California AB1634

[SoloRiver]

From today's SF Chronicle:

 

Lawmaker Wants to Put the Fix on Fido

 

If this article is accurate, this legislation would require all dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered by 4 months of age unless they meet certain exemption criteria and their owners pay a fee for an "intact license." Animals are exempt "if they are purebred and registered with the American Kennel Club, the United Kennel Club, the American Dog Breeders Association or the International Cat Association." The aim of the legislation is to curb the problem of pet overpopulation.

 

I am sympathetic to the motivation behind this legislation, but it does not allow for "intact licenses" for many purpose-bred dogs that are not registered with the list of acceptable registries, like Border Collies. On a more personal level, I prefer not to alter my dogs until they have reached physical maturity (because I think hormones are important to normal development and because I like my dogs to display secondary sex characteristics -- i.e., for males to look and act male, and for females to look and act female) and I would not be allowed to do this even though I am responsible and have no intention of ever breeding dogs.

 

Comments? Opinions?

[Katelynn & Gang]

Couldn't some legal action be taken if they tried to enforce this because a dog isn't registered with one of the three?

 

Katelynn

[Kyrasmom]

A law similar to this one has passed in our County already last year and the only exempion is if you have a kennel license...which means another yearly, and hefty, fee for the county. I think it's well over $500 for two years...could be wrong. Our county has a huge pet overpopulation problem and I'm very sympathetic to the efforts being made but it sucks as a responsible pet owner to pay for the irresponsibility of others.

 

It's not being enforced as strongly as it could be as Animal Control is understaffed and under paid...plus they really are attempting (through intra-personal small county structures) to focus on irresponsible owners, for example, people who drop off entire litters of puppies at animal control or intact and/or pregnant females or intact males found wandering and picked up. I have an intact male who will never be bred and will probably be neutered because it's what I want...but it would bug me to do it because I'm made to.

 

But if it hits a place like SF or larger more metropolitan counties, I can see an attempt at it being enforced across the board.

 

Maria

[2halves]

Comments? Opinions?

 

 

I feel pretty much the same way you do. You can send your comments here...

 

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/legcomment/...p;author=levine

 

 

This is basically just going to tax those who are not contributing to the problem. BYB's (regardless of whether or not the litters are produced on purpose or by "mistake") are not going to be paying all these fees. I doubt this will put even the smallest dent in the problem.

[bcollie]

I have contacted my Assemblyman, the California Farm Bureau and posted comments opposing this insane legislation. Why does the California legislature feel they need to regulate every aspect of our lives? Perhaps they could spend the time and energy curbing crime, fixing roads and doing the other things we elected them to do. This is crazy over reaching legislation which will do little or nothing to curb irresponsible breeding, just punish responsible breeders. At the very least it needs a working dog exemption. Under this bill, since the ABCA is not an included registry, the dogs working on ranches across California would have to be spayed or neutered and there would be no way to produce more quality working dogs. Please write your Assemblyman today to register your complaints. If you don't know who your Assemblyman is, go to www.vote-smart.org and put in your zip code and it will tell you along with contact info.

[BayouBC]

Personally I have no objections to mandatory spay/neuter laws, but that's because I'm one that thinks almost all dogs and cats (cats ESPECIALLY) should be spayed/neutered. However, the actual enforcement of the laws is probably impossible.

 

My biggest issue with this one is that if the dog's registered with the AKC then it's exempt. So WHAT if it's registered with the AKC? I would say at LEAST half of the BYB's breed AKC registered dogs. Every random citizen and their grandparents have a "registered" dog. So allowing them to be exempt just because they're registered probably is going to make the law, if passed, completely ineffective in improving the overpopulation problem. Sure, you might cut down on some of the mix breed, accidental litters. But BYBs that pump out 10 or more litters a year end up with plenty of their puppies in the shelters too.

 

I think for such a law to ever be truly effective, it would need to only allow exemptions for truly qualified dogs. As in "registered" dogs would have to show proof that they're competing in comepetitions that require them to not be sterilized (as much as I dislike dog shows, that would still cut back on a lot of breeders). Hopefully you could work in a "working" dog type exemption too, since some breeds, not just BC's, have their working or -real- lines registered with groups outside of the AKC. But again, I doubt any of that's really enforcable. You would probably end up with a result much like pit bull bans...the people that follow the laws are the ones who aren't causing the problems anyawy.

