key here. I'm sure the State Trooper has seen me drive 70 in a 65, but I am driving in my lane, not passing on the right, not drinking, I drive on. It WILL be the same with dogs. If you are a responsible dog owner, they are NOT going to enforce on you. They have pit bull fighting rings, puppy mills, mutts by the millions, and vicious dogs to take care of.

The people this law is intended to control are NOT like you or me or anyone we know. It is about Mr. Testosterone who thinks its studly because his dog impregnates every dog on the street. Or Ms. Hectic Housewife that can't get her stuff together to take Missy to the vet to get her spayed and she spews out another litter. Or Betty "Breeder" who has 50 Cocker-Snickers or Mult-Poos for sale at Christmas. These ARE actual "people" I met during my rescue days.

I do not believe that mandatory spay/neuter is the beginning of the slippery slope. I do not believe that this is the beginning of stopping pet ownership in America.

I would like to suggest that we only post what we know to be factual about the law and not conjecture about what might happen.

I applaud all of you that we've been able to handle an emotionally-charged issue like real people and not take it personally. Your are all astounding and outstanding people who obviously feel strongly about dog ownership and stewardship. It is NOT like that in the bowels of **** of California animal control.

sutulu

06-12-2007, 09:02 AM

Just a question to throw out for my own information.....

In one of the Pro-CA Healthy Pet articles it was mentioned that many breeders don't license their dogs annually for whatever reason.

My town and state require dogs to be licensed every year so I do it. To me it's like renewing car registration, inspection, etc. The difference in the fee between an altered pet and intact pet is maybe $20.

Again.... just asking... If the folks who do breed took a thumbnail sketch of peers, would you say many of these folks license their dogs?

********

So I am screwed because I can't get a license to breed because I don't want to breed my dog, I just want him to develop into a male! And if I get a female I'll spay at 6 months to not have the incontinence problem. As this goes, I may have to go to AZ to have the spaying done so my Vet doesn't get in trouble for not spaying at 4 months! That is if they make the Vet's be the law enforcement. Won't that just make a Vet's day. (per Merrie)

Why wouldn't you just ask your Vet to provide information that your decision health wise, is to wait until the pet is 6 motnhs? The bill does allow for this.

If you feel that your animal is too young for spaying/neutering, the law provides for a delay, if approved in writing by a veterinarian. And, the bill provides an exemption if your vet feels that your animal is too unhealthy or old to be safely altered. http://www.cahealthypets.com/faqs.htm

Susan

sutulu

06-12-2007, 09:21 AM

I know I live in the boonies but since New York State loves to tax and charge folks I thought I'd do a little checking....

In my small town licensing an altered pet is a whopping $4.50 annually ( you do have to provide proof of rabies vaccination so there is the vet fee...) and an unaltered pet is $12.50.

According the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Control license fee IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES for an unaltered dog is $60. For an altered dog is $20 and for a dog belonging to a Sr Citizen the fee is $7.50.

http://animalcare.lacounty.gov/FeesAction.asp

Below the fee for unaltered dog is the link for the exemption certificate which has a section for medical exemption, law enforcement dogs, service dogs, and low and behold - competition dogs (http://animalcare.lacounty.gov/cms1_045450.pdf). The section talks about breeding and ethics and genetics and helth defects comon to the breeds.... many of the things we discuss in responsible our breeding threads.....

bayoucorgi

06-12-2007, 09:54 AM

Thanks Susan for looking that up for LA Co. I was going from memory. So if the fee over 20 years ago for an intact dog was $50 then, and $60 now, that's a lot less than many taxes have increased.

My point about this being a California Law not being the beginning of national or even other-states legislation is proven by the fact that California is one of the most legislated and litigated states and few states follow their lead. Some examples of Cal laws not spreaading are deposits on disposable drink containers, immigration, English only, indigent health care. The cost to register a car there was 15 times what I pay to register the SAME CAR in Texas. As an environmental scientist, the laws for groundwater, air, and solid waste are significantly different than in other (even bordering) states. As a clinical researcher, the laws for human subjects, research types, and documentation are significantly more stringent. They have unique carcinogen, mutagen and dangerous chemicals notification laws. These are laws that have a lot more impact on the country and the world and indeed humanity than whether they legislate to spay or neuter dogs. So I think it is acceptable or even appropriate for them to have a more stringent animal control law there.

Here's a weird one. You cannot buy the silver french cake decorations there due to an unsubstantiated fear of heavy metal contamination. So every year at Christmas I send my sister a bottle of them from Texas.

My civil disobedience is running rampant.

