California bill AB1634

[kcsdogs]

I have a question for all of you California people who show. A friend of mine who has Tollers told me yesterday about a law that passed in California (AB1634) that says unless a dog is actively being shown that they automatically have to be spayed or neutered at 6 months. Is that true!?!?!?

[bradl]

Not from California - perhaps someone will chip in. From http://www.theanimalcouncil.com/CA2007.html

As introduced, AB 1634 would create a new Chapter 9

(commencing with Section 122336) to Part 6 of Division 105 of

the Health and Safety Code (integrated text), providing "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, unless

that person possesses an intact permit, as defined in subdivision

( B ) of Section 122336."

My understanding is that it has passed out of Assembly Committee on Business & Professions so it's serious.

[goforette]

Wow - this is interesting - I hadn't heard about this yet - is this only for the state of California? Or are they trying to make this statewide?

[oscar's mom]

I live in Northern California, and haven't heard of this law. I recently registered my dog with the county and wasn't asked any questions about if he was intact or not.

Oscar's Mom

Antonietta

[bradl]

It's not law yet.

[Toby23]

This is from a agility group in Calif. I belong to.

I thought this might be of interest to some of you.

As you may or may not be aware, AB 1634, the mandatory spay/neuter

bill for dogs and cats in California, passed today in the California

Assembly Business & Professions Committee. Vote was 7-2, with 2 not

present. Next step it goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee

in May. Now is the time to get those letters of opposition out and

fight this on a higher level. If you have not read the bill please do

so http://www.leginfo. ca.gov/pub/ 07-08/bill/ asm/ab_1601- 1650/

ab_1634_bill_ 20070417_ amended_asm_ v97.pdf

Several points to consider if this passes and you can address these

concerns in your letters:

Veterinarians will most likely be forced to turn in non-compliant

clients (several counties in CA already mandate this). This bill

could result in owners ignoring their pets health issues and avoid

obtaining rabies vaccinations putting not only their pet health but

the health of the community at risk for fear of being turned in. This

will not promote healthy pets.

To avoid the cost of sterilization, penalties and permits, owners may

abandon their animal on the streets or surrender them to shelters.

This will do nothing to reduce the so-called overcrowding at the

shelters. Statistics already show a decline in euthanized shelter

animals since the 70's.

The state needs to develop programs to encourage voluntary

sterilization, offer affordable services, owner education and low

cost training to help promote retention of ownership vs. penalizing

responsible owners.

I would suggest everyone take the time and choose a few businesses in

their area to plead their case. When you visit your feed store, pet

supply, groomers, pet shops have information in hand. Get them

involved. Provide them with letters and the means to easily contact

their local representatives (brochures with names, phone/FAX and e-

mails), links to opposition sites. Consider the amount of revenue

generated by animal related industry in California. Dog events bring

customers to local businesses (motels, food, transportation, venues),

breeders bring business to feed, pet and supply stores, pet sitters

and care-takers, veterinarians, groomers and trainers. This bill will

decrease revenue and affect their business in the long run.

If you are on a non-pet related group, express your opposition on

that group. Give them information on how to defeat this bill. Over

60% of the residence in California own pets. This bill will affect a

good portion of them and their rights as dog and cat owners as well.

Write your local assemblyman. Here are a couple websites with

information to assist you in drafting a letter of opposition, who to

contact and what to address:

http://www.ab1634. com/HowCanIHelp. htm

http://saveourdogs. net/

[bradl]

A request for the future - per forum guidelines, please don't forward or paste entire articles from other sites or mailing lists. Trimmed quotes and links are terrific.

[kcsdogs]

Thanks for all the info everyone. I am glad to know more about this, appauling as it is. I can't see how they would enforce such a law and it seems to me to be terribly invasive on one's prefferences for their pets. As with the "dangerous breed" laws I think it would only effect those of us who are responsible owners.

[bradl]

American Kennel Club California Spay/Neuter Action Center.

Now that the bill has moved out of committee, it's on to Appropriations, thence to the Governor. The Governor is the last 'intercept' point if anything can be done to stop this ill-advised bill, if I understand the process.

As is so often the case with well-intentioned ideas like this, they seem to be attacking the wrong end of the stick. They will likely kill off responsible breeding and breed stewardship, leaving only the cold, commercial operators. Shelter dogs are not coming from responsible breeders (by definition!). Pet stores, backyard breeders, accidental breeders, my-pet-is-cute breeders, and increasingly "web-yard" breeders who don't take back their dogs or support their "puppy people" seem to be how purebred dogs get into shelters. Not to mention they are enforcing early spay/neuter, a practice increasingly under scrutiny by veterinary researchers and practitioners. (Don't get me wrong, I believe pets should be spayed/neutered. When should be a matter of the owner's choice in consult with their veterinarian and perhaps their breeder, not legislative mandate.)

[Scruffys Mom]

As a board member for a local pet rescue, the facts stand that 9 million dogs were euthanized last year. I live in central Fl and 70,000.00 were euthanized in this area alone while everyone was at the beach or Disney. I have been passing this bill around to everyone I know trying desperately to get legislation to follow and apply. Think about it, just think for one minute. I am so tired of not being able to adopt out a pet that someone thought would make a cute pet, or dealing with the abuse, or fighting, or animal testing. Get past your immediate need for fulfillment and think about the good the bill does and get out of your cocoon and think about what the real world outside of your nice comfortable home with an animal that is well taken care of. If this is my last post here, I hope I made at least one person think. This bill is the best thing that has happend in a long time and may mean that people like me and my counterparts can stop saving animals lives and actually enjoy a weekend and sleep at night

[bradl]

I hope it is NOT your last post and I hope that reasonable people can disagree.

