June 4, 2007
By Denise Flaim/Newsday
I'll be honest. I don't want to care about what's going on in California. I have limited CPUs in this aging head of mine, and I'm hard-pressed to keep up with my new puppy's housebreaking, much less obsess over legislation being passed in a state on the opposite coast.
But if you are on any dog-related e-mail lists, chances are you, too, are being inundated with posts about AB 1634, also known as the California Healthy Pets Act. And perhaps, as with me, the hue and cry has become too much to ignore.
Despite its upbeat name, what this legislation aims to do is mandate that any puppy or kitten be spayed or neutered by 4 months of age. Owners who wanted to keep their animals' reproductive organs would be required to pay an "intact permit fee," the cost of which would be determined by their municipality, or face a $500 fine.
Commercial breeders - better known as puppymillers, who stock pet stores, all the better to facilitate your furry impulse buy - will gladly pay the price.
Not so "hobby breeders," of which, in the interest of full disclosure, I am one. Hobby breeders are just that - they breed primarily for the love of a breed, not for its cash value. If they are in any business, it is to leave their breed in better condition than they found it. They perform appropriate health tests on their dogs, sell all their pet-quality dogs on spay-neuter contracts, and promise to take back any dog of their breeding in the event the owner no longer wants it.
Most hobby breeders are acutely aware of the animal- overpopulation issue that prompted AB 1634 in the first place. But they also recognize that the problem stems not from overachieving ovaries or unsnipped testicles, but rather from irresponsible owners. Which is why reputable breeders vigorously screen buyers and turn down inappropriate ones, and why waiting lists can be months - even years - long.
Laws like AB 1634 only create disincentive for the most honorable breeders to breed. Filling the void will be puppymillers. And you can look forward to a spike in imported puppies, like the unpapered, disease-ridden perros smuggled across the Mexican border into cities like San Diego by the thousands.
It's not just hoity-toity show-dog people who are up in arms over the bill. Breeders of working canines - those that lead the blind, accompany police officers, retrieve waterfowl and herd sheep - are absolutely ballistic, starting Web sites such as saveourdogs.net.
Then there's the touchy subject of spaying and neutering, which in recent decades has become all but synonymous with Mom and apple pie. Dare I suggest that there are well-documented, rational reasons for delaying these surgical procedures in dogs, even in those that should never reproduce.
Early spay-neuter has been associated with increased risk of osteosarcoma, or bone cancer, and some veterinary experts have suggested that performing this surgery very early, before the sex organs have time to mature, might be attributable to increased urinary incontinence in females.
As for behavioral problems, a study out of the University of Pennsylvania School of Veterinary Medicine showed that neutering didn't reduce aggression in dogs, and, in the case of spayed females, actually increased it. Go figure.
Personally, I advise my puppy people to wait until one year of age, if possible, before they spay or neuter their pet-quality dogs. (Yes, letting a heat cycle pass slightly raises the risk of mammary cancer, but I consider it worth the gamble.) But then again, I know my owners are responsible enough to contain their dogs, or I wouldn't have given them one in the first place.
The bad thing about AB 1634, other than an innate intrusiveness that should send most any Civil Libertarian into convulsions, is that, as with most animal legislation - including breed bans - it puts the onus on the wrong end of the leash. Animal overpopulation isn't the result of oversexed studs and come-hither queens. It's the byproduct of the cavalier attitude we have toward what should be the lifelong responsibility of caring for and loving an animal. It's a reflection of our disposable, fickle, flavor-of-the-week society. That's why dogs and cats end up at shelters - because they were acquired in haste, loved conditionally, and given up when new circumstances, whether a new apartment or a new love, rendered them inconvenient.
As with breed bans, AB 1634 is targeted at those who are least likely to comply, because they simply don't care. And in the case of feral cats that have no one responsible for them, population explosions will continue unabated.
Now, if someone could legislate against stupidity, that's a law I could get behind.
Copyright 2007 Newsday Inc.
Comments (27)
I hope that AB 1634 is deafeated for all the above reasons.
