We Need To Require Spaying and Neutering of Pets in California and To Pass AB 1634 This Week

If Santa Cruz was a success, our dogs can't afford any more successes. Mandatory spay/neuter not only won't work, it will have the opposite effect.

Mandatory spay/neuter laws have failed everywhere they have been tried. Santa Cruz County, your poster child for MSN, showed a 46% drop in the number of dogs killed between 1995 and 2002. California as a whole showed a 65% drop. Counties adjacent to Santa Cruz did even better. Santa Clara County showed a 93% drop. San Francisco became No-Kill which means no
adoptable animal was killed. If Santa Cruz is a success, our dogs can't afford any more success!

You might want to re-check your mathematics. With your numbers every dog would be able to stay in a private boarding facilty for upwards of 19 days at retail. Maybe the State of California is just doing a crappy job of this too? And I don't know how you get to 500,000 cats and dogs being put down annually with only 19,000 being put down in Los Angeles County. With a number like that, the real number can't exceed 100,000. The SF SPCA is no-kill as are numerous Cities and Counties around the State. You really need to get your numbers right before you push this sort of legislation. And forget Statewide office, the real dog people will never vote for you.

Unfortunately, Assemblyman Levine's misleading the public by suggesting that dogs may be "exempted" from this bill. To obtain an intact dog permit, the owner will pay a fee. That's a tax, not an exemption. Having said that, the "show dog" exemption is written in such a way that no dog born after the inception of the bill may qualify. A dog between 4-6 months may qualify for a permit because it's to young to show, but would lose that status when it turned 6 months of age. It is neither advisable nor practical to show every puppy the minute they turn 6 months old. Further, a title does not guarantee quality nor does lack of a title necessarily mean a dog is not of appropriate quality to breed. This bill will force owners to make IRREVOCABLE decisions about dogs reproductive future long before they can be tested for a variety problems. While in some cases the decision is easy, in others it is not. Valuable genetic material will be lost endangering entire breeds.

Californians will neither stop owning nor surrendering dogs. They'll simply buy them from mid-west commercial breeders or from smugglers bringing puppies in from Mexico.

I just read part of this and have seen yet another thing I disapprove of...we have had new breeds added to the AKC recognized breeds within the last couple of years - this Bill would not make it possible for a new breed to be come an acknowledged/recognized "breed" through the trials necessary to BECOME recognized by the American Kennel Club - where they could be shown in sanctioned matches and shows! This Bill is just too weird!

This bill is so totally flawed that no amount of amendments can correct it. Mandatory spay/neuter has been tried in many areas and has been a miserable failure in all of them. Licensing revenues have gone down because people will not license their dogs in order to fly under the radar. San Mateo, San Francisco, San Diego...they have all opted for the more effective route of emphasizing public education and voluntary compliance.
Perhaps the most devastating aspect of this bill is the requirement to spay/neuter at the very tender age of four months. Can you see a two year old child having to undergo surgery like this? Think of a two year old girl having a hysterectomy...the thought is appalling. Medical decisions such as this should ONLY be made by the owner of the pet on the advise of their veterinarian.
Should this pass, with the restrictions listed against responsible breeders, the only purebreds left available will come from puppy mills from out of state (inhumane, appalling places), or sickly, ill bred puppies smuggled in from foreign countries. And when people get tired of their new pet (after all, it does take time and effort to train a puppy), where do you suppose these dogs will end up? Yep...dumped at the local shelter, or worse, if a penalty is feared, they will be dumped in the country to die a slow death from either starvation or predators. Responsible breeders screen their buyers to be sure they realize the amount of work to train a puppy, and enforce a contractual obligation that the puppy be returned to them if the buyer cannot keep it, for any reason.
This bill was obviously written by someone who does not even understand what causes animals to be turned into shelters. The numbers quoted also include owner surrenders of dogs they cannot afford to have a vet euthanize, feral cats, etc.
Please contact your assembly members as soon as possible to ask them to vote against this fatally flawed bill.

How do you figure this bill will help California save money? Your bill would destroy the small breeders who raise their puppies in homes and socialize them properly for pet owners in California. Your 'show' exemptions are a joke. Do you not think the public is smart enough to see there are NO exemptions in this bill that will work? You will be costing the state of California a MINIMUM of $100 million plus in income to hotels, restaurants, gas stations, grocery stores as well as taxes on these amounts just from the dog shows that will not be held in your state if this bill passes. You will be getting your puppies from midwest puppymills and Mexico instead of local breeders who care and where you can visit the puppy before you buy it. This bill is not for the animals health or welfare, nor for those that love them.

Oh, yes, one more thing...you will notice that Mr. Levine accuses anyone who disagrees with him of either not wanting to acknowledge the fact that there is a problem at all, or we just simply don't care about what happens to these animals.
Mr. Levine, I have news for you. The responsible dog and cat breeders of this state LOVE their animals, and we also love dogs and cats that are less fortunate than the ones we own. That is why so many of us volunteer at local shelters, contribute financially to local shelters, and also participate in breed rescue programs, usually spending our own money to do it.
So please don't paint us all with the same brush...we are caring, responsible people that just want the best for all the animals of California.

While human populations have continued to rise in California, animal shelter populations have been dropping.Overpopulation is a myth perpetuated by fund raising Animal Rights groups.Problem areas, such as the importation of foreign animals and feral cats, should be properly addressed by local animal control officials familiar with and duly responsible for the issues and populations unique to their own area. Non-dollar value costs of this bill are additional loss of life suffered due to shortages in law enforcement dogs, segregation and discrimination of the disabled, shortages of well bred healthy dogs, shortages of family protection dogs resulting in increased crime rates and loss of training and behavior support freely available from hobby breeders. This bill is BAD LAW with potentially disasterous results. Shame on you Lloyd Levine! What a waste of time for our legislators and our citizens!

This bill reeks with corruption as does Levine’s support of a human assisted suicide bill. How can a person ethically support no-kill for pets and legal suicide for humans? Levine is also a supporter of the infamous “light bulb” bill which does not take into account the ramifications of improper disposal and health concerns of such fluorescent bulbs due to their mercury content. These costly bulbs may offer energy savings perhaps, yet definitively will be poisoning landfills and ground water. Levine has a history of introducing animal rights legislation without regard to economic impact on Californians. If Levine is trying to get publicity for his Senatorial bid, he grabbed the wrong cat by the tail! It's a tiger he has awakened and it's not going to forget who tried to castrate him while he was pleasantly sleeping. Perhaps he would also like to explain how his Senior Staffer got the knife in the back after 5 years on Levine's staff and chose to support someone else for Levine's district seat though promised to Waldeman? Went to the highest bidder clearly. Who paid for AB 1634? When you can answer that question, you will know what this bill is all about.

Assemblyman Levine appears to be from some other planet. He refers to statistics which are blatantly incorrect (i.e.: shelter euthanasia increases) and states that dog breeders just "don't want to pay taxes on all that money they make selling puppies." I, for one, have never made money on puppies. The ones currently in my yard have cost me almost $700 EACH so far...and that does NOT count any food, care, care of their mother, or the over $400 of health testing she had prior to the breeding. Not to mention the hours I spend screening and counselling potential puppy buyers, or the hours spent counselling actual buyers. In any spare time I have I do animal assisted therapy with my Doberman pinscher, and work in the American Kennel Club's Ambassador and Canine Good Citizen Programs...yet
Assemblyman Levine would have ME STOP breeding responsibly, so Californian's can adopt unhealthy, untested animals from Mexico, the mid-west puppy mills, or those individuals who ignore present laws, do not health or temperament test, and will continue to ignore this law and produce black market puppies when I can no longer do so! NEUTER the UN-Healthy Pet Act AB1634

Mr. Levine is being extremely disingenuous. AB 1634 would destroy any breeding in California. Studies show that passage of similar bills in other places result in an increase in shelter euthanasia. His “star pupil” Santa Cruz’s shelter statistics are bad when you compare them to the surrounding areas that didn’t pass this type of legislation. That is to say, while Santa Cruz’s numbers did fall, shelter euthanasia and intakes in the surrounding areas without their draconian law fell MORE and FASTER than Santa Cruz did. So, AB 1634-like legislation has been a FAILURE every where it has been tried.

AB 1634 will also make it impossible to breed police dogs or search-and-rescue dogs in CA. It would also decimate the herding dogs, if implemented as written. Expect CA police departments to have to pay more and wait longer to get their K9 partners, if AB 1634 passes. That means higher taxes for everyone.

Levine is like every other politician. Ingratiate yourself to the lazy or simple minded and you can count on their next vote. Become an informed voter. Understand the facts and the ramifications of legislation before you take a possition.
Please ask your representative to vote NO on AB1634

There are valid reasons to spay or neuter a pet although 4 months is way to young. If an animal had bad genetics such as bad knees, eye problems, under / over bites that animal should not be used to breed and respectable breeders will not sell an animal with those problems unless there is a clause stipulating spay or neuter. On the other hand, no one can be certain at four months just what a pet will develop into. Who knows if the pet will make good breeding stock, or have the personality traits necessary for a service animal. How is a breeder defined here? Why will some people be targeted and others left alone? This proposed ordinance if passed can be used in a very arbitrary and capricious manner.
I happen to be a person who believes quite strongly in humane treatment of animals; however, I also believe in laws that have a sense of honesty and integrity attached to them and I do not sence that in this case.

