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 will be tremendous if it were to be properly enforced. Where would the money to enforce this bill come from?! I doubt Mr. Levine would personally foot the bill. Will those that put him up to this do it? Animal Rightists are clearly footing his election campaign now, but will they be there for Californians if this pathetic piece of legislative creation passes.
How much will California have to expend on successful administration and enforcement of this bill?! Mr. Levine, please release the numbers this bill will require. Let the Californians make their EDUCATED decision whether or not this bill will be viable financially for them.
What brings you to this neck of the woods anyway? By all accounts you have nothing to do with animals, and do not have a pet yourself. What made you so interested in pet welfare when you don't know the basic facts and rely on someone else's political agenda to feed you the data?
I don't believe personal attacks are the answer here, but have you really thought everything through?

The other facet of this problem is how intrusive this bill is on everyone's liberties. I wonder if all of your constituents realize that the State/County will have the right to enter their home in search of "illegally unaltered" pets. If a complaint from the neighbor constitutes a valid cause for search, I guess anyone's home can be entered into. Wow, this really sounds like people will be losing their rights BIG TIME.

Good luck Mr. Levine, you are digging your own political grave.

Mr. Levine----

I, too, believe most pet dogs and cats should be spayed and neutered. However, this misguided legislation would not accomplish that goal. It has been proven that this type of legislation or ordinance does not work (San Mateo; Maryland). The statistics that have been used to support this legislation are inaccurate, and the Animal Rights organizations that are behind the legislation have as their stated goal to eliminate companion animals. That will never happen; people will obtain unhealthy pets from out of state puppy mills, from Mexico, from Russia, but it will be more difficult for people to obtain healthy pets from reputable breeders.

I support neutering of pet and companion animals, but not as early as 4 months of age. Dogs, specifically, mature in a physically and emotionally more balanced way if not neutered that young. I have had working dogs ( Search and Rescue ) as well as obedience, agility, and companion dogs and have neutered all of my dogs, the females at 6 to 7 months and the males at 8 to 9 months. I would recommend an older age range than 4 months.

Ed Levine completely ignores the fact that all of the long term research done to date shows that statistically neutered male dogs have more health and temperament problems than intact males. These health problems are much more severe if the neutering takes place before puberty. And while females do receive some health benefit from spaying, again, the detrimental effects on a female dog's health, if the spaying is done before maturity, are huge. This bill mandates that all pet owners must neuter their pets at an age that has been proven to cause long term health problems. To call this travesty the "Healthy Pets Act" is ludicrous. This bill will not solve the homeless animal problem, but it will harm the pets that have loving homes. I fail to see how this is a good thing.

Mr. Levine,
In one of your misleading articles regarding AB1634, you stated that you never thought this issue would be so big.......well Lloyd, you thought wrong. Did you also think that the animal lovers of California would just "roll over"?
Dog and cat lovers are similar to elephants....they won't foget, especially at election time.
Take a lesson from Mr. Santorum, he went bye bye and so will you. Maybe there is a job opening at HSUS or PETA.

Mr. Levine:
You have exposed the true nature of your support group-the animal rights advocates who believe that no person should ever own an animal of any type. You dogmatic pursuit of this false bill simply shows how well you have been bought, or bought into their flawed thinking.
A full sixty-seven percent of California households have pets. Did you want to spread mistrust and fear of government into these households? That is exactly what AB1634 will accomplish. The misery created by even minor enforcement of this bill will de-stabilize California even more than the current influx of undocumented people.
This kind of disinformation you are spreading (see all previous comments for truthful facts) is typical of Fidel Castro and Joseph Stalin. Do you consider yourself and your misguided supporters so much better than us that you can try to control us in our homes, even though the majority of our actions have no deleterious effect on the government and have mostly positive effects on our communities. The practices of communist dictators was to create chaos where the was none, then seize control, then exert dominance. I think the citizens of California are way smarter than to let you get away with it. The have begun by properly labelling AB1634 "the pet extinction act", as that is your true motive. Hopefully you will get a real job when this is all over, and will no longer be in a position to have an audience for your lies.

I do have to thank Mr. Levine for introducing his truly horrendous bill. My New Year's resolution was to educate the Democratic Party (my party) on the difference between animal welfare and the "animal rights" agenda. It was really hard going for awhile, trying to implement that resolution, but since AB1634 has created such a fuss while moving its way through the Assembly, some Democrats are actually listening now and are beginning to "get it". We have a long way to go but AB1634 has had a tremendous effect in uniting and organizing the people who love animals in California.

The "animal rights" movement has been working for decades, methodically and small step by small step, toward their ultimate goal of forcing us all to be petless vegans. AB1634 was to be their "Great Leap Forward". If it passed here, it would be introduced all across the nation. Well, I think AB1634 will be their "Great Leap Backward"; their lies and bullying got us enraged and organized into our own movement. We will now vote out every Democrat who supports this bill, starting with Lloyd Levine.

Mr. Levine I think you are better qualified at LIGHT BULBS rather than testicles and uterus', stick to what you know best because we all vote for OUR Senators.

I do have to thank Mr. Levine for introducing his truly horrendous bill. My New Year's resolution was to educate the Democratic Party (my party) on the difference between animal welfare and the "animal rights" agenda. It was really hard going for awhile, trying to implement that resolution, but since AB1634 has created such a fuss while moving its way through the Assembly, some Democrats are actually listening now and are beginning to "get it". We have a long way to go but AB1634 has had a tremendous effect in uniting and organizing the people who love animals in California.

The "animal rights" movement has been working for decades, methodically and small step by small step, toward their ultimate goal of forcing us all to be petless vegans. AB1634 was to be their "Great Leap Forward". If it passed here, it would be introduced all across the nation. Well, I think AB1634 will be their "Great Leap Backward"; their lies and bullying got us enraged and organized into our own movement. We will now vote out every Democrat who supports this bill, starting with Lloyd Levine.

I am also surprised that this Bill has gotten this far. It goes to show who our State has in Office.
Mr Levine made a statement that he does not own a pet and does NOT want to pay taxes for supporting animals to be housed and put to sleep.
WELL Mr Levine, I have NO children and I oppose paying taxes for schools. BUT I HAVE TO PAY THEM!!!
You need to get off your high horse and come to reality.
WE LIVE IN AMERICA, THE LAND OF THE FREE.
You need to get out of Office, NOW

Mr. Levine claims that passage of this bill will save budget dollars. On that nice sounding note this sorry excuse of a bill has gone too far in the Assembly process already. This glib picture is untrue. A smug off handed view of the easy fix that will work no better than prohibition did. Propeganda by the Supporters sounds like such an easy answer to a the difficult problem faced in a few distrcts and espoused to be a money saver too. Administration expenses will actualy not change at all unless to increase if this legislation is enacted. So few of the budget dollars are spend on the shelters and animals. In fact 90% of the budget is spent on salaries of the employees a huge part of that on the high paid director salaries. Present expenses will not change to a lesser amount. They are fixed costs. It doesn't seem likely that the directors would want to phase out their jobs. This bill will increase the need for MORE animal control officers and more directors leading to a huge defecit in small communities. Maybe places like Hollywood can afford enforcement costs because the few people who try to remain lawa abiding citizens will not provide the enforcement fees as this bill provides. They cannot. Why punish the few for the crimes of the many??

"In essence, capitalism is the only economic system that is compatible with individual freedom. In every other form of economy, a person is, in one way or another, a slave to the non-entity known as the "public good." ... whenever it deems that the "public good" is threatened, the government can justify any action towards them....
The right to life is the most important freedom an individual can have, and capitalism is the only system that is consistent with this right. ..This necessarily leads to the notion of the absolute right to private property, the bedrock upon which the moral and practical foundations of the capitalist system rest. By definition, any anti-capitalist system abrogates this right in one way or another. For example, in Communism the "public" owns all property, in a dictatorship the dictator owns everything, and in "regulated capitalism" the government can do whatever it pleases (according to the whims of its legislators) with an individual's "private property."

Essay excerpts from David Matthews

No on AB 1634 .. and NO to Lloyd Levine
Yes to property rights and YES to those who support them

I want to know why Levine is working with extremists. Its an embarassment to California that this bill has gotten this far. Everyone needs to pass the word that Levine, Judie Mancuso, along with her PETA friends, and the Humane Society of the United States are all working for pet extinction.

PETA Kills

With no apparent sense of irony, they chose the dumpster of a Piggly Wiggly supermarket to drop off the carcasses, wrapped in black plastic bags. Among them were a mother cat with her two very healthy kittens, and seven little puppies – dead by injection.

Nor did either of them appear to evince the slightest cognitive dissonance in acting as agents, and employees, of the very inaptly named “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals” (PETA). For at least two months they had been slaughtering and dumping animals that they obtained under false pretenses from shelters: they assured the attendants they would find the adoptable animals ‘good homes.’

Andrew Benjamin Cook and Adria Joy Hinkle are charged in a North Carolina court with only 31 felony counts of animal cruelty, eight misdemeanor counts of the illegal disposal of dead animals, and a charge of criminal trespassing. Yet they are apparently responsible for the death of more than a hundred animals. This is ethical?

We must not allow ourselves to be so distracted by the sordid details of this case that we view it as an aberration. Instead, it is all too emblematic of the core “values” of the PETA cash and terror machine.

In “Better Dead Than Fed”, Debra Saunders observes that “this is not the first report that PETA killed animals it claimed to protect. In 1991, PETA killed 18 rabbits and 14 roosters it had previously ‘rescued’ from a research facility. ‘We just don’t have the money to care for them,’ then PETA-Chairman Alex Pacheco told the Washington Times.”

The Center for Consumer Freedom Documents on its website PETAKillsAnimals.com that “from July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other ‘companion animals’ – at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That’s more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of the animals it took in during 2003 alone.”

In fact, the CCF reports “on its 2002 federal income-tax return, PETA claimed a $9,370 write-off for a giant walk-in freezer, the kind most people use as a meat locker or for ice-cream storage. But animal-rights activists don’t eat meat or dairy foods. So far, the group hasn’t confirmed the obvious – that it’s using the appliance to store the bodies of its victims.”

Why does PETA kill? “In 2000, when the Associated Press first noted PETA’s Kervorkian-esque tendencies, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk complained that actually taking care of animals costs more than killing them. ‘We could become a no-kill shelter immediately,’ she admitted.”

“Besides,” relates Saunders, “PETA always has been about killing animals. A 2003 New Yorker profile included PETA top dog Ingrid Newkirk’s story of how she became involved in animal rights after a shelter put down stray kittens she brought there. So she went to work for an animal shelter in the 1970s, where, she explained: ‘I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn’t stand to let them go through (other workers abusing the animals). I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day.’

“That’s right. PETA assails other parties for killing animals for food or research. Then it kills animals – but for really important reasons, like because it has run out of room.”

As the CFC’s David Martosko told Saunders, "For years, we thought that PETA just cared for animals more than they cared for humans. But now it seems they don’t care much for either.” Consider, for example that “Newkirk also told The New Yorker the world would be a better place without people. She explained why she had herself sterilized: ‘I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog – it’s nothing but vanity, human vanity.”

Those aren’t the limits of her misanthropic sentiments. In September 1989 she told Vogue magazine that “animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy, they’re all mammals.” She added, for good measure, “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.”

So, as the CFC reports, “PETA kills animals. Because it has other financial priorities.

“PETA raked in nearly $29 million last year in income, much of it raised from pet owners who think their donations actually help animals. Instead, the group spends huge sums on programs equating people who eat chicken with Nazis, scaring young children away from drinking milk, recruiting children into the radical animal-rights lifestyle, and intimidating businessmen and their families in their own neighborhoods. PETA has also spent tens of thousands of dollars defending arsonists and other violent extremists.” And contributing funds to the Earth Liberation Front, which the FBI’s Deputy Assistant Director John Lewis considers “one of today’s most serious domestic terrorism threats.” Carson Carroll, Deputy Assistant Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives adds that “since 1987, ATF has initiated over 100 investigations related to ELF and ALF incidents. Some of the investigations involved explosives incidents, as well as, acts of arson. While the number of ELF and ALF incidents has fluctuated from year to year, the magnitude of the incidents appears to be on the rise with a number of high-damage arsons occurring since 1999. Between 1999 and 2005, ATF opened 58 investigations related to ELF and ALF acts of violence.”

The Hudson Institute’s Michael Fumento relates that “last month the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told a Senate panel that animal rights extremists, along with eco-terrorists, pose one of the most serious national terrorist threats – one growing by leaps and bounds. Unlike such groups as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), PETA takes no credit for such actions as torching laboratories. But it does support these groups both vocally and financially.

“‘I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match,’ Newkirk has said. Other gems: ‘I wish we would all get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down,’ and ‘Would I rather the research lab that tests animals is reduced to a bunch of cinders? Yes.’ She also insisted, ‘I will be the last person to condemn ALF.'

“PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich has declared that ‘blowing stuff up and smashing windows’ is something PETA doesn’t do ‘but I do advocate it.’

“PETA has donated to the Earth Liberation Front, a certified terrorist group that, according to the FBI, along with the ALF has committed more than 600 criminal acts causing more than $43 million in damages. During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activist convicted of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory. During sentencing, the federal judge implicated Newkirk in the crime.”

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: they are not ethical. They kill animals. And it is only a matter of time before the allies that they fund and support kill people.

Healthy? Increased bone cancer, heart cancer, urinary incontinence, fear-based aggression - healthy? That's the result of sterilization at such a young age as 4 months and that's what Lloyd Levine thinks is healthy. Of course, Levine has just about everything else regarding this issue wrong, too, so it's no surprise that he would make such a misguided statement. Levine's statements about the euthanasia numbers is wrong, shelter numbers - wrong, who's responsible for the problem - wrong. Hmmmm, do we see a pattern here? Lloyd Levine is just WRONG. Wrong on this issue, wrong for California. I urge those of you in a position to vote on his next election to show Levine just how wrong he is and vote him OUT.

The correct facts have been pointed out in the posts above. www.noab1634.com has it all, including the studies which show the negative health consequences of early spay/neuter, the money that California will lose as a result of losing the dog and cat fancy shows, the money that Calfornia will have to spend in trying to enforce this unenforceable law, and the examples of how it's failed everywhere else it's been tried. Lloyd Levine seems incapable of learning from the mistakes of others, so let's have him learn a big lesson from this mistake of his own. Urge your legislator to oppose AB 1634 and then vote Levine out of office, so he'll have plenty of time to contemplate the error of his ways.

D, a responsible owner, trainer and exhibitor

It is completely AMAZING to me that I am sitting here reading comment after comment in OPPOSITION to this bill as authored by the tag team of Mancuso and Levine (and backed by PETA). The lightbulb legislator is NOT listening to his constituents. Equally so will be those legislators that vote in support of this bill. How tragic. How completely shameful!

Levine should know that demand drives supply and when the supply does not meet public demand, other sources will fill it. ECONOMICS 101.

In 2005 alone, a sting operation by US Customs estimated that 10,000 puppies had come into the US through the Port of San Diego. Reducing the supply of well-bred, healthy, home-raised puppies and kittens guarantees that they will be replaced by ones with possible serious health issues or behavior/social issues. Mexico still has significant problems with rabies as do many other countries that are beginning to supply California consumers.

Why isn't Levine more concerned with these animals being smuggled into California? Why isn't he focusing his BEST EFFORTS on trying to find ways to reduce the shelter populations by low-cost spay/neuter programs and by better educating the public to be responsible "owners".

SEIG HEIL! Levine, Hitler would be proud of you! My dog will now have to wear a "yellow star". NO ON AB1634

Ok lets talk econiomics here for a second nevermind that their number are grossly misrepresented here. How many of the dogs and cats that are euthanized are purebred dogs? I hate to go there but they are after purbred dog breeders aren't they?
I wonder because when I go to my local animal shelter to volunteer as a groomer, I see many mixed breeds and very few purebred dogs. The majority of purebred dogs are picked up by thier owners with in 24 hrs or so.
Now let's talk about the elitest attitude that only the rich will be able afford to keep and breed animals at the prices that they are asking us to be able to register our dogs at! Not to mention the quality dog food vet care and showing and countless hours it takes to raise a healthy well rounded puppy! We are talking mega bucks here! Also health testing we must do to ensure health and temperment, sounds to me like in the future, only the wealthy will be able to afford puppies bred by people that can afford to raise them. This is an elitest attitude, the common man cannot pay upwards of 2 to 5 thousand dollars which is what the prices will be if small hobby breeders are not allowed to continue thier breeding programs.
Since many gene pools will be destroyed health and temperment may be a thing of the past and puppies smuggled in from other countries and puppy mills will be all that is available to the general public as pets. Nauseating to think that the government can control our lives like this but this is what will happen if we do not vote people like Mr. Levine out of office! I personally will not vote for anyone who wants to take my rights away like this, even if I chose not to breed my dogs!
There are so many ramifications to these laws we haven't even touched the tip of the iceberg, not to mention this is an invasion of our privacy and against our constitutional rights to the persuit of happiness. We have the right to raise our dogs in our homes and not in a sterile enviornmant....We want to raise them with love and care as we see fit! We must stand up and fight the destruction of the American way and our rights as citizens! UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL! REMEBER THIS, FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE JEWS..........NEVER FORGET AND ALWAYS BE INVOLVED!

Animal law is counter-intuitive. Some believe that stricter enforcement and stricter laws will improve any problems that might exist. Experience dictates that the opposite affect will invariably happen.

Mandatory Sterilization is the same. Force it on a public, force it on Dog and Cat Fanciers, and it hurts the betterment of dogs and cats. Good breeding is hurt by breeder restrictions and permitting schemes. Guess what kind of breeding happens when breeding regulation gets passed?

Mandatory Spay/Neuter is a misguided view how to solve anything related to pets. What's more, considering that 89-93% of all pets are already spayed and neutered, do lawmakers actually believe that a mandatory sterilization law will improve responsible pet ownership?

Inland Valley Daily Bulletin

The problem with this bill that I see, is that it allows local animal control to make up the rules as they go. We have already had a past history of overbilling of citizens, underbidding of city contracts, and other abuses, including thuggish harrassment of citizens. They have a habit of grabbing pets and euthanizing them quickly, or keeping them and running up a boarding bill on the owner. Their past care of animals in their charge has been at times deplorable, in my opinion.
Please refer to the following 2003 article, in which 47 LA Co DACC employees blew the whistle and went to the media, telling them that they were being ripped off by the dog catchers. This will be just more of the same. That is my fear.
"Animal shelter in dog house with employees
Workers say they overcharge pet owners to meet quotas"
By MICHELLE RESTER, STAFF WRITER ,
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
Saturday, April 12, 2003 -

If this bill passes it will make me a criminal. I breed only occasionally to preserve my bloodlines. I make NO money from my litters...in fact I normally LOSE money. I make sure my puppies go to loving homes and I ALWAYS take back a pup if the new owner can't keep it.

Why do these people keep saying that breeders make all this money?? I don't know ANY breeders that breed for profit. We DO it because we love our breed and want to preserve the best of it.

California is turning into a police state. Mr. Levine, why do you want to turn us all into criminals??????

If anyone in opposition to this Bill has any answers that may help reduce the shelter intakes by 64% as it did in Santa Cruz County then I feel the Californian shelters would be extremely happy to hear from you.

Meanwhile all I hear is the usual talk which has been going on for many years yet the problems in Californian shelters keep on going on for many years. Many feel it's time something needs to be done and the Santa Cruz County model appears to be the best option that can offer help and why so many are pushing for this Californian Bill.