In a society that euthanizes in excess of 5 MILLION DOGS each year, it's not unreasonable to pass legislation that requires dogs to be spayed and neutered.
To not pass a law because it may be difficult to enforce is not a good enough reason to NOT implement legislation nor is it unusual, either. We have laws against many atrocities including murder, child abuse, drunken driving - to name but a few - yet the laws on the books certainly haven't prevented these acts.
The small fee that is being requested of the reputable breeders in CA is but a small price to pay to insure that specific breeds are not further diluted and to stop a tremendous overpopulation and the overflow faced by shelters and rescues.
To accommodate the few (read: breeders) versus overlook the many (read: homeless dogs) would indeed be both selfish and short sighted.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to change the attitude of a society who views animals as disposable; someone has to be responsible. 'Reputable' breeders SHOULD willing to take the high road if for nothing more than to set an example and back up their altruistic claims.
I would gladly sign a petition to stop AB 1634 in it's tracks.
Here is the petition against AB 1634 (13,000 signatures & counting)--
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/414897802?ltl=1176581578
Sadly the petition FOR AB 1634 only has 813 signatures......Goes to show you how few people approve of this over-reaching proposed bill.
Only 813 Signatures? It's passed the Appropriations Committee! View the above You-Tube clip and then tell me about 813 signatures.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEhg4N7I2t0
Thank you Diane for addressing this bill. You are correct. Puppymillers are probably ecstatic about this bill. It will close the market for those of us who want to go to a breeder we can trust and open the floodgates to pet store dogs.
All bills in this country are presented as being altruistic, but time and again they are an albatross.
When the powers that be have shutdown the hobby breeders they will then shutdown the puppymills. Then we will live as the Chinese without dogs that are not kept unless hidden.
One size does not fit all. And those that do not create a problem should not be penalized as those that do. Mass hysteria creates problems and thinking people that do research beyond what is fed by mass media each day will realize this.
To DogRule
The one thing I have been most puzzled about in all of this discussion and debate about AB1634 (and I strongly OPPOSE this Bill and I am a rescuer) is how the proponents can consistently be shown that the shelter problem (so far as it exists) is an "owner issue" and not a "breeder issue". But the proponents keep insisting that mandatory, invasive, certainly dangerous pediatric spay/castration is the answer.
If you want to keep animals out of shelters, find incentives to keep the animals with thier families. Reducing the numbers of dogs bred each year is NOT going to change the "dump" syndrome when an owners life situation changes and the dog or cat goes out with the furniture. And it is this "dump" syndrome that puts the majority of the animals in shelters.
The puppies that end up in shelters make up a SMALL percentage of the animals there, and if evaluated completely and honestly, shelter workers would find that these puppies are NOT from Hobby breeders but rather from owners that "did not supervise thier dogs or cats", "wanted one litter so the children could experience the miracle of birth", or the owner that "does not license and will never license their dog or cat". How is this Bill supposed to stop these folks?
To Katrina -
Under your theory, by educating people we could also prevent drug addiction; the 'Just Say No' educational campaign hasn't and never will be the answer to this nation's problem with drug abuse.
More to the point, however, are the many dogs bred in mass breeding facilities who are pushed into the market place albeit unhealthy and/or from parents who never should have been bred to begin with. These dogs frequently exhibit extreme behavioral problems and once out of 'puppyhood' are abandoned and/or surrendered to the shelters and rescues en masse.
No one that I'm aware of is claiming the shelters to be overflowing with puppies - quite the opposite. There are, however, many claims made about dogs who exhibit unstable behaviors, the inability to be trained and severe congenital problems that the average dog owner is/can not afford to treat nor are they prepared to provide long term care for handicapped companion animals.
Many of these problems are the direct result of bad and careless breeding.
It is NOT the intention to regulate hobby breeders out of the picture. As someone who regularly rescues and places dogs I know all too well how much easier it is to place a healthy, well balanced - versus a sick and/or difficult - dog.
Were I to have an interest in breeding I would welcome the opportunity to separate and distinguish myself, by whatever means possible, from those who breed for greed.
