From AKC's WEBSITE:
California Assembly Bill 1634, known as
the California Healthy Pets Act, was assigned to the Senate Business,
Professions & Economic Development Committee on June 20th.
It seeks to require the mandatory spaying or neutering of all
dogs or cats over four months of age, unless the owner acquires
an intact animal permit. It is imperative you contact your Senator
to voice your concerns.
Please visit our CA
Spay/Neuter Action Center to read more about the recent
developments, addresses for contacting your Senator, sample letters
to send, tips on how to conduct a successful office visit and
our “Call to Action” flyer that you may print and distribute.
AB 1634 will be heard by the Committee on Monday, July 9. Letters
need to be sent to the Committee by 5 p.m. Monday, July 2nd to
ensure that your opposition is noted for the official bill analysis.
Sincerely,
The Canine Legislation Department
The 40 member California State Senate has
15 Republicans and 25 Democrats. Only 21 affirmative votes are
needed to pass a bill on the Senate Floor. Democrats also have
a majority on all committees.
Judging by the breakdown of Democrats and Republicans (and the
fact that Democrats have a majority on the committees), it's likely
that this "nasty DRACONIAN" Bill will be approved in
the State Senate. Then it goes to the Governor to either sign
or veto.
Now is the time to start writing the good Governor of California,
who is a Republican. So far he has not taken a position on the
Bill, but he could veto it. It's been controversial from the start,
with voting along party lines, and it hasn't exactly passed with
huge majorities. BTW, the Governor owns two dogs (Sarge &
Spunky).
Also please keep in mind when voting in the future, which party has almost exclusively supported this bill! If you are a registered Democrat, I would encourage you to write a letter expressing your disapproval of how they have voted and supported this Bill along party-lines! Personally, if I were a registered Democrat, I would switch my party allegiance. When you mess with my "life-blood"........... Unfortunately I can't make a statement by switching parties because I am a registered Independent (I do not vote along party lines).
By a single vote, the California Assembly tonight passed AB 1634, a measure to require the forced sterilization of all dogs and cats in California. The final vote was 41-38.
However, the fight has just begun. Now more than ever we need your financial help.
We faced an uphill battle to defeat this anti-pet measure in the Assembly – our opponents paid numerous professional public relation and lobbying firms to bombard Legislators with false and misleading information about AB 1634.
But PetPAC members fought back. They lobbied their Representatives, contacted the media, contributed to PetPAC, and worked very, very hard. Many Legislators quoted directly from PetPAC materials when they rose to argue against AB 1634 on the Assembly Floor.
Only with your help can we build a united, well-funded campaign to fight our deep-pocket opponents and defeat the measure when it is heard in the State Senate.
Please contribute today to PetPAC’s “No on AB 1634” campaign.
Working together we can defeat AB 1634 and stop this inhumane measure from becoming law in California. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Bill Hemby
Chairman, PetPAC
P.S.: We need your help to protect the rights of pets and owners. Please make your contribution now so we can continue the fight to defeat AB 1634.
Patti Strand, National Director 503-761-8962
http://www.icebase.com/go.shtml?20070605000523377653&m54&mailto:naia@naiaonline.org
http://www.icebase.com/go.shtml?20070605000523377653&m54&http://www.naiaonline.org/
SACRAMENTO , CA -- The anti-pet movement has found a sponsor in
the California legislature for a bill that strips pet owners of
their traditional rights and, in the process, sharply reduces
both the quantity and quality of purpose-bred dogs and cats --
including those bred for assistance to the disabled, and for search
& rescue operations.
AB 1634 is backed by the extremist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and sponsored by Assembly Member Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys). If it passes, most California pet owners will have to sterilize their pets.
"This bill comes with a noble-sounding name but AB 1634, the so-called California Healthy Pets Act, will not improve the health of California pets," says Patti Strand, National Director of the National Animal Interests Alliance, one of the nation's most respected animal welfare groups.