Yes, Levine is known as the "Lightbulb Legislator". The main difference between Levine and a lightbulb, is that if you get a bad lightbulb, you can unscrew it and replace it. Hey! Maybe we can unscrew this guy's career in public office before he completely screws everyone in the state! At the very least, Levine needs to do conduct his private lobbying enterprise and political favors from an office where HE pays the lightbill. As for me, I've considered leaving the state for a long time, but this might be the final straw. I hope I can beat the rush! Will the last one leaving California please turn out the light?

This is a bad bill for many reasons. Let me add one more:

This morning's Chronicle (6/5), reporting on the challenges facing Oakland's new director of Animal control, observed that dog fighters hold fights openly, unimpeded by the authorities. The report also noted that they don't claim their impounded animals because they have to be spayed or neutered before their release. Those unfortunate dogs become part of the shelter's statistics.

Seems to me that we can see here some of the potential effects of Levine's bill. First, animal control officers (already overworked and underfunded) will be patrolling for illegally intact dogs rather than dealing with the more serious animal welfare issues such as dog fighting (or even license compliance). Second, the ordinary pet owner (like the dog fighters)will be reluctant to claim any impounded animal for fear of the penalties. There will be more dogs in shelters rather than fewer. The problem will be even worse for cats, who aren't required to be licensed, and whose euthanasia rate exceeds that of dogs.

I do support spay and neuter, and I've been a shelter volunteer. I'd like to see a world where all pets have loving homes, but this draconian measure isn't the way to get there.

I'm member of the local rescue group for our breed.
I'm also a member of the local breed club and parent club!!

VOTE NO ON THIS BILL!!!!
This group is not making factual statements. They are exaggerating/inflating the "real" numbers. How many strays do you really see walking the streets??

I think this letter says it all.......

SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/

The anti-pet movement has found a sponsor in the California legislature
for a bill that strips pet owners of their traditional rights and, in
the process, sharply reduces both the quantity and quality of
purpose-bred dogs and cats -- including those bred for assistance to the
disabled, and for search & rescue operations.

AB 1634 is backed by the extremist group People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA) and sponsored by Assembly Member Lloyd
Levine (D-Van Nuys). If it passes, most California pet owners will have
to sterilize their pets.

"This bill comes with a noble-sounding name but AB 1634, the so-called
California Healthy Pets Act, will not improve the health of California
pets," says Patti Strand, National Director of the National Animal
Interests Alliance, one of the nation's most respected animal welfare
groups.

The bill is fraught with unintended consequences. Among them: a
predictable flood of unregulated -- and typically unhealthy -- dogs from
Mexico, already the proven source of up to 10,000 illegal dogs sent to
California each year according to US Customs and Border Protection:
(www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2006/jun_jul/other/puppies.xml)

"In a global marketplace," according to Strand, "over-regulating the AKC
and CFA hobby breeders who are the best source of healthy,
well-socialized, home-raised puppies and kittens, creates a vacuum,
effectively 'outsourcing' pet production to other countries that don't
come close to reaching US standards of animal health, care or quality."
The increasing demand for puppies has also led to the importation of
strays rescued from foreign countries that are being marketed through
non-profit organizations like The Animal Place (www.animalplace.org) and
Compassion Without Borders (www.cwob.org). This influx harms California
consumers and poses a significant public health threat.

Despite the claims of the bill's supporters, many respected California
veterinarians oppose AB 1634, including one the state's most
distinguished vets. Dr. John Hamil is past president of the California
Veterinary Medical Association, founder of the California Council of
Companion Animal Advocates that sponsored biannual Pet Overpopulation
Symposia (now the Animal Care Conference), member of the American
Veterinary Medical Association's Animal Welfare Committee and the
National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy and author of the
CVMA and AVMA positions on early spay/neuter.

Dr. Hamil, a leader in spay/neuter programs, terms AB 1634 "divisive
legislation [that] will not help and may aggravate the situation."
Noting that young puppies and kittens are not biologically mature enough
for spaying and neutering in many cases, Dr. Hamil states: "It is
inappropriate to mandate a controversial and possibly life-threatening
surgical procedure."

Also strongly opposed to AB 1634 is Sharon Vanderlip, DVM, former
shelter animal veterinary clinician and surgeon, a longtime advocate of
voluntary spaying and neutering. "This bill is not a 'healthy' pet act,"
said Dr. Vanderlip. "It will not help animals or improve their health.
It will not reduce the shelter animal population. It will not reduce the
number of animal euthanasias. To the contrary, the number of animals in
shelters and the number of euthanasias will increase as people who
cannot afford to alter their pets, or pay fines associated with
non-compliance, will abandon their animals, relinquish them to shelters,
or have them euthanized. This has already happened in municipalities
that attempted similar legislation."

Christian Osmond, DVM, board-certified veterinary surgeon, opposes the
bill on similar grounds. Dr. Osmond says he cannot reconcile his
professional oath to "above all else ... do no harm" with programs that
place political agendas above sound veterinary practice, a priority that
could put pets at risk.

Canine Companions for Independence, an organization supporting
assistance dogs for the disabled, opposes AB 1634 because even with
exemptions for today's carefully supervised dogs, the bill's long-term
effects would greatly reduce genetic diversity and threaten the
existence of their breeding program.

Law enforcement groups -- representing tens of thousands of uniformed
officers -- oppose AB 1634 because it will drastically reduce the future
supply of dogs suitable for apprehending criminal suspects and
performing vital Homeland Security tasks.
(www.saveourdogs.net/letters.html). The U.S. Congress has recognized the
critical need to breed more dogs for Homeland Security work with pending
legislation HR 659. AB 1634 would send this important bipartisan effort
into a tailspin. "AB 1634 would shrink the pool of dogs that are
suitable for search and rescue, undermining our ability to do this
life-saving work," says Laura Sanborn, California K9 search and rescue
volunteer.

The Mixed Breed Dog Clubs of America supports spay and neuter programs
and in fact requires compliance for all MBDCA registered dogs. But
president Cindy Leung said that AB 1634 will not solve the problem it
claims to address. Instead, she said, the bill "punishes organizations,
animal shelters, businesses and responsible breeders that have been
among the few sources of education in regard to responsible pet
ownership and breeding. Over 87% of animals relinquished to shelters are
there due to behavioral problems; if California truly wants to solve the
pet overpopulation problem it should promote training and behavior
education rather than mandatory spay and neuter."

Animal shelter studies demonstrate that pet owners are well on their way
to solving the pet population problems of yesterday. Today, California's
largest animal problem is feral cats (cats without owners); but AB 1634
establishes no programs for these cats. Worse yet, it imposes penalties
on cat breeders who breed and place their kittens with care.

NAIA director Strand notes that AB 1634's chief advocates claim they
have "no relationship to animal extremists." However, PETA operatives
play key roles in Social Compassion, a sister group to the bill's public
supporter, CA Healthy Pets Coalition.

"Beyond AB 1634 itself, the issue at stake is responsible political
process," NAIA's Strand concludes. "Will the California Assembly rely on
the expertise of the state's animal professionals - including leading
veterinarians, experts in law enforcement and service dog breeding
programs, dedicated breed enthusiasts, animal welfare groups, the
leading organizations for cats and dogs like Cat Fanciers Association
(CFA) and the American Kennel Club (AKC), county Boards of Supervisors,
and other respected individuals and organizations - or will they listen
to groups that oppose all pets, healthy or not?"

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men
of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

For more information contact:
National Animal Interest Alliance
Patti Strand, National Director
503-761-8962
naia@naiaonline.org

Fred, you are hopelessly naive. And naive people are dangerous people, because they provide others as willing victims. They enable crooks, cheats, criminals and liars to do what they do to the rest of us. You have NO idea how insidious public corruption is becoming, and how little can be done to address it, or how badly it can damage innocent people. This is a money issue, and animal control wants more of it. I'm sorry for their problem, but maybe they need to downscale and economize to meet the lower demand for services, just as an other industry would! Animal impound numbers ARE down! They don't need to impose another burdensome tax, and the "humane" agencies don't need to import animals to sell (Yes, they are doing that!) This sort of thing constitutes a conflict of interest, and NOT what they are paid and contracted to do! They need to get their heavy thumb off of the citizens and their hands out of our pockets!
Now, let's stop blaming Mancuso for this. It's really HSUS, isn't it, Levine? Are they your client, or will you work for them as a lobbyist when you are out of public office? Why are they registered with the CA Secretary of State as a "lobbyist employer", this year? What's up, Levine?

>Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 10:18 AM
>Subject: AB 1634
>To President Ron Faoro and the California Veterinary Medical
>Association (CVMA) Board of Governors:
>
>Dear Dr. Faoro and CVMA Governors:
>
>I hope that CVMA will learn something from the mess you have created
>by writing and sponsoring AB 1634. The leadership of your organization
>which, supposedly, represents the interests of all veterinarians,
>helped to write a controversial bill in secret, without any input from
>rank and file CVMA membership, or any broad consultation with the
>animal lovers and their organizations that would be adversely impacted
>by the bill. The bill proposes to deprive more than half of the
>citizens of California of what they have come to believe, and have
>every right to believe, is a basic civil and constitutional right:
>that every citizen has the right to decide if they want to spay or
>neuter their animals and, if so, when they would like to do it. CVMA
>has jeopardized the reputation of the entire veterinary profession, by
>supporting a piece of legislation which has enraged millions of animal
>owners and promises to enrich one segment of the veterinary
>profession. Now that the legislation you have helped to create has
>been high-jacked by some of the most extreme elements in society, CVMA
>remains absolutely silent, aloof from the problems and concerns of
>"the huddled masses" and, seemingly, powerless or fearful to try to
>"fix" anything. Meanwhile, thousands of rank-and-file veterinarians
>and animal lovers are being forced to become involved in things that
>we hate doing: writing letters to politicians, rallying support from
>breed organizations, meeting with our elected representatives and
>attending legislative hearings. I am attaching two of the letters I
>have written, as they provide examples of the problems with the piece
>of legislation of which you are so proud.
>
>The tragedy of this whole fiasco is that "it is all for naught". The
>evidence from past experiences with Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws is that
>they make the problems worse, rather than better. As an example, I
>have copied (see below) some statistics from the web site of Save our
>Dogs www.saveourdogs.net/population.html. There are plenty of other
>studies out there that have come to the same conclusion. You should
>have researched this whole issue more thoroughly, before you put the
>collective heads of the veterinary profession "on the chopping block".
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Charles A. Hjerpe, DVM
>Former CVMA member and
>Emeritus professor of veterinary medicine, UC Davis
>

Anyone who believes Levine's claptrap is a gullible dunce, Fred m'boy! Check the statistics yourself...Levine and his buddy Mancuso seem to have dreamt them up...they sure aren't accurate!
Mancuso's ties to the extreme Animal Rights groups are very deep...her brother-in-law was the head of the Animal Liberation Front, an organization deemed to be the most dangerous homegrown terrorist group in the USA.
Dangerous enough that it changed its name so that the members could continue with terrorist tactics a while longer. Lightbulb Levine ought to join them..maybe while he's holding a Molotov cocktail it will blow up...forcing him to read a book and find out what is real and what is false. Real - shelter populations have been decreasing in the State for over a decade. False - his figures.
There was a time I enjoyed vacations in California. No longer. The only way I'll visit now is if someone pays me, and pays all my expenses to get there, too!
Maybe someone should have performed spay and neuter on Levine's parents...too late for that now, but he's still there...someone call the vet!!!

There is no one who is more pro spay/neuter than I. For over 20 years, I was the volunteer coordinator for the LA City Animal Shelter serving downtown, Hollywood and surrounding areas. I am way too aware of the severe overpopulation problem with pets in this country. I am president of Volunteer Services to Animals, a non-profit, humane organization. We financially assist people with spay/neuter. That said, this bill has NOTHING to do with 'Healthy Pets', is totally UNENFORCEABLE, and is a pointless exercise in politics..........time consuming and illogical. Most veterinarians will NOT alter a dog/cat before 4 months, and under optimal conditions, recommend waiting until at least 6-8 months of age.

I am a professional dog obedience trainer, and always encourage my clients to spay/neuter (unless, of course, they are showing a dog, in which case it cannot be altered). My own dog is titled (champion & obedience), is neutered, and is an active therapy dog. I am very concerned about finding effective ways to combat this problem. AB 1634 is misleading, misguided, it is illogical, and it is unenforceable.
I am a constituent who watches what goes on, and I ALWAYS VOTE!

I wish that there were an easy way to further reduce pet overpopulation, but I'm not at all convinced that this is the real motivation behind this bill. For one thing, animal control agencies are paid by their city clients based on impound and service records. If there were not as many impounds, that would mean less work for them, and less money. Maybe this is why they have a past record of raiding private rescues, hmmmm? OK: So, impound numbers are down, and "Oh, dear! What's a dog-catcher to do"? "I know! We'll just bill the purebred dog fancy for the privilege of keeping intact dogs! We'll say that there's a big overpopulation problem, and we'll blame it all on them!", and guess what, folks? They aren't going to go after the guy with no money, the guy who doesn't care if he has to give up a dog or two (easily replaced, right)! "No ticky, no washy"! They are going to go STRAIGHT to the people who will pay and CAN pay to keep their dogs intact. This is absolutely the way it will be. They will NOT cut their own throats by completely getting rid of the surplus of relinquished and stray / nuisance dogs. That's their meal-ticket. Why would they do that? Get a clue, folks! I still believe in "good government", and I met with a wonderful government employee this morning. But this is bad government and bound to bring out the worst. I think that the public is still sleeping on this one, but there will be a lot of bad blood over this one.

This bill is overbroad and not needed for the state of California. There are significant health risks posed by early spay and neuter as this is majory surgery. Studies from reputable institutions have shown that dogs have a greater chance of contracting certain kinds of cancer as well as other life long health problems.

The statistics cited by Mr. Levine do not separate out those animals which are adoptable versus those who are not by virtue of temperament or illness. Feral cats constitute a large portion of the animals euthanized in shelters. It has been shown repeatedly in other states that trap, neuter and release programs work in reducing feral cat populations.

In Los Angeles for example the numbers of adopted and redeemed dogs have increased while the numbers of the euthanized dogs have decreased. Education does work. Los Angeles does not work with low income and ethnic work as well sa they should and hence the statistics of strays in those communities tend to be higher.

This is a matter for local control and there are counties in California that have limited resources and cannot afford AB1634. Every day the number of veterinarians, police and service dog organizations grow in opposition to this badly flawed bill.

Fred,
Yes, the Santa Cruz intake number dropped by 64% since the introduction of mandatory Spay/Neuter. However, maybe you could care to explain how neighboring counties WITHOUT mandatory spay/neuter (who implemented low cost spay/neuter programs) where able reduce THEIR intake percentages by close to 90%? Which method seems to work better?? It seems fairly obvious to me.

I have to say that I am impressed to see Sandy Driscoll signing in and weighing in against this bill. Very well known trainer in dog circles! Thanks, Sandy!
Now can someone please tell me why the most doggy-illiterate ones amoung society at large are trying to rewrite all the rules? Do they really feel that they are so enlightened and wonderful, that they see something that nobody ever did, before? Oh, my goodness! To think that the world waited so many centuries in darkness, yearning for the enlightened guidance of compassionate political geniuses like Mancuso and Levine! "Why, God? Why?!!!" I guess the rest of us dolts just hated animals, all these years, and saw them as "things", to satisfy our selfish desires! Yep.. They got us figured out, alright!

It sounds like Judie Mancuso has her hand in Levine back pocket .And his in hers . He will help her pass AB 1634 and she will help him be in the Senate seat. Pet lovers and the good people of California will NEVER FORGET this , or FORGIVE YOU . Vote him down

This is not the Healthy Pets act, it is the Pet Extinction act.
There is far more to this than it appears on the surface. This is terrorism in its finest form - and being practiced by someone the American public thought they could trust. First they take away your right to own a pet, then, they go after your other rights.
Vote no to this heinous bill.

Fred, Santa Cruz County shelter stats haven't even improved as well as the statewide average. In the meantime, two counties that are neighbors to Santa Cruz County -- Santa Clara County and San Francisco -- have blown Santa Cruz County away. Santa Clara County has reduced its shelter euthanasia rates by 93% and San Francisco has gone No Kill. They did this without mandatory spay/neuter or other punitive mandates. If you want to know what works, start with Nathan Winograd's article http://www.nokillsolutions.com/pdf/mandatorylaws.pdf

The Santa Cruz model isn't the best model, it's among the least successful programs in the state.

OK Levine YOUR OUT We will all see to it you get voted out of office ASAP. Your draconian bill is Animal Rightest at its best. Forunately we are at your backside and you of course know where you can put this bill. Your convulutated thinking has enraged the california people to its best and your co-hourt Mancusco will soon see this bill die a slow death. She and you are earning your income off of the public for the last time. She dose not have a real job, and should get one. You are at the public trough long enough also. This AB1634 can ruin my boarding business , which you haven't even given a thought to.
Just for your information.
I will NOT spay or neuter a 4 month old puppy.
I will NOT be charged another TAX to keep my dogs intacked.
I will NOT let you take away my consitutional rights under the law.
I will see to it you are not reelected to any office for the rest of your life
This will be passed to all and every assembly person in Sacramento.
This is WAR.

Something I feel all Assembly Members should be aware of is that one of the sponsors of AB 1634, Judie Mancuso, is married to a man whose brother,Freeman Wicklund, was head of the ALF - a left of left leaning Animal Rights organization that the US Government has declared to be a terrorist group --- it's on the FBI' list of terrorist organizations. It is illegal to belong to the ALF, so it recently underwent a name change. Not its goals or procedures, just the name. Levine's girlfriend is Mancuso's best friend, and a very committed VEGAN, hopefully, some Assembly Members will be able to connect these dots. AB1634 has EVERYTHING to do with the hidden agenda of the radical and well organized Animal Rights groups whose far reaching goals are a danger to society as we know it, let alone our right to love and own pets!!

Susan Van Luchene

RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS OF THE WESTERN STATES

Web Site http://www.povn.com/rdows e-mail rdows@povn.com e-mail list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rdows

Cherie Graves, chairwoman, WA (509) 447-2821

Hermine Stover, secretary, press liaison, CA hermine@endangeredspecies.com

Arkansas Director, Roger Schnyer cajun9@sbcglobal.net

California Director, Jan Dykema bestuvall@sbcglobal.net

Colorado Director, Nick Van Duren checknick@comcast.net

Nevada Director, Ken Sondej 4winds@viawest.net

Oklahoma Director, Jade Harris aadrlegislation@yahoo.com

Director at Large, Judy Schreiber-Dwornick chevalierbts@yahoo.com

Sandra Coy, chairwoman Responsible Dog Owners of the Eastern States rdoes1@yahoo.com

POSITION STATEMENT ON CALIFORNIA AB1634 ã

Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States stands firmly in opposition to California Assembly Bill 1634, sponsored by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, as it is based on a false premise. Our laws must reflect honesty, integrity, responsibility, reason, and constitutionality, with built in protections for our real, and personal property. Responsible Dog Owners of the Western States sees AB1634 as a legislated extinction of all pet animals in California

The California Healthy Pets Act, AB1634 Sponsored by Lloyd Levine, is one of the most deceptively named Bills to ever make its way through the California General Assembly. Under the premise of saving shelter animals (less than 2% of California's pets) from death Representative Levine would sacrifice 97% of all privately owned animals in California, while forcing the owners of the other 1% to jump through bureaucratic hoops in order to maintain their pet animal husbandry practice. Many of the animals that are in California's shelter system are not even from California. Truckloads of animals from not only out of state, but plane loads of animals from overseas make their way through California's shelter system every year. These animals are counted as though they are local. Giving the appearance that Californian's are not good animal owners.

