California spay/neuter proposal revised

The senate version of California's mandatory spay/neuter proposal, AB 1634, was published today, with a number of revisions. Additions are shown in italics, with removed portions struck through. The document (PDF) is here.



Probably two of the most notable changes are that people can now have one litter before being forced to spay or neuter their pets, regardless of whether the animals are purebred or not, being bred for a purpose such as work or not, being shown or not; also, the required age for altering has been increased to six months.



Given that the majority of litters registered with the AKC are from "one time only" breeders who are not actually maintaining a breeding program or part of the dog fancy at all, and that puppy mills, pet stores, and commercial breeding operations have always been exempt from this legislation, it is increasingly clear that the only people who will be impacted by this bill if it becomes law are small-scale "hobby breeders."



Who are the only breeders people should give their money to in the first place. But oh well.



I'll be back with more commentary when I've had a chance to look at it more thoroughly, but my first impression is that while some problems have been addressed (restrictions on veterinary exemptions have been loosened, more exemptions for police and assistance dogs are available, etc.), the gaping holes in this bill have just gotten larger, making it even more toothless at doing anything about the problem of too many shelter deaths of dogs and cats, and squeezing just as hard at the tiny portion of the intact-animal-owning population that is in fact not contributing to the problem in the first place.

Comments

[Linda]

Where did it say that puppies had to be given away free? What page as I can't find it.

[Linda]

Page 9 line 9 (a) -



I hope something good comes out of this entire mess -

[Luisa]

Speaks volumes that Maddie's Fund and the SFSPCA, groups that have actually enjoyed far greater success lowering euth rates than the authors of AB 1634 could dream of, are NOT supporting this bill. (Just spoke with a SFSPCA rep on the phone.) See my blog for more on Maddie's Fund.



Six revisions, three or four committee/assembly votes, and the vegan power-behind-the-bill is more determined than ever to screw people who raise cattle and sheep. Nothing remotely resembling protection -- let alone exemptions -- for stockdogs/LGDs, and it's pretty clear by now that there never will be.



Puppies can only be given away, am I reading that right? But pet shops and puppy mills get a free pass. Amazing.



As I've said before, AB 1634 won’t cause a single pit bull (my other favorite breed) to be adopted from a California shelter. It won’t stop owners from relinquishing their dogs due to a move, a new baby, too much barking. It won’t make dogs healthier, and it won’t save money. It is a frightening, deeply offensive government intrusion into the lives of responsible, law-abiding citizens and their companion animals.



I'm praying our senators are brighter than the assembly members --- this thing really needs to be kicked to the curb. A bad law is a gazillion times worse than no law at all.

[Linda]

I've always thought taking the profit motive out of selling puppies will end much of the problem -



I suppose one can sell a mature dog - just not a puppy?

[Jill]

I don't like the Idea of this law.

[Linda]

I never thought puppies should be free - and I was thinking along the lines of the County taking most of the money to fund caring for shelter animals etc., that way the profit incentive would decrease and still people would have to pay for the puppies - we value what costs us - that way people don't gather up free puppies to be sold elsewhere or treated as disposable items.....and make it illegal to sell them at flea markets and in the paper - but through a state agency of some sort or county day at Cal Expo - something yet to be thought of - but still charge for the puppies.



Don't these lawmakers understand the ramifications of their changes and this bill????



And in any event, people that want to breed more puppies will just use pseudo names and addresses and proxy owners and cousins etc. and still breed puppies by the truck full. Sigh!

[Linda]

This bill stinks and the more I try to find good in it the worse it smells.

[Diane]

So let me get this straight. This bill perpetuates the whole "one litter is needed to make the pet normal" myth, pet stores and puppy mills can keep churning out animals. What exactly is the point?

[deej]

yes, I wondered about people gathering up free pups for flea markets - also, wonder if people involved in dog fighting would find it easy to obtain pups - also the big mills could perhaps round up even more puppies - and how about labs??