If Mr Levine thinks he can solve problems, why doesn't he take on a real problem and leave our pets alone? We have several serious problems in this state that would be better served with our lawnmakers time such as homelessness for people, no insurance, schools. The pet population has been self regulating to date and hasn't been a problem for anyone except animal right advocates. The numbers in the above article are gross distortions of the truth. The "exemptions" are a joke included only for the purpose of misleading the uninformed. The idea of spay/neuter at 4 months old is absurd to anyone that has ever owned or loved a pet before. The animal would be affected for the rest of its life. The cost of this bill must include the loss of revenue for the state from dog and cat shows and the entire pet industry. For the 4-day Eukanuba show in Long Beach in December the room tax alone was tens on thousands of dollars. Mr Levine California can't afford and doesn't want your bill AB1634!

Mr Levine's proposed legislation will not, in any manner, achieve it's desired goal. It is too far reaching and doomed to failure. First of all, comprehensive reports prepared by the shelter community have indicated that most of the euthanasia rates that occure in California involve adult dogs and feral cats. The euthanasia rate of puppies and kittens is extremely low- most are adopted out with 24 to 48 hours. To meet the public's desire for young adoptable animals- our shelters are now resorting to importing large numbers of puppies and kittens from Mexico, other countries, and other states. So, the way I see this situation, we have a problem with the euthanasia of adult dogs and feral cats- not a "breeding" problem since there are so few puppies and kittens entering the shelter system from California. Why doesn't Levine address that particular problem? Furthermore, this law violates both our USA and California state constitutions and will be challenged in court at great tax payer expense. Lastly, let's look at the 4 month old requirement for pediatric spay and neuter. This is a medically unsafe proceedure that will set our pets up for a life time of expensive health problems. Hmmmm let's see.... Oh yes- that's right most of the dogs euthanized in shelters are adult dogs dropped off by their owners. One of the leading reasons for this- expensive, chronic health problems. Mr. Levine- how does this fix our euthanasia crisis in shelters?? Please explain. I think I am just too obtuse to get it. Please clarify.......

Mr. Levine,

The numbers you are trying to use to justify this bill are not correct. Perhaps the extra money that this bill is going to cost the taxpayers to enforce would be better spent on our state's educational programs and perhaps you could sign up for remedial math. It is also quite insulting to the people you represent that you don't provide truthfull information and facts regarding your numbers and who is helping you with this crusade.

Perhaps you would like to explain why, if this bill is so RIGHT, why has it been amended so many times? If it were right it would have went through the first time, no changes to "cater" to other assembly members would have been needed to get their votes.

Another example of corruption, treating the public like they are stupid, and an undisclosed motive to really get this bill passed situation going on, wouldn't you agree Mr. Levine? Stop wasting time and taxpayer's money.

As a volunteer on my local Search & Rescue team with aspirations to train a dog to the standards required for certification (a multi year process) I am appalled at this bill. Should my dog show the unique attributes needed to be an effective search dog after the long training process I would then be unable to breed him (he is not exempt until he is certified). This is why the Search and Rescue and Law Enforcement community is deeply opposed to this.

No one wants animals euthanized but this bill is the equivalent of cutting off the trigger finger of everyone in California to reduce gun violence. It is a shockingly badly written and unfixable bill.

As a final note, I can assure every assembly member out there that those responsible pet owners that chose not to do elective surgery on their animal are going to be deeply, deeply aware of the actions that their representatives take on this bill.

This is not an armchair issue. If you vote for this issue you have forced law-abiding constituents to make a choice between the significant costs and health risks of an elective surgery or face hundreds of dollars in fines and criminal prosecution. Don’t be fooled by this deceivingly named boondoggle masquerading as legislation

There is no accomodation in this bill for low cost spay neuter programs. None.
The bill provides for funding ONLY administrative costs through permit fees and fines.
Statisics show MSN bills decrease licensing and vaccination of companion animals.
Levine claims the bill will affect "only" animals coming in contact with animal control. What exactly does that mean? Homeless dogs and feral cats with no owners to pay their fines and buy their permits and have them surgically sterilized?
In my suburban neighborhood, leash laws are not even enforced. How then will any of the provisions of this bill be enforced?
My guess is through veterinarians and dog show "raids".
The bad guys (puppy mills) will still fly under the radar or be able to qualify for "permits" as they always have, euthanasia rates will increase due to owner surrenders to shelters (already the most frequent reason for shelter euthanasia).
Careful breeders, who provide service dogs and law enforcement dogs are the real targets of this bill.
This bill is dangerous. Please read the bill and then contact your representative to oppose the bill this week.

Mr Levine, did you notice that not on comment on this bill supports you? Or your bill?

If that doesnt say something than nothing will. This bill stinks to high heaven!

Mr. Levine,

AB 1634 is a gross misreprsentation of facts. There is no facet of this bill that works to decrease the euthanasia numbers you claim to care so deeply about. Why do you not follow the steps that cities and counties have taken that WORK to cut back on shelter numbers instead of quasi following the mandatory spay/neuter steps that have NOT worked in Santa Cruz?

The additional ammendments you added to the bill on May 31st further illustrates your ignorance of how law enforcement agencies procure the dogs that work with our police officers and deputy sheriffs. Is there anything you truly understand about dogs in general other than the world that has been spoon fed to you by the supporters of this bill? Is there anything you understand about working dogs in particular or have made an effort to learn while pushing this legislation? There are a MILLION ways that dogs help the citizens of this state and only a few of those seem to have penetrated your narrow view. And few of those dogs are ever bred AND raised for those specific purposes. They are raised as pure breed and mixed breed PETS.

Is it any surprise you have met with so much opposition from those people who have knowledge in these areas? Withdraw this bill. It is the only way to protect the citizens you were elected to represent and should care about.

If you really want to solve the homeless pet problem in California. No cost or low cost spay and neuter clinics are the only answer. Targeting responsible breeders, with spay and neuter agreements is going to absolutely nothing to help the homeless population. You are way off base here., Mr. Levine. Do your homework! I believe that this bill will only perpetuate the problem by making the altering of animals so expensive, nobody will do it. They'll just let their animals go wild to save themselves from fines and fees that any prosecution might find!

Assemblymember Levine says, "In absence of this legislation, California will continue to take a piecemeal approach to pet overpopulation and things will never really improve."

Two mis-statements in one sentence.

1) 'Things' have improved and continue to improve without draconian legislation. In the last three decades the shelter population and enthanasia have dropped by approximately 85%. At the same time the human and pet population has continued to grow.

2) AB1634 mandates a piecemeal approach. Each individual jurisdiction will have to decide which registries and dog sport events are approved, what the criteria for deciding if a dog or cat is exempt because it is 'in training' for a sport or service dog career, and how much to charge for an intact permit, if it decides to offer them. It will be a mess and unfair to many good, responsible dog and cat owners.

AB 1634 is a bad bill and should be defeated. The State of California does not have an animal over population problem. Many shelters do not fill to capacity and actually take adoptable dogs and cats out of the higher volume facilities just to meet the adoption demands of the public. These shelter transfer programs are quite common and are an effective way to help shelter pets find new homes. The key word here is "adoptable". As much as the supporters of AB 1634 would like you to believe fluffy little Disney dogs are being euthanized, this is not the case. At my local shelter so many adoption holds were placed on a 40lb. "Sandy" (of Little Orphan Annie) look- alike that the shelter staff held a lottery and drew names to determine the "winner" of this dog. Healthy dogs and cats with good temperaments get adopted. Feral cats and aggressive dogs do not. We do not need AB 1634!

Mandatory spay and neuter will not and does not work. It will not reduce the population at shelters that are euthenized.

It's just fascinating to me that of the two basic goals this bill purports to support, one is happening anyways, and for the other, this bill will quite likely achieve the opposite effect. Specifically:

*pet overpopulation: California's euthanasia's rates have been steadily declining over the last several years. This is a manufactured "crisis", not a real one.
*improved health and welfare of dogs by early spay/neuter: I have read several interesting reports looking into the increased aggression and illness in dogs spayed or neutered before full maturity. I would like to see more careful studies done in this area, real and balanced studies rather than the psuedo scientific ones with hidden agendas we have seen so far, funded by the anti-pet radicals.

Why oh why does "government" feel they have to dictate everything we chose to do? I adopted my first dog from a California shelter. He was not neutered, and he was never bred. In fact, I've had both purebred dogs and some well loved mixed breeds all my life, and have never bred any of them. That is called responsible pet ownership and considers the health needs of the pet. I really don't need the CA assembly to tell me what I must do for the animals in my care. This bill is yet another unreasonable intrusion into the private lives of law abiding citizens. Defeat this bill NOW!

Mr Levine has so many errors in his statements, it's hard to know where to start. Most experts on reducing euthanasia agree that mandatory spay/neuter is ineffective and often counter productive. For an article analyzing mandatory spay/neuter from a lawyer an animal advocacy group, check out http://network.bestfriends.org/News/PostDetail.aspx?np=4108&g=9fa3c167-00

Some highlights - San Mateo's ordinance was a failure, actually counterproductive. "After the effective date of the ordinance, dog deaths in the areas governed by the ordinance, actually increased 126% and cats 86% while licenses declined by 35%."

