California Assembly in Session Until Late at Night, Passes "Clean Money," Flood Control, Chiropractor Board Reform, and Pet Neutering Bills

Your report on AB1634 is fraught with obvious errors and lacks proper research. Accoridng to Levine's own numbers in the B&P committee, the number is 400K, not 800K, so either you have it wrong or Levine is just making up numbers (most likely since the cost went from $250M in B&P to $275 in Appropriations to $300M on the Floor). Second, the CVMA support is their BoD only and not their membership as their membership knows that 4-month sterlization had adverse health effects. Third, law enforcement organizations are switching from support to opposition as they find out they were lied to by Levine and Judie Mancuso about the bill. Fourth, the Santa Cruz program was not successful--their own statistics indicate the number of euthanasias increased when the program was in place. Fifth, the opposition outnumbers the support when it comes to pet organizations, and includes the AKC and CFA, the NRA, the Farm Bureau, CCI, the Libertarian Party, police dog organizations, and national breed-specific organizations including Salukis and Gereman Shepherds.

Sorry, not sure why that posted multiple times...last one is the right one...

Here is something anyone wanting a well bred pet should think about. I have owned, showed and sometimes bred Rottweilers since 1978. My breedings have produced numerous champions, certified police dogs, tracking dogs, obedience titles, herding titles and agility titles, as well as untitled but much loved pets. Every dog I have ever bred had All health clearances and all but one had a title themselves. I sell with a contract and a guarantee and will take back any dog throughout its life or help re-home it. When I sell a pet it goes with a limited AKC registration and must be spayed or neutered, but not at 4 months. Puppies I have sold that were S/N too early ended up with numerous bone diseases. I now recommend S/N no earlier than 1 year.

Right now I own a Champion with a Rally title, has a Canine Good Citizen certificate, and is a registered Therapy Dog. She also has had her hips, elbows, heart and eyes certified. I plan to breed her to a male with the same qualifications. There is and has been a waiting list for these puppies, both to show homes and to pet homes.

AB 1634 has made me reconsider selling a pet in California. Its not good for the dog and I refuse to insist on something I know from experience is harmful to one of my puppies. So Pet Stores will experience a boom, and Commercial Kennels will jump for joy. But the people of California lose and will only have inferior bred dogs to choose from and will pay probably twice as much to own a purebred pet.

I urge people to go to www.petpac.net and donate ...to fight AB1634

Would these politicians neuter their own children at the age of 4 months because that's what they are mandating we all do to our pets

Spay/neuter before growth plates have closed (14 mo. to 2 years of age) IS DEVASTATED TO THE HEALTH OF DOGS -- It's been shown to increase incidence of bone cancer and cause expensive and painful torn ACLs in dogs -- This is because it alters the dog's hormones which results in a change the relative growth rates of different bones. Moreover, anesthesia especially in a puppy is a risky procedure that is the 3rd largest cause of puppy death.

Read the actual bill and you will find that it requires Pediatric spay/neuter at 4 months of age with very few exceptions, most of which don't apply to pet owners, and those exceptions expire on Jan 1 2009. You won't have a choice. You won't be able to get a healthy well socialized pet from a responsible breeder in CA anymore.

Check out how your Assembly person voted.
http://petpac.net/news/releases/ab1634_passes_assembly/

Then lobby your senator and the governor. If this bill passes Senate, our pets will be irreparably harmed.

The article above says AB1634 will be the "subject of articles and analysis here". Does that include information taking away the RIGHTS of small breeders? Does that include the enormous ECONOMIC LOSS that California will face if this passes including huge losses in revenue from the many dog shows in California? Does that include the HIGH COST of labor that it is going to take to enforce this bill? Does that include the DOCUMENTED SEVERE HEALTH PROBLEMS AND SURGICAL RISK TO PEDIATRIC DOGS AND CATS that dogs encounter with early spay/nueter? Does that include how Puppy Millers who breed with no health testing/socialization or support to the new owner will be the BIG WINNER as they are completely exempt along with radical "Animal Rights" groups like PETA and HSUS? I'm not sure who Mr. Levine and those who have supported this are working for...guessing it is not the taxpayers.

and for the big question DOES THIS BILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF TOO MANY DOGS AND CATS ENDING UP IN SHELTERS ALONG WITH THE COSTS? Nope, the majority of euthanasias are from feral cats. And then there are the Puppy Millers or those who smuggle puppies in from Mexico puppies in horrid conditions with no regard to genetic health/socialization who sell through Pet Shops and provide no help or mentoring to the new owner. Mr. Levine, why aren't you targeting the real problem...PUPPY MILLS AND FERAL CATS? Could it be that the Puppy Mills would put up enough resistance to knock the socks of this bill? One would think that if you were really interested in Animal Welfare you would come up with a bill that shows it.

I suggest that those who are interested in articles go to the National Animal Interest Alliance www.naiaonline.org and read the articles. http://www.naiaonline.org/issues/CalVetsNO1634.htm and the health risks of early spay/nueter http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf

Mr. Levine, you can be credited for perhaps millions of people to lose faith in their government.

