Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Assembly Bill 1634 – The California Healthy Pets Act
THIS IS NOT A GOOD HEALTHY BILL!!!
It's more commonly known as the Pet Extinction Act!!
Please help us write letters to Legislators and let them know we what
them to vote no on California AB 1634. It represents an all out assault
on pet owners' property rights.
Although AB 1634 provides specific exemptions for pets that qualify, it
does so by first removing rights that have been fundamental pet owners'
rights throughout history; and the exemptions it grants can be removed
later. Pet owners' property rights are on the line in AB 1634.
Forcing pet owners to have surgery performed on their pets is outrageous
and potentially dangerous to the health of young puppies and kittens.
Early sterilization of some puppies and kittens has proved harmful to
their long term health and development.
Responsible breeders maintain the health and integrity of ancient breeds
and provide a wonderful variety of dogs and cats so that millions of
people worldwide can select a pet of the size, coat type, temperament,
appearance, and character that will fit their lifestyle. These breeders
should be given incentives to continue breeding. Their fundamental pet
ownership rights should not be weakened, which AB 1634 does, even if it
also grants a special permit.
Having a good source of healthy well-bred dogs and cats to choose from is
good for consumers and for the community. Laws aimed at discouraging
accidental and careless breeding should take great efforts to avoid
harming responsible breeders.
Careless breeding should be discouraged through licensing incentives,
funding low cost neutering clinics and public education.
***The over population isn't caused by breeders, it's caused by consumers,
rescues and shelters. Did you know that there are some shelters and
rescues who are shipping in animals from other countries so they can make
money. The numbers they are quoting are FALSE. ***
This bill is an assault on pet owners' property rights.
This bill isn't about healthy pets. It is about government control of dog
and cat owners and breeders and unreasonable fines for noncompliance.
Please protect the rights of the citizens of this state and kill this
dangerous un-American bill.
The fine print says by 2009 there will be NO exceptions and
ALL PUPPIES & CATS MUST BE ALTERED
(Even those that are Show, K9, Narcotic, Bomb, Farm, Hunting,
Herding, Coursing, Agility, Service, etc.)
Several other states are being hit with spay/neuter laws.
If you want to keep you rights and be able to purchase a healthy pet from
a responsible breeder, then please help do what you can.
Please cross post every where. We all need to send letters & sign
petitions no matter where you live. Your state will be next!!!!
This is a link to a YouTube video made up in a hurry to combat the
folks in favor of passing this mandatory state wide Spay/Neuter bill
in CA called AB 1634.The bill calls for sterilizing all puppies and
kittens before they are 16 weeks of age. They call it "The Healthy
Pet Act." Anything but healthy
Here is a great website where you can compose a letter, print it out and fax it.
You can write your own letter using some of the topics that I have posted
above and add in some of their paragraphs also. They will email you
a copy of your letter. Remember it's much better to print it out, so
you can fax it or send it ASAP. No emails!!
See what other people have to say about Levine, author of AB1634.
Please share your thoughts on the subject!
(scroll to the bottom to comment)
We Need To Require Spaying and Neutering of Pets in California and To Pass AB 1634 This Week - California Progress Report (http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/06/we_need_to_requ.html - broken link)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601- (broken link)
1650/ab_1634_bill_20070430_amended_asm_v96.html
this is a link to the whole bill.
At the end there is a list of all of the allowed permits for
unaltered animals,
but all of this is negated by that one paragraph.
It is only valid until 2009
(e) Any person who, on or after April 1, 2008, is in possession of
any document issued by the local jurisdiction or its authorized
animal control agency that permits the owner to possess an unaltered
cat or dog shall be deemed in compliance with this act until the
document expires, or January 1, 2009, which ever whichever occurs
first.
Here are a couple of articles on the effects of early spay/neuter
AB 1634 - Send Biscuits
Here is something that everyone can do to help no matter where you live. Stop California AB1634
POLL on MSNBC - Do you think states should require pets to be spayed and
neutered? Vote NO!!