Montgomery County Maryland's ordinance was repealed. The euthanasia rate had been declining rapidly -post ordinance, the rate of decline slowed significantly. Further, "In Montgomery County, MD the mandatory spay/neuter law was repealed. When the law was enacted, it was estimated that 550 breeding permits would be issued per year. In reality only an average of 30 permits were issued per year. There was an estimated 50% decline in licensing compliance."

Meanwhile, in California, we have arguably the most successful approach to reducing euthanasias in the country - Nathan Winograd's No Kill Advocacy Center. See web site at nokillsolutions.com The center has helped bring multiple communities to no kill of adoptable animals, including such achievements as 92% adoption rates in open admission shelters - achieved in a single year. This approach not only does not use mandatory spay neuter, it actively rejects it, prefering a community, collaborative approach. For their take on mandatory spay neuter, see http://www.nokillsolutions.com/pdf/mandatorylaws.pdf

AB 1634 represents a failed approach that divides the animal community needlessly. Santa Cruz's numbers are not what they are cracked up to be. Instead, investigate Winograd's innovative and effective approach.

Mr. Levine is scary. He doesn't have a clue and yet he has the public's attention. Does Mr. Levine have a dog, does he show a dog? Does he have any idea what the sport of dogs entails? Has he done any research? Has he attended any dog shows?
Marcie M. Jensen

What some politicians will do to grab publicity. Never mind it is bad legislation and very poorly written, it must be passed because Mr Levine and his cohorts know far better than the great unwashed who are his constituents, what is really needed by those they are supposed to be serving. Give me a break, that kind of arrogance does not a good public servant make. He is not telling you the truth folks, write, and call your legislators and ask them to defeat this piece of idiocy

Responsible cat breeders spay/neuter ALL of their kittens sold as pets. They also include a clause in their sales contract giving them first rights on a pet when the buyer decides to relenquish it. The "overpopulation" problem with cats are domestic, random-bred cats who are NOT spayed or neutered, such as those owned by a neighbor of mine in Hayward: She had several cats, all of whom are "outdoors" cats, none of whom are spayed or neutered. They constantly have kittens, usually in OUR yard. When we can, we catch the kittens and take them to our vet for placement, but we never can catch all of them. What part of AB1634 addresses this problem? The neighbor denies ownership of all of these cats, although they may admit ownership of one or two several years ago. These are basically feral cats that a well-funded Trap/Neuter/Release program would handle. Nothing in AB1634 addresses feral cats/dogs. All it does is go after the responsible breeders who take care of their animals, who take great care in placing their kittens and/or puppies and who, for the most part, do more to care for animals, both theirs and in shelters, than the general public.

These breeders also spend countless amounts of money on vet care, pet food, other pet supplies, travel, gasoline, restaurants, motels, etc., etc., etc., all of which add to California's economy. These funds will NOT be spent in California if AB1634 passes.

AB1634 is also a bill not easily enforced. I don't know of any County in this State that has the extra staff necessary to enforce this bill and, should it pass, the funding in the bill will be worthless. The breeders who would be expected to pay the licensing fees and for Intact Permits will leave the State rather than spaying or neutering their animals too soon.

Mr. Levine needs to understand that this Bill and all its "amendments" are a flawed concept. He also needs be a responsible citizen of the State of California and to have the brass to stand up to the so-called Animal Rightists who would like nothing better than to infringe on OUR civil liberties by dictating how we care for the health of our animals, to the point where there will be NO animals. It's obvious Mr. Levine hasn't done his homework and is mouthing platitudes and glittering generalities fed to him. This Bill must go no further.

Levine seems to be making a financial argument ($250 million to operate shelters in CA)about an emotional issue: Whether Californians should have the right to make appropriate decisions for their cats and dogs given their experience and advice from their own Veterinarian. From ALL the research I've read, dogs can have serious problems if altered too young (incontinence, growth problems, behavioral problems, etc) which might in fact lead to being taken to a shelter (does the average person really want to care for an incontinent dog its whole life - 14 years or so?). This makes no sense. I don't know if cats suffer similar challenges, but maybe a cat person could weigh in here. This is bad lawmaking. Textbook bad law...

Mr. Levine,
Do you really think that all the people who have intact animals are going to rush down and get them spayed and nuetored if you pass this law? The people that think pets are just throw aways when you get tired of them will still just let them go or turn them in. Those are the people you need to educate. Not those of us who love all animals and do our best to be responsible pet owners. I don't know who is truly behind this extremist bill but it is not the veterinarians and responsible pet owners in this state. And you should be ashamed of yourself for calling it the Healthy Pet bill. It truly is the extermination bill.

Mr. Levine,

First let me state right from the beginning, I am NOT a breeder. I am a responsible, ordinary citizen with pets.

My dogs were ADOPTED from shelters and rescues as young adults. The Shelters provided spaying as did the Rescues along with counseling if needed. The cats were kittens when I bought them. I CHOOSE when the best time was to "fix" them based on counseling with my vet. He had the knowledge and education to make these types of decisions. NOT someone that sits behind a desk.

I volunteer for a Rescue and the dogs we get come from Shelters. We have puppies that people turn in with the mother and the puppies are adopted within weeks. The older dogs, seniors, as some call them, are usually put to sleep in shelters because a family member has passed away and relatives can't or don't want to take care of them. Our rescue takes in these dogs, many 8 years or older AND THEY GET ADOPTED!!! Maybe not as fast as the puppies, but they do. If you mandate spay/neutering, impose fines if not compliant, do you really think that the responsible dog/cat owner is the one that will hide? The backyard breeder (loosely termed) or the puppy mill vendor will be producing quickie dogs with no idea or caring as to their temperament, socialization characteristics, health issues, and a list of more possible concerns that the "buyer" will not knowingly face until it's too late. Responsible breeders as well as Rescues take the time to evaluate the dogs in every aspect. When one of these dogs goes to a home, that home will know exactly what type of dog they are getting. What the personality is in that dog, what health issues, if any, to expect and a LIFETIME guarantee of surrendering back. NO PUPPYMILL vendor or backyard producer will do that. For them it’s only about the money. The very people you will exempt through this Bill AB1634, as I understand it.

If I understand your proposal, anyone coming into your state will have to abide by your law. A visiting relative or a family passing through on a camping trip will HAVE TO HAVE A PAID PERMIT to bring their pet into your state. How is that going to be feasible for the vacationer to obtain? If different jurisdictions can set their own requirements, is the vacationer expected to contact each county for a permit? I for one would rather stay in Oregon, Nevada, or any other surrounding state than to be subjected to this highly expensive, very confusing proposal you’re recommending. The way I see it, your state will lose money from vacationer’s, lucrative dog shows, breeders that will move out of state, all while you say your state will save money. How can that be? The family dog is realizing popularity from hotels and restaurants to spas. If people can’t bring their pet along they won’t come. That, to me, sounds more like lost taxes than the benefits you state in your Bill. AKC Dog Shows, I would imagine, bring in tens of thousands of revenue dollars during their week stay. Money that can benefit many needy causes. If you take away those people, what kind of dollars will the hotels, restaurants, stores really be loosing that your residents will have to make up in higher taxes from their pockets? If you don't attract business to help subsidize taxes and you have to purchase service dogs for the police and other state agencies from outside the state, won't that cost more money for the taxpayers in the long run? We all know that when supply and demand is high, the price of the product goes higher. Just look at gasoline.

This Bill, AB1634, is obviously ill thought out. Is pointing to the wrong target of dog owners and should be voted NO by everyone that can see through the double talk and misguided facts you’re presenting.

Mr. Levine,

AB1634 is a grossly flawed bill. It punishes the very people who reduce unwanted pets; the dedicated hobby breeder and dog fancier.

These are the people who educate the public about responsible dog ownership, who ensure a home for EVERY puppy they bring into this world with the knowledge they will accept it back at any time and for any reason, who donate time, money and energy to rescue organizations, who teach dog obedience classes for free, attend school assemblies to teach children about responsible dog ownership, train their dogs to rescue stranger's lives, or to protect our police men and women.

These people dedicate years to the community through their involvement with their dogs, and yet Mr. Lavine questions their ability to make good choices with their animals by removing the option of choice?

How exactly is that helping California?

Mr. Levine,

Surely you cannot believe what you have written. Your bill is fatally flawed and will not acomplish it's stated goals.
Guess which breeders have licenses? The commercial breeders and puppy mills. Not the small hobby breeder who breeds for themself, health tests & titles all of their stock, spending thousands of dollars to do so, in California.
Healthy pets is a misnomer. There is literally hundreds of studies showing the myriad of health problems early sterilzation promotes. I work for CCI, who did their own never published study on this.
You are also taking away my job and the jobs of hundreds of others who work for assistance and guide dog schools who will move their breeding programs from CA. Your so called exemptions still do not address the breeder dogs for these organizations. Addtionally, the wording on this bill states any and all permits expire as of 1/1/2009.
Do your research before imposing this type of faulty legislation on the citizens of CA. If this bill passes, I will be leaving CA. and so will the thousands of tax dollars our small business pays to the state. No one in government should be able to tell me how to care for the animals I love.