I have not licensed my pets. The City of Houston sent me a notice because I got my dogs vaccinated in Houston, but I live in the City of Pasadena so I sent back the notice that I did not live in their jurisdiction.

Here's the scoop on Houston LICENSE FEES
Type of License First Year Subsequent Years
Unaltered pet License $ 50 $ 50
Altered Pet License $ 10 $ 10
Senior Citizen Altered Pet $ 5 $ 2*
Certified Assistance Dogs FREE $ 2*
Dangerous Dog License $ 50 $ 50
Kennel License $ 50 $ 50
Late Fee $ 10 $ 10
* (Renewal Processing Fee)

DOG OWNERSHIP AND KENNELS
It is against the law to own more than three dogs over the age of six months in the City of Houston, unless you obtain a kennel license. Kennel licenses are available for more than three dogs at $50 per year. However, certain restrictions must be met to qualify for a kennel license. Call 713 238-9600 for information.

So, it seems that "intact" penalties have been in effect all over the country for years and people still breed pets. My dog is neutered, tagged, vaccinated, and microchipped. He is leashed, confined, trained, not tied or tethered, given food, water, vet-care, not allowed to nuisance bark so I doubt I will ever even see or hear from an animal care or control person in his lifetime. But if the dog next door was not leashed or confined or was tied or tethered in the heat without shelter, food, water, vet-care, or allowed to nuisance bark, or have litter after litter of unwanted puppies - I would be glad there was a law so that someone could come stop it.

MVons

06-12-2007, 11:34 AM

It is irresponsible to conjecture what the possible (ie. $500/year) fees will be or that they are out to "get the breeders". Sorry that you didn't get that it was an exaggerated guess to demonstrate that whatever the fee is when the law is put in place, that the fees would go up. I did not mean to imply I was stating a fact. The counties are in desperate need of money. Most of the people on this forum are not voters in California.

Why wouldn't you just ask your Vet to provide information that your decision health wise, is to wait until the pet is 6 months? The bill does allow for this.

Because I worry that my Vet may be jeopardizing his license if he goes against the Vet recommended age for spaying just because I may want to wait longer than 6 months for a cardi male. They don't consider the undevelopment of a chest to be a health wise issue.

You can't legally avoid having a rabies shot even though your dog is an extreme senior with impaired health. Even though that is not an animal active, running out encountering a rabid animal, and is probably strictly an indoor animal. But as an owner I will make that decision if ever forced to. Pepper's death avoided that decision. Just as a parent I make the decision as to which vaccination and when and what combination for my child. No I was not going to have him vaccinated when he was ill. That was worth the extra money to return to the doctors for the shots. At least it wasn't law that I had to have him vaccinated exactly by his 5th birthday.

I know my assembyman voted against the bill because he believed 6 months was a better age than 4 months. Why Levine wouldn't compromise on the 2 months is beyond me. Instead we have this battle when there are other more important bills to be dealt with like immigration or health care for example.

Merrie

MVons

06-12-2007, 12:24 PM

http://www.cfainc.org/exhibitors/alert-RiversideCA.html

BACKGROUND - The Los Angeles County law goes into effect June 3, 2006

In the unincorporated LA County - All dogs over 4 months of age must be microchipped and spayed/neutered unless their owner purchases an intact animal license. To be eligible for this license a dog must be a law enforcement dog, assistance dog or a "competition" dog registered with a valid registry AND meet other requirements -
**Competed in at least one dog show/event in the past year
**Earned a title from a recognized purebred registry
**Owner must be a member of a purebred dog club that maintains and enforces a code of ethics.

Los Angeles County already has a law requiring a $250 hobby breeder permit for dogs and cats (only 1 litter per year per animal).

Sacramento County is finalizing a similar draft mandatory draft ordinance with breeder permits.

Merrie

sutulu

06-12-2007, 12:40 PM

Again, from the official site of the bill, not an outside organization's view point, there is opportunity for you and your Vet to make the decision to alter your pet AFTER 4 months:

If you feel that your animal is too young for spaying/neutering, the law provides for a delay, if approved in writing by a veterinarian. And, the bill provides an exemption if your vet feels that your animal is too unhealthy or old to be safely altered.

http://www.cahealthypets.com/faqs.htm

Merrie, I knew you were just "spitballing" a figure, I do understand that you weren't stating hard fact that it would cost you $500 for a license.

But it appears to me that much of the information being tossed around, and not just on this forum, is someone's opinion, PETA's or AR's opinion, or just an off the cuff comment. And people are quoting it as if it were fact.