AB1634 is a taking of not only private citizen’s ownership, but use rights in their lawfully owned pet animals by the state of California of monumental proportions. AB1634 wrongly assumes that the state of California is the proprietary owner of all reproductive organs that reside within California’s privately owned pet population. Under the guise of “healthy pets” AB1634 mandates invasive, and non-invasive surgical procedures be performed upon lawfully owned pet animals that may cause irreparable health risks to said pets.

AB 1634 is discriminatory, and will result in there being a class division among California’s pet owning populace. Only those persons who own pure-bred, show animals may acquire a temporary, revocable permit to own an intact animal. Pure-bred animals are most likely owned by the more affluent members of society. Those persons of lower income will be driven out of the most ancient, and honorable practice of animal husbandry.

AB 1634 places a false sense of value upon pure-bred pets, thus creating an artificial inflation of owners costs by attaching large permit fees, and other onerous requirements.

AB 1634 does not address the very real problem of pet animals being imported into the state from other states, and other nations by animal rights, animal rescue, and animal shelter groups. The hurricanes Katrina, and Rita displaced many animals that ended up in California’s animal shelter system. These animals inflate shelter intake, and euthanasia figures.

These very same groups promulgate the lie of “pet overpopulation”. Overpopulation is not symptomatic of animals being systematically killed in so-called animal shelters. Overpopulation is not discriminatory it affects the whole living population within the affected area, not just selected segments. Animal shelters have become big business animal killing centers whose directors influence legislators to introduce legislation against animal ownership, and use.

Look at the ramifications if AB1634 passes the General Assembly.

*97% of all California's dog/cat owners will be forced to have unnecessary surgical procedures, spay/neuter performed upon their own animals, at their own cost.

*As these animals die from surgical complications, disease, natural causes, or old age, there will be no animals to replace them within the state of California.

*As the animal population dwindles, so too will the animal supply industry in California. No more doggy day cares, grooming shops, pet supply stores, training classes, pet boutiques, etc.

*The one percent that make up the pure-bred dog/cat fancy will be faced with over-burgeoning licensure, and permit fees to own their show animals intact.

*The state of California will pimp for "accepted" dog/cat clubs, as only dog/cat club members will be allowed to try to qualify for a permit.

*The state of California will pimp for pure-bred registries, as only those animals registered with California's "acceptable" registries will be allowed to try to qualify for a permit.

*The state of California will force this 1% of pet owners to attend dog/cat shows as part of the requirement to retain their permit.

*With only 1% of pet owning Californian's supporting the system, and the industry, it will collapse like a bad soufflé.

*Meanwhile the shelter system will take on more of a life of its own, increasing the imported animals to fill the demand left by the death of the once healthy pet animal industry in California.

Mr. Levine,
Though I'm sure your heart is in the right place, AB 1634 is not the answer to pet overpopulation.
Responsible pet owners do spay/neuter their pets and if they do not it is generally for good reason.
Responsible Breeders are an asset to any State as they test for genetic defects, screen potential owners, educate the public as to responsible pet ownership, etc..
Why would you want to make it impossible for Responsible Breeders to exhist in California? That only hurts Californians.

The bottom line is that Irresponsible people will, and usually DO find a way around laws.. Responsible people try to abide the laws..
Irresponsible people will be dumping dogs and cats at the doorsteps of your shelters with or without AB 1634, and likely in greater numbers than currently exhist, if it is passed.. Perhaps you should take the time to look at all sides of the issue before you continue your pursuit of this bill.

THE GOOD NEWS IS:
The Group that created this ill-conceived piece of Legislation will forever suffer the enormous response that it has energized.

Talk about having a hold of the TIGER'S TAIL. This is one time that the California residents from all "walks-of-life" have banded together in OPPOSITION to the attack on their passion & concern & rights: Owning our Animals/Pets/Companions/Partners.

This AB1634 should not be passed, nor any other illogical legislation/ordinance.

This AB1634 will be remembered as the piece of ill-conceived legislation that energized & coalesced the Responsible Purebred Breed Groups, the Sheriff & Police Groups, the Farm Bureau, the Animal Rescue Groups, the Hunting Groups, many Animal Control agencies, the Veterinarian Associations, NRA members, Every Purebred Dog or Cat Breed club, organization & Registry, & my very own local 4-H club. These groups have researched the statistics, educated themselves & others to the real dangers [both socially & economically] that AB1634 will create for their communities/counties & State. They have spent the time & effort to become the experts on these subjects and will be [pardon the expression] "TAKING THE BULL BY THE HORNS" in this AB1634 & any new AR agenda based legislation & ordinances. We have learned a lot & will be applying it.

So watch out Animal Right's agenda, State Assembly Members & State Senators & County Boards of Supervisors, Pro-Active Warriors have their eyes opened on this one & won't be caught snoozing again.

So you see, some GOOD did come out of AB1634~!

Thank you all for sharing your energy in these postings......mema

I live in another state. I fine it hard to believe someone like Levine could possible think they get away with this bill. He must not have much common sense. This is a suicide bill for his career. Who is paying him? How much under the table is he getting? I would not vote for him. And would let the democrate party know that they will not get my vote anymore. I am beginning to think REPUBLICAN.

Get rid of him.

I am a resident of another state which is over-legislated in many ways : New York . But I have read the bill and ALL the comments here tonight . My feelings on this California bill proposal are in synch with most of the well - crafted and insightful reasons and logic I just read within these posts . The breeder of one of my dogs is a California resident who only occasionally has a litter with the sole purpose of betterment of the breed in general, and to produce puppies who embody her personal vision of the breed standard . She is by no means filling shelters with carefully screened homes for her pet / show puppies produced in those very infrequent litters. . I am forever grateful she shipped clear across the U.S. one of her beautifully bred puppies to become my treasured family member . My other dog, btw , is a NY-bred dog / same breed of likewise impeccable lineage . If this bill was current law, I hate to think I might not be mom to either one.

Years ago when I was showing in breed and obedience competition here on the east coast, I had a wonderful mentor in my first breed tell me that the purebred dog is a visual & physical manifestation of the ART and SCIENCE of generations of people working to create personal visions of the embodiment of breed standard(s). My impression of this bill proposed by Mr. Levine is it will effectively END that effort of so many people dedicated to improving their breed lines with regard to the health and those visions of their individual breeds' evolution. I see this bill as hugely detrimental to the dedicated hobby show breeder in an effort to target IRRESPONSIBLE pet owners / BYB's who -- if California is like N.Y. -- are the ones producing dogs / cats who have our shelters filled in this state. Make no mistake : N.Y. legislators and breed clubs alike are watching this proposed legislation VERY carefully to see where it goes . Am hoping California residents do not allow this insane bill to pass . JMHO.

Why don't we stop trying to be politically correct and say what we all know to be true. The people causing this overpopulation of pets in the U.S. are irresponsible people who don't want to be bothered, think it is too expensive or are too macho to get their pets neutered/spayed. I have rescued many cats in the past and 98% of them were domestic shorthairs who were thrown out when they had kittens. They had kittens because the owners were too ignorant or lazy to get the animals neutered, keep them inside and give them the proper pet care in the first place. Spend the money in the community to spay and neuter shelter cats/dogs, farm cats/dogs and capture ferals on the streets and watch the numbers of unwanted animals plummet. Responsible breeders/owners of pedigree dogs and cats should not be penalized for the uneducated, irresponsible people causing these problems in our cities and towns.

AB 1634 is one of the worst bills ever! NOT just because it SHOULD be called "Pet Extinction" - but also because it is a total frontal attack and infringement on personal, property rights! The populace of the US is one of the highest educated in the world! YET - for some obscene reason, many of our current elected officials think we're too stupid to think for ourselves!

Remember - the purpose of a government is NOT to micromanage it's people. We elect YOU - not the other way around! Levine - I hope you're learning that Californians are NOT stupid! We don't need to be protected from life. We don't need to be micromanaged! AND - apparently - we don't need you!

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.

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.

Mr. Levine, if you think that you are making yourself popular on the backs of our animals you are wrong. Nobody in their right mind should support your bill. You are stripping the state of CA of hundreds of thousands of dollars. All those that are hobby breeders will LEAVE the State of CA and with them will go all of the events they support. The AKC and our people alone spend over $90 MILLION dollars a year in California. You will be devastating businesses and destroying lives of vets, pet store owners, groomers etc if this bill passes. You are a liar and do not even have your facts correct, you are a self absorbed idiot if you think this is what the State of CA needs.

Why don't you stop illegal immigration and and call for mandatory spay/neuter of all illegal immigrants to stop "anchor babies" that would be a cause we could get behind instead of taking away the rights of responsible animal lovers to own whole animals.

All I know is that if this bill passes the exodus from California will be noticeable and your quest for a higher government office will be for not as there will be nobody of any consequence to govern as we all will have left to avoid the NAZI regime you are trying to force on us

So many good comments have been posted opposing this ridiculous bill. I have nothing to add except my strong oppositon.

"Despite cries from breeders that this legislation is too severe, there are counties that already have more stringent laws than what the Healthy Pets Act contains. And why shouldn’t they? Medical research shows that spayed or neutered cats and dogs live longer and healthier lives."

This fits the very definition of a non-sequitor. Levine's response does not address the concern of breeders! Just because some counties have more severe laws does not mean those laws are better. They are, in fact, worse. Nobody is arguing about whether altering cats and dogs is better for their health. What concerns the breeders in California is that this bill is so restrictive that it will force most hobby breeders to stop breeding. The only breeders who will be able to comply are those who breed for profit. The desire for pets will not stop and Californians will turn to for-profit mills and out-of-state breeders. It is the small hobby breeder that already requires pet buyers to alter pets, and they will be the ones destroyed by this bill.

Californians will lose more from this bill than they could ever gain.

Assemblymember Levine,

While I believe that your intentions are good, sadly you were misled by whoever gave you the information to create this bill.

I have been in the shelters and do basset hound breed rescue. Most shelters won't let us take the basset hounds that they get because the public wants to see breeds other than pit bulls. Most of the dogs I see in animal shelters are either old, behavior problems, or have medical problems and have been discarded by people who went to great lengths to get them and then return them like broken toys to WalMart. 96% of dogs in shelters have never been to an obedience class, which is shocking.

Many dog breeds also should not be spayed or neutered until they are older. We have basset hounds and you will see many that are spayed and neutered early that have feet that turn out because the growth plates need the hormones in order to close properly so that they will have sound fronts. We will be forced to pay for intact dogs that may end up spayed or neutered, but we have no way to tell that until they are at a healthy age for that. And we will NOT compromise their health.

Our intact basset hounds are not problems, they are very mild mannered and socially fit. We are still studying breeding, but when we do breed, we will guarantee all of our dogs for their lifetimes because they are like our families. We will refund any costs at any age and they must come back to us for rehoming. Most basset hound breeders I know, and I know most, feel this same way. We see friends take back 5 year old, 10 year old dogs with love.

Your bill will cause an extreme hardship on us because we will end up subsidizing those who don't obey laws now, taking away our ability to pay for vet bills, living expenses and other essential needs to better our breed. From breeders such as us, people can have healthy well-adjusted pets that they get from folks who can give them educational and medical advice and their dogs can be part of a healthy family of dogs. Not just some item to be returned when there are any problems.

If there is to be any help at the government level, it should be to start Humane Education programs in the schools so that our children can learn the responsiblities of pet ownership, so that when they get to be adults, this responsibility will show in their attitudes toward their animals.

I am a Democrat through and through. I have never voted against my party. But I have to say that having to face the potential of a bill like this that punishes the people trying to do the most to help with this problem and that it is so poorly researched by my party is tragic. The result is that the thought of making a Republican choice is something I would now consider.

I hope you reconsider and withdraw this bill. Write a new bill to have Humane Education as a K-12 mandatory program. That would do the most to help shelters and the dogs that end up there.

Sara Watson

Here us ROAR!!!
The next time around we should NOT vote for those politicians who voted for this bill.
We by far out number those who are for it!!!
Some politicians should be altered!!

I am a responsible dog owner and my friends are equally responsible. With the advice of our veterinarians, we have chosen the time to spay or neuter our pets. The problem with AB 1634 is that we are being unfairly targeted. People who are irresponsible by letting their pets run free and breed, will not follow this law. Other irresponsible owners will continue to inhumanely dump their pets by the side of the road or at shelters. THEY need to learn responsible ownership. THEY will not adhere to this law. AB 1634 has too many flaws and should have never made it this far. Vote NO on AB 1634!!

This bill will not ease the burden on the California Taxpayer because it will be shifting the costs from the state level to the local level. It will cost huge amounts of money to enforce this legislation and will burden the local humane organizations. It has been proven that these laws do not solve the problem of pet overpopulation. Feral cats are over 75% of the animals euthanized in Shelters and this legislation will not change that. This only makes the responsible owners pay for a problem that is caused by people that are NOT responsible. NO 1634.

If it is so great a bill, why not have PEOPLE automatically sterilized to prevent criminals or foster children? Santa Cruz has an EXEMPTION for working stock dogs. Santa Cruz ALSO has a REQUIRED PERMIT for keeping an intact dog if you don't break the leash laws, nuisance laws, etc --please bother to READ the ordinance you CLAIM to use as your sample. And DESPITE that, Santa Cruz hasn't had any better success than other places with less restrictions. Destroying people's right to property and their personal rights in order to address a DIMINISHING problem (the # of dogs & cats in shelters is going down already and adoptions are going up) is absurd. You want to reduce animals in shelters, try providing for more rental housing that is pet friendly and providing for more EDUCATION for people to learn how to manage their pets.
AND if you know your bill isn't going to pass, please have the courage to accept defeat and don't duck the assembly roll call.

It really does irritate me to see government treating people like imbeciles yet again. The more government passes laws to regulate our lives, the more we see frivolous lawsuits tying up our courts. People become unaccountable for their own actions.

Vote against passing this badly flawed law written in the auspices of producing healthier pets. In reality, this bill stands to exterminate the healthy well-bred pet and destroy valuable DNA necessary to maintain a healthy gene pool.

Rather than passing another law to plummet humans deeper into the pit of irresponsibility, TEACH people about responsible pet ownership and spaying/neutering at the proper age following the recommendation of their veterinarian. I myself take part in teaching the public what responsible pet ownership is.

I also work with rescue. I have far more people on my waiting list hoping to adopt dogs than I see dogs in need of rescue. Shelters rarely have puppies unless a commercial breeder is raided for the deplorable conditions their dogs are kept in. Shelters in my area usually contain older dogs whose owners have become tired of them, or can't afford to euthanize them. Or the dog has serious behavioral issues because they were not properly socialized as puppies.

Whether "Animals Rights" people like PeTA like it or not, pets DO become part of the families of responsible pet owners. Pets are best bred and raised in the homes of people who care more about them than the commercial value they hold. Only the hobby breeder can produce the type of pet you would want to have sharing your home. Do not pass AB1634

I think our parents were smarter than we are today. Years ago this would have never been put up on a ballot - people would have laughed in any politicians face. They believed in the right to choose & having freedom to make those grown up decisions for themselves. Those that were in voilation paid for any trespasses NOT making everyone pay. I feel it is like saying all pet owners are guilty of such crimes. Stopping our throw away society for the next generation to be better & to make improvements but since when does a one size fit all society work ? Is this the USA ? The one my Father fought to defend precious liberties & rights. Where does this end ? Will we be assigned uniforms next ? We have more serious issues the homeless, economy, a War were our young are dying. Terrorism, which is not to be confused with this War. I wish one 10th of the budget this foolhardy bill could be allocated towards some real good. This money could have gone a long way to paying for expenses at the shelters. Most animals are given up due to medical buills they cant afford for their pet, moving, family lost their income, or the animal is old. The rescue shelters here take their animals to private Rescues who place animals to qualified people & families sometimes sending them out of state. Believe it or not some shelters in other states do not have enough dogs or cats to let be adopted what about doing more of these kinds of outreach efforts? Public education & training seminars.

You have taken my beloved democratic party to new lows with your insanity of AB 1634. You have no business becoming a mouth piece for PETA. You could serve the people much better by placing your energies into issues such as gas prices, health care, jobs,etc. this is what a democrat does and not try and take peoples rights away from them. At the rate you are going your fellow democrats will not be able to hold their seats due to the back lash they will get for listening to you.

I am also a registered (and faithfully vote) Democrat, but if AB 1634 passes, I will quickly become a Republican. Our representatives better learn who they work for or find their political career at an end. THAT'S something they WILL understand. Anyone voting for this bill should be soundly voted OUT.

There is NO pet overpopulation problem. That is a MYTH created and maintained by Animal Rights Activists.

If there were an overpopulation problem, there would be NO dogs smuggled or brought in from foreign countries.

A group of us met with a local asemblyman just yesterday. During the meeting I found out that Sacramento is planning to build a $25 million dollar - yes, $25 million dollar pet shelter! Plus, this glamour shelter will have $250,000 worth of art work hanging on it's walls. That money would spay and neuter a lot of pets if, of course, that is the real motive behind this bill! As one of our group stated, "Oh, is California going into the dog business?" Levine's figures are grossly over exaggerated and his "facts" are simply incorrect, as already proven by all of those who have previously posted. I strongly oppose this bill.

I absolutely agree with those who have posted opposition to this bill.

I have a victim of pediatric spay living in my home. She was diagnosed hypothyroid before she was even a year and a half. She just had to undergo TPLO surgery for a blown cruciate ligament. This is due to her being spayed prior to maturity. This was a $4000 surgery. I am praying that she doesnt blow the other one. Tell me...is the state going to give us vouchers or refunds for this surgery if this bill passes?

This bill is so wrong for dogs, it puts their health at serious risk. It blatantly attacks the responsible pet owners of california.

This issue is so important to me that I am keeping careful tabs on those that are voting in favor of it, and I will be voting against them at my first opportunity.

I dont need the government to arbitrarily, without doing research, telling me what is in the best interest of my dogs. I live with them, I love them, and I decide what their care is, and what risks they should face.

How about another Vet letter? She says it all.

Fwd: Sharon Vanderlip, D.V.M. letter to the assembly mem...
Posted by: "Elizabeth Brinkley" elizabeth@dantekennels.com etbmfa
Tue Jun 5, 2007 5:30 pm (PST)
Forwarded with permission

To The Esteemed California Assembly members
I am a veterinarian licensed to practice in California and I vehemently
oppose AB1634 as amended May 31, 2007. California veterinarians
overwhelmingly oppose AB1634. Unfortunately, the California Veterinary
Medical Association (CVMA) did not poll its membership or non-CVMA
member veterinarians before deciding to sponsor AB1634.
For 28 years I have worked in reproductive medicine. I have worked
extensively with responsible dog breeders and I have also worked in a
very large California animal shelter. I have performed thousands of
spays and neuters during my professional career, including early
spays/neuters. I am convinced that AB1634 is a disastrous bill that will
not solve a single problem, but will definitely create many more. This
letter explains some reasons how and why AB1634 WILL SIGNIFICANTLY
INCREASE THE NUMBERS OF ANIMALS IMPOUNDED, ABANDONED, AND EUTHANIZED
EVERY YEAR.

Veterinary medical decisions, including when/if to spay/neuter an
animal, should be made by veterinarians and the pets' owners, not by
politicians. I am a proponent of spay/neuter, but on a medical case by
case basis, when the time is right for each individual animal patient.

For complex physiological reasons, young puppies and kittens cannot
clear some drugs and medications from their bodies, or tolerate
anesthesia and surgery, as well as adolescent or adult animals can.
Puppies and kittens can develop hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and have
difficulty maintaining a normal body temperature during and after
anesthesia. The three main causes of death in puppies and kittens are
hypothermia, hypoglycemia, and dehydration-all of which can occur as a
result of anesthesia and surgery and can progress to shock and death.
In short, puppies and kittens are high risk patients.