The bill is fraught with unintended consequences. Among them: a predictable flood of unregulated -- and typically unhealthy -- dogs from Mexico, already the proven source of up to 10,000 illegal dogs sent to California each year according to US Customs and Border Protection: "In a global marketplace," according to Strand , "over-regulating the AKC and CFA hobby breeders who are the best source of healthy, well-socialized, home-raised puppies and kittens, creates a vacuum, effectively ‘outsourcing' pet production to other countries that don't come close to reaching US standards of animal health, care or quality." The increasing demand for puppies has also led to the importation of strays rescued from foreign countries that are being marketed through non-profit organizations like The Animal Place and Compassion Without Borders . This influx harms California consumers and poses a significant public health threat.
Despite the claims of the bill's supporters, many respected California veterinarians oppose AB 1634, including one the state's most distinguished vets. Dr. John Hamil is 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's Animal Welfare Committee and the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy and author of the CVMA and AVMA positions on early spay/neuter.
Dr. Hamil, a leader in spay/neuter programs, terms AB 1634 "divisive legislation [that] will not help and may aggravate the situation." Noting that young puppies and kittens are not biologically mature enough for spaying and neutering in many cases, Dr. Hamil states: "It is inappropriate to mandate a controversial and possibly life-threatening surgical procedure."
Also strongly opposed to AB 1634 is Sharon Vanderlip, DVM, former shelter animal veterinary clinician and surgeon, a longtime advocate of voluntary spaying and neutering. "This bill is not a ‘healthy' pet act," said Dr. Vanderlip. "It will not help animals or improve their health. It will not reduce the shelter animal population. It will not reduce the number of animal euthanasias. To the contrary, the number of animals in shelters and the number of euthanasias will increase as people who cannot afford to alter their pets, or pay fines associated with non-compliance, will abandon their animals, relinquish them to shelters, or have them euthanized. This has already happened in municipalities that attempted similar legislation."
Christian Osmond, DVM, board-certified veterinary surgeon, opposes the bill on similar grounds. Dr. Osmond says he cannot reconcile his professional oath to "above all else…do no harm" with programs that place political agendas above sound veterinary practice, a priority that could put pets at risk.
Canine Companions for Independence , an organization supporting assistance dogs for the disabled, opposes AB 1634 because even with exemptions for today's carefully supervised dogs, the bill's long-term effects would greatly reduce genetic diversity and threaten the existence of their breeding program.
Law enforcement groups -- representing tens of thousands of uniformed officers -- oppose AB 1634 because it will drastically reduce the future supply of dogs suitable for apprehending criminal suspects and performing vital Homeland Security tasks. The U.S. Congress has recognized the critical need to breed more dogs for Homeland Security work with pending legislation HR 659. AB 1634 would send this important bipartisan effort into a tailspin.
"AB 1634 would shrink the pool of dogs that are suitable for search and rescue, undermining our ability to do this life-saving work," says Laura Sanborn, California K9 search and rescue volunteer.
The Mixed Breed Dog Clubs of America supports spay and neuter programs and in fact requires compliance for all MBDCA registered dogs. But president Cindy Leung said that AB 1634 will not solve the problem it claims to address. Instead, she said, the bill "punishes organizations, animal shelters, businesses and responsible breeders that have been among the few sources of education in regard to responsible pet ownership and breeding. Over 87% of animals relinquished to shelters are there due to behavioral problems; if California truly wants to solve the pet overpopulation problem it should promote training and behavior education rather than mandatory spay and neuter."
Animal shelter statistics demonstrate that pet owners are well on their way to solving the pet population problems of yesterday. Today, California 's largest animal problem is feral cats (cats without owners); but AB 1634 establishes no programs for these cats. Worse yet, it imposes penalties on cat breeders who breed and place their kittens with care.
NAIA director Strand notes that AB 1634's chief advocates claim they have "no relationship to animal extremists." However, PETA operatives play key roles in Social Compassion, a sister group to the bill's public supporter, CA Healthy Pets Coalition.