[Black Watch Debatable]

Melanie wrote

I prefer not to alter my dogs until they have reached physical maturity (because I think hormones are important to normal development and because I like my dogs to display secondary sex characteristics -- i.e., for males to look and act male, and for females to look and act female) and I would not be allowed to do this even though I am responsible and have no intention of ever breeding dogs.

Another proponent of late (very late) speutering, here. Unfortunately, advocates of mandatory spay/neuter tend to believe that no one is sufficiently responsible to keep an intact dog of breeding age.

 

BayouBC wrote

Personally I have no objections to mandatory spay/neuter laws, but that's because I'm one that thinks almost all dogs and cats... should be spayed/neutered.

 

Don't move to Scandinavia. In Norway, the Welfare of Animals Act passed in 1974 prohibits the spay/neuter of dogs "unless it is necessary from a medical point of view." Sweden's Animal Protection Act (1988) concurs: it's unethical to spay/neuter without medical cause. The majority of dogs in those countries are intact (and there is no dog overpopulation problem).

 

A growing number of adverse health effects are associated with spay/neuter, especially early spay/neuter: not only spay incontinence, but a higher risk of hip dysplasia, CCL injuries, hypothyroidism, osteosarcoma, and a higher incidence of adverse reactions to vaccines. All this is suported by scientific studies. Spay/neuter is now being discussed as a possible link to increased allergies and skin conditions. (Maybe it wasn't that crappy kibble!) Chris Zink, one of the country's top dog-sport vets, recommends that sport prospects not be spayed/neutered before the age of 14 months. (See the first link below.)

 

But according to AB1634, if I rescue a mongrel pup off the street, he must be neutered before the age of four months. Forget that he'll face an increased risk of everything from hip dysplasia to cancer: I won't have the option of following my vet's advice and waiting until the pup is at least 14 months old for the surgery. It's no longer my call --- it's Big Brother's call. Prefer to feed raw? Choose not to vaccinate your dogs every year? Great! You must be an informed, responsible pet guardian. But take issue with a medically unnecessary procedure that will increase your puppy's risk of injury and illness, and the State of California will fine you hundreds of dollars and take your dog away. For its own good, of course

 

My first pit bull was the greatest dog in the history of the universe. He died at seven, of IMHA. Nowadays we know how detrimental overvaccination can be, but I didn't know back then. He was neutered, of course --- and now we know that speutered animals are more likely to experience adverse reactions to vaccines. Other great companion dogs will be at increased risk of suffering from IMHA because of this law.

 

And I really, really hate that a number of people believe it's an acceptable trade-off --- that the chance of fewer dogs in shelters [a big maybe] is worth the greater number of serious health issues and related loss [a given]. Not so easy to stomach when it's your dog dying of a terrible illness like IMHA.

 

This comment is from the second link, below: "[My dog] has the right to live in the world as whole as he came into it. I will never deny him that right because other dogs suffer from the stupidity of ignorant or vicious people. He's got the right to live without being made more vulnerable to disease than he would otherwise have been. He's got the right to be treated with the respect due another species... it's not spay/neuter programs that are going to put an end to shelters, it's forcing a change in people. Social pressure and education are what's needed, not scalpels."

 

Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete:

http://www.caninesports.com/SpayNeuter.html

 

A good take on spay/neuter health issues (check out the comments, too):

http://www.doggedblog.com/doggedblog/2006/05/its_just_that_t.html

***

 

I sent a longer version of this post to the Pit Bull Forums last night. I wrote that AB1634 could create hardship for ranchers, and would endanger the working border collie breed: if the legal and economic effects of this bill force stockmen to spay and neuter most of their young dogs before the best workers can be identified, the breed will suffer considerable damage.

[painted_ponies]

So let me get this straight - they're considering a law that will only be enforced against those who have not paid a registration fee to certain private companies? Hmmm. I think the legislature may be buying a lawsuit.

[Eileen Stein]

Luisa, according to the advocates' website, BadRap (Bay Area Doglovers Responsible About Pit bulls) is one of the bill's supporters.

 

???

[jvw]

My first dog is out of a CA shelter. Got her back in 2001. They had just passed a law that no animal will leave the shelter intact. She was only 8 weeks old. We pleaded with them to let us pay a heafty fee and wait until she was at least six months old. She also needed dew claw surgery which the shelter vet would not do. So she was sent home spayed. Then a few months later we did the dew claw surgery. I was not happy to have her under anesthesia twice as a pup!!! She is now 6 and has been incontinent since age 3. Also, she has some of the worst comformation ever. Maybe she would have been this way anyway but I believe it had to do with the baby spay.

