AB 1634 - California Healthy Pets Act
On Tuesday I made a very difficult decision to vote in support of the CA Healthy Pets Act. This proposed state law would mandate that all dog and cat owners have their pets spayed or neutered by the age of four months, with certain exceptions for breeders, working dogs, and the health of the animal.
My initial reaction was to oppose this measure because it places a burden on responsible pet owners. I am an animal lover, and I have many animals at my house in Mar Vista. I take great pride in looking after their health, safety and happiness. I have even had the joy of breeding a few litters of German shepherd puppies that I gifted to good homes with close friends. I don’t think responsible pet owners should be punished for the misdeeds of the irresponsible pet owners; we should focus on people with unlicensed or problematic pets.
But, as I heard from the public and my colleagues, I realized that our city is forced into a terrible position of having to kill thousands of bright, vibrant animals every year because the pet population is out of control. In order to end this unnecessary killing, I am willing to tolerate a little more government regulation of my pets. With a heavy heart, I joined my colleagues to support AB 1634 for the sake of the animals of California.
This bill will be voted on in the California legislature this month, and if it passes it will take effect April 1, 2008. For more information on the bill please visit: http://www.cahealthypets.com
My initial reaction was to oppose this measure because it places a burden on responsible pet owners. I am an animal lover, and I have many animals at my house in Mar Vista. I take great pride in looking after their health, safety and happiness. I have even had the joy of breeding a few litters of German shepherd puppies that I gifted to good homes with close friends. I don’t think responsible pet owners should be punished for the misdeeds of the irresponsible pet owners; we should focus on people with unlicensed or problematic pets.
But, as I heard from the public and my colleagues, I realized that our city is forced into a terrible position of having to kill thousands of bright, vibrant animals every year because the pet population is out of control. In order to end this unnecessary killing, I am willing to tolerate a little more government regulation of my pets. With a heavy heart, I joined my colleagues to support AB 1634 for the sake of the animals of California.
This bill will be voted on in the California legislature this month, and if it passes it will take effect April 1, 2008. For more information on the bill please visit: http://www.cahealthypets.com
-Bill
posted by Council District 11 at 7:16 PM
8 Comments:
Mr. Rosendahl - as an animal lover and someone who is concerned about our state wasting money, I applaud your decision to support AB 1634. This is not a liberal or conservative issue, it is a moral and financial one. Thank you!!
You are crazy, a nut case. Only the uninformed vote for 1634, this will be the biggest tragedy to the state of CA. You are voting for a hundred of thousands of dollars of revenue loss for this state. Only someone like "anonymous said" would think this is a moral and financial issue, it is definitely not that. Become informed, those who are are voting against this proposed new law are the ones that will help save the economy of the great state of CA
Mr Rosenthal - If this bill passes what makes you think that all the puppies that will be "brought" into Ca to be sold as pets (from out of state pet brokers that most likely will be sick and ill bred) will not end up spayed/neutered AND STILL Abandoned?
Please explain how this bill will stop the above scenerio?
Mr. Rosendahl,
with all due respect, you have made a grave error in supporting this bill. No one denies that we need pet owners to be more responsible with their companions and have them altered - but at 4 months? far too early for that puppy/kitten to develop properly.
You seem to believe the "show" or "working" folks will get exemptions. Wrong... there is no way for an ethical breeder to meet the criteria for the intact permits. You need to read the bill again and then ask your friends with GSDs if their dogs can qualify.
I'm glad you enjoyed your experience of raising a few litters. And of course, the parents were AKC registered, and had obtained conformation and obedience titles, right? And of course, you had all the appropriate health testing done and provided the puppies new homes with copies of the OFA certifications and CERF results? Furthermore, you placed these cuties with registration papers and a contract binding the new owners to the promise to spay or neuter their new friend right? I presume your contract also assured the new owners that you will gladly take the dog back at any time during it's life if for any reason it is no longer possible for the dog to be with them. After all, you decided to create these little lives so you accepted the moral obligation to them - birth to death, right?
Oh, you didn't do these things? Congratulations, wear your new title of "irresponsible, unethical breeder" proudly - you deserve it. "Breeders" like yourself are the source of the dogs and cats that later find themselves being dumped at the shelters by owners who received no mentoring from you on training or health issues. You weren't there for them to take back that dog when they found themselves deployed overseas, out of work, or physically disabled to where they could no longer care for their dog.
If AB 1634 passes, good luck 10 years from now finding a healthy puppy to add to your family. Ethical, hobby breeders will have been regulated out of existence or moved away. You will have your choice of puppies smuggled in from Mexico (probably with parasites and potentially deadly diseases), or you might find something on the internet - puppy millers have very slick websites and are happy to provide you a puppy from an overworked mother who had no health testing for genetic disorders.
I hope you have many photos of your beloved companion dogs because as a result of the actions of "animal lovers" like yourself, there will be no more companions to accompany you on evening strolls or to alert you to an intruder, or to pull you from the rubble of a collapsed building. Your memories are all you will have.
I cannot understand how anyone can read this California Bill 1634 in it's entirety and still decide to support something that is so ill conceived.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20070430_amended_asm_v96.html
This bill is a "wolf in sheep's clothing". This bill is presented as being the answer to the "overpopulation" of animals....based on the fact there are many animals "dumped" at the shelters that end up being euthanized [killed]. And they say that this bill will prevent this.
There is no "OVERPOPULATION OF ANIMALS", that has been documented.
But there is a "overpopulation" of despicable irresponsible people who get a pet for themselves, but then dump them by the roadside or at the shelter when they no longer want them.