Mr. Levine,

When are you going to stop wasting the Assemby's time and tax payers' money on ridiculous legislation that is doomed to fail and will only muddy up the animal control system more than it already is. Why do you think adding another unenforeceable law to the books will have any effect on pet overpopulation? Until animal control departments receive the support and funding they need in order to enforce current law, new laws will only add to the failure of those departments. If you genuinely are concerned for the animals, then find a way to provide financial support to the counties who are asked to foot all the costs of animal control. There are far too few animal control officers. They are spread too thin to be effective now. Where do you think they will find time to enforce this new attempt to please overly zealous animal rights groups?

Responsible breeders do not contribute to the number of animals in shelters. In fact, we make a life long commitmit to any dogs we bring into this world. Our placement contracts require that pet owners spay/neuter puppies placed as pets by 6 months old which is far better for the dog than doing so at 4 months of age. Dogs placed into show homes are required to be shown and in most cases breeding these dogs requires approval of the original breeder as well as the orignial breeder serving as a mentor to the new owner. IWe serve as mentors to those we place puppies with, no matter iif the home is a pet or a show home for the life of the dog. We, law abiding breeders are who would pay for AB1634 that bears the misleading title: the Healthy Pet Bill....when in fact, puppy millers and irresponsible back yard breeders will ignore the law (it won't be enforced any more than any current law) and go their happy way producing unhealthy puppies in large numbers in horrible conditions. Tell me, how AB1634 has anything to do with Healthy Pets??

So if you truly want to do something to benefit the animals, put the power of your office behind providing support for current animal control departments. Our county department has been operating in a facility that is in shameful condition for many years. If you really want to help the animals....provide the support for these departments to enforce current laws which if enforced would solve the puppy mill/irresponsible breeder problem. Maybe the problem is that doing something along those lines would not be as public a way to "feather your cap" or draw in the big money from rabid animal rights groups such as PETA who are known for using "terrorist strategies" all in the name of caring for animals.

Stop wasting our time and money...do something that really will make an impact. Let those of us who take seriously monitoring the breeding and care of dogs and cats alone to do what we are already doing. Provide support to enforce existing laws. Then watch the shelter numbers go down and the mills disappear.

You claim to be helping the pets of California. I do not think so. Why do you want to do away with our sport. Lets take our civil rights away. I am sure you wish to advance in you field. If you tread on my rights I will do the up most to bring you to a halt. This is a very bad bill. Why do you not stop all the dogs that are raised for fighting. These are the ones that are ending up in the shelters and people will not take home. This bill will do nothing to stop these people. All you will do is destroy the honest breeder the underground will still continue to do as they have in the past. No vaccations, no tests, no control by anyone. Wake up this is a bad bill. Your expemtions only last for 2 years and it all goes away. That is for everyone, police, companions, show dogs, field dogs, farm dogs etc. We are not stupid drop this bill now.

This is a terrible bill. It will not change the irresponsible dog owners. They will either dump their animals or give them to the shelters if they are caught.

Education and low or no cost spay neuter programs are the way to go.

California has enough Nanny bills.

I find it hard to believe that there is not other problems in this State that could use a good scrutinizing!!! Did you have nothing else to do the day you came up with this???? That must be it, you had to do something to earn your money that day so you did this... Shame on you!!!!!....
I am a retired DOG BREEDER and Showed them as well for many years!!
I chose when to spay or neuter my Dogs after using them as Breeders, usually after 2 to 3 litters for their lifetime, and then spayed or neutored adult Dogs before placing them in pet homes. I am glad I HAD
THE RIGHT to use my own JUDGEMENT when I was a Breeder.
If this goes through, another of our rights will be gone! Not to mention our beloveded PETS.....
I now own only rescued dogs and one of them was a puppymill Breeder, She is 11 years old and no I have not had her spayed! And I WILL NOT do it even if this bill passes. She has been through enough in her life and I refuse to harm her any more in any way!!
So Mr. Levine, here is my suggestion for you, to do something to earn YOUR RESPECT back and a whole lot more popularity for and from the California VOTERS.
Dump this Bill and the other people who are directing you in this and Start a NEW BILL that would get MEDICAL and PRESCRIPTIONS at a reasonable cost to working familys, AND OUR ELDERLY!!! I really do believe this would be your better Choice of causes to get on the Band Wagon with. But if thats not your cup of Tea I have a lot more suggestions!!!!

Not the Healthy Pets Act, more aptly named The PET EXTINCTION ACT

Having been to most all of the meetings on AB 1634 I have to say that this bill is a joke and I find it appalling that you and your "people" can get up and make blanket statements that have no truth to them. I also find it very interesting that only one of the assembly members chose to bring the letters and faxes received from their constituents to the meeting to share. An OVERWHELMING NO on AB 1634 was reflected there! Where were all the other letters and faxes? Aren't you all elected to follow the wishes of your constituency?????

You continue to quote outdated studies which reflect shelter numbers from the '80's. Our population has increased and the number of euthanasias has decreased. Not rocket science here.

It is quite apparent that you know nothing about dog breeders and how much of our lives we have devoted to the sport of raising and showing dogs. There are other ways to see that people breed responsibly and to see that their animals do not end up in shelters. Get a grip up there in Sacramento. Do you really think this is going to solve the over population problem when the largest majority of pets in the shelters are cats and mixed breeds.

And just where do you get off trying to take away our rights guaranteed by the constitution. We have the "right to own property" and "to pursue happiness."

One would hope that you could devote you time to much more pressing issues in this state, shall I name a few for you? The education system, health care, gangs, drugs, our freeways, crime prevention. the list goes on and on......

What they said. NO on AB1634!!!! It would smash basic Constitutional rights, and make low-income families choose between neutering Fluffy, paying rent or dumping her off at Animal Control. It will destroy law enforcement's local and most cost-effective source of K9 dogs. It will cause $Billions of damage to state agricultural and pet-related businesses. It even requires people visiting the state to report to the nearby Gestapo... oops, Animal Control... and have a VALID REASON for visiting California with an intact cat or dog!

And it's elitist too: no more crossbreds, no more new breeds, no more rare breeds, no more pets that are affordable by every Californian.

As the company saying goes. my dog votes, and my votes go to those who are FOR pet owners, not those who encourage genocide and extinction.

Not the Healthy Pets Act, more aptly named The PET EXTINCTION ACT

Having been to most all of the meetings on AB 1634 I have to say that this bill is a joke and I find it appalling that you and your "people" can get up and make blanket statements that have no truth to them. I also find it very interesting that only one of the assembly members chose to bring the letters and faxes received from their constituents to the meeting to share. An OVERWHELMING NO on AB 1634 was reflected there! Where were all the other letters and faxes? Aren't you all elected to follow the wishes of your constituency?????

You continue to quote outdated studies which reflect shelter numbers from the '80's. Our population has increased and the number of euthanasias has decreased. Not rocket science here.

It is quite apparent that you know nothing about dog breeders and how much of our lives we have devoted to the sport of raising and showing dogs. There are other ways to see that people breed responsibly and to see that their animals do not end up in shelters. Get a grip up there in Sacramento. Do you really think this is going to solve the over population problem when the largest majority of pets in the shelters are cats and mixed breeds.

And just where do you get off trying to take away our rights guaranteed by the constitution. We have the "right to own property" and "to pursue happiness."

One would hope that you could devote you time to much more pressing issues in this state, shall I name a few for you? The education system, health care, gangs, drugs, our freeways, crime prevention. the list goes on and on......

I oppose this bill for all the same reasons as everyone else on this page but I also oppose this bill as being intrusive upon my constitutional rights. I have the right to due process which this bill takes away. I see the rights that our fore fathers gave their dear lives to protect being legislated away daily. I have heard it said that these laws work in other countries, but then why do people continue to immagrate to our country if these laws work so well in other countries. There are so many laws on the books now that are uninforceable; why do we have to continue to pass laws like this that don't work and can't be inforced.

Assemblyman Levine proposes bill after bill trying to erode the rights of Californians to own pets. It is a constant battle for everyone involved, campaigning to defeat his proposed legislation. He is a man with an agenda and he does not deserve to represent people at the capitol.

His latest bill is deeply flawed and has been repeatedly rejected by police organizations, search and rescue organizations and assistive dog organizations.

Everyone who loves animals should urge their assembly member to vote against this bill.

And we should all, everyone of us, remember how our assembly member voted when their tenure is up - as should everyone when Levine tries to ascend the political poll.

Take action - contact your assembly member before June 8th:

http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/issues/alert/?alertid=9763776

Mr. Levine doesn't own a pet. He is too busy with the lightbulb legislation and bike riding.
Dr. John A. Hamil former president of the California Veterinary Medical Association states the problem and solutions very well. The majority of animals euthanized (approximately 60 to 70%in most shelters) are unowned or unwanted, stray and feral cats. The majority of dogs euthanized are medium to large mixed breed individuals from irresponsible owners who are noncompliant with many other community laws. Responsible ownership needs to be encouraged through education and provide mobile low cost spay/neuter programs.
Passing this bill wouldn't reduce the cost of shelter operations because most are fixed. A reduction in the numbers of animals entering the shelter will only effect a small reduction in the overall cost to the taxpayer.
This bill is very misleading. Sacramento has been importing small to medium sized pets from other areas. They invested $100,000 in a pet wagon that brings in 48 animals at least twice a week. It would be interesting to know how many other counties do this. They have not yet invested in a mobile vet clinic. To add insult to injury the animals are counted at the first shelter and then counted again when they arrive at shelter #2. If it leaves for any reason and returns it gets counted again. That is one way of doubling or tripling the numbers!
Passage of this bill will also deny California Maddie's Funds http:www.maddiesfund.org. These funds are not available to any community with mandatory spay/neuter laws and help develop a no kill status. All of these options have been available for some time but not used. I wonder why? Check out http://petakillsanimals.com. Who will really benifit from this bill? This won't stop the flow of pets from puppy mills and the 10,000 illegal pets from Mexico. California will loose billions! This is bad business.
Say good bye to your citizens' rights and it fails to address the major sources of animals entering shelters, punished the law abiding and the poor, reduces the availabilty of good quality pets, leaves California citizens vulnerable to their search for family pets. This coercive,punitive,intrusive law will retard the progress that has been made in the past two decades. Isn't this something to be proud of!