Words create images in our minds and direct our thoughts-and our
decisions. "Neuter" and "spay" sound harmless and suggest these are
simple procedures without consequences. These words don't raise mental
images of incisions, organs, blood-or risks. "Spay", derived from the
French word espeier, means "to cut with a sword". Castration, from
Latin, castratio, means "to cut". Now, with these original words in our
heads, our mental images change from something benign to something
startling. For balance, we should call these procedures by their correct
names that describe what they really are: gonadectomy,
ovariohysterectomy, castration. By doing so, we remain cognizant of the
difficulties and risks associated with an invasive intra-abdominal
surgical procedure (including those required for abdominally retained
testicles), the removal of body parts, and their long-term effects.
Gentle words like "spay" and "neuter" have lulled many non-veterinarians
into a casual, worry-free attitude toward these surgical procedures.

Politicians and animal activists supporting AB1634 also take these
surgical procedures and their profound medical consequences casually- so
casually as to mandate the procedures for young pet companions with a
broad brush stroke in a "one size fits all" approach. This is an
excellent example of why politicians and animal activists must not be
allowed to dictate how veterinarians practice their profession. It's
dangerous and it's wrong.

AB1634 is seriously flawed on many counts, beginning with its
deliberately deceptive misnomer. This bill is not a "healthy" pet act.
It will not help animals or improve their health. It will not reduce the
shelter animal population. It will not reduce the number of animal
euthanasias. To the contrary, the number of animals in shelters and the
number of euthanasias will increase as people who cannot afford to
spay/neuter their pets, or cannot afford the fines associated with
non-compliance, will abandon their animals, relinquish them to shelters,
or have them euthanized. This is what has already happened in other
municipalities that have attempted similar legislation.

AB1634 will open the floodgates for puppy smuggling from Mexican puppy
mills and other areas. Several thousands of puppies are smuggled through
San Diego annually. These puppies are invariably taken from their
mothers too soon, are very sick, heavily parasitized, and near death
when confiscated after traveling in the cruelest of conditions tucked
away in the wheel wells or crevices of vehicles. These smuggled puppies
contribute to the number of euthanasias that supporters of AB1634 decry.
I know, because I've seen several hundreds of these animals. In
addition, out of state puppy mills (commercial dog breeding farms that
produce puppies for profit, without regard to health, quality,
socialization, or temperament) will ship young puppies of inferior
quality into California, while responsible dog breeders will be
seriously restricted in their ability to raise their top quality dogs
and protect their breeds' valuable gene pool. The ever growing demand
for puppies will be filled with animals from puppy mills. These puppies
are often sick and many have genetic defects (such as abdominally
retained testicles, hydrocephalus, epilepsy, luxated patellas). When pet
owners cannot afford to treat the problems, many puppy mill puppies end
up in the shelter and add to the euthanasia statistics. I have witnessed
this countless times. These animals also pose a zoonotic (diseases
contagious between humans and animals) threat to public health.

AB1634 does nothing to address the biggest, pet population and
euthanasia problem: feral cats. These are wild, untamed cats without
owners. These cats are largely the offspring of other feral cats, not of
client owned cats. More than 85 percent of cat owners neuter their cats.
Feral cats spread zoonotic diseases, kill songbirds, and struggle to
survive. Eventually they are hit by cars; eaten by predators; or die of
starvation, disease, or fight wounds. The rest end up in animal
shelters. The large majority of feral cats in animal shelters are
seriously ill, injured, pregnant, fractious and non-adoptable. It has
been estimated that feral cats account for 70 percent of shelter
euthanasias. AB1634 does not address and will not solve the feral cat
problem.

AB1634 unfairly penalizes responsible pet owners and breeders. Dog
breeders are an asset to their community. They educate pet owners,
provide quality companions and service dogs, hold events that bring
revenue to California estimated at more than one hundred million dollars
annually, and, through their numerous breed clubs, they rescue several
thousand animals every year, preventing these animals from ending up in
shelters.

Supporters of AB1634 quote total shelter euthanasia numbers when they
argue in favor of their bill. This might lead the uninformed to assume
that all those animals euthanized in shelters were adoptable. The truth
is, a large number of animals housed and euthanized in shelters are
non-adoptable feral cats (approximately 70 percent). Another large part
of the animal euthanasia total includes smuggled animals that are near
death; animals that are not adoptable for behavioral reasons (such as
vicious fighting dogs, numerous and common in California); animals with
serious health conditions (such as advanced cancer) that cannot be
treated; and animals that are very old and suffering from severe or
terminal illnesses. California's responsible dog breeders and
responsible pet owners are not responsible for these euthanasias. Yet,
they are the people who would be unfairly penalized by AB1634. Note:
There is a shortage of puppies available for adoption in many areas of
California. Some shelters import puppies from other areas to adopt out
to meet their communities' demand for puppies.

Rabies is a serious, fatal, zoonotic disease that is present in
California. Puppies and kittens should be vaccinated against rabies at
16 weeks of age. A very serious potential public health endangerment
that would result from AB1634 is that people who cannot afford to
spay/neuter their pets, or who refuse to comply with AB1634, will not
bring their pets to their veterinarians for rabies vaccination because
of fear of being cited and fined for non-compliance. As a result, we can
anticipate an increase in rabies cases. We can also expect more animal
health problems and subsequent relinquishments at shelters as owners
whose pets need health care may not take them to their veterinarians
because they are worried they will be fined for not having their pets
neutered. AB1634 states that veterinarians are not part of the
"enforcement team", but it is inevitable that we will be expected to be,
and this will seriously damage our relationships with our clients.

Educating the public (starting with children at an early age) about
responsible pet ownership and encouraging spay/neuter when appropriate
(things veterinarians and responsible breeders do very well every day),
working with outreach and rescue groups, addressing the major sources of
the problems (such as feral cats, fighting pit bulls, smuggled animals)
and securing our borders, would be some logical areas to focus efforts
to reduce the number of animals in shelters and reduce the number of
euthanasias. AB1634 does none of these things. Responsibility cannot be
legislated. Responsibility must be taught and learned.

Veterinarians have spent thousands of collective hours opposing AB1634
and trying to educate members of the legislature and the CVMA, who have
been either misinformed or misled by the bill's advocates. Pet owners
and breeders have spent considerable time and effort opposing AB1634,
trying to defend their pets and protect their property rights in our
free country. And supporters of AB1634 strain credulity as they spend
thousands of dollars fighting to mandate the removal of every pet's
gonads. Those wasted dollars could have been spent on a good cause for
animals, rather than on efforts to interfere with the medical care of
privately owned pets and violating the veterinarian/patient/client
relationship.

AB1634 is outrageous bill. It will not solve any problems and it will
create many more.

Thank you for opposing AB1634.

Sharon Vanderlip, D.V.M.
California License #7846

A responsible conscientious breeder will always take a dog/puppy back, no questions asked. They meticulously screen their buyers and do not sell to people they feel should not own a dog due to work hours, young children or whatever the reason. They also sell the puppy with a spay/neuter clause that states the dog will not be bred unless it passes certain health screening and is an AKC champion of record.THESE good responsible breeders are the people that will be most affected and harmed if this bill passes.

ANYONE can walk in to a pet store and buy a dog. The new owners don't know the breeder that bred the dog, don't know the history or the health of the parents and others in their pedigree. They have no one to return the dog to if things don't work out - so they end up at the pound.

MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR PET STORES TO SELL PUPPIES. MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR PUPPY BROKERS TO SELL PUPPIES IMPORTED FROM OTHER COUNTRIES. Make it ILLEGAL TO SELL PUPPIES AT SWAP MEETS.

Find some way to punish the irresponsible dog owners and breeders, not the ones that are doing things right.

This Bill is an infringement on my Civil Rights and I am appalled that the ACLU hasn't stepped in to Lobby against this bill!
CJ, San Diego

This bill is sheer lunacy and the extinction of pets. Mr Levine, if you just have to have a law, try this: all puppies and kittens born have to be microchipped and registered back to their breeder. All breeders are required to be responsible for every animal they breed. When sold, the new owner is required to either keep the animal for it's enite lifetime or return it to it's breeder. Simple, and all reputable breeders already will take back anything they breed. This just makes the not so reputable breeders follow the same rules. Simple. If this is followed there will be no animals to ever end up in shelters, and people can choose to spay or neuter and at the appropriate age for their pet, if they don't want to leave it intact for it's entire lifetime.

Penalizing hobby breeders who are trying to improve the breed of their animal in order to limit the number of animals euthanized doesn't make any sense. The real problem is the number of feral animals who are reproducing frequently. It makes far more sense to implement a program to Trap, Neuter and Release (TNR) feral animals. With proper funding and a focus on the feral overpopulation problem, far fewer animals will be euthanized. Combine this with an education program for pet owners teaching them the benefits of spay/neuter at an appropriate age and in consultation with their vets and the euthanasia rate will show a steep decline.
Hobby breeders almost always include a requirement for spay/neuter of animals petted out and require proof of this before papers are given to the new owner. In addition, hobby breeders will almost always find a new home for an animal of their breeding if the original owner cannot keep the pet.
We should scrap AB1634 and develop a TNR bill which addresses the real problem of overpopulation of feral cats and dogs in a completely humane way.

As a lifelong registered Democrat, I am ashamed of those people in my party who have banded together to help pass this terrible piece of legislation. The outcry against all of you is just beginning! You may think this will all be forgotten in a few months time, and you will once again resume telling your constituents how you always have their best interests at heart................BUT.............
believe me, we will not forget how you were influenced by a man who has no idea what he is talking about, and has made a career of misrepresenting the facts. YES, I am refering to Mr Levine.
WE VOTERS SHALL NOT FORGET!!!
Sincerely,
A new Republican

I have to agree with all the comments made thus far. One exception, Mr. Levine DOES NOT have his heart in the right place. AB 1634 is a very devastating bill and the domino effect it will have is dangerous.

Remember: Prohibition didn't work. Look what happened.

This law is terrible law. There are so many flaws and ambiguities that it should never become a law in this state.

Our dogs and cats should not be subjected to a mandatory spay/neuter law. It should be the decision of each owner in consultation with their veterinarian to determine the timing of such an invasive and life altering surgery.

Hobby breeders in this state will suffer the consequences. The state will lose revenue from dog show cancellations. The shelters will continue to have abandoned, unidentifiable dogs and cats arriving because those who are the biggest offenders will just let them go rather than pay the fines and fees associated with the intact permit. They'll get other dogs and cats and the scenario will continue to replay itself time after time.

Vote NO on AB 1634. It's just bad law! All of California is watching. Just because I don't reside in Mr. Levine's district, doesn't mean I'm not watching my assemblyperson's vote on this law. VOTE NO!

This proposed piece of legislation is a mountain of falsehoods being supported by someone who hasn't a clue about either animal management or telling the truth! The only thing this bill does is lie and lie and lie. It promotes an animal rights agenda. It isn't good for any animal, let alone healthy.

I am not a resident of CA, however, I vacation there and I also attend dog shows there. If this legislation passes, you all can kiss my several thousand dollars each year good-bye! There is nothing "healthy" about this bill. It supports puppy mills, places of abhorrent conditions. This bill supports a feral cat community - the largest portion of euthanasias in shelters. This bill mandates invasive medical procedures, hysterectomies and castrations (gelding), of very young animals, procedures which have permanent health effects when done so young!

I personally lost a greyhound, who was altered at 4 months of age, to bone cancer. There are scientific studies showing a huge increase in the rate of bone cancer in dogs who are altered before puberty. I also had a dog neutered at 6 months of age because of bilateral cryptorchidism, and he developed post-castration incontinence. How his incontinence is controlled is by weekly injections of testosterone!

This is a good example of intrusive government meddling in decisions that need to be made between animal owners and their veterinarians - people trained in medical procedures.

There is so much wrong with this bill, no number of amendments will ever make it right. Please contact your legislator and defeat this massive pile of doggy doo!

This is a bad law

This bill should be renamed The Unhealthy Pet Act as research has shown that sterilizing a puppy brings unwanted side effects as they age.Increased risk of all kinds of cancer,hypothyroidism,geriatric cognitive disfunction,triples obesity risk,increases the probablility of orthopedic disorders AND adverse reactions to vaccinations.
Also,you SAY that there are exemptions for S&R dogs/Law enforcement dogs/service dogs.Answer me this:WHERE is the exemption for their parents?
Ergo,NO parents,NO S&R dogs/law enforcement dogs or service animals.
You know,the law of unintended consequences? Well,I've never voted Republican in my life but guess what? Not only will I vote against ANY democrat in my district who votes for this bill,I will also actively campaign AGAINST them.

This is an unbelievably poorly written law. As a member of an AKC breed club, and a volunteer for dog rescue, I can say that this law will not effect the issue of unwanted pets. Instead it will drive backyard breeders and pet owners "underground" and cause law-abiding quality breeders, who care passionately about their animals health and genetics, to retire or leave California. California will lose the only source it currently has for quality California-bred animals.

We are quickly becoming an internet society, so families searching for pets will be getting them from out of state, possibly off the internet, and likely from puppy mills; large scale warehouses that breed hundreds of puppies for profit. These mills are mostly located in Missouri and Pennsylvania. This law won't do anything to curb the importation of these puppies, or puppies from Mexico; many of whom arrive sickly and with behavioral problems. These are the dogs that end up in shelters; dogs that this law will do nothing to protect.

My dog is an AKC registered dog. He attended his first show at 13 months, and in some ways that might have been a little young for his breed. He is also training in agility and rally, a form of obedience. We are responsible dog owners. This law would have required that he be nuetered, thus ending the possibility of him showing in AKC confirmation, because there is no way I would have subjected him to being shown as a puppy.

The last thing I want to comment on, is that the State of California benefits millions of dollars in direct and indirect revenue from ACK dog shows, in particular confirmation which requires that the dogs and bitches shown be intact (not spayed or nuetered). Many shows are held at the public fairgrounds, and revenue generated through event rental fees, parking. For the public, tax revenue is earned by everyone whose income depends on the pet industry, and dog shows also bring in money to the local economies (hotels, etc.). In other cities where ordinances have been passed requiring neuter/spaying, dogs shows have moved to other venues. I would suggest that if this ordinance is passed many if not all shows will leave California, depriving the public of the tax revenue, and of the enjoyment.

The pet shops and puppy mills must be jumping for joy. AB 1634 will most drastically hurt the very people that are doing the best job of offering "healthy pets" to the people of California. Quality breeders create puppies at a financial loss, for the most part, because they love the dogs they breed. They educate potential and new buyers about their breeds, help with training and health care, and operate rescues for the breeds they love.

Conscientious breeders do health testing on the parents before they are bred, start puppies with early training that make it easier for the new family to work a puppy into their home, and are available to answer questions, give help, or take a dog back if things don't work out.

These are the people that will disappear with the added expense and red tape of AB1634. Their dogs are not in the shelters.

There is not enough man power to enforce this law across the board so the law abiding people are the ones who will suffer again, and those who are truly causing the shelter problems will pay little attention and will even benefit from the elimination of the competition.

Dogs should be raised in a home environment, families and individuals should be able to visit breeders, meet a puppies parents, and see that the dogs are well cared for.

I have done rescue, the vast majority of dogs we get come from pet shops or are bought from commercial breeders online. The bill will have no effect on this, it will actually increase it.

The shelter dogs should get loving homes but most people do not want the very limited variety of dogs in the shelters these days. Just because an abundance of pit bull mixes are being bred, or are allowed to breed by uncaring people does that mean that all Californian's should only have that choice? I would like a small short haired dog.

Is this what the Democratic party thinks is "pro choice"?

I am totally opposed to this bill, it will hit the responsible breeders so hard. That is just it, we need to remember there are RESPONSIBLE Breeders of pure bred dogs who will suffer the most if this passes. Their livelihood will cease to exsist because there won't be any pure bred dogs since they will be killed off by this bills mandatory spay and neuter requirement. How sad is that, literally thousands of breeders out of a job because the legislaters think this "Healthy Pet Act" is the only alternative. Sadly, the puppy mills will be in full swing and the RESPONSIBLE Breeders are left with nothing!! How pathetic**

Mr. Levine's beliefs are sadly mistaken. This bill will not help reduce the number of pets put down or sent to shelters, it most likely will increase. It is disheartening to have someone propose legislation like this when they don't know the facts.

You would think that the tag team of Mancuso and Levine would be more concerned with the staggering numbers of dogs that are SMUGGLED into California every week? Mandatory spay neuter programs have not worked in the past. Why do they think they will work NOW?

There are so many false premises. This law is not about shelter animals. It is about money and eliminating animals. PETA is completely tied to this Assembly bill. You cannot separate Mancuso and Levine from PETA and HSUS. Why are so many dogs and cats tagged immediately for euthanasia in a shelter? Why are monies not being spent on educating the public about responsible ownership, about using shelter resources to adopt out what they call UNADOPTABLES, or about having subsidized spaying and neutering in areas where greater financial assistance is needed? I have been involved in rescue and placement for years. Not just my breed but other breeds. I cannot begin to tell you how many times I have heard OH, THAT ONE. HE IS NOT ADOPTABLE! Really? My friends and I had no problem paying to get him out of the shelter, socialized, medical care if required, and a new FOREVER home after carefully screening applicants. No, take a deeper look and see what this bill is really about! Are shelters going to become the NEXT pet stores?

Mr. Levine,

AB 1634 is a poorly constructed attempt to solve a localized problem. Not all parts of California have large numbers of dogs and cats being euthanized. And those animals are not the product of ethical breeders who will be hurt by AB 1634. Some jurisdictions are importing animals from other counties and Mexico in order to have animals available for adoption. Do your overpopulation numbers account for that?

Early spay/neuter does not protect and improve the health of pets...how could it? Many vets have spoken out about the problems associated with early spay/neuter, especially osteosarcoma. A recent study has the risks outweighing the benefits of early spay/neuter at a rate of two to one (see http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf).

Dogs and cats euthanized in the state are those given up for many reasons including owners moving and not being able to keep their pet because landlords are allowed to deny pet ownership to tenants (even if a previous landlord would vouch for the tenant and pet). Older dogs and cats also end up in shelters because the owner cannot afford medical care or to euthanize the pet themselves if it's time. Some end up in shelters because of aggression problems. Ethical breeders do not breed dogs with aggression problems...and these are the folks your bill is targeting. Ethical breeders will also take a pet back if the owner cannot keep it. If animals are purchased from the Internet from puppy mills in California or out of state, do you think these sellers will take the pets back if the owner/purchaser can't keep it? Probably not which would mean an increase in shelter populations.

Additionally, your claim that there will be huge tax benefits to taxpayers is overstated. Dog and cat events are held all over the state on any given weekend benefiting the local economy through bed tax and tourism. Many dog lovers that follow the dog show circuits purchase recreational vehicles. My first time at a local all breed dog show was quite an eye opener with 50 to 100 or more RV's parked on the fairgrounds (and this particluar show wasn't a huge one for the area). Every one of those vehicles had personal property tax paid to the state on an annual basis.

In the past seven years my stays in hotels and motels has been limited to occurrences linked with dog events. These tourism dollars are important to the local economies. Long Beach benefitted from AKC National level events in 2006 bringing on the order of $21,000,000 into that area. As previously mentioned this occurs on a smaller level all over the state EVERY weekend. If AB 1634 passes, these events would become few and far between.