Finally, any dog lover knows it's impossible to compare the feline overpopulation to the canine overpopulation. Dogs are so entirely dependent upon humans for their care and hardly ever stand a chance when trying to fend for themselves once homeless.
The difference between the two does not, however, negate the need to prevent felines from breeding at will. Clearly those in feral colonies have the ability to reproduce at a tremendous rate but time and again it has been proven that TNR programs are an effective way to keep this population somewhat in check - and the key word is somewhat. Without a doubt, were the Health Pets Act to be implemented it would go far to further reduce the homeless and feral cat overpopulation.
Until those who are so adamantly against this bill are willing to personally administer the euthanasia drugs to hundreds of thousands of dogs for no reason other than homelessness, I'd contend that you are not seeing the forest for the trees.
Thanks for a good article.....
And DogsRule....you are correct...."you are not seeing the forest for the trees"....and it is the proponents of this bill that are not seeing. I am not a breeder, and I do rescue...and I am adamently opposed to this bill. Myself, like many do not like to see healthy animals euthanized. But is the problem that untenable? I do not think so. We have a high percentage of dogs in the US that are s/n, upwards over 70% and higher in places like California where 3 separate studies show over 80% s/n. While there are some unethical breeders, by and large, the breeders, those that show/trial their dogs are not the largest part of the problem, but they are going to be the ones greatest affected.
The dogs in the shelter HAD homes....these are dogs, past the cute puppy stage that people give up on. They are relegated to the "back 40" until it is convient to get rid of the dog....as in the ubiquitous "we are moving".....AB1634 does not address the lack of commitment.....the same people that are dumping their pets are going to be the same ones that will be looking to adopt another down the road....and will want a puppy. Address this! Not legislation that is unworkable. Most rural areas do not have all these low cost s/n clinics the proponents talk about.....seniors, unemployed are going to be affected.
Deal with the issues in a constructive manner, humane organizations can put their money where their mouth is....work with counties to build programs, facilities, and educate people......Is this going to get everyone? No....But progress has been made over the last 30 years, without draconian government intervention.
This bill is not the answer. Period.
No big surprise. Typical mentality of a backyard breeder. You wouldn't want to lose your meal ticket.
AB 1634 gives puppy mills and pet shops a free pass, DogsRule.
John Hamil, DVM, past president of the California Veterinary Medical Association, founder of the California Council of Companion Animal Advocates that sponsored biannual Pet Overpopulation Symposia (now the Animal Care Conference), member of the American Veterinary Medical Association Animal Welfare Committee and the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, author of the CVMA and AVMA positions on early spay/neuter, past chairman of the Orange County Animal Shelter Advisory Board, and recipient of the Hill’s Animal Welfare and Humane Ethics Award as well as being selected as an AAHA Regional Practitioner of the Year, has written a great letter in opposition to this bill. Read it here:
http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2007/06/05/former-cvma-head-speaks-out-against-mandatory-spayneuter-law/
After homeless cats, the great majority of animals euthanized in California shelters are unwanted pit bulls and pit bull mixes. BAD RAP estimates that some 20,000 pit bulls are euthanized each year in the Bay Area alone. Committed to helping shelter animals? Walk the walk: adopt a pit bull. There are countless great ones of every size, age and energy level waiting for a responsible, loving home. Anyone supporting this bill who doesn't share his or her home with at least one rescued pit bull gets precious little respect from me. I share my home with two.
And another thing...
Go over to PubMed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez
Type "neutered + cancer" in the "for" box. The first abstract listed should be this one, from May 2007:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17516571&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
I'm not a vet --- but the folks who did this study are. If the link doesn't work, the title of the abstract is "A population study of neutering status as a risk factor for canine prostate cancer." "RESULTS: Neutered males had a significantly increased risk for each form of cancer."
Am I suggesting you shouldn't neuter your dog? Nope --- that's your call. But I sure hate the idea of a politician forcing a dog of mine to undergo a medical procedure against my will. Particularly when the surgery puts my dog at greater risk of illness.
And no, I'm not a breeder.