 

I will always spay/neuter my dogs. But only at a later age.

 

Jennifer

[Kyrasmom]

I think that by and large, rescuers will support this bill. In our county, even though it irked me as a pet owner, knowing first hand the extreme pet overpopulation problem we have and the complete ignorance of responsible ownership, I could see why it was a necessary evil.

 

As a responsible pet owner it bugs the heck out of me.

 

As for the baby spays/neuters, again, as a responsible pet owner, I would prefer my dogs to be a little older, though I have three juvinile neuters who are the picture of health. As someone who has fostered litter after litter after litter, there's a really great feeling about knowing that the puppy leaving my care will not repopulate. And this from a private rescue who can screen potential families....most county facilities don't always have that option/time/inclination to be as picky.

 

My vet has stopped doing female baby spays but still does the little boys because of the incidence of incontinance in females so it's that much more difficult to select the right homes that you know will follow up on the spay deposit...call them...remind them..etc etc.

 

And it's not always about responsibility, if it were up to my husband, he would not spay or neuter anyone because it just kills him to make them have surgery. He would never allow a dog to breed, I think he would stay awake for the enture heat cycle of a female to guard her, but it's not in him to drop them off for elective surgeries. Thankfully I don't have that issue and take that burden off of him...but I have to assume that others have the same fear/reluctance. So, it's not automatically being a bad owner to not spay/neuter which is why rescuers love doing it for the new owners.

 

Maria

[ljrphoto]

I won't get into the speuter argument but I'll say this: I would love to elect an official who would promise to do absolutely nothing during their term in office. There are so many redundant, unnecessary, unenforceable laws it's ridiculous. Politicians pass these kinds of bills to look like they are earning their keep. It might look nice on the surface, but usually it does more harm than good. The ban against slaughtering horses for human consumption is a good example... no, I do not eat horse, I wish no one did and I wish no horse ever had to suffer. But I would bet my eye teeth that this slaughter ban will cause more suffering than it relieves because instead of being slaughtered in the US, horses will be transported to far off places, often injured and with a minimum of care to be slaughtered. So what was solved? The speutering law will be the same kind of garbage. It will make more problems than it solves.

 

Oh, and the list of registries that will make dogs acceptable to be left in tact leads me to believe that the ABCA needs better lobbyists.

[painted_ponies]

Interesting. I've looked at a few of these laws already on the books, and so far none have named particular registries for exemption.

 

Rhode Island and Alabama only require mandatory speuter of animals adopted from shelters, pounds, etc. New Mexico has an exemption for animals registered with any nationally recognized registry and entered into a competition or event at least once a year.

 

Virginia tabled a bill last year because it was going to exempt breeders and fanciers but couldn't work out a definition that wouldn't have been void for vagueness.

 

Anyway, I think mandatory speuter is a truly awful idea, for the reasons stated by the posters above.

[sluj]

Of the many flaws with this bill, at least it seems they are reconsidering the registry one. I wrote in to the comments section of "CA Healthy Pets Act" website , and received this somewhat encouraging reply:

 

Subject : FW: Info request from CA Healthy Pets visitor

 

Hi Sharon,

We have been working on the language for the past several weeks. It will be

changed just as you are suggesting. We understand the argument that you've

laid out below, and are changing it accordingly. Many folks wrote in and I

have spoken with directly. I wish I could send you the new draft. Hopefully

it will be up on our site towards the end of the week. I hope you decide to

support the bill. Killing 1/2 million dogs and cats per year is absolutely

not acceptable.

 

Judie

 

 

Judie Mancuso

Campaign Director

California Healthy Pets Act

www.cahealthypets.com

 

-----Original Message-----

 

 

Comments: As a rescuer, I am partly in support of spay/neuter legislation.

However, I believe this bill should be modified to allow permits to be

granted to other registries. Many ranchers in California and elsewhere rely

on the assistance of dogs who are never registered to AKC, but rather to

workdog-specific registries such as the United States Border Collie Club,

Inc. (USBCC) or the American Border Collie Association (ABCA). (I believe

there are similar registries for other working breeds such as Kelpies and

Australian Cattledogs, but am less familiar with these.) Such dogs are

typically breed for working purposes and have characteristics significantly

differing from AKC bred dogs. To deny stock owners the ability to breed

their dogs according to working specifications would irreperably damage not

only the breed, but the industry. Thank you for your consideration.