AB 1634 also hurts ranchers in California. Many sheep and cattle operations use dogs in their work to make ends meet allowing the operation to function without paying another human on horseback or ATV (a human that requires workman's comp and many other associated costs). These animals are bred for their instincts and intelligence, not whether they are part of a formal breed registry or not. Evaluating a pup at 4 months of age to determine whether or not it will be a good working dog and therefore potentially bred to carry those instincts to the next generation is impossible.

Assistance dogs in use and being bred now are many times mixed breeds. AB 1634 will not allow the service dog institutes to continue breeding dogs that work well because mixed breeds will be denied "intact animal permits".

Law enforcement dogs will also be adversely affected if AB 1634 passes which is why so many law enforcement agencies in the state are against this bill.

Pets have proven benefits to the health of humans. They get us out exercising more; blood pressure is lowered while interacting with animals; dogs have been used in therapy for years with proven benefits and AB 1634 would limit Californian's choices in their pets and ability to obtain them from ethical sources.

Lastly, if you truly believe in the agendas that PETA and HSUS are setting forth (which I believe is your real agenda since the numbers don't bear out your support of this issue) think what it would be like for children in California to grow up without the benefit of a pet to care for...a scary thought for future generations.

I am totally opposed to this bill, it will hit the responsible breeders so hard. That is just it, we need to remember there are RESPONSIBLE Breeders of pure bred dogs who will suffer the most if this passes. Their livelihood will cease to exsist because there won't be any pure bred dogs since they will be killed off by this bills mandatory spay and neuter requirement. How sad is that, literally thousands of breeders out of a job because the legislaters think this "Healthy Pet Act" is the only alternative. Sadly, the puppy mills will be in full swing and the RESPONSIBLE Breeders are left with nothing!! How pathetic**

Levine thinks he can sell this bill by saying show breeders are exempt and would be able to obtain a breeders license in their own jurisdictions. HOW? There is no such thing in the suburbs. Many cities don't issue kennel licenses so just exactly how would a reputable hobby show breeder be protected with a so called permit? I can assure you a permit would not be authorized and Levine and his backers know this to be true. Funny how that part of the bill is so vague but the part about the permits expiring in 2009 was quite clear. What then? Spay and neuter all the show dogs in 2009?

You need to look at the over all agenda of this bill and who is really backing it. The head of the Humane Society of the U.S. has been quoted as saying he wants all pure bred dogs to be extinct because they are man made. P.E.T.A. who are classified as Urban Terrorists by the FBI is also backing this and all other anti pet laws that are sweeping this country.

What happened to government for the people by the people? It seems it is now government for the people by a select ignorant few that have lots of money to throw around.

I commend those in the assembly that are against this bill. The rest of you supporting this bill really need to do your homework. Don't let these radicals pull the wool over your eyes with embelished statistics and so called solutions. Protect our rights to make our own responsible decisions about what's best for our pets. If we loose this right then how soon before the government starts telling us that we need to spay and neuter our children in order to lower the numbers of orphans in the orphanages? Same theory!

Vote NO on AB 1634, it's bad government.

I want to add my strong opposition to this bill.

The best solutions to the "problem" of pet over-population have been stated. Instead of AB1634 the State should:

1. Provide low to no-cost (based on ability to pay) spay and neuter clinics. Mobil clinics that could be stationed a Public Parks - especially in lower income areas where pet owners are unable to travel to the vet, let alone pay for the spay/neuter.

2. A TNR (Trap-neuter-release) program for feral cats. The cats do help to keep the vermin and other pests at bay. If a successful TNR program was enacted, the euthanasia rate would be cut by at least 25% per year.

3. Legislation to help pet owners who are renters find homes and apartments that will allow them to have their pets. Property owners should be protected with deposits. This type of legislation would also help to reduce the owner turn-ins at public animal shelters.

4. How about tax breaks for Vets who will offer low cost spay and neuter if the State won't or can't provide this?

There are so many solutions that do not penalize and infringe on the property rights of law abiding citizens. Let's explore those.

Wow! this is amazing......Are you getting the picture Levine?

Now I'll tell you the bad news.....
These are people involved in some aspect of Showing,breeding or rescue, etc. What you see here are just the first wave of opposition.....Most here are in some form of activity, with dogs..that have allowed us to hear about this stupid Bill....because we have access to networking with others that have the same interest.......

The ordinary people down the street with their 2 dogs ...hav'nt heard about this yet.......And unless it passes......they won't .....

God help you when and if they find out.......And they will.....We will see to that......You think this is annoying?.....Wait.....

Pet related business's are the fastest growing segment of enterprise now......More people have pets than anytime in our history.......And.......They value them as family members more today.....

You must have already taken a job with PETA.........Otherwise you would back away from this political suicide, as fast as you can....

Mr. Levine,
When was the last time you where at any shelter? Well three years ago I adpoted two kittens and they were $75.00 each! They had ear infections, and I almost lost one due to an upper respitory infection. I was just at the shelter in my area, (Solano County) just to drop off donations and could not believe the price of kittens/cats are now $125.00 each and puppies/dogs are now $200.00 each!!
Who can afford to buy a pet from the shelter at these prices? I can't! Do you think maybe the cost of adpotion is way too high? That might be the reason for all the animals being put to sleep? And then you have to take them to the vet and spend Lord only know how much money to get the animal healthy!
How about some federal funds and lower the price of adoptions, so people can afford to buy a pet from the shelter!!
Rethink this bill! It is wrong, just plain wrong!

Only ONE person has so far posted in support of AB1634 here; I wonder why....

https://www.aclu.org/contact/general/index.html to contact the ACLU and ask them to weigh in on this insanity. I just did! This bill is unconstitutional and unsupportable by anyone who believes that our Constitution says freedom is important, the pursuit of happiness is important, and property rights are important to American society.

THIS IS AMERICA - and we are NOT going to give up our rights to our pets! Thousands upon thousands have DIED to give us these rights and countless others. What gall to create and push legislation so reminiscent of that earlier travesty: the California Eugenics Act.

AB 1634 is a draconian piece of legislation really is the death knell for purebred dog breeding in the state of CA, should it become law. People wanting a purebred will be forced to purchase from Pet Stores (who get their dogs and cats from midwestern mills and/or brokers as no reputable breeders are willing to sell to Pet Stores) or internet sites selling dogs and cats from questionable breeding practices and sometimes down right deplorable conditions. However, as the snowball of anti-breeder anti-pet legislation continues to roll, more and more states will suffer California's fate and eventually this will mean an end to purebred dogs as we know them. I promise you this is not an exaggeration!

Lloyd Levine's ludicrous bill is an affront to the pet owing public and the dog fanciers who show and selectively breed and it undermines our rights as citizens. I must echo C J from San Diego in that I, too, would love to know where the ACLU is because if there was ever legislation that appears to fly in the face of our Fourth Amendment rights AB1634 is it!!!

Although I am a registered Democrat, it is the fringe of the party who are in reality socialists masquarading as Democrats, like Lloyd Levine, and who are a disgrace to the party and the reason that I'll be voting REPUBLICAN whenever I can. And I assure Mr Levine, my wife and I both vote. I won't tolorate this BIG BROTHER mentality when it comes to the laws that govern us.

Apparently Mr Levine thinks Californians are really, really stupid. To have the audacity to call it a "healthy pets act". OK... and I am the tooth fairy.

This bill is simply UN-AMERICAN!

It appears that CA government has way too much free time on their hands if they actually have the nerve to even contemplate passing such ridiculous legislature like AB1634.

After reading all the replies listed here, maybe Mr. Levine will finally understand how bad an idea this, after the next election?

This isn't even an example of good intentions gone bad - his ties to radical animal rightists, who would like to see an end to ALL PETS, should say everything anyone would need to know about his motivations.

Mr. Levine, it's time for a REALITY CHECK. You make me ASHAMED TO BE A DEMOCRAT. It is out-of-touch-with -reality legislation like this that gives the GOOD, sensible Democrats a BAD NAME.

Keep on going Levine as California has great problems in it's shelters. I find it rather interesting that many who appose particularly AKC breeders can easily obtain Intact Permits. It seems a rights issue to them and to me it appears that they do NOT care that heaps of animals are regularly killed in Californian shelters simply as not enough homes can be found, and heaps more keep on regularly keep comming in and room has to be made for them.

Yes I've seen it on email lists and forums particularly where AKC breeders are and who can easily obtain Intact Permits if this Bill became Law.

Soon as this news article was spotted it was mentioned lets go get Devine, and consequently heaps of them are posting here and why you see so many apposed posts, but keep in mind yet again that AKC breeders can easily obtain Intact Permits and keep breeding like they allways have.

Mr. Levine, you are the author of what will come to be known as the Kristalnacht of DOGS. You need to think of what profession you will attempt to enter when your term is up. Because by the time this bill (G-d Forbid!) is law, all the people who never heard of it, WILL HAVE HEARD OF IT, and they will never vote for you again, not even for dogcatcher. There are many postings here which detail what is wrong with the very foundations of the thinking which led to this piece of great and abiding ignorance, so I will not be going over them again. I admit defeat in the face of great stupidity. HOWEVER in the name of your political survival, I would think you should take very seriously the words of voters, which may not stroke you as much as the enjoyable manual friction you are getting from the Humaniac Death Cultists, but WE WHO OWN ANIMALS outnumber them and we vote.
Between your love of spiral fluorescent light bulbs and your ignorance of dogs, I seriously feel my Country is in terrible trouble, if you and persons of your ilk hold office and are paid out of my tax dollar. I would crawl on broken glass with my hands cuffed behind my back to vote for your opponent.

hermine

Everyday I see the "Welcome to California" commercial encouraging people to visit your state. California will become the most unwelcoming state in the union if this bill becomes law. All this bill will do is increase the number of puppies being brought in from the midwest puppy mills. Hunte Corporation, the biggest dog broker in the United States, based in Missouri will love you Mr. Levine.

Mr. Levine if you really want to help the homeless animals in your state ask PETA and HSUS to donate some of their millions animal shelters.

Mr. Levine -

As a resident of another state, I am closely watching the debate over this ridiculous bill, as are thousands of other Americans. Those who have commented before me have done a wonderful job of articulating what's wrong with this piece of legislation and Mr. Levine I hope you're paying attention!

Here's a thought for you Mr. Levine - Do you remember Senator Rick Santorum? He was the third highest ranking Republican in the Senate....there was even talk of a presidential run.....I ask you Mr. Levine: Where is Rick Santorum now????? Food for thought......

I hope the Animal Rights groups who you've allowed to manipulate and direct you appreciate the political suicide that you're committing on their behalf.

Good luck to you, sir!

13,365 people have sign this petition .

CALIFORNIA PEOPLE WILL NOT FORGET WHAT YOUR DOING AND WE WON'T FORGIVE EVER .

California Assembly Member Levine has introduced AB 1634, inappropriately named the “California Healthy Pets Act.” The proposal requires all dogs and cats in California to be neutered by the age of four months, or their owners will face punitive fines and penalties.

AB 1634 Is Bad Health Policy for Animals – Neutering pets by the age of four months is poor health policy for many animals. Modern veterinary research questions the propriety of neutering animals too early, due to concerns about adverse behavioral issues and increased risks of cancer and other diseases. The decision whether to neuter a pet, or when, should be made by pet owners with the advice of their veterinarians, not by politicians. Pet lovers who believe neutering is not in their pet’s best interests may avoid other important health care, like vaccinations and periodic exams, because they fear the heavy penalties under this law. This will be detrimental to public health if it deters the public from obtaining necessary rabies inoculations and reduce licensing compliance.

No More Purebred Cats or Dogs in California - The bill provides a complex exception for show animals that no cat or dog in California can meet. For example, it requires that by the age of four months a cat or dog must have competed in a “legitimate show.” Dogs must be at least SIX MONTHS of age to compete in sanctioned events so this is an impossible test to meet. The proponents of AB 1634 have carefully crafted both versions of the proposal so that the future of show cats and dogs in California is doomed.

Reputable Breeders Are Not the Problem –Reputable breeders already adhere to national Codes of Ethics that requires that their “pet” offspring be neutered as a condition of sale and that their “show” offspring be developed as potential outstanding specimens of their breed. Their offspring DO NOT become part of the abandoned animal population.

California Pet Buyers Will Be Harmed - AB 1634 will cause fewer good quality pets to be available from California breeders to California pet buyers, but it will not diminish the public's demand for pets. By discouraging local breeders, the demand will be met from other sources. Some California shelters are already importing pets from overseas for adoption and puppies are smuggled into California from Mexico every day to meet current demand.

Unwanted Pet Population Will Not Be Reduced – Most owned cats are sterilized, as high as 92% in some studies. Many of the cats euthanized by shelters come from the free roaming/unowned cat population. These wild, unowned cats will not be affected by a new law. Reputable dog breeders reclaim their unwanted or abused offspring so they do not become part of the “unwanted pet” problem. Dogs from irresponsible, often out-of-state, breeders too often end up unwanted and euthanized. Those breeders will not be subject to, or comply with, any new law.

This Law Will Burden Local Shelters - AB 1634 is an unfunded mandate on local government. It will only further burden counties and municipalities and divert limited resources that would be better utilized elsewhere. The cost of enforcement will be high and California taxpayers will ultimately pay for this legislation. Jurisdictions that have imposed unaltered dog/cat licensing and breeder permits have found them to be costly and unenforceable.

Mandatory spay/neuter may make the legislators feel better, but it won't work to solve the overpopulation of pets. As long as John Q. Public can buy a puppy, keep it for a year or two, then "get rid of it" at a local shelter so he can buy yet another puppy, nothing will work. Think about it...how many puppies do you really see in shelters? And, if they're there, aren't they adopted out first?
What we really need is responsible pet owners and responsible breeders. A responsible breeder refuses to sell a puppy to someone who can't or won't make a lifetime committment to the dog. A responsible owner makes that committment, trains the dog to be a good canine citizen and the dog never sees the inside of a shelter. Even then, if the placement of that dog doesn't work out for whatever reason, that responsible breeder will take the dog back at any time in its life. I'd rather see both breeders and pet owners held to those responsibilites! That's the solution that will work; NOT mandatory spay/neuter!

Mandatory spay/neuter may make the legislators feel better, but it won't work to solve the overpopulation of pets. As long as John Q. Public can buy a puppy, keep it for a year or two, then "get rid of it" at a local shelter so he can buy yet another puppy, nothing will work. Think about it...how many puppies do you really see in shelters? And, if they're there, aren't they adopted out first?
What we really need is responsible pet owners and responsible breeders. A responsible breeder refuses to sell a puppy to someone who can't or won't make a lifetime committment to the dog. A responsible owner makes that committment, trains the dog to be a good canine citizen and the dog never sees the inside of a shelter. Even then, if the placement of that dog doesn't work out for whatever reason, that responsible breeder will take the dog back at any time in its life. I'd rather see both breeders and pet owners held to those responsibilites! That's the solution that will work; NOT mandatory spay/neuter!

I am so glad to have moved out of California five years ago! AB 1634 is the most frightening, draconian bill I have seen - even exceeding the dog slaughter in Denver.

I am a dog lover. I can't imagine a life without dogs, let alone a society without them. The passage of this bill would herald exactly that. Dubbing this bill the "Pet Extinction Act" is not inaccurate.

This bill fails to address the basic reasons for which dogs are surrendered to shelters: mainly, MOVING and behavioral problems. If you really want to reduce shelter numbers, then pass a law prohibiting limit laws, prohibitions of ownership, and make zoning for dog training facilities easier to obtain. Make provisions for low-cost spay/neuter as well as veterinary care - even euthanasia (yes, many people can't afford to euthanize animals at the going rate, so they turn them over to shelters).

At the same time, this bill exempts the USDA-licensed volume breeders - those who breed only to supply the pet store industry, without regard to breed standards and excellence in genetic health, temperament and performance ability. The other exemptions, which set criteria which must be met by 16-week-old puppies, are laughable and ludicrous. At 16 weeks, a puppy can barely be expected to be houstrained, much less certified as an assistance or police dog, nor can one be shown in conformation or obedience.

I am a proud member of the International Association of Canine Professionals, comprised of dog trainers, groomers, walkers, veterinarians and other professionals in the industry. We have issued a strong position statement opposing mandatory spay/neuter laws. Please read it here:
http://www.dogpro.org/index.php?pageID=235

The issues surrounding shelter populations are complex - any real solutions are complex as well and I'm convinced there is no one-size-fits-all, unless your ultimate goal is to eliminate dogs and cats from our homes, hearths and lives. That is the ONLY goal which will be served should this bill pass. Because of societal changes in attitudes toward pet ownership and the ongoing, heroic efforts of private rescues and groups of fanciers to educate pet owners, shelter populations have been consistently declining over the past 30 years. There is no reason to believe that the trend will not continue without the interference of ignorant politicians kow-towing to PETA and the HSUS.

Just in case you don't know who you're really dealing with, these revealing quotes should set you straight:

------
Wayne Pacelle - HSUS President & CEO, former director of Fund for Animals:
"We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. ...One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."
Wayne Pacelle - Animal People May 1993

(When asked if he envisioned a future without pets): “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born.” Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 266.

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation."
- Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Just Like Us? Harper's, August 1988, p. 50.

"Let us allow the dog to disappear from our brick and concrete jungles--from our firesides, from the leather nooses and chains by which we enslave it."
- John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, (PeTA), 1982, p. 15.

"The cat, like the dog, must disappear... We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist."
- John Bryant, Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of A Changing Ethic (Washington, DC: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), 1982, p. 15.

"In a perfect world, all other than human animals would be free of human interference, and dogs and cats would be part of the ecological scheme."
- PeTA's Statement on Companion Animals.

"You don't have to own squirrels and starlings to get enjoyment from them ... One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV,"
- Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Chicago Daily Herald, March 1, 1990.
--------

This is the vision of the future these so-called "animal advocates" have in mind for you! With this bill, California is taking a great, giant leap toward making this vision your reality.

Please, Californians... if you really love pets and want to live with them, not just admire them from a distance or recall them as a fond memory, WAKE UP! Do NOT pass AB 1634!

Quency, you have no idea what you are talking about. AKC breeders are examples of responsible people who care about animals. This is evident in the contracts they have pet owners sign which state that if that pet owner is unable to keep the pet, it is to be returned to the breeder and not taken to the pound. These are not empty words. It works because the breeders are then able to re-home the pets.
Even before this contract is signed, AKC breeders spend time with the potential pet owner to make sure there is a good fit and that the animal will be taken care of and provided for.
In addition, this bill requires the spay/neuter by 4 months of age--dogs cannot begin to be shown until 6 months, and even then it is not customary to put dogs in the ring at that young age. Given that the so called "intact" permit is based on the dog being actively shown, how can a permit be given to a dog that isn't old enough to show?
Get your facts straight and give the ACK breeders the benefit of the doubt. If anyone is watching out for animals, these are the people.
Your condemnation should be pointed towards irresponsible pet owners and those operating puppy mills. If you are truly concerned about the number of animals in pounds and euthanized, this is also where your energy and efforts need to be used.
It is possible for all of us to work together for good law. AB 1634 is not good law. So get on board and help the animals, don't fire shots at those who actively work to achieve the goal of good homes for every pet.