You neglected to mention there were a significant number of mainly democrats who decided to sit out this vote, lacking any credibility or moral conviction, or just not wanting to take the blame if this whole thing backfires on democrats which I imagine it will: I myself, a lifelong Democrat, WILL re-register as a Republican if this things becomes law. I am actually a bit more hopeful after reading some of the analysis above. However, I am very unhappy to read the slanted tone he took as if he was sucked by the Levine train which aims to mow down all opposition with its crazy numbers and logic. And I might add that, as a almost lifelong dog rescuer (almost 20 years), not all rescue people think this is a great idea. Pets are NOT abandoned just because they are too many puppies & kittens, which they would have you believe. They are given up for behavior & social reasons. This bill does nothing to seek to change those problems. Also, Levine must have a big paycheck coming from PETA and HSUS after his hard work recently. He must have worked up quite a sweat over this. A disgusted and now-politically active pet owner, Diane Oakland

I urge all you oppositionists to sign yourself up for the shelter kill list emails so you can see for yourself the endless stream of beautiful sad faces of animals about to be killed. AB1634 is not cure all, but it IS a step in the right direction. Let's adopt out the animals already alive at the shelters before condoning allowing more to be born.Diane's comment about PETA and HSUS are slanderous and disgusting. Mr. Levine cares deeply for animals and that is the ONLY motivation he had to propose this bill. Diane, how much money did the AKC put up for the oppostion to this bill?? What a hypocrite!

First off, let me say that every dog or cat I have ever owned has been spayed/neutered at an appropiate time by my choice, which obviously this bill will take away.

Second, I am not a Veterinarian, nor do I work in the field of Veterinary Medicine.

Many people have already addressed the health issues, civil rights issues, age for titling issues, and many more problems with this bill so I will skip those.

I am appalled that this bill passed in the Assembly! With their vote, these 41 Democratic members of the Assembly have documented their DISDAIN and DISRESPECT for the men and women of Veterinary Medicine.
They have disregarded the professional opinions based on clinical knowledge of the licensed Veterinarians of the State of CA and deemed themselves as having superior knowledge that allows them to dictate when a puppy or kitten MUST be spayed/neutered.
This is an intrusion into the practice of veterinary medicine and politicians have no business interfering here!

To add to this insult, they demand the Veterinarian and their staff waste numerous hours with writing letters to document the need to delay the spay/neuter surgery. During the next 75 days the staff will probably be sending out a reminder letter or post card, followed by a phone call to book an appointment. If the medical condition has not improved, another letter to delay the surgery will need to be written. And the process starts all over again.

If the owners do not choose to follow through with the surgery, do the legislators expect the Veterinarian to turn the owner's names over to Animal Control?
Veterinarians should NOT be expected to serve as the "intact permit police" by default.

When new clients come to a Veterinarian, do the legislators expect the Veterinarian to refuse to treat a dog or cat over 4 months of age if their owner cannot produce an intact permit? Afterall, the owners are now deemed to be criminals and their pet is an outlaw.

Veterinarians are probably the most compassionate health care givers we have, so why are our legislators putting them between a rock and a hard place????

SENATORS, PLEASE OPPOSE THIS SENSELESS BILL!

I am amused with the "democrat" who will register as a republican if AB 1634 becomes law. As a life long republican, I have to thank the democrats and the few conscientious republicans who voted to support a long overdue bill. I am about ready to re-register as a democrat because we wouldn't have had a chance at this bill without their wisdom! I care deeply for animals, and spend most of my free time and money rescuing from our local shelters and I suggest that the cold hearted breeders spend one day in the euthanasia room at any shelter, and try to say that the 1000 dogs and cats killed every day in California had a behavior problem or some other reason that caused them to be there. Blame everyone else but yourselves, when you are the root of the problem. The breeders have managed to get off without any accountability for years, making $1000-$4000 per puppy, and whining about an intact permit fee of maybe a couple hundred dollars. How do you justify not paying a permit fee, when nonprofit charities, such as the one I volunteer with, have all kinds of state permit fees, kennel licenses, etc, that we have to pay to clean up your mess? What other for-profit business has been allowed to create such chaos in a state? You produce and produce, and expect us, the taxpayers to subsidize the clean up. Don't even get me started on the "private property" speech...as a life long republican, I feel very let down by our conservative leaders, who should have stood up for us taxpayers, and told you to be responsible for your own "private property." IF it is truely your private property, take care of it, be responsible for it, pay for it, and leave us out of it. Gosh, that would be difficult, because you need the taxpayers to keep sucking it up and paying for your "hobby" or your "business" or your "private property." Interesting, you make the money, and won't pay for a permit, but don't seem to mind the $4 BILLION of taxpayers money spent on sheltering/euthanizing animals in California shelters every 10 years. Quit being so selfish, and quit being so greedy. There are other programs that money should be going to...health, education, border control, the homeless. You have fooled everyone long enough, your game is up.