 

submit: Send Comments

 

So it may be worthwhile to keep writing in with concerns. If they really want what's best for the pet population, they should listen to reason.

[bcollie]

They have made the proposed law even worse. Go to http://saveourdogs.net/ab1634.html to see what they have changed.

[Black Watch Debatable]

Un-frickin'-real.

 

122336.1. (a) A person shall not own or possess within the state any cat or dog over the age of four months that has not been spayed or neutered.

 

Exemptions:

 

22336.2. (a) A cat or dog is exempt from the requirements of subdivision (a) of section

122336.1 if any of the following conditions are met:

(1) The owner provides proof that he or she is doing business and is duly licensed as a

legitimate breeder by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency,

including providing proof of a business license and Federal and State tax number or other valid

information as determined by the local jurisdiction in which the intact permit is sought.

 

Puppy mills will be laughing all the way to the bank.

 

 

(2) The owner provides proof of each of the following, as determined in the sole discretion by

the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency:

( a ) That his or her cat or dog is used to show or compete and has competed in at least one

legitimate show or sporting competition within the last two years, as determined in the sole

discretion of the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency.

( b ) That his or her cat or dog is a valid breed as recognized by a registry approved in the sole

discretion by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency.

( c ) That the cat or dog has earned, or if under two years old, is in the process of earning, a

conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working or other

title from a purebred registry or association approved in the sole discretion by the local

jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency.

 

Have working ranch dogs that aren't trialed? You're toast. They're toast. Did your dog finish in the top ten at the Finals? Hope you don't plan to breed him: no title = spay/neuter.

 

 

(3) The cat or dog is being trained, or is documented as having been appropriately trained and

actively used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement and rescue activities, or meets the

definition of guide dog, service dog, or signal dog, as set forth in subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of

Section 365.5 of the Penal Code.

(4) The owner of a cat or dog provides a letter to the local jurisdiction or its authorized local

animal control agency from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor

health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog. This letter shall include the

veterinarian's license number and shall also include the date by which the dog or cat may be

safely spayed or neutered, if at all possible.

 

 

 

Someone please explain to me how a four month old pup can "show or compete and has competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition within the last two years" AND "has earned, or if under two years old, is in the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working or other title from a purebred registry"?

 

Better have those pups ready for Pro-Novice a year or two earlier, people. If not, well --- I'm sure the loss of the working stockdog is a small price to pay for an end to the shelter crisis

 

This is insane. My hope is that it's so completely frickin' insane that no one will vote for it. Spread the word...

[Black Watch Debatable]

Forgot this part:

 

(d) Nothing in this Section shall prohibit a local jurisdiction from adopting or enforcing a more restrictive spay or neuter program as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code, provided that the program allows for a cat or dog to be temporarily or permanently exempted from a spay or neuter requirement if a letter from a California licensed veterinarian is provided to the local jurisdiction stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog, as specified in subsection (a)(4).

 

Somewhere, a puppy miller is giving a jubilant high-five to Ingrid Newkirk.

[bcollie]

Below is what the side pushing this bill has to say to its supporters. We need to be there to show our opposition. My husband just suggested our own rally with a Border Collie working sheep and announcing that this dog and it's kind will need to be neutered under this law and it will create a hardship on working ranch dogs which will ultimately lead to less taxes being paid to the state.

 

As posted on the http://cahealthypets.com website:

"AB 1634 California Healthy Pets Act is scheduled to be heard in the Business and Professions Committee Hearing on

Tuesday, April 10, 2007 at the State Capitol, Room 447.

 

Please help by attending the hearing. The hearing starts

at 9 am and lasts until approximately 1:30 pm. If possible

be at the room by 8am to get a seat. We won’t know what

time our bill will be heard, we simply show up and wait.

We should be done by 1:30, but it could go later. If you

are coming just for the day, get to Sacramento early, and

leave sometime early evening, just to be safe.

 

Everyone that attends will be able to stand at the

microphone, state their name (& group if applicable),

where they are from and that they support the bill."

 

It’s very important that we fill the hearing room! So please

invite everyone who will come and support this very

important legislation.

[Black Watch Debatable]

Deadline for comments is tomorrow, April 4.