Don't really understand the bill, but bad visions cross my mind at each new revision...

At least the 6 mo. is better than 4!

[trucorgi]

so can reputable breeders sell their puppies?



No. Here it is:



(7) The owner furnishes the director of animal control services with a signed statement agreeing to the following conditions:

(A) Offspring of the unaltered animal may not be sold and may be adopted without a fee only after they reach eight weeks of age.



Allowing for a litter but taking away the right to sell the puppies automatically creates a black market. Gives a whole new meaning to "Animal CONTROL" doesn’t it? How long do you think it will be before selling a home bred puppy becomes a felony?

[elegy]

i didn't agree with the bill before, but this whole one litter thing absolutely disgusts me. oh. my. god. the people who want to breed "just one litter" are the people who need to be not breeding any litters at all, thank you very much!

[straybaby]

i agree trucorgi,



"How exactly does anyone think these free, unhealthy, one time backyard bred dogs will not get dumped at the shelter when they have health and temperament problems and no reputable breeder to rely on to take the dogs back or guarantee them?"



I've been trying to figure this out since yesterday!



so can reputable breeders sell their puppies? i'm having trouble with the breed a litter but you can't sell the puppies part? my brain prefers logic . . . .

[Linda]

"He scrambled up there every time we went on trips," Romney said at a campaign stop in Pittsburgh Thursday. "He got it all by himself and enjoyed it."



What - this was S.O.P? Disgusting idiot!

[Linda]

Sorry Wrong thread!

[trucorgi]

Are they still calling this the “healthy pet act”? Because it has nothing to do with health or welfare!

Here’s what they will allow a “breeder” to do: (become a licensed backyard breeder)

*Pay (who knows what tax) for a 1 year intact permit.

*Breed two immature puppies on the first or possibly second heat cycle. (unhealthy)

*Duration of this, no doubt expensive, permit can’t exceed 1 year so no OFA clearance for either dog. (unhealthy)

*Most dogs do not finish their championship in the puppy classes and most performance dogs do not compete for titles as puppies either, so none of these breeding animals would be proven to be a good example of their breed. (unhealthy)

*Since the puppies can not be sold and none of the expenses recouped for this,(unhealthy litter) it is doubtful that the dam and puppies will even get proper vet care/vaccinations?



How exactly does anyone think these free, unhealthy, one time backyard bred dogs will not get dumped at the shelter when they have health and temperament problems and no reputable breeder to rely on to take the dogs back or guarantee them?



It is painfully obvious that none of these people involved with the bill have ever had the privilege of having a well bred dog from a reputable breeder, yet they want to remove that choice form those who want a well bred pet.



The only other species not allowed by law to be sold is human beings (slavery). Animal Rights ideology equates owning, breeding and showing dogs and cats as slavery. By removing our right to sell pets, the bill is now validating this idiotic ideology with a one time clause that allows for a back yard bred litter.

[Linda]

The powers that be should also make it illegal to transport puppies across state lines for sale from California otherwise a lot of our puppies will be leaving the State. And what prevents someone from another State from coming to CA and gathering up these free puppies to feed flea markets across the country????

[Linda]

I have never bred a dog but once my cat had kittens - one lived and I found a home for him, but I greatly sympathize with hobby breeders who are improving the breed and quality etc. etc.



My only hope is with this bill, even though I don't like neutering even at 6 months of age - one year is fine with me, that this bill will cut down on the many dogs killed in the shelters, but I was reading an article that said that the dogs that are killed are not adoptable because of behavior issues and they are not social - so what is it, are we killing friendly well adjusted dogs or is it mostly those that have outrageous behavior issues? Getting the right facts makes all the difference in the world on how one drafts legislation, because it makes no sense if we pass ineffective laws that do not target the problem. Why not just make it illegal to sell puppies period and that should do away with those that breed for profit and forget the rest of the rules.

