AB 1634: Are they even pretending anymore?

I was literally speechless when I read the recent revisions made to AB 1634, a proposed California law that would mandate spaying and neutering all dogs and cats by the age of 6 months (previously 4 months).

My fundamental contention is that the proposal is flawed at its core and no amendments, revisions and exemptions can "fix" it, because it won't reduce shelter deaths, which is what it's supposed to do.  And these actual revisions and exemptions only make that more clear.

First, it now specifically allows everyone to let their pets have one litter before being altered. Since the AKC reports that the majority of people who register litters with them never have another litter -- are, in other words, not people with an ongoing breeding program or part of the fancy --  and  (I choke when I type this, but it's true) puppy mills, pet stores, and mass commercial breeding facilities have always been, and still are, exempt from this bill's provisions, the vast majority of breeding that results in California pets will be unaffected by this bill.

In addition,  those who breed pit bulls for dog fighting, as well as people who just don't care about their pets or the laws and ignore licensing and leash laws now, will ignore this law. As will unowned cats, who in some areas are the majority of the animals euthanized in shelters.

So, who's left? Absolutely no one but small hobby breeders, who are the only kind of breeder you should be giving your money to in the first place, and who can never meet the least-discussed but most "poison pill" provision of this bill: the requirement that they obtain a business license.

Currently, small hobby breeders are treated like any sort of very occasional seller, such as someone who holds one or two garage or yard sales each year. They don't have to get licensed as a business, because they aren't a business, any more than someone who has a yard sale is.

Small hobby breeders, those who maintain breeding programs to preserve and improve their chosen breeds, who participate in showing and training their dogs, almost always have their dogs living in their homes and don't have kennels or any kind of commerical facilities, nor do they live in commercially or business zoned areas. They shouldn't be required to get a business license because they are not a "business" in that sense of the word.

The real problem with this bill continues to be that it won't work to accomplish its stated goal. The influx of irresponsibly bred dogs will continue to flow into California, over the Mexican border, from puppy mills, over the Internet, from the black market of dog fighters and irresponsible owners and  allowed "one litter" breeders, and out of the pet stores.

And that tiny portion of dog owners who don't contribute to the problem in the first place, the serious small hobby breeders, are the only ones who will get squeezed out of existence. And dogs and cats will continue to die in shelters just as they do today, because there is nothing at all in this bill to stop that.

Way to go, California.

Comments

[Alison]

Oh god. I can't even stand to read anything direct about this bill, I can only read it indirectly through your blog or Pet Connection and it just gets stupider and stupider.

And I know it's a small point, but the bill probably doesn't give any guidance regarding co-ownerships. I'm not a breeder, but I own a currently intact (and more likely to become extinct before he becomes non-intact, if he eats one more couch) puppy who is supposed to be shown and who needs to get this license to keep him intact? Me? The co-owner breeder? Both of us?

I'm a lawyer, I could figure it out if I read the bill, but I can't do that because it makes me run screaming down the halls of the law firm. And they don't like that, except on Jeans and Screaming in the Halls Fridays.

[Great Dane Addict]

It also doesn't allow for pet owners to make decisions about their pet's health. I for one would never dare to neuter or spay my Great Danes at or before 4 months. There is now enough information out there to prove that there is an increased risk for bone cancer when neutering a giant breed too early. Not too mention other growth problems associated with lack of hormones.

Right now I feel lucky to not live in California, but that is a false sense of security, because should this actually pass, other states I'm sure will not be far behind.

ICK.

[Gina]

I want Jeans and Screaming Down the Halls day at my office.

Oh. Wait. We have it already.

[Joyce]

This is the first time ever in my whole life as a usually easygoing, and firmly entrenched in lefty-liberal camp, California voter, that I am siding with the Republican party. Yikes!
I'm hoping this idiot law gets no farther.
I'm one of the people the law will target, I health test, performance test, conformation test my hounds, have planned litters occasionally with my dogs, who see vets regularly, are doted on like kids, and all sleep in the same bedroom with me at night, and hang out with me all day. I know where every single puppy I ever brought into this world is, and all their owners know they can come back to me if anything every happens. All my pups who went out on spay and neuter contracts are spayed and neutered . I do rescue for my breed, and help out other breeds rescues. I've put in years of shelter work.
Clearly I should be subject to prosecution.