[Sarah]

I find it very, very hard to believe that this bill will in any way prevent people from abusing animals or breeding irresponsibly. I read it and immediately understood that this is something that will not be enforced. I can't really believe that cities with small budgets for animal control will have the time, money or ability to enforce this. It will be something that will give them the upper-hand in abuse cases, but they most definitely won't be checking all pets. How will it be regulated?

I find it very hard to believe this will in any way cut down on the amount of animals in shelters, either. This will impact only those who care to be impacted, which are those who are likely to be responsible pet owners and breeders to begin with. I am trying to look at the big picture, and in that big picture I see commercial breeders still being able to operate. I see anyone with a registered dog being exempt from this. I see that many, many people will think is frivolous and will ignore it. Attitudes and general care of dogs/cats will not change, because nothing is in place to change society's mindset. There will just be a lot more "registered" animals in shelters versus mutts because they are what will be readily available and unrestricted. I think we'll just see a shift in the types of dogs entering shelters, not a decline in actual numbers.

One thing I wonder about: All AKC registered pets will be exempt. How will this affect all of the labradoodles and other mixes that are so popular right now? Are they recognized by the AKC? They are born of two "registered" animals, right? So they will continue.

I'd have to see some statistics from areas where this has been implemented before I'd ever believe this could be effective. I care way too much about my civil liberties to think this is a good idea. I should be able to make a decision for my household and my property (my pet) based on good judgment and personal opinion.

Edited to add - I agree with bradl. I hope that you continue posting, Scruffys Mom. I have disagreed with many things and don't always appreciate everything everyone has to say, but I think having diversity and differing opinions is important. I value your opinion even if it doesn't line up with mine.

[Toby23]

Brad, sorry about the prior post coming from another site. I just didn't want to start chopping and dicing, but I will be more careful in the future. Calif. does have some strange laws, for instance, in Calif. Ferrets are illegal ! In Calif. ferrets fall under the jurisdiction of "wildlife". I am wondering with the spay neuter bill if the same thing will happen to owner's who have "whole" dogs, as to what happens with ferret owners. A spouse, ex-spouse, ex-boyfriend/girlfriend, feuding neighbor calls dept of Fish and Game and turns in the animal for "revenge".

When I have cruised the shelter sites in San Diego, one thing that I noticed and really stood out in my mind, I would guesstimate that at least half, if not more of the dogs there were Pitt Bulls, or Pitt Mixes....Is that a San Diego thing or what ?

As a point of interest, San Diego has excellent low cost spay/neuter programs. There is a private sector/volunteer group that has a converted Bluebird bus that actually goes into lower income neighborhoods and does feline spay/neuter for free, talk about actual curbside service.....

[Cairnmania]

IMO, the bill is poorly thought out and I agree will likely cause more problems than it attempts to solve. The only people that will comply are those that have their dogs spayed and neutered in the first place.

Four months old is not only too early to neuter IMO, especially males - but it is also early for any responsible breeder to really know which dogs are truely of show quality and of a quality suitable to be bred, especially in the larger breeds. Seems to me the only losers here are responsible citizens.

[goforette]

I'm not a supporter of this type of bill. I completely disagree and feel like responsible pet owners are going to be the ones to suffer. At the very least I strongly think that 4 months old is too young to spay or neuter. There are too many health risks and consequences if spay/neuter too early. These can lead to taller, leaner dogs with narrowing of the head, incontinence, and bone and joint problems. I rarely advertise that I have intact females because I know that there's a lot of people who flat out disagree with the choices we have made for our dogs - but it's our choice, our freedom to make that choice for our dogs. And I don't consider ourselves irresponsible for making that choice. We will not have a pregnancy unexpected or otherwise. And I'm glad I've been able to make these choices for our dogs. Sure I'm aware of the statistics of our overpopulated shelters and the deaths each year - but don't penalize the rest of us that are making choices not to alter and at the same time are not contributing to that problem.

[tomq]

You can go to ca.gov and get the actual text of the bill. It is horrible. AKC registered dogs are NOT automatically exempt. They have to be shown. Actively. At least every 2 years.

Note the the very first group exempted from the requirements are commercial breeders! All those pet store puppy generators are safe, they qualify for intact permits just by showing their business license and tax id numbers.

For the rest of us, the dog must have competed in the last two years (or be too young or proven to still be in training) in an event approved by a recognized purebred registry,

AND is a breed recognized by a recognized purebred registry(not necessarily registered, just of a recognized breed!) ,

AND has earned or is in the process of earning a title from a recognized purebred registry.

Note that only purebred registries that exist on Oct 1, 2007 can ever be "recognized" BUT is up to the local jurisdiction to decide which registries that existed on that date are "recognized"

The state doesn't even require that they recognize the AKC.

All local jurisdictions would be required by law to be at least this restrictive, but they are NOT required to leave the exceptions for commercial breeders or for exhibitors.

The ONLY exceptions they must allow are those for police dogs(at no fee) and for service dogs(at no fee), and the limited duration permits where a vet has determined that the animal cannot safely be spayed/neutered at this time due to a medical condition(fee at the local jurisdiction's discretion).

The unaltered permits only allow you to posess the dog within the jurisdiction of the local animal control agency. Nothing authorizes the animal to be anywhere else in the state at any time. No traveling with your dog away from your local city/county.

Planning on a road trip to Ca? don't take your dog along. There is NO exemption for visitors to the state. There is an exemption for "non-residents" who have recently moved to the state (added in the last round of amendments) that is only good for <30 days (you must still have your valid out of state drivers license, which Ca. requires you surrender and replace with a Ca. lic. within 30 days or you pay penalties when you eventually get the Ca. license).