Please vote NO on AB1634. This bill will eliminate working dogs in California. Working dogs (police, herding, dogs for the disabled) CANNOT be evaluated until they are two years of age. Police dogs CANNOT be neutered, because they require the aggressioninherent in testosterone. In the meantime, these tpes of dogs usually live in homes as pets. They are not shown, and they do not qualify for any exemptions under this bill. They actually don't begin training until they are two years old. Even show dogs cannot be properly evaluated for good hips and elbows by OFA until they are two years old.

Lets look at the cat fancy. It is estimated that 4-6% of the total cat population is pedigreed (out of over 80 million country wide). Approximately 1-2% of those cats end up in a shelter. Between 87% and 92% of owned cats are already spayed or neutered. So, Levine is willing to destroy the pedigreed cat fancy in California for a 1% drop in shelter intakes? Isn't the cost a little high?

San Francisco County has successfully instituted no-kill, and places every adoptable animal that comes into the shelter system. They even import dogs from other shelters and adopt THEM out. All without imposing draconian neuter/spay requirements on the population. Why don't we actually look at something that works? And why don't we hold the true cause of all this killing accountable? The shelters themselves! Go to www.nokillsolutions.com.

AB1634 is overbroad and overkill. Spaying/neutering of dogs at 4 months of age leads to serious health issues for those pups. The expense involved in complying with this requirement will increase the number of animals abandoned or dumped at shelters, as some owners can't or won't pay for the surgery. It paves the way for more disease and temperament issues in our pet population, as puppies are smuggled in from other countries where vaccinations are not required, and where disease is common in the animal population.

When there are no pups available from reputable, caring breeders in the state of California because they couldn't afford or get approval for permits under this arbitrary and capricious law, and all the quality animals have been spayed/neutered, pet buyers will turn to smugglers, and to pet shops and internet breeding operations, which are supplied by the so-called commercial breeders. AB1634 is a huge boon to commercial breeders, aka puppy mills. In many of these, dogs live out their entire lives under conditions that make those overcrowded shelters look like fine hotels. The end result will be to increase animals' suffering, not alleviate it.

The real problem behind overcrowded shelters--as well as a host of other issues with domestic animals--is human ignorance, callousness and irresponsibility. Deal with those issues through education and enforcement of existing laws and the shelter problem will be drastically reduced. In addition, both humans and pets will enjoy a vastly improved quality of life.

Mr Levine, I don't normally have an interest in other state's business, but AB 1634 is so bad for animals, I'm making an exeption. The reasons it is ineffective and counter productive have been amply covered above. The California Healthy Pets web site has so many inaccuracies, it would actually be funny -- funny, that is, if you hadn't managed to sell this bill of goods to the Democrats. I am embarassed for the California Democratic party, and I imagine as the truth comes out they will be embarassed for themselves.

This is a bad bill. Bad for animals, as it will not help them find homes. The track record of mandatory spay/neuter does not support the conclusions you've drawn. It was a huge failure in San Mateo. Even the Santa Cruz numbers, which you use to support this bill, don't say what you claim, and are not encouraging at all.

Bad for law enforcement, which is why most of them oppose it.

Bad for good breeders, the ones who are helping reduce euthanasia rates.

Central to it all, though, it's bad for the animals.

You really should be ashamed of yourself. And realize, dog people are hard core. They will not forget your role in this in 2008. They will still remember this in 2050.

Spaying and neutering mean a longer and healthier life????
Do some reseach! Pets spayed and neutered have all their hormones cut off. Hormones are important for growth and developement. Without them, males tend to look for feminine. The growth plates in the legs do not close properly. In short, early spay and neuter create more problems in older animals!
VOTE NO!

"Healthy Pets Act" is patently a misnomer for this draconian bill, which will insure quite the opposite. Eliminating the conscientious purposeful breeding of animals by people who truly care about their welfare will only guarantee that the next generation of California dogs will come from mass producers through pet stores, from the back of pickup trucks, or (hmmm...) have to be bought from shelters who import them from outside the US. Purebred cats will be available as bootleg only, and the feral population will continue.
Wake up, Mr. Levine, promote responsible ownership instead of your Animal Rights agenda of no pets.

They should call this the PUPPY MILL PROTECTION ACT - because you will only be able to buy dogs from PUPPY MILLS. This bill is unhealthy because 4 months is not necessarily a healthy time to spay or neuter your animal and only the sickly animals from the puppy mills will be available.

Maybe the authors and proponents of this bill need to eat some brain food.

You have no idea what you are doing. This will only affect the honest people. All of the illegals and back yard idiots will continue and will fall through the cracks. Apparently you are just trying to get your name in the news or try to justify your unimportant existence.

AB 1634 is a huge farce. It will accomplish just the opposite of what it claims to be. Mr. Levine has apparently not looked into his figures and the facts behind them.
It seems to me that with the numbers of euthanasias declining in shelters that dog and cat breeders, the responsible ones, are educating the public. Though the dog and cat shows give us a glimpse of these well raised pets -and they are all pets - visiting a breeder and seeing how their pets are raised makes an impact on the pet buyer.
Mr. Levine would do away with all that, and have you get pets from puppy and kitten mills, that keep their animals caged, and afraid of people - after all they've had no real contact with them. You'll neever know how hwalthy these creatures are, you'll have no idea of their background.
This is just plain a very stinky bad idea. Mr. Levine, sit down and be quiet.

Mandatory spay and neuter has failed every time that it has been tried in the past - what makes you think that it will work this time?
All you will do is to make the law abiding pet lovers worry about whether to break the law, you'll drive up the numbers of euthanasias in the shelters, you'll line the pockets of the Hunt Puppy Mills, and you'll make the animal terrorists at PETA happy that they have once again imposed their radical views on the public.
The tax-paying, thinking, VOTING citizens of this state should make a statement by voting Mr. Levine out of office!

Mr. Levine,

It's already been pointed out that your math skills are lacking so I won't address those issues. However, I would suggest you get out a good ol' Webster's Dictionary and look up "healthy". Your bill is one of the greatest misnomers ever to hit the Assembly floor.

Stop trying to portray yourself as a pet lover - this bill proves you are not. True pet lovers voluntarily spay and neuter their companions at an appropriate and HEALTHY time; true pet lovers only breed health/temperament tested pets. You don't even own a pet, yet have the gall to pontificate about matters you know nothing about and associate with people who are experts at twisting facts.

You want to appear to be a "good guy" by saying there are exemptions for show dogs. Baloney, and Liver Treats. You obviously have the words "exemption" and "tax" confused (please refer to that dictionary again). Furthermore, those exemptions are impossible to meet. Obviously you don't understand how proper, limited, breeding programs are conducted, or you DO understand and hope that most of your constituents don't understand and will fall for your gross generalization of breeders.

For your edification there are commercial breeders, who breed for profit - therefore have business licenses and pay taxes - they will get a pass from you. Then there are hobby breeders who according to CA state law are not required to pay taxes on their hobby because those one or two litters per year don't qualify them as a business because they don't turn a profit, year after year - therefore the IRS doesn't allow them to use all those expenses on their tax returns - BECAUSE THEIR INVOLVEMENT WITH DOGS IS A HOBBY. Once again, refer to your dictionary for the difference between "Hobby" and "Business".

Then there are irresponsible pet owners. Please don't dignify their shabby pet management by using the word "breeder" (gosh, get the dictionary out once again). These are people who let unaltered pets roam and mate with whatever critter of the same species they encounter on their daily travels. These people ignore leash laws, consider pets to be disposable and are going to ignore your law, the same as they ignore speed limits and disabled parking spots.

So from what I can see, your summer vacation should be spent in remedial math classes and with a dictionary. Perhaps when you return you will have learned from your studies and will then be willing to serve the people who elected you by only attending to necessary and truthful legislation.

Mr. Levine,
Does the State of California not have bigger issues at hand that should be drawing all this attention? Just think if you were to propose a bill to eliminate crime, or help educate the many children in need of a good education. Or a way to eliminate hunger or provide housing for the homeless, or find a way for affordable medical care for everyone in your state. Or find an effective way to close the border doors that allow dogfighters to perpetrate the neighborhoods. The backing you would receive from all the people that are currently against you would be dramatic and would give you a positive position for future personal goals, I'm sure you have in mind.

Proposing a bill such as AB1634 is going to do more harm than good. Breeders and responsible dog owners are not the problem here. Do the research for yourself and stop relying on Activists giving you tainted information.