We the people of the United States should remember our history. I remember history well and will not be wearing a yellow star nor will my dogs or cats. We will not go quietly to the train. I will fight for freedom and the American Way of life with my last breath.We have fought in wars to preserve freedom and must be ever vigilant that freedom is not taken away from us. AB1634 is the beginning of a very slippery slope. No government must have the right or power to mandate any medical intervention particularly surgical. We should not and must not allow any government to mandate any surgery for either humans or animals. The proponents of AB1634 ARE Animal Rights Activists and their goal is to make animal companionship and use impossible. PETA and HSUS
(H$U$) are driving this bill along with Judy Mancuso Wicklund. Ms Mancuso Wicklund and her family are the worst kind of Animal Rights Activists, they appear to support and appear on web-sites connected to International & Domestic TERRORISTS groups like ALF/ELF and SHAC. These groups are supported by both PETA and H$U$. Mr Levine is either a fool or and Animal Rights Activist himself. Which ever it is, he must never hold public office again. We the People of the United Stated must see to it. Mr Light Bulb Levine just remember Rick Santorum!!!!!!! His
exit from public office was swift and decisive. I am a registered voter and I vote!

My only concern with this bill is that it exempts only purebred dogs and commercial breeders. We run the risk of losing the diversity of mixed breed stock, which make up the bulk of pets for the average person.

And may make pet ownership out of reach fo the average person. So if theere was a provision for responsible breeding for family dogs, maybe with oversite of some sort, that might help.

I certainly support the concept of spay/neuter laws. But my best pals have come from casually bred animals, whose owners were always careful to find good homes for the pups. Of course i know this doesn't usually or even often happen, and the proliferation of "backyard" pit bull factories is horrific, I think we need to think this through a tad bit more.

Thanks.

Mr. Levine, you want to talk money? The $250 million you refer to includes salaries, etc of people who will not be leaving regardless. To try to make it sound like this is money that will be saved if this bill passes is right up there with lying.

If you want to talk money, listen to this. I live out of state, but have traveled to CA frequently vacationing. We visit Napa, San Francisco, Southern CA and always take our 4 intact dogs. We travel in our large motorhome and the dogs love it. Many trips are dog related - such as the time we went to have our girl bred to a wonderful stud dog and stayed a week at Newport Beach. Can you spell EXPENSIVE? Each of our trips result in us spending thousands of dollars in CA. If this bill passes, and we cannot bring our intact show dogs with us on vacation, you can be assured that we will bypass CA and take our dollars elsewhere. Did you know that Washington has wonderful wines that rival Napa? And the Oregon coast is spectacular? If CA doesn't want us, we'll be happy to spend our dollars in another state.
VOTE NO ON AB1634

Their shelter statistics are sadly misrepresented. What about Dog Whisperer Cesear Milan importing thousands of animals into the San Diego shelter because there was nothing there for adoption before he imported animals from Mexico? What about the shelters that offer free or low cost spay/neuter programs? Vaccine clinics,mircrochipping? Those dogs are counted as a statistic becawuse the walked through the doors and even though they returned home with their owners , they are counted as an intake !
This bill will create all kinds of havoc. It will cost Californians even more. It will not protect any dog or cat that may be eligible for "exeption". It will only increase shelter population because folks cannot afford the high cost of spay/neuters and they certainly cannot afford the 500$ fee if they are busted for an intact dog or cat.
What about the feral cats. Those are the shelter problems. Feral cats do not belong to anyone, yet they are out there having babies left and right.
Is anyone doing anything for those homeless cats ?
Definitly should NOTHING be left to each jurisdiction as far as creating the licensing for exemption. :Yeah, I can see it now, 10G's to have a license. Just because they've been given the "right" to demand whatever they want from anyone who breeds.
What on earth is this world coming to ? Our rights are being taken away from us left and right. We all need to stand up and FIGHT this bill and any bill that remembles this draconian bill.

Mr. Levine,

You have introduced a bad bill that makes no allowance for low cost spay and neuter clinics. Mandatory spay/neuter at 4 months old can be detrimental to the animal and cause behavior and/or health issues in the future. Most vets feel that 4 months is too early for spaying/neutering, yet this bill is making that decision for them and the pet's owner.

In so many ways, this is a bad bill and amendments will never make it a good bill. If you want a true Healthy Pets Act, then come up with a bill that funds low cost spay/neuter clinics!

Yes, all of you. Have you noticed how many of the Hollywood stars have spoken up in SUPPORT of this bill ?? This would give any uneducated citizen the idea that the stars have researched this issue and it is a good one to support. We need to disabuse the stars about the benefits and legalities of this bill.
We also need to be sure these limelight mega people understand that if they support this misbegotten bill, they also support all the terrorist and radical groups that are behind it as well. Does anyone know how to educate "the stars"????

I have concerns that Mr. Levine is saying is meant to appease those who have not taken the time to reseach the bill. Much of what he has written is either simply not true or partially factual to make this bill sound reasonable.

For starters on early spay/nueter, certainly not every vet agrees that this is a good idea for a 4 month old puppy. Chris Zink DVM has written an extensive article on the issues with early spay/nueter including the number of health problems that go along with it. Many other vets have similar concerns. I agree with those that say that you cannot tell if your 4 month old puppy is going to be suitable for breeding and to make a decision at that time is counterproductive to a sound breeding program.

Small breeding kennels will be the most impacted by this bill. These are kennels who have worked for a long number of years to perfect their lines in terms of sound genetic health, temperament, structure and breed type. These kennels often do not make money at breeding but do so to further their beloved breed. Puppy Millers/imports from Mexico do no genetic health testing and care little about the aspects of the breed. Oftentimes puppies like this are purchased through pet stores on a spur of the moment not giving thought to the particular breed aspects nor the commitment to the dog for upwards of 15 years depending on the breed. AB1634 will only increase the selling of these unsocialized puppies with potential genetic health problems. The small breeder will be impacted by further economic obligations from AB1634; it may be enough to stop many from breeding.

Some further thoughts… The Puppy Miller does not take puppies or adults back that they have bred should things not work out; the responsible breeder does. The Puppy Miller does not provide educational materials, mentoring or is there to answer questions on issues which may potentially cause the owner to put the puppy or adult dog into a shelter and possibly be euthanized. The small breeder is there for every puppy owner 24/7 and will work hard to ensure that the owner is receiving the information needed to take care of any questions or issues. The person buying a puppy from a pet store is oftentimes purchasing a puppy without much foresight and if there is a change in their life, new baby, new house it seems to be just as easy for that owner to put the dog in a shelter. The small breeder screens puppy buyers to make sure the commitment is there and there is usually a waiting list of a year or more which takes away the spur of the moment purchase.

This bill has the words “Healthy Pet” in it. How can this bill be named Healthy Pet when the intentions are to spay/neuter at a critical age as well as risk the many health problems that exist from early spay/neuter? How can it be called Healthy Pet when it allows Puppy Millers/puppies from Mexico to proliferate and is targeted at those breeders who are doing their very best to produce genetically healthy, well socialized dogs who have the structure and health to be active into their later years.

I am amazed that this bill has reached this point and hope that the Assemblymembers take the time to reseach this thoroughly before making a decision on this poorly thought out bill.

Great job Levine. Pass another law that's pretty much unenforceable and won't affect the people you'd really want to target for irresponsible breeding.

What a waste of time & resources.

Quincy,
You obviously know nothing about how a responsible breeder operates. Breeding a quality dog has been compared to making sure you have a three legged stool. There are three components: confirmation, health and temperment. When one of those legs is gone, the stool falls over. Confirmation and sometimes temperment is judged at AKC shows. Good quality dogs possessing these two traits are dogs that win championships. Health is not judged (although obviously no responsible breeder would breed an unhealthy dog-champion or not); therefore, no championship exists for that trait. Extremely healthy dogs with no championship are bred to those AKC champions that are supposedly exempted by this bill (but only if they are shown every two years). I have NEVER seen a five generation pedigree for a dog (INCLUDING WESTMINSTER WINNERS!)that does not have at least a few dogs that do not and will never have a championship. With Levine's bill, those extremely healthy dogs would need to be neutered. You should probably talk to a responsible breeder before you make yourself out to be as big of an idiot as Levine.

I don't know why the Police Officer Associations are opposed to AB 1634. Sure, it will eliminate their K-9 Units, but this bill could prove to be a very effective law enforcement tool. If the police suspect that someone is harboring an illegal unneutered dog or cat, they can easily obtain a search warrant, enter the premises unannounced and toss the place. And isn't anything in plain sight fair game??? This bill has teeth, let's use it!

Some quotes form PETA people, People For the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the radical extremist group in support of Leveine.

"Blowing stuff up and smashing windows" is "a great way to bring about animal liberation."
— Bruce Friedrich, a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals vice president, 2001

“Did we euthanize some animals who could have been adopted? Maybe.”
— PETA's Domestic Animal Issues & Abuse Department director Daphna Nachminovitch, in The Virginian-Pilot

“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.”
— Newsday, Feb 1988 Ingrid Newkirk

“The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.”
— Animals, 5/1/93 Ingrid Newkirk

“I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.”
— "National Animal Rights Convention", 6/27/97 Ingrid Newkirk

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
— Animal People News, 5/1/93 Wayne Pacelle

“Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting.”
— Bozeman (MT) Daily Chronicle, 10/8/91 Wayne Pacelle

“Arson, property destruction, burglary, and theft are ‘acceptable crimes’ when used for the animal cause.”
— PETA co-founder Alex Pacheco lists the “acceptable” tactics to fight for animal rights, Associated Press

“We feel that animals have the same rights as a retarded human child because they are equal mentally in terms of dependence on others.”
— The New York Times, Jan 1989 Alex Pacheco

“You can justify, from a political standpoint, any type of violence you want to use.”
— Jerry Vlasak on "Penn & Teller: Bullsh*t!" (Showtime cable network)

“I don’t think you’d have to kill -- assassinate -- too many ... I think for 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million non-human lives.”
— Jerry Vlasak at the "Animal Rights 2003" convention, advocating the murder of doctors whose life-saving biomedical experiments require the use of animals.

Why would you propose a bill that guarantees more cruelty to animals. Accidental puppies and kittens will be drowned or abandoned so a fine isn't received. Dogs and cats will be abandoned rather than turned into shelters so a fine isn't received. It has not worked in San Mateo or Santa Cruz it won't work statewide.

Good breeders screen their new homes and stay in touch with their puppy buyers. They require a spay/nueter certificate before registration papers are released. They continue to follow up on the progress of those puppies and are a source of support for the new puppy owners. They do health and genetic tests before during and after the puppies are born to improve their breed. These are the people who will be affected most by this ban on pets.

If you look closely at the laws county by county you will see that most of them already have intact laws and license fees. If you want to have impact how about finding a way to enforce the laws in place instead of adding more and frankly ludicris bills that actually harm our pets.

How many taxpayer dollars have already been spent by pushing this bill this far? If money is the second most important reason to support this, then the money used to put it in place had better be well spent. The people that would be most affected by this bill are not responsible for the overpopulation in shelters. The people who are most likely to comply are not responsible for the overpopulation in shelters. If the logic is that shelters won’t cost as much to run if fewer animal are coming in, this bill is way off the mark.

Well, Mr. Levine, I'm waiting for this turkey of a bill to go down in flames, so that I can send three working puppies to their new owners in California.

If it doesn't, they'll make their homes elsewhere. I could never subject one of my carefully-bred and lovingly-raised little buddies to state-forced pediatric sterilization surgery.

Californians will be SOL when they need search and rescue dogs to find their missing kiddies or stockdogs to work on their farms and ranches.

But there will be plenty of puppymill products from the "licensed" commercial breeders that you thoughtfully exempt, and plenty of imports from Mexico and out-of-state puppymills -- from people who don't give a rat's fanny about what happens to their "products." No decrease in unwanted dogs and unowned cats in the pounds from this bill.

I can't wait to see your political career go down in flames.

From a bred, born, lifelong, yellow-dog Democrat who would campaign for Pat Buchanan before I'd vote for you.

Please add my STRONG opposition to this bill. Levine has no idea and is not telling the public about all the money Californians will lose if this bill passes. When there is a dog or cat event people stay in local hotels, eat in local restaurants, buy gas, etc. in order compete at said event. Last year in Long Beach at the Eukanuba Dog Show 21 million dollars were brought inot the area for this one show alone! There will be no events to attend in Calif. if this bill passes. We have no idea how much it will cost to keep an intact animal and the only people this will effect will be the responsible breeders and owners. The people who aren't responsible owners now will not become responsible just because of this bill. There are no indications included in this bill as to what agencies will be asked to enforce this bill and who will pay them to enforce it?
This bill is ludicrous and needs to be defeated!
Big Brother is watching you. Is that what we citizens want California to become?

Someone else said it. There was a time when people had a lot more sense and would never consider bills written by animal rights extremists. That Levine would propose such a bill and pretend its for healthy pets is an abuse of the legal system, a colossal waste of taxpayer money and legislators time and an insult to California pet owners who he thinks are too stupid to make their own decisions.

I am outside the special interest groups, lobbies,
party organiz.. etc.. Really the strong arguments by
so many clubs, businesses, police societies, etc. etc.
make me feel that the Bill must be horrid. Those people must know about dogs cats and real life working with
them.
Here's a tiny URL for volunteer group struggling to
neuter hundreds thousands, millions of wild kitties.cats:-- qurl. us / fp (leave out blanks).
They vehemently oppose!!
And here's another, if any time or energy:
myturl. com / 092aB

I am not a breeder, I volunteer at a shelter, I have a spayed shelter dog. I STRONGLY OPPOSE AB 1634 - Assemblyman Levine's one size fits all over-reaching approach to animal population. His statement is full of misleading comments - premature neutering is not healthy for dogs - shelter euthanasia has been declining in our state for years - different counties/cities have different animal control needs. If Levine is concerned about animal overpopulation, why is the SINGLE WORKABLE EXEMPTION IN THE BILL FOR PUPPYMILLS? And why does the bill provide that all intact permits expire in January of 2009 – this makes all the so-called exemptions meaningless and would result in the extinction of pet animals in this state, expect for imported puppy mill pups.
This bill is badly drafted, fails to address the problem it incorrectly states and cannot be amended to be a useful tool in California.

Ab1634 has little to do with saving lives or saving state money but a foot in the door of politicians to start to control reproduction in humans. Look at your history books and see how it was done in other counties. First they took it upon themselves without the majority of the public knowing what the true facts were to legislate control over animals, then when that was done they legislated against the sick and the infirmed and on to more racist agendas. This bill is so sick in its hidden agenda politicians that vote for it should start to pack up their offices NOW , for the opposition to this bill and to those who vote it in is emence in every way and every congressperson and assemblypersons vote will be publically recalled by the dog loving public at every election .

Mr. Levine;
I am opposed to your bill from a health standpoint. Two of my dogs were case studies at Purdue University which linked increased risk of bone cancer and hemangiosarcoma (cancer of the blood vessels) to early spay & neuter. The two I lost to this disease were spayed at 4 months and 7 months. I will never again put my dogs at such risk. Male rottweilers risk increases to 64%; Females to 35% if altered at a young age. It is comparable to mandating that we must feed our dogs tainted dog food! It is apparent to all of us in the dog world that health is not within your agenda. I will honestly tell you that I took the names of my government officials who had voted "yes" on the dangerous dog bill from last year and purposely voted against them. The word is reaching the public quickly; the majority of households do include dogs as part of their family. You are not messing with an object like fire arms, you are messing with family members and potential losses within families. Who do you expect to pay for the class action law suits that will follow for those animals who die from the anesthesia, surgery itself, or from cancer related to this bill?

This bill is bad law! It is ultimately unenforceable and mis-guided. It will mean the end of dog sports as we know it in California and it will adversely effect the California economy. There is nothing in this bill to recommend it. There are other ways to achieve the results Mr. Levine is seeking - this bill is using a sledge hammer to put up a thumb tack.

It should be a wake-up call to those supporting the bill that the very people who are in the trenches, that it, animal rescue and welfare workers, are opposed to this legislation. You will effectively help the market in commercial breeding, as those seeking pets will turn to Midwestern puppy mills. This bill will not help.

Well, I have to thank Levine for one thing -- he has helped me overcome my prejudice which says that it takes a Republican to really screw things up. I thought all this time that the Republicans pretty much had a lock on the misrepresentation of facts (think WMDs in Iraq and the implication of an association between Bin Laden and Hussein, both patently untrue). Now, to my disappointment, it turns out that the Democrats are just as capable of playing fast and loose with the facts to create a costly mistake.

Plenty of people have already said why this bill is a really bad idea. I'll just add that I'm Californian, I'm a Democrat, and I vote!

June 6, 2007

Letter to the editor:

OPPOSITION to AB1634

Here are some facts in regard to early spay/neuter, historical euthanasia rates and the effects of previously passed ordinances:

To view the clinical trial results of the detrimental effects of Long-Term Health Risks and Benefits Associated with Spay / Neuter in Dogs go to: www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsofSpayNeuterinDogs.pdf. There are notable increased health ramifications associated with early (4 months of age) spay / neuter. Early neuter causes cardiac hemangiosarcoma (60% increase), hypothyroidism (300% increase), progressive geriatric cognitive impairment, obesity, prostate cancer, urinary tract cancers. orthopedic disorders and adverse reactions to vaccinations. [u]Early spay[/u] causes increased risk for osteosarcoma, recessed vulva, vaginal dermatitis and vaginitis, especially when done before 1 year of age. In addition, early spaying (less than 1 year) increased risks for splenic hemangiosarcoma (120% increase), cardiac hemangiosarcoma (more than 400% increase), hypothyroidism (300% increase), obesity (60 to 100% increase), urinary incontinence (4 to 20% increase), recurring urinary tract infections (200 to 300% increase), urinary tract tumors (100% increase), orthopedic disorders and had adverse reactions to vaccines.

Dr. Faoro, California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) president, exaggerated the magnitude of dogs and cats at shelters dramatically. However, there is still a serious problem with the need to euthanize so many unwanted animals. The news is considerably better for dogs than for cats. In 2005, 115,630 dogs were euthanized, which is a 52% reduction from the 240,975 that were euthanized in 2000, and a 59% reduction from the 282,599 that were euthanized in 1995. Steady progress is being made, using the tools that are at hand, without mandatory spay/neuter legislation. [b]The numbers of dogs being received by animal shelters is also steadily declining.[/b] The number of dogs received during 2005 was 293,142, a 32% reduction from the 430,236 received during 2000, and a 40% reduction from the 492,142 dogs received in 1995.
The numbers are considerably less encouraging for cats. During the 6 years from 2000 through 2005, the numbers of cats received and euthanized in California animal shelters remained virtually unchanged: During 2005, 194,707 cats were euthanized, which is only a 4% reduction from the 201,937 that were euthanized in 2000, and a 33% reduction from the 291,512 that were euthanized in 1995. During 2005, 279,268 cats were received by California animal shelters, which was actually a 1% INCREASE over the 276,543 received in 2000. However, this was a 27% improvement over the 383,256 received during 1995. Please view the data at: www.naiashelterproject.org.

Additionally, mandatory spay / neuter laws have had detrimental effects as noted at: www.saveourdogs.net. Here are some of the failures of local spay / neuter ordinances: (1) miserable failure at reducing pet abandonment and euthanasia; (2) lower compliance with dog licensure and rabies vaccination rates; (3) substantially increased operating costs for animal shelters; (4) and many ordinances are either being ignored or are abandoned altogether.
• San Mateo County California* – dog euthanasia rates increased by 126%, dog licenses declined by 35%
• Los Angeles City, California – enforcement costs rose 269%, from $6.7 million to $18 million; and compliance to mandatory dog licensing declined
• Fort Worth, TX -- ended its mandatory spay/neuter program. Rabies vaccination and licensing compliance declined after passage of the ordinance. This led to an increase in rabies in the city
• Montgomery County, MD – repealed its mandatory spay/neuter law. Euthanasia rates declined more slowly than they had been prior to the mandatory spay/neuter law; licensing compliance declined by 50%
• King County, WA -- euthanasia rates fell at a slower rate after mandatory spay/neuter. License compliance has decreased. Animal control expenses have increased 56.8% and revenues only 43.2%
• Camden County, NJ -- mandatory spay/neuter ordinance hasn’t stopped it from being called “consistently one of the leading, if not the leading killers of animals in the state of New Jersey” (ref: PAWS NJ)
• Aurora, CO – euthanasia and shelter intake rates increased. Licensing compliance dropped dramatically, compliance costs have increased 75% with revenue increasing only 13% in unincorporated areas of the county which are the areas covered by the ordinance.