Adopt a pit bull?? Are you insane? They should be outlawed and all existing ones euthanized. Detroit has the right idea. They automatically get rid of them when they come into the shelter system.
Pit bulls are dangerous, unpredictable and anyone who has one and has kids should be investigated by child protective services for putting their kids in danger.
There are only 2 dogs I see in my neighborhood wearing big wire basket muzzles when their owners take them out, and they aren't Golden Retrievers.
Nothing reveals a staggering ignorance of dogs and dog behavior quite like a hatred of pit bulls.
For those who aren't as strongly attached to their prejudices as Charly seems to be, please check out BAD RAP:
http://www.badrap.org/rescue/endings.cfm
I am not a breeder. I do not own intact dogs and cats. All of my pets are adopted from shelters or other rescue situations and are spayed and neutered. I am involved in rescue, have both fostered and volunteered at shelters, and I OPPOSE AB 1634. We do not have a dog overpopulation problem; we have an owner retention problem. Healthy, friendly dogs are adopted. Aggressive or sick ones are euthanized. Many shelters cannot keep up with the adoption demands and will transfer animals from larger animal control facilities. Small dogs are in high demand in shelters and often have multiple adoption holds on them. My neighbor's name was drawn in a lottery of over 12 other families to adopt her 40lb. Heinz 57 mix who is a cute as a button. Purebreds often do not make it to the adoption row because they are bailed out by their designated breed rescue. Exactly who are the animals that the Supporters want us to save? Un-adoptable pit bulls and feral cats?? So we punish responsible dog owners and breeders everywhere for these two specific cases?? AB 1634 is bad news- oppose it in all form!!
And for the Supporters who claim the breeders don't want to "pay a fee". Have you actually read the text of AB 1634? If you had, then you would know that there is no guarantee that all jurisdictions will even grant intact permits to breeders, and it's up to the local animal control (who know absolutely nothing about quality breeding) to determine if the breeders get a permit or not. No wonder these people are mad, their rights are under attack! And the Supporters chalk it up to not wanting to pay a fee- hard to comply with a law if you aren't offered a chance to do so!
OPPOSE AB 1634!!
I wonder whether the supporters of AB1634 know what this bill is really about. Freedom is lost one small act at a time.
----------------------------
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
- Pastor Martin Niemöller
personally, i would take the baskets off of the Pits for one person, Charley. guess who that would be. you just can't stay away and not cause trouble. i think they do offer women mental help at your local clinic on the west coast. go check it out. check out the dogs laws - it takes only one IDIOT to call and complain and the dogs will be forced to wear those. there does NOT need to be an attack at all. people have caused this mess with Pitbulls, plain and simple. read about the breed - powerful but loyal and loving UNLESS their power is abused which is exactly what HUMANS have done to them. those of us who do own Pits know that they are not what is perceived - the paranoia when i walk mine is pathetic. they are totally dependant on the hand in which they raised.
charley just get over your problem with pits already - nobody is really paying attention.
OK we understand you don't like the breed - fine then don't get one and be done with it...
i for one love the breed and know for a fact that you don't know what you're talking about...
so please give it a rest. that's not what denise's article was about anyway...
This bill is NOT about saving shelter animals, despite the talk. The law wouldn't raise a dime unless dogs are confiscated/fines levied/collected. No collection, no $.Dog would be killed if not adopted. If a breeder didn't register, no collection. No $. It is a waste of time to discuss the "why it is good" aspect bec those who think it's good are brainwashed/don't know it, and aren't that bright to begin with. You can't be very smart if you think this bill is "good" because it simply is ludicrous, both legally and factually. there is nothing about it that is fiscally sound (they are eliminating 98% of all dogs/cats w/this bill) and it's unconstitutional to boot. CA is in the toilet when it comes to thinking---and we have PETA brainwashers to thank for part of that, plus 25 years of them chanting SPAY/NEUTER till your ears fall off. [Proof that people believe things if they hear it often enough]
AB1634, the mandatory sterilization bill will undoubtably do harm to dog and cat genetics. Unfortunately, most shelter workers simply do not know the truth, and others are simply banking on it.