I have had at least one intact dog for the last dozen years. I have never bred a litter, never produced one puppy. I do show my dogs. In fact I contribute over $10,000 a year to the CA enconomy because of my dogs. This is show fees, training fees, gas, hotel, restraunts, etc. Now I am going to be asked to pay even more because someone else dumped their dog in a shelter. I am already paying 3x as much to license my intact dogs and now I will have to pay more.
I will have to go through another layer of government to prove that puppy I plan to get (if the breeder even lets me get one because of this bill) next year is being trained before the age of 4 months. How in the world can anyone do that with a 3 month old puppy? I will have only have the puppy for a few weeks before I have to do who knows what and to pay who knows how much to keep the dog intact.
I have spayed and neutered dogs before. My dogs have suffered for it. Bad elbows due to incongruent surfaces- that is when the bones grow at different rates causing the joint to be damaged. Altering before the growth plates closes is the leading cause of this very painful condition. Torn CCL or blown knees- also caused by altering before maturaty. That one cost me over $4000 to repair.
Low thyroid- took years to get my vet to finally give my dog meds because his levels were technically in the "normal" range. Before he was neutered he was in the upper range. After being neutered, it plummeted. After fighting his weight for 7 years of being neutered, he finally has the energy to burn off the calories and is keeping a good weight and I am feeding him double! His coat is finally getting half way decent too. He was misable for so many years because he was neutered.
Spaying and neutering has caused my dogs painful, misable lives, not to mention the vet bills and medications that cost me plenty. My intact dogs have been extemely healthy. I see no reason to ever alter another dog, just on health reasons alone.
So why am I being asked to pay for someone else's unwanted dog? Why am I being presumed guilty of the "crime" of animals in a shelter just because I have a dog with all of it's parts?
I also will have to pick a breed of dog that is from an approved government list of recognized registries. I will have to have a dog that is able to title from a list of government approved associations. I will have to associate with private organizations of my government's chosing inorder to not be fined for having a dog with orginal equipment. That just smacks of being Un-American. It is a clear violation of my first amendment rights.

In our Riverside animal shelter 133 dogs were euthanized in the month of May alone. Our shelter has made great progress in lowering this number from what it used to be but that is still too much. Is this acceptable to us as a society? This bill may not be a cure all but it a step in the right direction. Please give it a chance.

Everyone has ideas and opinions. But the fact of the matter is that when performed correctly, by trained veterinary professionals, pediatric spay/neuter is completely safe. If it wasn't veterinarians would not be allowed to perform the procedure. Additionally, an adverse procedure would not be endorsed by credible organizations such as the AVMA, HSUS, AHA, AKC, American Animal Hospital Assn., Assoc. of Vets for Animal Rights, ASPCA, Doris Day Animal League, University of Minnesota, The Ohio State University, UC Davis and Auburn University.

Statement from the American Veterinary Medical Association (AMVA)

"Lowering the number of stray dogs and cats is a high priority for anyone who cares. The AVMA is on record as endorsing early age spay/neuter. As president of the AVMA, I feel it is unconscionable not to use early spay/neuter since it is safe and very very effective in achieving our goals."
-Dr Sherbyn Ostrich, President, AVMA, 1996

It is discovered that the incidence of mammary cancer (which is four times higher in intact bitches than in human women) can be reduced by over 96.4%, if we spay before the first estrus.

Implications of Early Neutering in the Dog & Cat
Preston Stubbs, DVM & Mark Bloomberg, DVM Seminars in Vet Med & Surgery, Small Animal, Volume 10, No 1
Feb 1995 Dept of Small Animal Clin Sci, Univ of Florida
This study divided dogs and cats into three groups. Group one was neutered at 7 wks, group two at 7 months, and group three remained unneutered.
-Instead of causing stunted growth, early spay/neuter may result in a slight increase in adult height
-In response to concerns about urinary incontinence, the authors measured urethral pressures (a diagnostic test for incontinence). Profiles were similar among those intact, those neutered at seven wks, and those neutered at 7 months.
-Also evaluated were behaviors, such as activity level, playfulness, vocalization, excitement, aggression, and affection in dogs and cats. While unneutered animals tended to be somewhat more aggressive and somewhat less affectionate, no other difference were noted between groups. Neutered dogs & cats were not lethargic or inactive.
-Growth rates, food intake, and weight gain were not affected.
-The external genitalia remained smaller in pups & kittens neutered early. No problems associated with this finding.
-Conclusions, early age neutering is safe & effective “does not seem to adversely affect skeletal, physical, or behavioral development”

Injuries happen. Incontinence happens. These conditions have nothing to do with early age spay/neutering. With regard to bone injuries, that likely comes from poor breeding. And you can only blame the weight of a pet on the person feeding and exercising it.

Democrat or republican, we all need to contribute to ending the tragedy of pet overpopulation and the subsequent killing of homeless animals.

Post a comment