You strike me as a man with a future in politics. Use all this negativity to your advantage and realize that you have been lead down the wrong path. Take the Big step and admit your wrongs and your future could go far. Stay the path, and you have no political future in California or where ever you run after being voted out of office. The dog community is a large and nationwide family. They won’t forget in any state you may try to seek office in. Pull AB1634 OFF the agenda.

I am a former resident of California and moved out of the state to get away from politicians like you who want to micromanage my hobbies.

The majority of shelter impounds are the result of owner relinquishments caused by these factors: pet owners moving and can't take their pet; pet owners divorce and give up their pet; pets have behavior or medical problems that owners are not able to deal with; pet owners on fixed incomes use animal control services for low-cost humane euthanasia for sick and old pets. How does AB1634 address THESE issues?

Where mandatory spay/neuter laws have been introduced, they have failed to reduce euthanasia rates, have increased enforcement costs, and have decreased compliance with legally-mandated licensing and rabies vaccination. You are selling AB 1634 as the solution to a pet overpopulation problem. Yet more spay/neuter cannot put a significant dent in that problem, because the problem is largely one of adult dogs being relinquished to shelters, not an excess of unwanted/unplanned litters. The real problem at California animal shelters is not due to an excess of irresponsible dog breeding. It is an undersupply of responsible dog ownership.

I don't need politicians telling me when my dogs need to be altered. My vet and I are perfectly capable of making those decisions without your help.

This bill is absurd! I am not a breeder by any means, but I am a RESPONSIBLE pet owner who has owned several dogs, purebred and mixed, in my lifetime without any incidents of unwanted breeding. Your bill is going to make people like me want to go underground with our dogs or just move out of state because it isn't worth the hassle and you better believe my dogs mean more to me than living in California!

Oh, and have you noticed that you still have not had one post in favor of this stupid bill?

Mr Levine is making decisions he is unqualified to make. First of all, mandatory spay/neuter at 4 months of age is unhealthy! Reproductive organs do MORE than enable reproduction! They also play an important roll in development. The down side of early spay/neuter, if DONE BEFORE ONE YEAR OF AGE - AS THIS BILL PROPOSES significantly increases the risk of osetosarcoma (bone cancer), increases the risk of cardiac hemangiosarcoma, significantly increases the risk of hypothyroidism, increases the risk of progressive geriatric cognitive impairment, increases risk of prostate cancer, urinary tract cancers, orthopedic disorders AND ADVERSE REACTIONS TO VACCINATIONS!

How dare Mr. Levine impose these risks on our canine population. I'm not even going to touch on the devastating economic impact this insane bill will have on small animal-related businesses like groomers, veterinarians, etc. This is a BAD BILL THAT NEEDS TO BE DEFEATED!!!!

I sent the following letter to Lightbulb Levine last week. I doubt if he ever saw it. In case some of you don't know, this is the same idiot who wants to outlaw incandescent lightbulbs. Get a life, Lloyd, there are other more important issues in this state.

Dear Assemblyman Levine:

From my address you obviously can tell that I am not in your district. So you will probably delete this email since I can't vote when you come up for re-election.

With all the problems this once great state of California has, you choose to focus on the most petty bills of all. This so-called Healthy Pet Act of yours and the light bulb bill are the most unimportant issues this state has. Why don't you and your cohorts do something good and spend your time figuring out how to battle the gang problem. California used to have the best schools - but no more since we have idiots like you running the state.

This Healthy Pet Act will not solve any problems. It is something like the gun control laws - only the law abiding citizens will comply while the problem people continue on with indiscriminate breeding. Have you ever talked to a responsible dog breeder? Obviously not, or you would know that when one purchases a pure bred puppy, there is a contract that goes along with it. One contract I signed stated that I got the AKC papers upon proof of neutering the puppy I purchased. Another breeder gave me limited registration, meaning any puppies my dog would sire cannot be shown. Big deal - I had no intention of breeding in the first place. I just don't like the government telling me what to do and when I choose to neuter/spay my dog.

I also know that you hate dogs and this is a revenge thing for you. You are a poor pathetic bastard.

BTW, I sure like the way Doug MacIntyre tore into you on his show. He made you look like the stupid jerk you are.

One last thing, has it occurred to you that the puppies that are being smuggled in here from Mexico are the work of illegal aliens?

Carroll Brown

Someone asked to hear from a cat breeder; I live in another state, but this is what I see as the potential in the future under this legislation.

If passed, this bill has the potential to be a real disaster for the state of CA. It will have an unpleasant impact on the majority of the families in the state starting very shortly after its passage. Healthy, well socialized kittens and puppies - which have been bred to meet a breed standard - will no longer be available to anyone other than the wealthy.

CA will have only an extremely short time to say "Goodbye" to cat shows - what breeder in their "right" mind would even consider showing their cat in CA if this bill becomes law? NOT I!!! Along with the end of cat shows in CA, there will be a drop in the numbers of veterinarians, as their services will be far less in demand. Grooming shops and pet supply shops will soon be on the endangered list.

Cat breeders will have the choice of ending breeding prgrams or moving out of the state. This will greatly diminish the genetic pool for many of the breeds, as there are many really excellent show quality cats produced in CA catteries every year. Ethical breeders will be unable to continue their breeding programs, but pet mills, however, are going to love AB 1634. Pet mills are concerned with profit, not quality, and unhealthy, unsocialized "pedigreed" kittens and puppies will become very expensive.

On the other hand, mice, rats, scorpions, snakes, and other vermin will benefit greatly as the population of cats declines. A really excellent example of this happened on Guam - some years ago - when man who personally disliked cats - was assigned there as Base Commander; he issued an order that all the stray cats inhabiting the buildings on the base be caught and destroyed, and that was done. It was only a short time before he realized that his order had created a serious problem; by eliminating the cats, he had eliminated the base's most effective means of controlling the vermin - which were otherwise uncontrollable - and which, in only a few short weeks, became a really serious problem. He solved his problem by sending soldiers door-to-door in the housing area on the base, asking for cats to be donated to live in the buildings and once again control the destructive vermin.

Far better than AB 1634 would be a TTVAR (trap, test,vaccinate, alter, release) program for feral cats. Under this program feral cats are humanely trapped, tested for serious diseases such as FeLv, if negative they are vaccinated, altered, and released back into the area where they were trapped. An altered cat will remain in that area - usually for the remainder of its life - hunting vermin and not allowing other feral cats to move in. My own - personal - TTVAR program has worked well; the strays are rarely seen, but when we do see them from a distance, (as they are hunting) they appear to be fat, contented, and very healthy.

AR 1634 appears to be the result of Animal Rights groups. Does anyone really think that after eliminating kittens/cats puppies/dogs from homes that that will be the end of it? Next will come any living creature that is kept in a home for any reason. The AR groups intend to eliminate ALL human/animal contact, and this is just the beginning. We simply cannot allow this to become law.

On the

It if talks like an Animal Rightist,
and walks like an Animal Rightist,
and makes partnerships with Animal Rightists,

Then IT IS AN ANIMAL RIGHTIST

who is trying to perpetrate their twisted, people-hating philosophy/religion of annihilating animal use by people.

Levine and PeTA are well aware of the "unintended consequences" that everyone is pointing out to them....afterall, the unintended consequences ARE the REAL GOAL of this anti-American legislation. Accurate facts and figures or the proper interpretation thereof have NEVER been important to PeTA except for the purpose of twisting and distorting to suit their agenda.

We have got you pegged, Levine! Don't expect to be re-elected....

Debra Thompson

Amazing! Dozens and dozens of comments, and none of them approve of AB 1634, in fact are vehemently opposed
to the bill and to Assemblyman Levine for proposing
it. And this isn't even an organized protest effort,
just a bunch of people who happened to see the article
and are objecting to the bill.

Mr. Levine: Give it up. Admit you're wrong and need to
review shelter dynamics in California before wading into
this ill-founded argument again.

Amazing also that your math is so wrong, but maybe
when you realize how many voters are NOT behind
you, you'll get a new calculator.

As for me, I live in New York, but I've gotten a lot
of people I know in California to help kill AB1634.

Roberta

I'd like to suggest that Mr. Levine propose an amendment to this act that would make it a truly useful one: Simply substitute the word "politician" for the words "pet", "dog", "cat", "puppy" or "kitten" each time they appear in the text. The fact that this utterly misguided bit of proposed legislation has made it this far along in the legislative process makes it obvious that California has a significant problem with an over-population of useless politicians. This over population of politicians is causing an undue burden on all California taxpayers that requires a state-wide solution, not just a local one. Spaying and neutering politicians will reduce excess numbers, not lead to a shortage of politicians or a difficulty in electing them. In addition, medical studies show that spaying or neutering politicians, even at an early age, does not pose significant adverse health affects.
Imagine, with just this one simple change - Mr. Levine could accomplish something truly wonderful and beneficial for the tqxpayers of California.

where do i even begin with this guy? his statistics are way off for starters. i agree with some of the others, mr. levine definitly needs to go back to school and learn his math skills.
this so called healthy pet act is definitly not your answer to over population. it might be the answer to extinction in pets, but thats about it! you should concentrate on educating owners. maybe offering a low cost puppy training classes.
this bill is just plain stupid!
when you know more about the proper statistics and about responsible breeders, then stand up. untill then step down, and shut up!