Calif. considers bill requiring pets be fixed - Pet Health - MSNBC.com (broken link)
Please fax your letters to the following Legislators
The Honorable Karen Bass, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2147
The Honorable Rudy Bermudez, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2156
The Honorable Ronald Calderon, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2158
The Honorable Edward Chavez, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2157
The Honorable Judy Chu, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2149
The Honorable Hector De la Torre, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2150
The Honorable Mervyn Dymally, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2152
The Honorable Dario J. Frommer, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2143
The Honorable Jackie Goldberg, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2145
The Honorable Jerome E. Horton, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2151
The Honorable Robert Huff, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2160
The Honorable Betty Karnette, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2154
The Honorable Paul Koretz, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2142
The Honorable Lloyd Levine, Assembly Member
Fax: (916) 319-2140
The Honorable Ted Lieu, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2153
The Honorable Carol Liu, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2144
The Honorable Cindy Montanez, Assembly Member
Fax: (916) 319-2139
The Honorable Dennis Mountjoy, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2159
The Honorable Gloria Negrete McLeod, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2161
The Honorable Fabian Nunez, Speaker of The Assembly
Fax: (916)319-2146
The Honorable Jenny Oropeza, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2155
The Honorable Fran Pavley, Assembly Member
Fax: (916) 319-2141
The Honorable Keith Richman, Assembly Member
Fax: (916) 319-2138
The Honorable Mark Ridley-Thomas, Assembly Member
Fax: (916)319-2148
The Honorable Sharon Runner, Assembly Member
Fax: (916) 319-2136
The Honorable Audra Strickland, Assembly Member
Fax: (916) 319-2137
The Honorable Richard Alarcon, Senator
Fax: (916)324-6645
The Honorable Debra Bowen, Senator
Fax: (916)323-6056
The Honorable Gil Cedillo, Senator
Fax: (916)327-8817
The Honorable Martha Escutia, Senator
Fax: (916)327-8755
The Honorable Sheila J. Kuehl, Senator
Fax: (916)324-4823
The Honorable Alan Lowenthal, Senator
Fax: (916)327-9113
The Honorable Bob Margett, Senator
Fax: (916)324-0922
The Honorable Tom McClintock, Senator
Fax: (916)324-7544
The Honorable Kevin Murray, Senator
Fax: (916)445-8899
The Honorable Gloria Romero, Senator
Fax: (916)445-0485
The Honorable George Runner, Senator
Fax: (916)445-4662
The Honorable Jack Scott, Senator
Fax: (916)324-7543
The Honorable Nell Soto, Senator
Fax: (916)445-0128
The Honorable Ed Vincent, Senator
Fax: (916)445-371
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
Fax: (916)445-4633
Web page:http://www.ca.gov/s/governor/mail.html (broken link)
Thank You!!
Last edited by CADRMNDANES; 06-11-2007 at 07:21 PM..
CADRMNDANES, I have been following this for awhile. It is a good idea, bad bill. It only penalizes those of us who are already responsible pet owners, and does nothing to those who refuse to play by the rules.
I do agree about the spay/neuter before 16 weeks of age is a bad idea... 24 weeks is the average, since most pets are fully developed by that point.
It must be a slow month in the California Assembly if they're considering something like this... but chances are it would be unconstitutional, since pets are considered private property, and government isn't allowed to interfere.
Actually they are not fully developed until they are closer to a year old. I had a great dane puppy fixed at a very young age, she had major growth issue problems and had to have major $$$$ surgery. None of her other littermates had this problem because they were altered closer to a year old. I added a link about early spay/neuter.
Danes are fully matured at 2 years of age.
Last edited by CADRMNDANES; 06-11-2007 at 07:28 PM..
See what other people have to say about Levine, author of AB1634.
Please share your thoughts on the subject!
(scroll to the bottom to comment)
We Need To Require Spaying and Neutering of Pets in California and To Pass AB 1634 This Week - California Progress Report (http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/06/we_need_to_requ.html - broken link)
Here is a letter from a Vet.
Permission to crosspost.
June 1, 2007
Re: AB 1634, "CA Healthy Pets Act"
Dear President Faoro and the CVMA Board of Governors,
As a 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, I have devoted my
professional life to trying to understand the many factors that contribute
to the continuing problem of animal relinquishment and euthanasia. I, like
most veterinarians, believe that spay/neuter is one of the most important
parts of the solution to this national disgrace. Unfortunately, this
divisive legislation will not help and may aggravate the situation for the following reasons:
a.. Most veterinarians are very conservative about government incursion
into their private lives and businesses. It is naïve to invite the
legislature into professional decision making. If they can tell us that we
must perform a procedure then they can tell us we can not perform a
procedure.
b.. It is inappropriate to mandate a controversial and possibly life
threatening surgical procedure. As CVMA has argued in the past, decisions
of this magnitude should be made after consultation between the owner and
their veterinarian.
c.. As has been published in our journals, not all animals benefit from
prepubertal gonadectomy before four months of age. Growth-related
problems, urinary incontinence, and behavioral problems have all been
reported in higher numbers in animals neutered at such an early age.