"Beyond AB 1634 itself, the issue at stake is responsible political process," NAIA's Strand concludes. "Will the California Assembly rely on the expertise of the state's animal professionals – including leading veterinarians, experts in law enforcement and service dog breeding programs, dedicated breed enthusiasts, animal welfare groups, the leading organizations for cats and dogs like Cat Fanciers Association (CFA) and the American Kennel Club ( AKC ), county Boards of Supervisors, and other respected individuals and organizations – or will they listen to groups that oppose all pets, healthy or not?"
From Patti Strand, NAIA Trust
We are approaching a critical time in the
fight against AB 1634, so we
have set up www.capwiz.com/naiatrust/home
at the NAIA Trust lobby
center to send faxes as well as emails. That is, we have enabled
it so
that you can compose an email, or format a letter and send it
as a fax
by hitting send.
Levine won't bring the bill to the floor
unless he thinks he has the
votes. He has proposed new amendments during the last few days
and
tomorrow is the next time he can bring the bill or the amendments
to
the floor for a vote.
We have no special crystal ball or predictions,
but think it's a good
time to send another round of opposition letters to assembly members.
The proposed amendments do not change our
opposition to the bill. The
bill is fundamentally flawed. The bill is unnecessary because
steep
declines in shelter impounds and euthanasias have occurred without
such draconian legislation over the last several decades. AB 1634
will
not achieve its stated goal. Instead, it will lead to many unintended
consequences: AB 1634 will undermine the long-term shelter population
trend, harm the economy, and drive pet owners out of the system.
Please go to the NAIA Trust Lobby Center
http://www.capwiz.com/naiatrust/home
now and write and send your letter! The
talking points are provided as guides. Modify them to fit your
point
of view.
The Doberman Pincher has one of the best websites for keeping up to date on this Bill. Not only does the site provide current updates, but it has sample letters and a handy email string for sending emails to all the State Legislators.
The California Veterinary Medical Association is not only in favor of this Bill, but they were one of the co-sponsors. However....... apparently there are a lot of Veterinarians who are members of CVMA, that were never asked if they favor this Bill or not. The Doberman Pincher club has posted an informational flyer that can be given to your Vet. Call or visit your vet and take one of these informational flyers . He/She may be shocked when they learn CVMA supports AB 1634! I took a copy to my Vet. He was already aware of CVMA's stance on this Bill and he is furious, because as a CVMA member, he was never contacted for his opinion. He has written two letters and has not received a reply!
If this Bill passes, it's going to ruin the purebred dog market in our State and possibly put a lot of Vets out of business.
Yesterday, the California Assembly Committee on Appropriations voted 10-to-6 in favor of Assembly Bill 1634. The vote was along party lines, except that one Democrat voted "NO" and another abstained (Fiona Ma of SF and Anna Caballero of Salinas). The bill will now go to the entire Assembly for a vote. It is predicted that this Bill will narrowly pass in the Assembly!
More than 600 people attended yesterday's hearing in opposition to AB 1634.
As the bill continues to move along, continued STRONG opposition by breeders and concerned dog owners is REALLY needed ........now more than ever. It is vital that breeders and concerned owners in California write or visit your Assemblymen and express your vehement opposition to AB 1634. More often than not, Assemblymembers work from their district offices on Fridays. This makes Fridays a great time to meet with them and discuss your concerns.
Letters are needed more now than ever.
Here's a link to find your State Legislator
Below is a new letter to send to your Assemblyman. Anyone is free to copy it. The important thing is to do it!
May 21, 2007
Dear Assemblyman Martin Garrick,
I strongly oppose California AB 1634 and I am writing to ask you to oppose this Bill when it comes to the floor for your vote.
Primarily I am opposed to this Bill because this should be a local government matter. This is an unfair burden to place on those areas that do not have pet overpopulation problems - especially when those areas have other more pressing needs, such as, declining public education, residents without health insurance, illegal immigration, etc.! AB 1634 provides an unfunded mandate for local governments to implement and enforce, and many local governments simply do not have the resources to impose the provisions of the bill.
This Bill does not take into account the large feral cat population that constitutes roughly 70% of shelter kills in this state.
Owners should be allowed to choose, with their veterinarian's guidance, whether their dog or cat should be neutered and the appropriate age to do so. This decision should not be mandated by state legislation. A large number of Veterinarians have gone on record stating that they are opposed to this Bill and they will not resort to reporting violators.