I do respect your position on the issue.

And I too don't live in CA but I do agree with Debbie and Peggy on this much: it may very well spread across the country. NY State may one day be discussing mandatory spay/neuter. Right now there is a bill before the legislature on mandatory microchipping???????? Not exactly sure how much help that will be...

Susan

MVons

06-12-2007, 01:23 PM

The real eye opener to me was the fees breeders have to pay. It is $280 kennel fee in Riverside county. As a pet owner I didn't know about the fees they have to pay to have 1-5 animals. The kennel fee is higher for more dogs. Once a dog reaches 4 months old they are included into the animal count. Maybe if they considered $1000 fee for the puppy mill then they could crack down on them if $1000 is too high for them to pay.

I know small non-breeder businesses complain about the fees and I just wasn't aware of what the fees were. Life is financially hard these days for a start up business in our area. Anitgo WI cost $30 for my SIL for have a business license for her sewing business. I swear I need to consider moving out of CA to have a higher standard of living when we retire. But that is a ways off.

Merrie

glencorgi

06-13-2007, 05:51 PM

I just got finished rocking, snuggling, kissing and relishing the breath of the products of the exploitation of their dam and was thinking about this.

Merrie, you were not mistaken on the $500 amount of the fine. It may have been "amended" now, but that is the figure originally cited. And you "get it", you really do.

From: After nasty fight, bill heads to state Senate By Michael Gardner
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

June 10, 2007
"Under
the bill, owners of dogs and cats would have to spay or neuter pets older
than 4 months starting April 1, 2008. A $500 fine for failing to do so would
be treated like a traffic fix-it ticket, allowing owners a chance to
sterilize their pet and avoid paying."

From:
http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_6088981
The bill would require most cats and dogs four months old and up to be spayed or neutered. Failure to do so could result in a $500 fine for owners.

You also have sound reasons to be concerned about the consequences to your vet and your puppy with pediatric neuter. The bill does allow for exemptions, getting them granted will depend on the mindset and agenda of your local jurisdiction. Just because they can be granted, doesn't mean they will. Those on floor report at the last minute Levine also said sure there could be exemptions for a family who might to have one litter from their mixed breed dog giving him the final vote he needed to get 1634 passed in the Assembly.

While much criticism has been slanted to those of us who have presented the words and intent of those supporting MSN and this bill, carte blanche credibility has been given to the pro-1634 site and its FAQ. Having been through the same kind of whitewash with PAWS, I learned a while back to read the bill and learn to understand the meaning of legislative legalese. The signficance of one little two letter word, such as OR, can have a major impact on the entire meaning of part of a bill.

Merrie also posted from LA County (will show up in italics):
BACKGROUND - The Los Angeles County law goes into effect June 3, 2006

In the unincorporated LA County - All dogs over 4 months of age must be microchipped and spayed/neutered unless their owner purchases an intact animal license. To be eligible for this license a dog must be a law enforcement dog, assistance dog or a "competition" dog registered with a valid registry AND meet other requirements -

Okay what is a valid registery? There are over 300 recognized breeds in the world of which AKC recognizes only around half of them.

**Competed in at least one dog show/event in the past year

Although unknown to some of the forums members, there is a serious debate among agiity enthusiasts as to sterilizing too early having detrimental health ramifications on the health of their dogs. This means one would have to begin trialing their dog before a year of age.

**Earned a title from a recognized purebred registry

Would a title from JRTCA be recognized, or must it be an AKC title on a PRCA member's dog? ASCA? AHBA?

**Owner must be a member of a purebred dog club that maintains and enforces a code of ethics.

Not all all-breed clubs have a code of ethics. Forming a club is not as easy as "hey, let's start a dog club" (walking groups, social get togethers, nor Dogster are going to cut it here). Breed specific clubs are even more problematic to get going. Constitutions and by-laws would need to be changed by many clubs. And for personal reasons, a highly respected and reputable breeder may choose not to be a member of any club.

Los Angeles County already has a law requiring a $250 hobby breeder permit for dogs and cats (only 1 litter per year per animal).

And puppies get smuggled in from Mexico to fill the demand. (I've already quoted and posted newspaper sources for this fact of reality).

Merrie also touches on:
" I know small non-breeder businesses complain about the fees and I just wasn't aware of what the fees were."

Also check into the feasibility of beginning home-based businesses. Also needs to be re-read were the comments of the two CA residents on the plausibility of even getting business licenses for kennels, let alone kennel licenses in some locations.