d.. It seems inappropriate for a profession to legislate a procedure that
only they can provide. We all know that we lose money on spay/neuter
procedures. However, several legislators see our defense of declawing and
requirement for spay/neuter as nothing more than protecting our "turf" and
stimulating income and several dog breeders wondered what would keep
spay/neuter prices from going up. We must remember that "perception is
reality." Our public image could be seriously damaged if there is
exploitation of this unintended opportunity.
e.. The number of animals being euthanized in California shelters has
dropped steadily for more than two decades despite the continuous
population increase in families with pets. Importantly, the numbers
continue to drop faster in shelters that are in jurisdictions that do not
have mandatory spay/neuter.
f.. The majority of animals euthanized (approximately 60-70 percent in most
shelters) are unowned or unwanted, stray and feral cats. This bill will
not impact this population in any way.
g.. There are so few puppies and small dogs in many shelters that they
"import" them from other shelters in California, other states and/or
foreign countries.
h.. A large percentage of the dogs counted as euthanized are DOA, old, ill,
injured, or behaviorally unacceptable. The actual numbers of these animals
are unknown due to incomplete record keeping by the sheltering community.
i.. The majority of dogs euthanized are medium to large mixed breed
individuals (many of them pit bull crosses) belonging to irresponsible
owners who are hard to identify and who will never comply with this law and
are noncompliant with many other community laws.
j.. The number of young, healthy, well socialized, adoptable animals
euthanized is much smaller than the humane and sheltering community has
claimed.
k.. The number of animals euthanized continues to decline each year and
varies greatly from area to area within the state. Why do we need a
coercive, punitive and intrusive "broad brush" state law, when this is
clearly a local issue?
l.. As it is agreed that breeders of pure bred dogs and cats are relatively
small contributors to the shelter euthanasia numbers, why are they being
required to fund the implementation of this law with fees (often quoted
between $100 and $200 per year) to simply own an intact animal that may
never be breed? Owners of intact animals are already paying a differential
licensing fee. Why impose increased taxation on this law abiding community?
m.. It is elitist to only allow pure bred dogs an exemption. We all
acknowledge that many of the greatest family pets are mixed breeds.
Surely, it is not anyone's desire that we only have pure bred dogs.
n.. If passed this law will be very unfair to the economically
disadvantaged. They are, as a community, poorly educated about pet
population control, often culturally averse to neutering their pets, have
the least ability to afford this surgery, have little access to low cost
clinics in most communities and often do not have transportation. Although
this community contributes disproportionately to the numbers of animals
impounded, I don't think there is any political will to deprive them of
their pets. In order to have the desired effect, the law would require
fines, sterilization at the owner's or the public's expense, or
impoundment. No one wants to deny these families the benefits of animal
companionship. And yet, if we fail to address this segment of
society; how will this bill reduce shelter euthanasia?
o.. If this bill is passed, it will fail to solve the euthanasia numbers
because animal relinquishment is not a problem of too many dogs and cats
but one of too few responsible owners. The steady decrease in animals
being euthanized in shelters can be accelerated through cooperative effort
among veterinarians, animal control agencies, humane activists and dog and
cat breed clubs encouraging responsible ownership through enforcing
regulations already in place, gathering more useful information in the
shelters, designing more effective and better targeted educational materials
and delivery systems, differential licensing fees, vaccinating and licensing
cats, encouraging owners to keep cats indoors, encouraging spay/neuter of
cats allowed outside, microchipping, and providing mobile low cost
spay/neuter.
p.. Even if it was possible to "turn off the faucet, "as Assemblyman Levine
likes to say; there would be little reduction in the cost of shelter
operation. As hospital owners know, most costs are fixed (facilities,
administration, trucks, equipment, etc.) The shelter can't even reduce
staff as we can in private business. Unfortunately, a reduction in the
numbers of animals entering the shelter will only effect a small reduction
in the overall cost to the taxpayer. This is demonstrated by the steady
increase in animal control budgets over the last two decades despite the
number of animals entering the shelters and the number of animals
euthanized decreasing significantly.
q.. The method of accounting, linking the overall cost of animal control to
the number of animals euthanized, exploited by the sponsors of this bill is
very misleading. Using this method, the cost of each euthanasia goes up as
the number of euthanized animals goes down. The use of this tactic is
dishonest, disingenuous or, at best, misinformed.
r.. Reducing the number of pet animals born in California will not reduce
the demand for puppies and kittens. This reduction, particularly of well
bred and socialized animals, will leave the people of California vulnerable
to puppy millers from California and other states, unregulated internet
sales, sellers of animals smuggled across the border and unscrupulous
brokers of animals imported from Eastern Europe and Latin America. If
these animals are poor representatives of their breeds, poorly socialized
or unhealthy-and they usually are; many will end up in the shelter. Isn't
it better to buy animals from people you can question face to face,
premises you can inspect, and breeding stock you can see?