This Bill could have a profound negative economic impact on both the state and local economies in California because this state has some of the largest Dog Shows in the country and they will take their business elsewhere.
This bill does not address the true source of pet overpopulation and it penalizes responsible dog owners. Hobby breeders would face an undefined but increased economic burden. Many breeders will move out of state or be forced to take their operations underground, thereby significantly reducing the amount of licensing fees collected.
This Bill will significantly reduce the number of purebred dogs and cats available in California, thus forcing state residents to look elsewhere for pets. This could result in dogs and cats being smuggled into the state from Midwest puppy mills and Mexico.
Many owners will not pay impound or neutering/spaying fees. Instead the animal will be abandoned: leading to an increase in unwanted animals at shelters that need to be euthanized!! This comes in light of the fact that the number of unwanted pets at state animal shelters has actually declined over the past decade!
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine claims that the dog people protesting AB 1634 haven't come up with an alternative plan! They have come up with an alternative AND it's been working!! Look at all the work being done by Animal Rescue groups. These groups have prevented scores of purebreds from being euthanized. "Joe citizen" can always obtain a puppy (usually a mixed breed) at the local flea market and breed it. All the laws in the world will not prevent this type from flooding the market with unwanted puppies that end up in turn either reproducing or being euthanized in animal shelters.
The Collie Club of America, Inc. established a National Breed Rescue 501c3 organization. Most other breed clubs have similar organizations in place.
Thank You!
Gayle Kaye, Chelsea Collies
PO Box 2750, Valley Center, Ca 92082
1st Vice President Collie Club of America
California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has introduced AB 1634, inappropriately titled the “California Healthy Pets Act.” The proposal requires all dogs and cats in California be neutered by the age of four months, or their owners will face punitive fines and penalties. This Bill will effectively wipe out purebred dogs as we know them in this state AND will drive out current & future responsible breeders that reside in California. AB 1634 will cause fewer good quality pets to be available in the state. However, it will not diminish the public's demand for pets. By discouraging local breeders, the demand will be met from other sources, for instance Midwest Puppy Mills, Internet sales and Foreign sales. Some California shelters are already getting a surplus of pets from overseas suppliers and puppies are currently being smuggled into California from Mexico every day to meet current demand.
AB 1634 has just been forwarded to the "Appropriations Committee". If passed there, it goes back to the entire Assembly for a vote. Then it goes through the same procedure in the State Senate (policy committee, fiscal committee, etc) and is put to a vote there. Then if passed, it goes to the Governor for his signature.
Please read my letter below written to the appropriate agencies and to the appropriate members of our state legislature. We need letters written ASAP!
For additional information, please visit AKC's website and NAIA. Here's another link to an upcoming Group Concerned Dog Owners (courtesy of The Jack Bradshaw website)
Here is a link to an excellent letter written by some members of California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA)
See the San Diego Tribune Editorial below my letter.
Assembly Appropriations Committee
ATTN: Chuck Nicol, Committee Consultant
State Capitol, Room 2114
Sacramento, California 95814
FAX: (916) 319-2181
Dear Mr. Nicol,
I strongly oppose AB 1634, as amended by the Business and Professions Committee on April 24th
Primarily I am opposed to this Bill because this should be a local government matter and San Diego County (where I reside) rejected mandatory measures seven years ago. This is an unfair burden to place on those areas that do not have pet overpopulation problems - especially when those areas have other more pressing needs to contend with (such as declining public education, illegal immigration, etc.)! AB 1634 provides an unfunded mandate for local governments to implement and enforce. Many local governments do not have the resources to impose the provisions of the bill.
If adopted, the provisions of AB 1634 would have a profound negative economic impact on both the state and local economies in California.
Because localities would set intact permit fees, breeders would face an undefined but increased economic burden. As seen in other jurisdictions that have imposed permit regimes, many breeders will move out of state or may be forced to take their operations underground. As a result, the amount of licensing fees collected will be reduced significantly.