Truth be told, legislation like this destroys the pet-friendly status of the community which flirts with it.
No proponent of this draconian peice of legislation can answer how this law could possibly make pet owners more open, more active, and more responsible.
And that is really sad that there are some people who would want to hurt pet onwership in this manner.
Penalizing hobby breeders who are trying to improve the breed of their animal in order to limit the number of animals euthanized doesn't make any sense. The real problem is the number of feral animals who are reproducing frequently. It makes far more sense to implement a program to Trap, Neuter and Release (TNR) feral animals. With proper funding and a focus on the feral overpopulation problem, far fewer animals will be euthanized. Combine this with an education program for pet owners teaching them the benefits of spay/neuter at an appropriate age and in consultation with their vets and the euthanasia rate will show a steep decline.
Hobby breeders almost always include a requirement for spay/neuter of animals petted out and require proof of this before papers are given to the new owner. In addition, hobby breeders will almost always find a new home for an animal of their breeding if the original owner cannot keep the pet.
We should scrap AB1634 and develop a TNR bill which addresses the real problem of overpopulation of feral cats and dogs in a completely humane way.
Jane R - I have spent the past two weeks trying to get assistance with a feral cat and her three kittens that have appeared in my garage. To date I have not found one ounce of assistance. I have discovered that my state has discontinued the T/N/R program for feral cats. One vet I spoke with said yes they had a T/N/R program in place at the tune of $100 PER ANIMAL. I wholeheartedly agree with you that this is exactly where the problem lies. However, I think we all realize the welfare of the animals takes second place to the monies that will be made from this bill.
I somehow missed all the early hallabaloo and wasn't aware of this bill's existence until it had passed the Assembly. I am a hobby breeder. I don't breed my dogs often and I make sure they have good homes on a "you-can-return" at any time policy. My dogs are recognized as a breed in Australia, Australian cattle dogs, but not here. Contrary to what the proponents claim, I have found that neutering a dog to reduce its aggression does not work. Some dog breeds are more agressive! Also neutering puppies which this bill commands people to do, even before they are due for their first rabies shot, can have harmful health effects.
I am ashamed to say I am a Democrat, but I may not be much longer.
I have owned Golden Retrievers for 21 years. The first was purchased from a backyard breeder and developed Canine Hip Displaysia at 6 months of age. I spent thousands of dollars on surgery so she could live a comfortable life. I purchased my next 3 from hobby breeders. Two of them were spayed and neutered. My neutered male live to be 14. I currently own a 10 year old female and a 15 month old male. My male puppy is being shown since he is the son of 2 champions and he will most likely achieve title. He will be studded when he turns 2 and not before. I am looking to promote the quality lines that he comes from. Any stud fees that I receive have already been offset by the expense of conformation training and handling for shows. The people behind this bill have ties to PETA and are after only one thing, the elimination of pet ownership. If they really cared about stray animals they would encourage the funding of no kill shelters.
It's supply and demand, people. The number of animals being born, plain and simple, has to be reduced. If people are allowed to manufacture as many litters as they want, year in, year out -- whether they are breeders, or just careless, it doesn't matter.
Someone's dog accidentally gets knocked up and they manage to "place" all of the puppies into homes; not spayed or neutered, at least some of these puppies will undoubtedly give birth to/father a litter.
Furthermore, these puppies took up precious vacanies in homes that could have gone to animals in shelters.
Supply and demand. If we as a society can't figure out how to control the supply part on our own, then legislation has to happen. AB 1634 is a great start.
If not, Opposition, what is YOUR solution? Don't say education -- it's not working nearly fast enough. And don't say low-cost S/N programs, because there' s a bundle of them out there.
I'm waiting ... what is your solution?
I do want the names of the people who are on the agriculture committee!!!Stupid legislation on a coast far from Pennsylvania does not have immediate impact on my life. Still.....I do have a problem with continuing to provide the means for Californians to prosper when they can't even rein in the elected representatives. If AB1634 becomes law I will stop buying california wine, oranges, strawberries and spinach. It's the least I can do. Beverly Johnson