Pam, CA is the latest of the states that statewide MSN has been tried. Early spring this year it was tried in Davidson County, NC and it has been tried in other parts of the country already this year. Guilford County, NC where I live, the AR's are chomping at the bit to have it here. I can say this with some credibility and authority as I was in the last meeting they held to address changes to our local animal code. You should also have a look at what is happening in the District of Columbia. So far the push has been defeated, what is significant about CA is that it will the movement and agenda its biggest victory to date and the momentum it gets from that, well personally I shudder to think about it. You shared all the restrictions and codes you had to follow when you were a CA resident and also about your work at the shelter ... what did you paying $50 intact licensing fee solve? I've listed locales that have implemented MSN and also the results - it does NOT work. Nor is it irresponsible to (or paranoid for that matter) to believe that hobby breeders are the target when those introducing, pushing and promoting these type laws have those words come out of their mouths.

I'll admit to a bit of surprise that Susan would have second thoughts about mandatory microchipping. There are issues and problems inherent in those proposals, but I won't waste time in bringing them up. To answer her question about breeders not licensing their dogs; sounds like unsubstantiated hearsay, someone's opinion, or an off the cuff comment being quoted as fact.

Debbie

sutulu

06-14-2007, 07:39 AM

I just got finished rocking, snuggling, kissing and relishing the breath of the products of the exploitation of their dam and was thinking about this.
(per Debbie)

*******

OK, as long as we are not over sensationalizing this issue!

Debbie, we do strongly disagree about this issue but I am trying to keep a sense of humor for the forum!

And
I'll admit to a bit of surprise that Susan would have second thoughts about mandatory microchipping. There are issues and problems inherent in those proposals, but I won't waste time in bringing them up. To answer her question about breeders not licensing their dogs; sounds like unsubstantiated hearsay, someone's opinion, or an off the cuff comment being quoted as fact.

The reason I am skeptical about NYS proposal for mandatory microchipping is this: This looks like step one or easing into something similar to Albequerque's Heart and CA's Healthy Pet legislation. If it is, my feeling is do it all at once and let's see what the reaction in NY State is. I would rather see them "go for it" than soft pedal and back door (I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS THE INTENT) the legislation.

I don't know what the reaction in NY State would be.

Susan

bayoucorgi

06-14-2007, 08:11 AM

I think this is probably one of those issues when we will have to politely agree to disagree.

I don't stand with the AR's or the anti-AR's on ALL laws in ALL places. I try to weigh what I read with what I know and make my own decisions. My only reason for posting here is to help others understand that the issues of California animal control are unique (mega-population, geography, socio-political climate etc.) and IN THIS CASE, THIS law may be reasonable.

Although I don't believe passage of a state law in California means it will happen all over - and I already cited several examples. If they did pass MSN in Texas, then I will learn the law and live within its restrictions while protecting my interests. If I had an animal I wanted to preserve intact for whatever reason, I would talk to my vet about the waiver. I would get a TT or a CGC - or trot around a ring in an AKC conformation match in the 3-6 mo. class. I would not do anything unhealthy or unsafe to my young dog to meet the requirements. But again, animal control people do not have time or money to check the ribbons and this will probably never be enforced on anyone's fenced, leashed, responsibly cared for animal.

I said it is irresponsible to quote an exaggerated guess of a intact permit fee (not fine) on an open forum because people will take it as fact and it will perpetuate misinformation. I also said that extremists on either side of this issue said shock value things for the soundbyte. The humaniacs who said the stupid comments are stupid. But I don't personally feel they are out to get me. I don't remember saying anything about being paranoid. If I did, sorry, I retract.

I didn't like paying more to have an intact dog because I obviously felt I was part of the solution and not the problem, but I don't think laws aren't usually passed to solve MY problems. It wasn't about ME. It was about family next door with a pet Golden named Angus who didn't want to pay the higher fees so they got him neutered. (Actual story.) I think this law gives animal control a TOOL to enforce on people who don't keep their pets from randomly reproducing. The "fix it ticket" structure of the fine is to compel the common pet owner to get the animal "repaired". We have shown how differential fees for intact and non-intact animals EXIST in many areas ALREADY.

Anyway, I've shared my perspective. I've thought about what all of you have posted, but we probably won't change each others' minds. The "tone" of the emails is getting less issue-focussed and more personally-focussed and I don't want this to become a "you" against "me" issue. I want to talk more about puppies and flowers and fun things. I want to focus more on how Merrie, Debbie, Susan and I are ALIKE. We are good stewards of dogs, and especially our Corgis. We probably feel the same on many more issues than we feel differently so probably best for me to post on the other threads.