 

Find your representatives here, and call 'em:

http://saveourdogs.net/contactyourrep.html

 

Faxes are said to make the most impact, so fax opposition to

 

Mike Eng, Chair of Business and Professions Committee

Tel: (916) 319-2049

Fax: (916) 319-3306

 

Assembly Member Lloyd Levine (author of the bill)

Tel: (916) 319-2040

Fax: (916) 319-2140

 

For intact dogs, the bill states that "the owner provides proof of each of the following":

The dog must be in competition AND must belong to an approved registry AND must have earned a title by the age of two or be in the process of earning a title.

 

If all three requirements are not met, and the dog is older than 4 months, it must be spayed/neutered.

 

Working border collies, aussies, Kelpies, McNabs --- these dogs aren't started on stock until they're at least ten months or so, often older. The AHBA won't let dogs under 6 months compete. And yet: if the dog is over four months and not in competition, it must be spayed/neutered.

 

Insane.

 

This [March 27] version of the bill will mean the extinction of the working stockdog in California.

[painted_ponies]

I can't imagine how they're planning to enforce this law, if it passes. Does anyone know? Or is this just one of those laws state legislators like to have their names on, so they can pretend to have done something about a hot button issue?

 

Of course, I hope y'all manage to defeat this thing and no one ever has to find out if they'll attempt enforcement. What an awful, horrible, intrusive, and bone-headed idea.

[Maralynn]

I'm looking at all the information here, and it just screams "lawsuit" to me. I can't believe that courts (at least once you get outside CA) are going to uphold this one if it were passed in it's current state and were to be challenged.

[painted_ponies]

Maralynn - I don't know if I see a court doing much about this law. For one thing, it's hard for me to imagine an individual owner spending the legal fees to bring a challenge, and I don't know if the stockdog registries have the bucks to finance one. But even so, legislatures have pretty broad "police powers" to regulate health, safety and morals. So long as they don't target a "suspect class" (a particular race or religion, say), then all they have to show is that the law bears a reasonable relation to public health or safety. And it's easy to see how that argument could be made for this law.

 

Now that they've taken out the part favoring one certain private enterprise (AKC), and simply require registration with a "national registry," then I think the law would probably pass constitutional muster. What about that "no taking of private property for public use without just compensation" part of the Constitution? AFAIK, there's no compensable property interest in chattel.

 

Not that I'm defending this law at all, I'm just saying if it's to be defeated it will probably have to be by the voters and not by the courts.

 

BUT, zoning laws really only get enforced when someone's neighbor complains to the authorities, because most local governments don't have the resources to field teams of "zoning police." Lord knows you can't get Animal Control to respond to anything but flagrant abuse and neglect, because they also tend to be overworked (sad to say). I suspect this law will work the same way - most people will ignore it, and it'll just become a weapon to be used in neighborhood grudge matches.

[Sue R]

But what will happen between the possible passage into law of this bill and court challenges? How many good folks and their dogs, trials, farmwork, etc., will be affected while the very people the bill may be aimed at will probably be snubbing their noses at it?

 

The concept of registries recognized by localities is also disturbing. Does that mean that ABCA might be recognized in one county or municipality and not the neighboring one? So maybe one person has to speuter their working dogs but the rancher one county or town over doesn't?

 

It isn't just the working Border Collie at risk. What about the Jack Russell Terrier, with its own registry, or any other breed with a non-KC registry?

 

This bill seems so unsupportable, so unenforceable (after all, so many other cruelty, etc., laws go unenforced), so irrational, and so biased that it is amazing it is being considered. Oh, wait, it's got the AKC and UKC on its side, the animal rights folks on its side, the horrifying statistics of shelter animals and euthanization on its side (apparently) - it's got everything BUT rationality and reality on its side.

 

Edited to say that I'm obviously behind on the breaking news on this and so my comments may no longer be valid, if they even were in the first place.

[painted_ponies]

How many good folks and their dogs, trials, farmwork, etc., will be affected while the very people the bill may be aimed at will probably be snubbing their noses at it?

 

That's the part that worries me. The only way I can think of that this law might be enforced is by requiring vets to report unspayed or unneutered animals. Not sure if that could be done, legally, but if it could, then the people who truly cause the overpopulation problem - irresponsible owners - would more than likely just stop going to the vet. There's a great outcome. While it would put the responsible owners, and certainly those who trial and work their dogs, right in the crosshairs.

[Eileen Stein]

Sally, in its current version I don't think this bill could even pass the rational relation test, and as you say, that's a very lenient test. I can't imagine that it will be enacted. If it is, I feel sure it will be challenged.

 

But it's an appalling example of our government at work that it could get any legislative support at all.