I am a vegan. I do not approve of the use of animals in research or as food product. However, that is MY CHOICE. It would be as wrong of me to legislate that everyone be of MY OPINION as it is for Mr. Levine to try to legislate that everyone BE OF HIS OPINION. I have looked at the numbers and have read the bill. As a non-dog owner, I applaud the efforts of all the responsible dog owners who have brought the very type of nanny government everyone should be afraid of to our attention.

How sad that this state has come to this. There are so many priorities facing Califonia and YOU choose to take up a campain on neutering and spaying PUREBRED dogs. Come now, can't you come up with a better agenda to save Ca. money...such as: NOT paying medical bills, schooling, etc. for illegal aliens (I could go on forever...but I am sure are aware of the REAL financial problems in this state) not the penalizing the true dog fancier. The backyard breeder will just go from place to place to avoid the fees your are asking. The dog fighting will continue and you are just spouting nonsense. Shame on YOU!!!!
Wake up and smell the coffee Mr. Levine.....YOU are going to lose a lot of votes.

Mr Levine,
You should be ashamed of yourself. This bill is horrible. No good will come from this bill.

Responsible breeders, those that do not sell their dogs at Wal-Mart parking lots, and allow their animals to be used as little more then livestock for the stocking of shelves at the local pet store, are not adding to the overpopulation of animals in the state of California or any other state for that matter. Responsible breeders devote immense amount of time and energy researching pedigrees, investing in numerous health screenings, interviewing prospective homes for the puppies, not to mention the costs of proper nutrition, healthy vaccination schedule and contracts that protect the breeder as well as the puppy buyers. Responsible breeders require puppies that are deemed not of a certain quality, to be spayed or neutered by a certain age. Responsible breeders are doing their part to ensure that puppies from their litters do not find their way into shelters. They offer to re-home the dogs, they offer assistance and support.

Responsible breeders are usually active in breed clubs and in sanctioned events, sponsored by the American Kennel Club, United Kennel Club, Canadian Kennel Club, United States Dog Agility Association, North American Dog Agility Council, various dog hunting clubs, lure coursing clubs, search and rescue groups, service animal groups the list literally goes on and on. All of this competition is done at considerable cost to the breeder, the training, the travel and the equipment purchases, all done for the love of the breed and for the dog.

Last time I checked, pet stores and the breeders that provide their “stocked shelves” do not do any of this. They sell dogs to anyone that walks in with good credit or sufficient funds in their checking accounts. They do not do home checks to see if the puppy will be cared for properly, they don’t educate the buyer about the possibility of hereditary diseases that plagues the breed, or what kind of temperament the buyer could expect from the puppy. The minimum wage worker knows nothing about that puppy. A RESPONSIBLE BREEDER knows everything about that puppy and its pedigree, and FULLY discloses this to the buyer.

Why not hold the pet stores, and the people whom they obtain their stock from, financially responsible for the puppy, now and in the future? Require the dogs to be permanently microchipped so that the dog can be linked back to a particular breeder and pet store. Why not demand that they spay and neuter ALL of their stock before it leaves the store?

There are so many better ways to place blame. Attacking responsible breeders is not the way. There are plenty of other ways in which our legislators could be spending my tax dollars. Drug dealers, illegal immigration, child abuse, education…you name it…but leave my dogs alone. California wake up! This bill is a travesty and will not stop animals from being euthanized. Making people responsible for their animals will – oh that’s right – the average person doesn’t take responsibility for their actions anymore. But RESPONSIBLE BREEDERS do.

People all across the US are canceling their vacation and business travel plans to CA based SOLELY on their opposition to this misguided bill.

If this ridiculous piece of legislation passes, it will be very costly to the citizens of CA through increased animal control costs and decreased compliance with rabies vaccinations. And further, it will also negatively impact state and local economies by reducing the dollars that out-of-staters spend while traveling within CA.

Extinguishing pet ownership in the state of California.....don't think this will fly. Too bad the Animal Rights activists don't believe that pet owners VOTE! Spaying and neutering baby animals is like castrating and doing hysterectomies on your 7 year old children! Come on, people, wake up! We are a society that has a right to own companion animals, and we have a DUTY to take care of them properly. This does not mean removing body parts when they are babies. This bill stinks to high heaven. VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Much of the outcry is coming from the average pet owner that doesn't breed. Why is Mr. Levine working with animal rights extremists?

Others have already pointed out how Mr. Levine is lying to Californians. Mandatory spay/neuter doesn't work and drives up costs. Anyone who knows good breeding practices knows this bill will make it nearly impossible to get a permit. Spaying and neutering, especially that young, can have numerous health and behavioral consequences. There isn't really an "overpopulation crisis" that needs fixing. What needs fixing is why people turn in animals (see more on saveourdogs.net and noab1634.com).

All of that and more begs the question, why didn't Levine do his research? Or is it just that he's in the pocket of animal rights extremists?

Let this be a wakeup call not just to California but the rest of the country on how animal rightists work. The author of this bill (Judie Mancuso) has very close ties to PETA. PETA doesn't think anyone should have a pet. Neither does the Humane Society of the US (HSUS) which is also pushing hard for this bill. They are blaming opposition on puppy millers when in reality its puppy millers that would benefit from the law.

If any good comes of this monstrous bill being brought to the assembly its that more now know that the HSUS wants to eliminate pets just as PETA does.

Unfortunately, because I am an occasional dog breeder I have had to resort to posting anonymously in order to protect my dogs from a few members of the California legislature who have the misguided notion that hobby breeders are responsible for the abandonment of pets in shelters and seek to destroy the valuable and often fragile gene pools that responsible breeders have worked most of their lives to protect.

AB 1634 was flawed from the very beginning. Levine and his animals rights supporters based this bill on their claim of ever increasing numbers of pets abandoned and euthanized in shelters. California shelter statistics clearly demonstrate however that both shelter populations and euthanizations have decreased substantially over the last decade due to public education and voluntary spay and neuter programs.

Levine and his supporter Judi Mancuso, a vegan activist who is aligned with animal rights groups have claimed that $250M are spent in sheltering animals in CA, however have yet to provide data to support this, and have admitted that this number eas extrapolated. What they failed to consider is that the majority of the cost represents fixed expense, and that will not decrease even if the number of shelter animals declines.

They cite Santa Cruz as the model for mandatory spay and neuter success because of a 46% decrease in sheltering when MSN was enacted. What they have not disclosed however is that neighboring counties who opted for public education and offered spay and neuter assistance to low income families realized reductions up to 65%.

Levine has attempted to placate various opposition groups by amending the bill a number of times now, however any reasonably knowledgeable dog or cat person can see that the amendments do not really allow breeders to preserve their breeding animals, but will only result in being taxed unfairly for their hobby when they are already paying higher licensing fees for their unaltered show and breeding dogs and cats.

Levine has also offered exemptions for breeders of law enforcement K9s, search and rescue dogs, guide and service dogs for the handicapped, and some working stock dogs, however the wording of these exemptions clearly prevents most breeders from being able to actually qualify. The loss of healthy, high quality California bred puppies for these important jobs will only result in significantly higher costs from out of state and out of the US breeders, and a shortage of qualified working animals. The public will suffer when there are not enough K9s and police officers will face higher risk as well. Lost and injured children, hunters, and hikers will go unfound because there are not enough search and rescue dogs. The cost of beef, poultry, and lamb will rise because ranchers will have to hire more employees to make up for the loss of their stock dogs. The handicapped, who already spend far too long on waiting lists for service dogs will be waiting even longer for assistance. The breeding programs at Guide Dogs for the Blind in San Rafael and Canine Companions for Independence will not be able to continue. The organizations will face higher operation costs because they will have to buy puppies to train, quality will suffer because they will have less control over breeding practices, and additionally they will no longer be able to count on the generosity of California hobby breeders who have traditionally donated both puppies and breeding stock to the organizations over the years. If AB 1634 passes, I can see the advantage of both organizations relocating to other states in order to protect their breeding colonies, depriving California citizens of both their services as well as the income they add to their local economies.

There are no exemptions at all for hunters who raise and train dogs for this hobby that adds substantial dollars to the California economy each year.

Levine's bill is also seriously flawed because the licensing fees and the majority of the exemptions are left up to the local jurisdictions.. can you say "bait and switch" tactics?

Speaking of lost economy... the Long Beach area enjoyed nearly $22 million in tourist dollars in 2006 when the AKC/Eukanuba Championships were held there. About $90M dollars were spent statewide by breeders, handlers, exhibitors, and spectators who participated in AKC dog shows. These dollars will surely go elsewhere if AB 1634 us passed.

Another fundamental flaw in this bill is the requirement for mandatory spay and neuter at 4 months of age. This is not in the best interest of the public because of the risks associated with pediatric altering in dogs. How will California jurisdictions and local animal authorities take steps to reimburse families for the deaths of puppies who succumb to the anesthesia and surgical risks of these state mandated operations? Will veterinarians have to take out malpractice insurance in order to cover the claims, resulting in even higher costs for the surgeries and other veterinary care they offer? We will all certainly see higher vet fees across the board to compensate. Does the legislature plan to set up a fund to cover the vet bills for dogs who develop osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, thyroid and cardiac disease, urinary incontinence and a variety of other serious health problems that occur as a result of early spaying and neutering. The reasonable result is that these animals with health problems will be abandoned due to the cost of needed veterinary care, or relinquished to shelters where they will be euthanized because they are not adoptable.