s.. If low cost spay/neuter in the shelters is to be part of the solution,
who will provide the service? The shelters have had difficulty filling
their veterinary positions for years. If shelters decide, as has been
suggested in San Diego, that technicians can bridge the short fall; we
will, again, have to fight the battle about technicians being allowed to
perform surgery. Do animals in the shelter deserve a lower standard of
care than those taken to private veterinary hospitals?
t.. Although the bill allows local jurisdictions to issue an intact animal
permit for guide dogs, service dogs, signal dogs, and dogs used in law
enforcement and for rescue activities; it does not allow for intact animal
permits for those animals that are bred to produce these dogs.
u.. An unfortunate result of mandatory spay/neuter in many jurisdictions in
California and around the nation is an initial increase in shelter
euthanasia rates and decreased licensure, as people try to drop out of the
system. This will decrease shelter revenues and may cause fewer animals to
be vaccinated against rabies, possibly contributing to a public health problem.
This is,
quite possibly, why the Peninsula Humane Society is not a supporter of this
bill.As Hurricane Katrina and other disasters have demonstrated, it is
important to know which families have pets. We need to encourage people to
enter the system, not drive them away.
v.. Requiring veterinarians, as has been suggested in San Jose, to report
the repro-ductive status of animals along with our rabies vaccinations
reports, will result in some owners not seeking veterinary care for their
animals.
How will this serve animals or public health we are sworn to protect?
w.. An unforeseen consequence of passage of this bill will be denial of
Maddie's Funds to any community in California. These funds, which are
available for collaborative programs to achieve no kill status, are not
available to
any community with mandatory spay/neuter.
x.. CVMA has allied with AHA and HSUS, two animal rights organizations that
have attacked our profession unceasingly and who will continue to do so.
CVMA has simultaneously made opponents of the AKC and CFA. Both
organizations are made up of our clients and have, historically, been our
allies. The AKC Canine Health Foundation is the largest donor of money exclusively for canine research, over one million dollars each year. CFA, through the Winn Foundation, is among the largest donors of money for research for cats. A large percentage of this money is funding research at UC Davis.
y.. Political inconsistency is both frightening and ironic. CVMA sued for
the right of people to decide with their veterinarian about the
appropriateness of declawing their cat and now CVMA would legislate this
more dangerous and invasive surgery. The other proponents of this bill are
predominately "pro choice." Yet, paradoxically, they would deny animal owners
"choice" about sterilizing their family pets and want to mandate this,
possibly, life threatening surgery as they continue their efforts to legislate against ear cropping, tail docking, declawing, etc.
The CVMA has always been known as an organization that is science based,
thorough, deliberate and open in its decision making. In this case the
CVMA has let its membership, the people and the animals of California down.
CVMA did not seek or ignored statistics about the problems associated with mandatory spay/neuter and seems unaware of readily available information about the factors contributing to animal relinquishment from sources like the
National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy. To be successful in
solving such a multifaceted problem, it is important to bring all contributing groups together. Instead of being the rational voice in this difficult arena,
CVMA was swayed by the emotional cry, "we have to do something." More important, this decision was made without the input of CVMA's membership. CVMA has always used the governors, delegates and the California Veterinarian to poll its membership when making decisions of this magnitude. I know of no one in my district who was aware of your deliberations before this decision was made.
This proposal interferes with citizens' rights, fails to address the major
sources of animals entering shelters, punishes the law abiding and the
poor, reduces the availability of good quality pets, leaves California's
citizens vulnerable in their search for family pets, and exacerbates the ill will
among the groups that need to work together to develop workable strategies to reduce the number of unwanted dogs and cats euthanized in our shelters each year.
Ultimately, as past experience has shown, this coercive, punitive,
intrusive law will retard the progress that has been made in the past two
decades.
CVMA can and should do better than this. Abandon this bill and provide the
leadership necessary to bring everyone (veterinarians, humane activists,
animal control agencies, dog and cat breeders, feral cat caretakers and other
knowledgeable interested parties) together to develop effective ways to
reduce the number of unwanted dogs and cats entering our shelters.
I do agree about the spay/neuter before 16 weeks of age is a bad idea... 24 weeks is the average, since most pets are fully developed by that point.
It must be a slow month in the California Assembly if they're considering something like this... but chances are it would be unconstitutional, since pets are considered private property, and government isn't allowed to interfere.
In LA county you must have your pets chipped (at least your dogs). So much for not interfering.
MBG
Another scary thing about this bill, is that there is no limit on how much it would cost breeders to get their breeding permit. It is insane.
MBG
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