[Christie Keith]

The point ... a lot of supporters just want to do something about shelter deaths, as do we all, and either believe this will help a lot, or that it will help a little.



The proponents simply want to do any and every thing they can to stigmatize and "black market-ize" breeding.



Pet stores and puppy mills have lobbies. They have government support. They have corporations behind them.



Small hobby breeders and exhibitors have nothing like that, except grass roots efforts. They are an easy, sitting target for this type of symbolic legislation.



Passing this law will be a sign that its proponents can flex their muscles and get something done. It doesn't matter that the law won't accomplish anything, nor even that these revisions make a bad law worse. Because, as you rightly saw, that's not the point.



Saying this law was passed is the only victory they want. If they wanted to DO something about the problem, they would never have crafted this usless, divisive piece of legislation in the first place, but would have used successful, flexible models to effect actual change on the local level all around the state.



They'd have made common cause with breed rescue, small hobby breeders, working dog breeders and trainers, rank-and-file veterinarians, and the myriad of people they pissed off and are now trying to placate with amendments and revisions.



Instead, by trying to mandate sterilization, they have been forced to exempt the worst offenders, puppy mills and pet stores, have ended up pissing off the very people who could have been useful in the battle to ACTUALLY end shelter deaths, and now had to backpedal and exempt "one time" litters of every pet in the state because "average pet owners" were getting pissed off too.



They should admit this law will not do what they want to do and give it up.



But they won't.

[The OTHER Pat]

Comment by elegy — June 28, 2007 @ 6:34 pm



"i didn’t agree with the bill before, but this whole one litter thing absolutely disgusts me. oh. my. god. the people who want to breed “just one litter” are the people who need to be not breeding any litters at all, thank you very much!"



That's how he "bought" the votes to get this through the Assembly - by adding that provision at the very last minute.



Talk about an idiot (ALL of them, really, who were persuaded to vote for this based on that addition) who has NO understanding of the issues here whatsoever!

[straybaby]

thanks. hopefully the news will air this enough to inform CA residents.



I'll get my family on it . . . again, along with everything else! seems all they see from me these days is recall notices and action alerts!! OY!

[The OTHER Pat]

OMG - here's another nuance I just picked up on:



(Page 8, lines 4-8):



"The local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency may allow for issuance of an intact permit, and imposition of an intact permit fee, for *one male and one female dog per household* (emphasis mine) in order to allow the dogs to produce a single litter of offspring."



To understand why this particular nuance is such a BAD idea, you need to understand that a Responsible Breeder - trying to produce the best possible representative(s) of the breed that s/he can - will send a b!tch to the *RIGHT* dog - WHEREVER THAT DOG HAPPENS TO BE. Responsible Breeders *routinely* ship their b!tches to other areas of the country to be bred since the chance of having the *exact* right dog for any given breeding right in your own back yard is exceedinly low.



Unless, of course, your only objective in breeding is to produce more puppies . . . . . . . . . . .

[The OTHER Pat]

Oops! Didn't quite finish my thought.



So this provision of the (un)Healthy Pets Act actually REQUIRES that the dog and b!tch reside in the same home. COMPLETELY CONTRARY to Responsible Breeding practices.



Just astonishingly ignorant . . . . . . .

[straybaby]

so if I would want to keep my new male puppy intact, I could possibly need a female intact puppy also?!



excuse me while I go make meself some Bailey's!!

[straybaby]

WTF?! so the CA breeders I'm looking at for a Dal a yr or 2 down the road can't sell me a puppy?! That (along with a lot of other outrages connected to this) would leave my only option to fly in a well-bred Dal puppy . . . huh?!



Where is the AKC on this?! and Breed Clubs? (I'm currently on the other coast).

[Linda]

This bill makes me so angry that my head hurts. No one likes the idea of animals killed in shelters by the thousands - no one - but for heavens sake this bill is insane.