Logical thinking, how can you make the jump from "altering all cats & dogs" [by the age of 4 months] clear over to that being the solution to people "DUMPING" their pets when they are tired of them?????
Unless the GOAL is to eradicate pet ownership altogether? Which IS the GOAL of some organizations which are supporting this bill.
Thanks
mema
Mr. Rosendahl,
I, too, am an animal lover. But I am disappointed in your vote. The truth is that about 80% of pet dogs and cats are already castrated, voluntarily. Animal shelter euthanasias have been steadily decreasing for more than 10 years, without mandatory castration legislation. The majority of animals euthanized in shelters currently are not considered adoptable for health or temperament reasons. The percentage of animals euthanized of the overall population is remarkably small. Castration is not a casual procedure, rather it is surgery to remove organs under general anesthesia. There are risks to the health of dogs and cats in performing this surgery, and especially at such a young age--the hormones associated with testicles and ovaries are needed for healthy physical development of puppies and kittens. Four months old is entirely too young to perform this surgery. It is also an expensive procedure, so pet owners on limited incomes will be unfairly treated by this legislation. Historically, mandatory castration has not had the desired result of reducing shelter euthanasias. This legislation will primarily eliminate serious hobby breeders--those who show their dogs and cats and strive for excellence in their breedings and support their puppy and kitten buyers throughout the life of their pets, and will favor large commercial breeders who are less likely to be competing in shows that evaluate structure and temperament, and less likely to offer support to their buyers after the sale. I am glad that I don't live in California, because I believe that dogs are healthier being kept fertile into adulthood, and I only need my leash and my fence to prevent unwanted breedings.
Mr. Rosendahl, This bill is UNNECESSARY. Shelter intake and euthanasia numbers have been dropping steadily for decades. This is due to the great success of public education programs, breed rescue efforts, and low cost spay-neuter clinics. Education on responsible pet ownership is the only viable long-term solution to pet abandonment.
Dogs are taken to shelter or rescue due to personal issues such as moving, family crisis, financial problems, allergy to the pet, dog ill oir infirm or with a behavioral problem. This bill will not solve those problems.
Approximately HALF of shelter intakes are feral cats and kittens. This bill does not provide a solution to that problem, since feral animals aren't planning to turn themselves in to be castrated anytime soon.
Public shelter OPERATING COSTS will be unaffected. Shelters will remain a necessary public service. Capital operating costs are fixed, regardless of intake numbers.
Mandatory spay-neuter laws have always been INEFFECTIVE in dealing with shelter issues. There are multiple failed trials. (See website, URL below)
REVENUES to counties and cities will suffer due to decreased compliance with licensing, and due to decreased participation in competitive dog events.
HEALTH of the community will be at risk due to decreased compliance with rabies vaccinations.
The California AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY will be adversely affected due to the loss of working dogs, most of whom are unregistered, and therefore may not be bred.
There is a proposed exemption for police dogs. This only exempts the current generation. Young dogs would still have to be castrated at four months. The breeding stock that produces the next generation of police dogs would also have to be castrated, meaning no more police dogs. Under any mandatory castration law, future California police dogs would have to be imported fully trained at GREAT EXPENSE. This would reduce the number of police dogs, reduce the money available for other purposes, or both. Elimination of future police dogs would devastate police K-9 departments.
AB1634 would also eliminate many guide dogs for the blind and service dogs for the disabled. All these dogs spend their first year or two of life strictly as someone's PET!
The FEW remaining pure bred animals with exemptions would be regulated by a NEWLY CREATED GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY. The legislation even threatens criminal penalties--just what we need...police arresting citizens for having unneutered cats and dogs!
CONSUMER COSTS will rise as we will see more expensive mall puppy store pets, bred by commercial operations in the Midwest. These pets are not bred for good health and temperament, and are rarely properly socialized. Mandatory neutering unfairly targets ethical hobby breeders, and favors commercial breeders. Commercially-bred pets are never sold with the lifetime support of the breeder, such as a local hobby breeder would normally provide.
We will see an increase in sick puppies smuggled in from other countries, sold out of the backs of pickup trucks.
"Healthy Pets Act" is a misnomer. There are many studies which prove significant health risks associated with early neutering. The most problematic is a delayed closure of the growth plates, resulting in abnormal skeletal development and promoting the development of hip dysplasia and patellar luxation. Working dogs, if neutered at too early an age, can not develop normally to perform the job they were bred to do.
Other adverse health effects of early neutering include increased risk of bone cancer, hemangiosarcoma, urinary incontinence, hypothyroidism, cognitive dysfunction in older dogs, and behavior problems such as noise phobias, fearfulness and aggression. Dogs neutered at an early age have an increased susceptibility to infectious disease, and also a higher incidence of adverse reactions to vaccines. Dogs which are not physically and mentally healthy are very likely to end up in a shelter.
I hope you will choose to post my comments for balance to your position.
For more specific information, please review this website: http://www.saveourdogs.net
Mr. Rosendahl,
I wish you would re-consider your position. The bright, vibrant animals you say that you want to help includes thousands of feral cats that will not be covered or included in this bill. Instead, you will not be able to find the next intelligent German Shepherd you might want for your next pet as those who breed this type of dog are not covered in the "exemptions" that are continually touted by supporters of this legislation.
Good luck. Unfortunately there will be no futher generations of great dogs, but lots of wild cats to continue to contend with. I wish this bill really dealt with fixing the complex problem rather than using punative actions against our citizens.
P.S. This bill will not save the state money as government run animal control facilities will still need the same funding it has now to do their job.
Post a Comment
<< Home