Local ordinances are actually preferable to state-wide legislation. If data proves that the local ordinance is [b]NOT[/b] working, then it is much easier to amend or abandon the ordinance. However, a state-wide ordinance that has poor results would be very expensive and time consuming to correct.

AB1634 will encourage "puppy mill" production from large, well financed breeders; reduce DNA selection while penalizing the responsible, health conscience smaller breeders with virtually impossible to attain local licenses and hefty fees!!!

WAKE UP -- this legislation is not supported by the professional associations AKC, ADOA, ASCA, K9 and Therapy dogs associations. Many veterinarians, including mine, do not agree that legislation of this type is the right approach to the pet overpopulation problem. Write today to your legislators. VOTE against those legislators who approve of this bill.

Thank you,
Nancy Strohmaier, Tracy

I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to this bill.

I have been involved for may years in purebred rescue, and have re-homed many dogs and euthenized a few due to health issues.
Most of the dogs we have had to rehome came from pet stores, and i suppose now some will start appearing that were bought off the internet.

I've been involved in Canine Sports (Agility, Obedience, etc) for many years, including some teaching. At 4months of age many people with pet dogs have no clue of the sports available to them. They come to a class and get hooked. Of course most of the dogs are over 6months of age before ever coming to a class, and for agility they're over 9months.

Sex hormones are for more than making puppies, it
is important for growth development. If they are
stopped to early, the dog will never be able to reach
their full sports potential. In fact, due to the lack of development, you are increasing the potential for serious medical problems in the future according to the Veterinary Associations.

Consider this ... your young son has a congenital defect. You decide when he is under 4 years of age
to have his testicles removed. Later he wants
(or you want) a sports scholarship to run the marathon. It won't happen because his body was not allowed to mature. He wouldn't have the muscular or skeletal development to ever be able to accomplish this.

You are condemning many families to future medical bills and the dogs who will incur them most likely will be discarded or "put to sleep" because they can't
afford the bills.

Mr. Livine,

I hope you take to heart the comments that have been posted.

The only thing I can add is YOU should be neutered along with your PETA loving friends. Yours is a gene pool that shouldn't procreate.

Judie Mancuso, the chief sponsor of AB 1634, is married to a man whose brother, Freeman Wicklund, once headed up the Animal Liberation Front, so I thought people might like to read a little about the types of behavior ALF carries out. Perhaps Lloyd Levine would do well to take a closer look at the people he is associating with ...

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070606/NEWS/706060308

I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to this bill. It is flawed and will have the exact opposite effect and has dire health consequences for our pets. Anesthesia is downright dangerous at 4 months of age. Pediatric spay/neuter increases cancers and orthopedic issues in dogs.

Where will guide dogs and law enforcement dogs come from when the gene pool is depleted?

I will happily relocate out of State, taking my CA income tax dollars to some other State, before I let Levine lay his hands on my dogs....

Mr. Levine, if this bill is so great;

Why have there been so many amendments?

Why do you keep postponing the vote?

Why is the only workable exemption in the bil for PUPPY MILLS?

Why are you putting all the responsibilites and costs for enforecement of AB1634 on the local jurisdictions?

Why are responsible pet owners and hobby breeders being singled out to pay for this over reaching bill?

Why do you think that IRRESPONSIBLE pet owners will follow this new law when they don't follow the existing ones?

Why are you working so closely with ANIMAL EXTREMISTS GROUPS, like PETA and HSUS, whose goals are to totally eliminate pets?

Why did you promise Mr. Lieu an exemption for the cat rescue orgainiztion he is involved with to get his vote?

Why is Mr. Leno promising an exemption for mixed breed working dogs when the bill goes to the Senate? These dogs do not meet any of the exemptions in AB1634.

Why?Why?Why?

Mr. Levine,

I listened in to the assembly this morning when you presented AB 1634 and couldn't help but wonder if you experienced any itching or burning, or any sense of shame as you manufactured entirely new "data" for the occasion, and offered solid promises to other assembly members that if this atrocious bill is passed in assembly that it would be amended to meet each ones special interest needs in the senate.

Mr. Leno asked if responsible families would be able to breed just one litter of non pure bred puppies and you assured him that the senate amendments would allow that. Did you even pause a moment to consider that AB 1634 does not currently offer even one exemption for a mixed breed dog or cat? It seems disingenuous to makse such a promise when you have yet to find enough votes to even pass this bill out of assembly.

It was interesting as well to hear you state that homeless animals "is HUGELY (emphasis yours) serious at the local level."

If this is a local issue, why does there need to be a state wide, one size fits all solution?

I was also intriqued to hear that the cost of animal shelter care has risen another $50M since your last press conference.

Your supporter Mr. Solario seems to be equally inept when discussing financial matters since he complained about the capital expenses of animal shelters and stated that AB1634 would save taxpayers billions of dollars. He apparently needs to take a good accounting class so that he has at least a fundamental understanding of the terms he throws out in assembly. The truth is that capital shelter expenses will not change regardless of whether this atrocious bill passes or not.

I've listened to Mr. Levine on a number of occasions now and have come to the conclusion that California citizens can easily determine when he is are being less than ethical or honest.... they just have to check and see if his lips are moving.

I have been a life long Democrat, but after the BS I have witnessed and the shenaigans that have gone on by te supporters of this measure, I will be questioning my party affiliation in the near future.

AB1634 should have been pulled long ago, but hopefully it will be euthanized today, humanely or otherwise.

I find your comments at best absurd, at worst ignorant to a fault! And you claim to represent the "people" of the state of Calif?
As there are approx 500,000 pedigreed cats registered each year in the ENTIRE country, which if divided equally amongst 50 states would be about 10,000 pedigreed cats per state, I find your blaming hobby breeder/exhibitors an impeachable offense, especially when you state that 800,000 unwanted cats pass through Calif shelters per year. Hardly seems like the two numerical totals add up. Add to that the fact that most responsible hobby breeder/exhibitors sell their pet kittens already spayed or neutered to their new homes, makes them the RESPONSIBLE breeders you claim to want in this bill--yet you intend to shut them down by punishing rules and fines and regulations!
Why don't you admit you are a card carrying PETA member, and also admit that the Federal gov't is investigating PETA, ELF and like groups for being internal "terrorist" groups for firebombing labs, aiding murderers and firebombers etc by providing legal support. And in at least one case PETA has been found deliberately killing kittens and puppies they promised vets and shelters they would find good homes for--and YOU associate yourself with people like this? Is this your idea of "humane" treatment of animals--letting groups like PETA kill them in the back of a van on some side street? And then dump their tiny bodies into garbage bags and toss them into a supermarket dumpster? SHAME ON YOU AND THOSE WHO SUPPORT YOU!
For the true PETA/Rep Levine agenda, see
http://www.animalscam.com/

Frankly,this is yet another example of one of our elected officials proving they have been bought and paid for by special interest groups. Big Brother is alive and well in California thanks to Mr Levine. I think it is time we start voting out some of these looney-bins, starting with some of our Senators and Reps to Wash DC. I find it unfortunate that these people in the past 15-20 years have given all Californians such a bad reputation for just being wacko, and unfortunately, although I am a long time Democrat, most of the most creepy and utterly absurd elected officals we have are Democrats! I now count myself as an Independant.

AB 1634 is the Calif. Unhealthy Pet act and it is making Calif. the laughing stock of the nation.
We have much bigger problems in this state than dogs and cats, or elephants (another Levine bill).
This is punishing the very people who obey the law and will do nothing to those who do not. Just enforce the existing laws, do micro chipping, low cost spay and neuter clinics and education-WORKS FOR SAN DIEGO! Continuous drop in pound population.
No more Government intrusions and infrigements on citizens. Tell you assembly people to vote NO ON AB 1634 or the pet owners will remember at re-election time.

Mr Levine, why are you not working on important bills for the people of the state of California? Why this drivel? Is it because you have been paid for by the animal rights groups? I can't imagine ANY other reason you would sponsor such a bill.

Why don't you figure out a way to get 5-10 water desalinization plants along the coast of California to get water for irrigation and swimming pools? WHY with all that water at our shores should we be in a drought? Why not help end the water shortage? To be a good citizen to the other western states by freeing up more of the Colorado River for them to use rather than California gobbling it up? Gee, building plants, building pipelines to get it to the interior of the state for irrigation, that would just create jobs and money flowing into the state, and we could sell the excess water to places like Nevada, and maybe we could figure out a way to generate some electricity as the water moved through the pipes. Now would THAT not be something, to do something RIGHT and POSITIVE for the state rather than abhorrant and restrictive and nasty like this bill AB 1634?

Get your priorities straight and stop this bill and start working for the good of the state rather than your own pocketbook and political agenda.

As for the people of the state, if a politician doesn't own a pet, and yet proposes such a draconian law against those who do, be VERY suspicious as to why he/she wrote/sponsored such a bill and who is paying them off. First dogs and cats, next horses, cows, pigs, etc. Follow the money...

Ingrid Newkirk: National Director of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)
"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation."
“Companion animals … are like slaves, even if well-kept slaves.”
“There is no hidden agenda … make no mistake, our goal is total animal liberation.”
“One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild… They would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.”
“The bottom line is that people don’t have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats… If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind.” (PETA) has launched a “No Birth Nation” Campaign to end all breeding of pets and ultimately pet ownership.

Mr. Levine, your ignorance is showing. And telling. For shame.
You may think this bill is about pets, but you are forgetting
your constituants - the voters. Bye, bye!

Does Looney Lloyd have to nurse his bloody nose every night from the hook H$U$ and Peta have been leading him around with? I bet he does!
You're done Levine. Pack your crap and get out of Sacramento. You've wasted our time, our talents and our energy with this nonsense. The only good deed you can claim in all this is, thanks to you, we've all made great new friends as we unite to take you down.
Audition for "Survivor" next time you get a yen for TV life. We'll love watching you get voted off that island too!

I have nothing to add to the comments re this very bad bill. As so many have said, it is in the first place NOT in the best interest of the animals, it is also a violation of property rights.

And clearly heavily supported, if not outright sponsored by H$U$ and PETA, both of which are non-profit special interest organizations. Though H$U$ is clearly spending it's $100+ million war chest somewhere, and people, it is NOT spending it on animal shelters or no cost/low cost s/n programs.

Come to think of it, I hear they are fighting a lawsuit over that, since Katrina. Certainly they spent more on the last election than Big Oil .. that's something to think about, eh?

I hope all of you who are adamantly in oppositon to this very bad law are also keeping your eye out for equally bad laws against hunting and agriculture.

One thing that you all must now be able to see is that the title of a bill does not necessarily accurately describe it. If a 'Healthy Pet' law, so described can be so destructive to pets and responsible pet breeders, do you suppose that laws which supposedly benefit farm animals might possibly be harmful to small farmers? The growing organic/range meat, dairy and poultry growers are exceedingly vulnerable to this syndrome, and unlike the factory farms, they don't have the power and money to fight. Just like the dog and cat fanciers.

A key to figuring out which bills are destructive to animals and their responsible owners/breeders/managers is the H$U$ site itself, where there are lists of animal legislation (Federal and also by State) they support or oppose.

A handy rule of thumb regarding bad animal law is that if H$U$ supports it, it is probably bad for the animals involved, and their true advocates.

Bear in mind, they are NOT pushing anti gestation crates for sows in Iowa - and that the anti pet breeder law in PA has been hanging for over a year. In Iowa there are pork factories, and in PA puppy mills.

Factory farms and puppy mills have the money and political clout to defeat laws which would damage them.

The Animal Rights organizations, led by H$U$ and PETA have all domestic animals in their sights, and they are starting with individual ownership, the most vulnerable group though the most numerous. We are easy marks, because we can be used against one another. We can be led to believe that though *our* group is virtuous, others are not.

The bottom line in this matter of course is to read the full text of all legislation before you decide to support or oppose it - but the H$U$ position is a useful rule of thumb. Any legislation they support gives them more goodies than it ever offered an animal or an animal lover.

We who truly love animals are all under fire. If you want to keep your pets - and your morning bacon - take care what animal legislation you support.

I think Mr. Levine has done more to enhance the future prospects of the Republican Party in this state than anyone in recorded history. He has opened the eyes of many lifelong Democrats, me included, who have always voted a strict party slate. I can tell you that from now on I will be examining the voting records of all candidates with particular emphasis on the preservation of my individual liberties. My own Assemblywoman voted yes on this bill. I will vote for her opponent, whoever it is, even a Republican, next election.

My Question for Mr Levine: How do you intend to inforce this bill? We don't have enough humane investigators to prosecute animal abusers. Our local animal control has a handful of officers to cover hundreds of animal related issues. Now I suppose it's also their job to check every dog and cat's genitalla!

The name of this bill is wrong. It is not "healthy " to spay or neuter a dog at 4 mos. of age. It is very unhealthy. Do not require potentially life threatening surgery that is not recommended by my vet. (and incidently the majority of vets in California.)The state has no business coming between vets and their patients.

What a despicable group of people it takes to pretend to care for animals while their goal is to eliminate them.

Corporations like Microsoft and Bank of America are helping the HSUS achieve just that.

Well, Levine won apparently so far, now is the time for those in his district to see if they can't recall him or impeach him! Don't let him get away with this people in Van Nuys!

It is also time for maybe an initiative or referendum to be started, get it on the ballots, make SURE the voters realize who is taking away their rights so they can vote against them in any future elections!

It is time to take back our government from these flakes! For too long we have sat back and let these nut cases steal our liberties one by one, and now it is time to fight back. They sure seem to forget in a hurry that since the year 2000 especially, elections have been won or lost by a handful of votes, time to show them we mean business and vote them out of office regardless of where they stand on other issues. The public outcry over this bill was ENORMOUS--they should have paid attention and apparenlty did not.

Bill passed tonight 41-37 and goes to Senate
The best thing you can do is donate to PetPac

petpac.net (petpac [dot] net )

to continue the fight.

The website shows how each assembly person voted.

Unbelievable -- my Assembly member Ruskin mindlessly voted for it along party lines. Do these politicians have pets? Do they even listen to constituents. As a democrat, my family will be sure to vote him out of office.

I would suggest that everyone take these ideas that have been presented on this site and mail them off to the Senate. Also write Bank of America and Microsoft and let them know how disappointed you are that they are supporting this bill and why. Please support PetPAC however you can.

This is a bill supporting the radical Animal Rights groups NOT THE PETS! The risks of early spay/nueter are well documented. The damage to the small breeder will be significant. This will cost the state an enormous amount of money both in trying to police this (God knows how they are going to do that) but also lost revenue from drastically reduced business from breeders. This is everything from shows/trials, money spent breeding etc. etc. The big winners will be the Puppy Millers who Mr. Levine would not want to impact as they would be a big power in opposing this bill.

Also, I did talk to an attorney about this and her feeling is that this bill is Unconstitutional, it takes away property.

George Orwell is turning over in his grave! The only thing he got wrong was the year (1984). Big brother, who knows better than we, the people (or is it we, the Peons?), is once again bullying its way into our homes and telling us what we can and cannot do.

This is NOT the "People's Republic" of California, not yet, anyway!

I love animals, and do not wish to see a single one killed. There are other ways to effect this goal. Education is the biggest target. If you had spent the money that you've poured into this effort on education, we could have made some progress. Look at litter, for example. Studies show that a friendly "keep our city clean" sign was much more effective in stopping roadside trash than the sign posting "$1,000 fine for littering".

When you treat the populace in this overbearing, elitist manner, you simply encourage cheating. I would consider it a point of honor to defy this, if it becomes law, because it would not be a JUST LAW.

It doesn't take Einstein to realize that the motive behind this bill has nothing to do with pet overpopulation, or healthy pets, or whatever.
This is a plain and simple group of folks who Can't Stand Dogs and want them gone from their sight--FOREVER!!
We all have friends, family, neighbors who hate dogs. But that makes them sound like monsters...right?? So what is the first statement out of their mouths, "It's not that I don't like dogs, but..." and they continue on with their tirade about why don't you get rid of the one(s) you've got.
Well, there's things we all don't like. Does that mean we're gonna set out to erradicate them from the planet? Let's hope not!!
But the one mistake we're making here is we're playing by the rules (you know, playing ethically) instead of realizing that Mr Levine and his followers have made up a whole set of their own rules. Maybe we would be better off re-analyzing our game plan.
As they say...you make the rules and I'll make you eat the rule book. Watch out Mr Levine, it's a whole new ball game for you!

Signed,
Mad as Hell and NOT going to take it anymore

Arte ===God!
had nothing to do with this . This is all about Levine wanting to be a Senator and he has his hand in Judie Mancuso back pocket and hers in his . You help me pass AB 1634 and I will have a big party and give you all kinds of money to help you run for senator . The good people of California will not forget or forgive Levine if this bill goes to law . He doesn't have cats or dogs and doesn't know the love they give , what a sad home he must have . But he did say all CAT BREEDERS Smell like cat pee . So does that mean dog breeders smell like dog sh--. If Ass. Member Levine runs for senator , I will vote for anyone but him , just to try and stop him .
I will fight till the end to stop Levine from climbing up a higher ladder

Quote from Will Rogers:

I love a dog. He does nothing for political reasons.

As an animal lover and a Democrat, I urge you to vote no on AB1634. Why are so many Democrats voting for this bill??????? It is a very big mistake, and is not the answer to help the animals.

Terrible bill. I vote a resounding NO! Get real!

The California "Healthy" Pets Act is designed for anything BUT good health for our animal companions. We are hobby breeders, dedicated to providing the best, healthiest and most loving puppies to families who want to give them forever homes. We have bred rarely, and will likely produce only two or three litters of puppies over our entire lives. We contribute money to local shelters, to our breed group rescue organizations and have had 3 rescued mixed breed cats who shared their lives with us. This bill would keep us from producing the fine, sound canine companions which share and enrich our lives. This thing is just an abomination -- it HAS to be stopped!

VOTE NO ON LEVINE!
VOTE NO ON SPEIER!
VOTE THEM OUT!
They work for us.