Furthermore, under AB 1634, a dog or cat that has not been spayed or neutered could be impounded and owners will only be able to recover pets if they agree to having the animal fixed or they pay a $500 fine. Guess what???? I can assure you, many owners will not be paying any impound fees or neutering any animals. Instead the animal will be dumped there, leading to an increase in unwanted animals at shelters that need to be euthanized!! And this comes in light of the fact that the number of unwanted pets at state animal shelters has actually declined over the past decade!
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine's claim that the dog people protesting AB 1634 haven't tried to come up with an alternative plan, sure misses the mark! They have come up with an alternative AND it's been working!! Look at all the work being done by Animal Rescue groups. Their good work has partially helped alleviate the pet overpopulation problems in many key areas. Rescue groups do an amazing job of relocating various breeds of dogs and getting them out of shelters, etc. These groups have prevented scores of purebreds from being euthanized. Unfortunately your average "Joe Blow" is always going to get a puppy (usually a mixed breed) at the local flea market and possibly breed it - for whatever reason. I don't think all the laws in the world will ever prevent these types from flooding the market with unwanted puppies that end up either in turn reproducing or being euthanized in animal shelters.
FYI, the Collie Club of America, Inc. recently established a National Breed Rescue 501c3 organization. Most other breed clubs have similar organizations in place.
I strongly support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously. In its current form, AB 1634 proposes to seriously restrict the property rights of responsible breeders and owners while imposing untold and unjust punitive costs upon their activities.
Gayle Kaye
Chelsea Collies
PO Box 2750
Valley Center, Ca 92082
1st Vice President Collie Club of America
UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
Drastic overreach
Pet sterilization measure should be scrapped
April 26, 2007
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine's bill to require
the vast majority of California's
dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered by the time they are 4
months old
which took its first step toward passage this week with the approval
of an
Assembly committee is best described as a well-intentioned mess.
Levine, D-Van Nuys, is on solid ground in
saying there are far too many
unwanted, abandoned dogs and cats, and that it is both disturbing
and costly that
300,000 to 500,000 animals have to be euthanized in California
each year at
a cost of $250 million. But his bill would punish millions of
responsible pet
owners while actually encouraging more irresponsibility from the
minority of
pet owners who are causing the problem in the first place.
Under AB 1634, any dog or cat that had not
been spayed or neutered could be
impounded. Owners could only recover their pets if they agreed
to have their
animals fixed or if they paid a $500 fine. Given these owners
couldn't be
bothered to spend $50 to $150 for the procedure in the first place,
it's highly
likely that many would never try to get back their pets who then
would join
other abandoned animals at shelters as likely candidates for euthanasia.
It's also likely that many responsible pet
owners and breeders who would
have to pay for permits on a pet-by-pet basis to stay in business
would see the
law as a governmental overreach and ignore its requirements. Such
laws often
lead to black markets and unexpected new headaches.
Beyond these shortcomings, there is an angle
to this debate that deserves
far more attention: the fact that fixing dogs at such a young
age can cause
many long-term health problems. For one example, sterilizing dogs
before
maturity more than triples their risk of bone cancer.
Unfortunately, Levine brushes aside these
concerns and says the choice is
adopting his bill or doing nothing. We strongly disagree.
Before following Levine's prescription,
why not first act to fully subsidize
all spaying and neutering? Or offer a tax credit to pet owners
who can
document their animals are sterilized? Or provide tax credits
to veterinarians
based on how many of their clients they get to fix their pets?
This is much more practical and defensible
than Levine's drastic overreach
especially considering one minor detail that supporters of his
bill never
bring up: The number of unwanted pets at state animal shelters
has declined over
the past decade. This suggests that existing subsidies and public
education
efforts have worked and that there's promise in expanding them.
A final note: It's dismaying that Levine's
bill passed the Assembly Business
and Professions Committee thanks to unanimous support from the
panel's
Democrats. We hope that every Assembly Democrat takes an independent,
fresh look
at AB 1634 and not just go along with Levine because of that after
his name.
Pet overpopulation is a complex issue. Decisions
on how to deal with it
shouldn't be driven by partisanship.