Early spaying and neutering has also been shown to be responsible for increased aggression in dogs which leads to a higher incidence of dog bites, which leads to increased shelter costs and euthanization.

There is also likely to be decreased compliance with licensing and rabies vaccine requirements because pet owners will try to avoid any vet contacts that might out them to the authorities. This will result in decreased revenue to animal control agencies and increase the public health risk to rabies.

Levine and his animal rights friends think that they have the right to force California residents to spay and neuter animals at such a young age. When did these proponents receive their veterinary education and the right to demand that citizens surgically alter their animals? This is a clear violation of the California Veterinary Medicine Practice Act and should not be allowed. The decision to span and neuter is one that clearly rests with the animal’s owner and his veterinarian.

Please oppose AB 1634. It is NOT healthy for pets, it is NOT right for animals, it represents an invasion of the property rights for California citizens, and will only result in increased costs for them as well.

I am from PA and usually do not get involved with out of state laws, but this law is so flawed, it is out and out lying to the people of CA. I work in pet rescue groups and am a breeder of quality kittens, and this law will cause more problems for the state of CA, it will cause people to chose between their loved companions and the law, some people will be forced to dump their animals then to comply with a law that was not throughly researched. It will also cause the state of CA in a few months to years to seek quality companions from outside sources, then if there is a health problem with the pet it will be harder to solve and fix, then if the pet was purchased near by from a caring and dedicated breeder! Which in the end will cause more unwanted pets then before.

And who is he kidding, it will cost far more in enforcement to "police" the owners of pets over the age of four months that have not been altered then to bring about a public service notice of why people should willingly spay and neuter their pets and how they should deal with training and behavior problems that may arise so as many people are not abandoning their pets to shelters. Also this law is punishing the majority of incredibly dedicated breeders who research owners and care where their puppies or kittens are placed, who take the time and care about each and every pet they bring into the world, as it is the unknowledgeable pet owner who lets their pets have a few litters a year because of bad decisions or they just don't care, that is causing the pet overpopulation in this world, or the puppy mills who mass produce without a care to what happens after they receive their $$$$$$$ then to what happens to the companions they have produced after they are shipped away.

If he really cared about pets and the state of CA he would pass a law that insists that all pets in Humane Societies and rescue groups be altered BEFORE they are adopted, and he would pass a state wide low cost spay and neuter program for families needing assistance with this. I believe that people should have the choice to chose between a shelter pet or a purebred pet and should become knowledgeable and caring pet owners.

We need to realize that, in order to maintain and promote the freedoms upon which this country was established, the individual and societal welfare is enhanced by people taking personal responsibility for his/her actions. Having said that, let me enocourage the enforcement of laws that punish the dog owners for injury, personal property damage, or even fatality that their pet(s) might cause. Pets tend to adapt to owners' expectations and training.

By enacting laws which lead to eventual negative consequences for breeders, law enforcement, even the likelihood of extinction of breeds, legislators in sophomoric (sophos="wise" moros="fool") fashion wreak even more havoc on generations to come, and cost more tax dollars (often needed for infrastructure maintenance, city planning, law enforcement, etc.) to merely "tilt windmills."

I realize that "common sense" in this day and age is an oxymoron, but, for Pete's sake, vote NO to this bill which will nourish ONLY the cancerous growth of self-aggrandizing, big government who seem to have come to believe that they are no longer responsible to the voice of the people, let alone are capable of thinking of consequences beyond their next paycheck or PAC donation.

"Docwes"

Mr. Levine, aka "Looney Lightbulb Levine", is a patsy for the Animal Rights Extremists. Judie Mancuso actually wrote this piece of garbage and she is hardcore AR. Make no mistake, this bill has nothing to do with "healthy pets" or saving California taxpayers money. It has everything to do with being a major step towards the goal of the AR whackos -- the extinction of ALL domestic animals.

Lightbulb Levine owns no pets and I suspect he actually has quite a hate for them. He apparently is incapable of experiencing the human-animal bond that so many voting Californians are blessed with on a daily basis.

The Animal Rights Extremists are targeting hobby breeders because we are the weakest financially but are the most passionate about our pets. Once we're out of the way, they will then go after the commercial dog farms and brokers who are currently exempt under this bill.

The ARs are hoping California will be the first big step in a National campaign of extinction for all pets in American society. California pet owners and breeders need to make sure that this abomination stops here and that a message is sent to the AR groups such as PeTA, HSUS, & DDAL. Tell them to stay the hell out of our lives and the lives of our pets!

There is only one way to rid ourselves of Mr Levine and those like him in our government. Find out their agendas and VOTE THEM OUT. Mr. Levine is running for a Senate seat. Those of us here MUST use OUR power at the voting booth to make sure he and those like him with similar Animal Rights agendas do not take a seat at our "table". Our constitutional rights are at risk as long as Levine and those like him continue to infiltrate our political parties. Remember Jackie Speir? Remember Rick Santorum? BYE BYE Lloyd...

And in addition the government of CA should research who they are getting into bed with before they jump.

This bill is backed by animal extremist like PETA, who is an American terrorist group and who has proven time
and time again that they not only don't care about pets but also hate anyone who does not agree with their strong arm tactics! It is time that our country stands up and sees who cares and who doesn't, PETA reports that they save the lives of hundreds of animals from suffering and harm, BUT this same group killed far more animals then they have saved! Please visit http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ to learn more about the so called protector of our animals!

Other interesting PETA links are http://www.animalscam.com/ http://www.activistcash.com/ http://www.physicianscam.com/
is this who we want backing our laws and bills in our country...........what ever happened to freedom and the fight against terrorism??!!

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." Ayn Rand

Before we get to this point.. let's make sure those who would take us there are silenced and made ineffectual. VOTE THEM OUT

NO on ON 1634

It is beyond unbelievable that the State of California is prepared to bow to the desires of PETA and HSUS whose clearly stated goals do not represent the desires and interests of the residents of the state. AB 1634 represents one more step along a slippery slope, the end of which, PETA and HSUS hope, will be the elimination of the breeding and ownership of animals for food, work or pleasure.

Levine and his supporters are acting as advocates for the PETA and HSUS agenda. That agenda must be repudiated with the defeat AB 1634 and ultimately the replacement of Levine by his electorate.

Mr. Levine's #s are grossly wrong - www.naia.org has all the correct statistics and information. Also www.saveourdogs.org has all the facts aobut PETA using Levine as a stepping stone to get a draconian bill to take away our property rights. It's not about health folks, it's about taking away a constitutional right with emotional lies and Levine doesn't even have a dog! No one has the right to take my balls or uterus, especially PETA! NO to AB1634

Mr. Levine.
The bill you have proposed is nothing more than an attempt to grap someone's property rights. I am the RESPONSIBLE OWNER of my animals. I will be the one who decides if and when they are S/N then it will be done in conjuction with an intellegent conversation with my vet. You are preaching to the choir if you think this bill will make a difference. In fact, it will make a difference, a very bad one.
You will see a rise in the amount of diseases that are brought in from the illegal dogs brought to CA. You will see a rise in Rabies, distemper and what ever other odd diseases these animals may carry.
Blubonic plague is carried by fleas on rodents. Kill off the cats and the rodents fourish, kill off the cats and the rodents that flourish will be carrying the fleas that are the host to the BLACK DEATH that killed about half the population of Europe a few centuries ago. Will it kill off half the population of CA? Well, we do have modern antibiotics that are effective against it if caught in time. The poor, the indigent, the illegals, may not seek medical attention in time. You are looking at anihilating not only the pet population but also the voting population in CA. Please do your research a little better and come up with free/low cost S/N on a voluntary scale to help with the problem, not kill off the animals of the folks who are responsible and help keep the breeds alive. The improvements seen in the dog industry have come from hobby breeders not commercial breeders.
Please re-think what you are doing before you totally disciminate the pet population of CA.

This bill will hurt those of us that are conscientious breeders and responsible pet owners. We spay and neuter when it's necessary and at the proper time. This bill will cost far more to enforcement and you know it. People should be educated and willingly spay and neuter their pets and not just because of the reproduction. Cancer, cardio, on and on. I'm for spay/neutering, but not being forced to do it far to early. There are serious risks from anesthesia and additional surgical risks that need to be considered. If I want to show the pup it will cost to have a special licence. Pass a mandatory spay/neuter bill that all rescue and shelter animals be fixed before adoption and provide low cost spay/neuter assistance for people that need it. Please don't punishing the majority of dedicated breeders who spend a great deal of time researching owners and really do care and keep in contact with owners of their puppies. The proper attitude is "from birth to death". We worry and care about each and every pup we bring into this world, and please be aware that pet owners VOTE! Please reconsider this harmful bill.

I also think that Humans deserve the same rights as our pets and assisted suicide will allow us the same dignity that my dogs are allowed at the end of life. Human assisted suicide needs to be passed.

I have seen a couple of comments here about unenforceability of this act. I also cannot believe the claim Mr. Levine makes about the fact that passing this bill will save Californians tax money. The expense this bill will wi