Free puppies for everyone. Devaluing them. Treating them lower than the lowest - nothing in life is free - except puppies in California.



I guess Hobby Breeders will have to take their Pregnant Females across the State Line for them to birth their litters - born in Nevada under the oversight of a friend - instead of Nevada Brothels - we'll have Nevada Puppy Birthing Centers - and then bring the pups back here to live.



Where there's a will there's a way to get around this stupidity.

[trucorgi]

Where is the AKC on this?! and Breed Clubs?



All opposed and fighting very hard to kill it. http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/CA_action_center.cfm

[Luisa]

BAD RAP, the terrific [and well-known] pit bull rescue which initially supported AB 1634, has switched sides. According to Christine Allen, the group's legislative coordinator, BAD RAP now opposes the bill.



Pit bulls and pit bull mixes make up the vast majority of dogs euthanized in CA shelters, and if any group could have been excused for supporting this bill, it was BAD RAP.



I hope the guts and integrity they've shown helps legislators realize just how bad this bill is. More on my blog...

[Gina Spadafori]

Jes, you're welcome to read how we here at Pet Connection helped to convinced Craig Newmark to ban pet sales on Craig's List. The search box is to the left. You can also search for past writing on puppy mills -- including the "no Christmas puppy" series -- and more.

As for the rest of your post, you're wrong and insulting. I'm pretty typical of many of the folks here, and I've saved more pets than you'll ever own. And I've spent plenty of time in shelters and have held animals who came into our breed rescue and who couldn't be re-homed -- including one for idiopathic aggression, one of age and illness -- in my arms when they were euthanized, because I wanted them to know caring as they died, and because I wanted to know what it felt like to be there for an animal who wasn't my own and whom I couldn't help. I can still see every one of those animals, especially those two (Abe and Rocket).

Crying over these animals doesn't solve the problem. Figuring out what put unwanted pets in shelters and how to change that does.

You don't have to force reputable, responsible breeders to screen for genetic defects, properly socialize puppies and be responsible for those animals for life, because they do this already. Which is why we don't get why the AB 1634 proponents targeted responsible breeders while giving puppy millers a free pass.

Catch a clue, and read what we're saying here. We are not your enemy. And we love animals, too. We just don't believe this appoach solves anything that it says it will.

[Jes]

Anyone who disagrees with this law obviously isn't a "pet lover" and probably has never been in a shelter. There are way too many idiots breeding out there. Get your head out of your ass and take a look around you. Look at websites like Craigslist where puppies are being created and sold over and over again.



The only exception should be that responsible breeders have to meet strict requirements to breed such as proof of healthy genes and mandatory testing to make sure there line doesn't carry genetic defects and if someone they sell a dog to decides years down the line they "have" to get rid of it, the breeder should be required to take it back.

[The OTHER Pat]

Jes, did you happen to notice that the law SPECIFICALLY EXEMPTED Commercial Breeders? You know - the puppy farmers who raise dogs like livestock in cages?



You should really READ the law before you begin defending it.

[Jes]

Guess I just have a different take on it. I don't see how a law like that would do more harm than good. It might not solve all the problems but it would help.



I don't see animal sales stopped on CL. Instead, I see people buying the cute little doggy in the window and then having to get rid of it by using an acceptable name such as "For Adoption" and giving the price a fancy new name called "adoption fees". And regardless of Craigslist, there are a ton of other methods used for advertising animal sales. Newspaper, bulletin boards at petshops and even some grocery stores.



From what I've gathered off another website, it seems the majority of people pissed off about this were back yard breeders. I would be in favor of mandatory testing to prove a breeder is "responsible" to weed out the backyard breeders. "They already do this", then I guess they have nothing to worry about. On the other hand, the backyard breeders doing it for the money will. Irresponsible people selling to irresponsible owners where the dogs eventually end up in pounds after the cuteness factor wears off or the cute puppy turns into a big dog still acting like a puppy. So, I still fail to see how that is a bad thing.