"Love me, love my dog".. That's how the saying goes. Levine hates hates our dogs, hates us, hates what we do. OK.. Maybe not exactly, but he might as well hate us, because (even if naively) he has delivered a serious blow to all of us, our dogs included. Naivety is just as dangerous as outright malice, in it's effects.
Levine has apparently bought into the lies and rhetoric of the radical "animal rights" leftists, who seek to put us all under their control, subject to their whims and obsessions, and quite predictably on the route towards attrition / extinction for our dogs. These dogs represent LIFETIMES of work and dedication for countless people, living and past. Some represent family lines which are already endangered. What ever happened to the AR's cry against "inbreeding"? How can we have genetic diversity, when we risk pruning away marginal bloodlines, which may be valuable to the future of purebred dogs? I'm sure that HSUS could care less. The statements of AR activists are on record, dismissing the importance of all domestic animals to humanity. Their radical ideas are what should be dismissed by all rational and insightful people! Some of the best canine bloodlines in the world, in their respective breeds, are found right here in California. Rather than spay / neuter or endure harrassment and the certain risk of arbitrary enforcement actions which will put their dogs in danger, many of the best and brightest people (many of them career professionals) in California will leave the state, forever, taking their intact dogs with them. Contrary to the picture of snaggle-toothed, illiterate share-croppers who raise dogs as a sideline, or fat-cat robber-baron dog brokers (which AR activists want us to believe), California dog breeders are from every walk of life, and every profession and industry. Dogs are our passion! There may be a few bad apples in the barrel, sure...just as there are bad politicians! Unfortuneately, we cannot ban politicians! Inquisitional tactics don't work.. You cannot excise the worst in any industry by punishing all, the best included! AB1634 is risky brain surgery, at best, and the patient may not survive the operation. The diagnosis is wrong, as well as the treatment. The clumsy efforts of political hacks who have so little insight and understanding of the dog fancy are acting under the guidance of multi-million dollar fundraising lobbying activist orgs like HSUS, who are sworn enemies of ALL purebred dog breeders, not just the "bad apples". This legislation amounts to a hit piece against our community.
Remember.. Even if it SOUNDS reasonable at face value, this bill allows a wide range of discretion by local animal control to administer and enforce in a very arbitrary, and even biased manner. This is the real clincher!
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Look up the Trevor Law Group and see what bad uses can be made with seemingly reasonable and beneficial laws. I voted for the law that made the abuses of the Trevor Law Group possible. They legally shaked-down hundreds of small, family-owned businesses, and made a LOT of money, before this bill had to be overturned. AB1634 will hurt a LOT of innocent and decent people! Why? Because it is a mandate, with NO funding. This means that they will get the money from families. It amounts to incentived law enforcement! Notice that they are already blaming the problems all on purebred dog breeders, so you KNOW who they are going to go after. They are going to pass over the poor family with an unspayed mongrel bitch and a broken gate latch, and they're going to go right to the classified ads to seek out the people who they believe have the deep pockets.
And the black market opportunities this will create? Just yesterday a vehicle coming from Arkansas was stopped in California with 56 puppies onboard. They will be coming from Mexico, too, many as contraband. Well, Californians, you are warned, and the rest of the country should be watching, too. This is what you get with a socialist government such as California has.

This is the most anti pet, anti freedom, poorly conceived, deceptive attempt to regulate our lives I have heard of. It is as if you would attempt to reduce crime by forcing the sterization of the people of California. It might reduce crime but only by the elimination of the population. Have you considered that a large proportion of the animals in shelters are from owners wanting to be rid of an unwanted pet?

Willard, I don't know if I'd go so far as to spay / neuter everyone in the State of California to put an end to crime, but the Vegans maybe are making a dent in idiocy. If we would believe the "news" reports (I admit that this is an "if"), they are starving their babies to death, or stunting them by feeding newborns nuts and sprouts and other things that babies can't use. This is the same group that wants us all to spay / neuter our dogs. They're WACK-jobs, in my opinion!

Susan West, in D.C. I can answer that question for you.
Basically, because it profits them much! Democrats are supported by labor unions and the public employees' labor unions especially. Union dues are like the staff of life for the Democrat party. AB1634 falls under the category of a tax / make-work scheme for a growing animal control / humane industry which is of great interest to the Democrats. The other such growing industries include environmental compliance and code enforcement, by the way.
You know that the passing vote was 41-38. The "Ayes" were 100% Democrat, and the "Noes" were 85% Republican. Unfortuneately, this is very consistent with a pattern which I have seen for a long time. I have pointed out so many times to people that animal politics are largely partisan politics. Not always.. There are exceptions. But here is the gist of it. California is run largely by Democrats, and has been for a long time, now. These Democrats are not conservative in persuasion (A few are, but they are really a small minority). The majority of Democrats, today, are socialists, and they are largely members of the Democrat Socialists of America, Inc. Surprising how few people even know about this organization, but their members read like a "Who's Who" of the Democrat party. Socialism is like Marxism-lite. It is a scheme of government and economics in which the state controls all resources, production, and distribution. In reality, Socialism can go towards Fascism, too, as it did in Hitler's Third Reich (The A and Z in NAZI, an acronym, stood for "workers' socialist"). Socialism is dangerou, simply because it takes too much power from the people and consolidates it in the hands of the relative few who control and influence the state. It is not precisely "anti-capitalist", of course. Socialism is a very profitable economic model for those who are operating from positions inside of government, or for those in partnership with it, because it creates it's own opportunities for privilege and favor by means of arbitrary regulation (Henry Ford praised Hitler, and spewed anti-Semitic rhetoric, hoping to gain a trade advantage with Germany). Many of the arguments of Socialists and very persuasive as they must be to sell to the public), but these arguments tend to be over-promised and under-delivered. There are some real benefits to society, especially at first. However, Socialism tends, ultimately, to be unsustainable. And, it alwsys comes at the expense of enterprise and freedom. The biggest problem with Socialist government is that it is so difficult to limit and control. Rather, it tends to build huge empires which prey upon the private sector to fund themselves. Twenty years ago or so, Socialist ideologies were used to go after "big business" in California, sometimes righteously. But I foresaw even then, the possibility that this sort of draconian enforcement schemes would be multiplied and carried out arbitrarily against small businesses someday, and even families. That day has come. The only really "big business" that I see in California is the government industry. It's growing. On the other hand, a lot of small businesses close in California, or fail to open, because they cannot meet the exacting requirements of various "alphabet" agencies such as OSHA, and AQMD, and get knocked out of the water with $20,000 fines and even criminal prosecutions. That's real hard on business, you know? Small businesses simply cannot withstand even one such enforcement incident. Since so many small businesses operate on such narrow profit margins and involve the fates and fortunes of small families, bureaucratic attacks on such may be devastating to the family. There are virtually NO "notices to comply" or "infraction" notices given anymore by inspectors. They come in, unannounced, and they can hit you hard if they find even the most innocent mistake. The courts let them get away with it. Why? Politics! And, largely it is possible because the people were goaded into dumping civil-liberties-observant judges like CA Supreme Court Justice, Rose Bird. She was the target of a media smear campaign which accused her of being "soft on crime". Now, we have a lot of "hanging judges" in California who play to the worst sympathies of the public.. frustration, prejudice and anger. Sure.. We kill a few criminals in California, and some of them may deserve it. But now we are down to railroading granny for having too many poodles, and the dog 'pounds are making money! What did I say about "Incentived enforcement".. "Voila!" There you go!
More on Socialism which you may find interesting:
Historically speaking, Socialists and Marxists have always appealed to labor. As mentioned, Hitler's NAZI party started out as a labor movement. Gorbachev (when he was a minister of agriculture) predicted in a speach to the Politburo back in 1976 that the struggle between free-trade western capitalists (primarily the US) and the global Socialist / Marxist community would shift from the arms race to an information / propaganda war, and a series of ethical arguments and "socially progressive" movements, the chief of which would be the environmental movement. Animal rights is considered a part of the environmental movement, by the way. It has traveled along it's own path, pretty much, drawing support from a wide cross-section of society, but one of the most powerful people in the most powerful AR organization in the US has suggested recently (in a speech) that it may be time for the AR movement to join other "socially progressive" causes. In other words, the AR movement is an aggressive, radical activist / leftist social movement, the true agenda of which is seemingly to subvert our systems of law, government and economics to the purposes of a fairly small community, which is international in scope.
I didn't start out to write an essay, and I apologize if this is WAY too deep for some people. If it is confusing, this is as it is SUPPOSED to be. The entire AR movement is very complex and multi-faceted, composed of activists ranging from academic, legal, and legislative activists all the way to domestic terrorists. Again, nothing new here... They are all "fellow travelers" with the same radical (literally, to "for overturning") agenda. It was exactly this way 100 years ago, when Emma Goldman advocated the overthrow of government and capitalism in the US! Activists used and espoused both legal and illegal / violent means at their disposal, back then, as well. subtle and crafty, they are. Their movement goes forward by means of deceptions and lies. They know that good people can be deceived amd USED in precisely this manner, by appealing to their sense of decency and goodwill, also their anger and frustration. Regarding the deception / confusion factor: As said, the smokescreens and lies ARE confusing and inscrutible to most people in our American culture. A lot of people just take you on face value if you tell them you are "ethical", and spout a lot of mind-numbing rhetoric. I don't ask anyone to take my word for anything. Go and do your own research.. YOU SHOULD!!! All I hope to do is to point you in a direction which proves fruitful to your own personal learning. I have spend the past eight years of my life, and countless hours researching, studying and analyzing this movement and formulating theories, then testing them. I am a free agent, and a free thinker. I am a member of NO organization, and I have NO agenda, other than the truth.
In a nutshell, just remember that it IS ultimeately about money. Socialism is an economic model, after all, just as capitalism is. These economic models, and their protagonists and partners are in competition, on a global as well as a domestic level, just as they have been for the past 100 years or so. Socialists and socialism is just as corruptible and greed-driven as capitalism, and probably moreso in the end. We tend to support the model which serves our own personal interests best. It really all comes down to whose hand you are eating out of, or if you hope to feed yourself.

I mentioned Emma Goldman in the previous essay. The consummate radical, she was a very interesting person, to say the least. She apparently operated completely from her own very deep and sincere convictions, believing that the ills of society in the US at the time could only be countered by embracing a Marxist / anarchist revolution such as Russia was undergoing at the time. However.. By the time that she and an associate were returning from a visit to Russia to see the progress of things there, she was completely demoralized, even apologetic and contrite towards the US. She admitted that the whole concept of a revolutionary anarchist society, free of oppressive rulers, was a sham. The last of the true anarchists were under siege by the Bolsheviks, who were taking control of Russia, and would prove to be far more oppressive and ruthless than the Romanov dynasty.
In other words, folks, be careful what you buy into. I am speaking specifically to the activists who believe that they can give animals a better lot in life by empowering government to enforce it. Sometimes, yes.. occasionally. But you are creating a whole new set of problems with the new equation. If you are true believers, you need to sharpen up your analytical thinking and do your own research and homework. Don't let anyone feed you a stream of rhetoric, OK. Just use your brain and your eyes and your ears, and park your heart for awhile until you can bring it some better information to act on.
You think that this has nothing to do with Marxism, but the more you really look into it, you will see that it absolutely does. If you don't want to do the kind of extensive research on this largely hidden area of the animal rights movement, then I would ask you to trust me a little bit on this one. I have looked into it extensively. The AR movement is to mainstream American society so much as a lovely wooden gift horse was to the ancient Greek city of Troy.

Can everyone please now write to AKC and their dog clubs to encourage AKC to boycott the city of Long Beach? The Nationals are coming soon and the delegates will be meeting next week, right? I don't know about these things. I am not an AKC person, sorry. But if this is the case, then this is a prime opportunity for AKC to flex it's political muscle in one of the few ways that can be felt by these politicians. Write now so that this goes on the agenda next week!
Here is another problem with Socialists: They don't understand anything about business. They think that they can just keep raising taxes and that we will just find a way to deal with it...or if we can't, then they will just give our privileges and opportunities to someone else who will. Well, good. Let them rent the Long Beach Civics Auditorium to someone else for the next few years. That should be fine! Especially since the two Assemblymen who cast the deciding votes were from Long Beach! If you plan to attend this event, please vote with your wallet and cancel your reservations. If I were on AKC's board, I'd boycott the whole state if this AB1634 passes! Same with UKC. If AB1634 passes, exemptions will be given for "approved registries", at the discretion of local animal control (no guarantees!) In order to be an "approved registry" in California, it is quite likely that registries will have to engage in a reciprocity agreement with local government and share client information. Registries will also have to ENFORCE a code of ethics which involves genetic defect screening. It sounds nice, but most good breeders are already screening breeding stock voluntarily. Genetics is not a precise science, in practice, and we are seeing the fruits of such screening in the form of diminishing incidences and severity of congenital maladies, but this has taken thusfar many years to accomplish and there will likely always be some incidences. If such screening is required and enforced by law, we could start to get into a whole new area of product liability, in which the registries could be forced to share in the civil liability, perhaps involving punitive damages ($$$). In prior legal decisions, it has been upheld that once you take on a responsibility, you cannot always just put it down when you are tired or overly burdened with it. Better to not take it up in the first place, at least not as a legal responsibility! I can see the lawyers licking their lips over this one, and the universities are cranking out the lawyers to do the work, even now. Be careful what you volunteer for, registries! And remember that you cannot make deals with these people, or offer concessions, as they will only work you further and further into compromised postions.

Instead of forcing spay/neutering of companion animals why not use funds to create and maintain FREE spay/neuter clinics.

Taking away people's rights is not the way to go.

In reading over some of these posts (most of which are excellent, by the way), I see that a lot of people just don't understand what the Democrat party is all about. I'm not going to repeat everything. Just read my foregoing posts and please do your own research and verify for yourself.
Well, folks just cannot believe that their assemblyman voted for this, but Democrats always do this. They vote together like a gang. They vote together, and it all amounts to deal-making, between themselves. This is how they stay in power. It's not the "art of negotiation", it's mindless bully-tactics, power-mongering, and something akin to the age-old trade of prostitution. I have more respect for prostitutes! At least they tell you straight up what you get for the money!
It's not that the Democrat party is necessarily EVIL, OK, but it was apparently hijacked and began running under a pirate flag, sometime while our collective brain were eaten by the TV and pop-culture "body-snatchers"!
Richard Nixon once said that when he first considered to enter politics, he wanted to join up with the Republican party. Why? Because, he said, he thought there were more "opportunities" there. Well, remember that America was still at that time the most powerful manufacturing country in the world, so that was true back then. Now that business has become more of a global phenomenon and manufacturing (and the need for raw materials and energy), along with our jobs have gone overseas, things have changed. Now, a politician with an eye for opportunity might look more to the Democrat party, which is supported by the growing government industry and even foreign lobbyists whose interests are often in conflict with those of America. And the lobbying! My goodness! Without a lot of money to pay lobbyists, you really cannot count on getting very much, you know. Not that it would necessarily do a lot of good, of course.. Even in the face of such strong opposition as AB1634 is facing, the Democrats will grit their teeth, close their eyes hard, and vote the party-line. The ONLY thing you can do, folks (and I am convinced of this) is to get the Democrats out of office. You will STILL have to watch out for RINOS (Republicans in name, only) who are lobbyists-in-representatives' clothing, in most cases.
It's really time for people to start thinking about the future of this state, in terms of what THEY can do, and what they are willing to risk and fight for. Same goes for the country. Fighting just amounts to giving up some of your time. You are going to have to do hours and hours of your own digging and processing and do the kind of research you need to do in order to make good decisions. Can you push yourselves away from the TV? I unplugged my TV and gave it away eight years ago. I have never been bored, since! It has been my experience that a LOT of TV "news" is formulated to influence popular opinion, as an extension of the lobbying industry, actually (yes!). I get my 95% information from the internet and radio, and newspapers, now. I don't really try to screen out "liberal" or radical or pro-socialist sources. I test and challenge my own ideas and beliefs. I don't want to become a fanatic, after all! I also take the time to talk with people I meet, to see what their thoughts are and if they are open, I give them something to think about. That's the way that political discussions used to be held, over a back fence with a neighbor or in friendly get-togethers or in spirited and stimulating political debates. Anyhow, you get the idea. This requires some work, but it's worth it. Our sons and brothers and fathers, and our sisters and daughters amd mothers have been working and dying for our freedoms for so many years. Is it too much trouble to just read and think several hours a week? It's just like putting oil in the engine, right? If you don't do it, you'll be walking, before long.
Probably some of the pro-AB1634 people are saying that I'm just a "desperate breeder".. LOL! I haven't had a litter in eight years, and I don't particularly care to. I used to sell my pups to people at reasonable prices. I thought everyone should be able to afford a good dog. But it would take a LOT of money to make me want to sell a puppy to someone, now. To be honest, I got sick of losing money and dealing with the people. I love people, but they can be so disappointing at times, you know? I got kind of sick of dog people, too (most dog people will understand). But if you love dogs, you have to support them. There is no other way. I personally burned out on raising dogs.. the sacrifices and risks became too much for me. But I do love purebred dogs, all dogs period, and all animals, and I love America and the free way of life that used to be California! I don't want to see these traditions and a wonderful, free way of life ever die. To some people, dogs are a way of life, and something they love deeply. This community deserves understanding and support. I hope that these people can carry on and find rewards in what they do. I hate liars and cheats, and I don't like to see them beat up good folks. The least we can do is to make them work and pay for it, just as most of us have worked and paid for whatever we got in life.

Join PetPac

This is all about Levine wanting to be a Senator and he has his hand in Judie Mancuso back pocket and hers in his . You help me pass AB 1634 and I will have a big party and give you all kinds of money to help you run for senator . The good people of California will not forget or forgive Levine if this bill goes to law . He doesn't have cats or dogs and doesn't know the love they give , what a sad home he must have . But he did say all CAT BREEDERS Smell like cat pee . So does that mean dog breeders smell like dog sh--. If Ass. Member Levine runs for senator , I will vote for anyone but him , just to try and stop him .
I will fight till the end to stop Levine from climbing up a higher ladder

I keep trying to remember that we live in a free country.
But It seems to me that my rights are being taken away at and alarming rate.
Now you want to take away my companions and show dog's ?
Why should my well behaved and trained Dog's have to suffer because of Nasty money Grubbing Back yard Breeders whom only breed the animals they have to make a buck , an do not care how those animals are treated nor whom buy's them pet stores, puppy brokers they don't care first with the money gets the dog.
And these types of breeders will continue to do what they are doing wether the mandatory S/N bill passes or not.
They are not people who care about the law or the morality of caring for the animals they have all they care about is a buck. Not the puppies or kittens they mass produce and dump their Older breeding stock when it is no longer useful.
Caring Moral upstanding Members of the Dog Breed Fancy whom help with Rescue for some of those throw away dog's and care for them, often try to rehome or care for these animals if they are salvageble many are not, due to poor health or temperament due to the way they were bred and raised..
Reputable Breeders only produce a litter when they want another dog of their breeding to carry on their lines . and those animals are well cared for and loved by their owners instead of being viewed as a money making tool.
With all the money that reputable breeders put into their dog's with health testing and Who train an show their dog's to prove them breed worthy. they do not make money on a litter they often lose money. but they care about their breed. so willingly pay what is needed to have healthy well bred pet's.
AND PUPPIES FROM THEIR LITTER THAT MAY NOT BE OF SHOW TYPE ARE SOLD ON A SPAY NEUTER CONTRACT. SO THEY DO NOT PRODUCE UNWANTED PUPPIES.
I have pets that are spayed because they are pet quality and I would not breed just because I love my pets. But they are altered because I made the decision, not the government. They are my property and Pets and as such my Vet and I should make decisions regarding their medical health and well being.
And altering a giant Breed puppy at 4 months is insane there are many studies proving the detrimental effects early altering causes them.
It is on the internet you can look it up yourself .
What about all the pet related industries?
What happens to them when the pet poulation dries up and there are not pets to Groom or train or petsit for?
Gee a huge amount of people are going to be without Job's and that isn't going to be good for those running for office in the upcoming elections.
Oh also Many breeders have decided they will not place a puppy of their breeding in California and many have also decided they will not show in California, Do you have any Idea the amount of Money Dog shows bring into venues they have their shows at?
Alot and if no shows less income to the towns the shows are held in as well as the restaurants and shops not getting any money from people whom would otherwise have stayed in your town and spent money for the shows.
Very sad that a few very very uninformed people ( with a very clear Agenda of abolishing pet ownership,of any kind period) seem to have so many politicians by the nose and are leading them around. Hmm what next after we are no longer allowed our pet's will they decide how many childeren each person in California can Have?
Or maybe only people of a certain income bracket will be allowed to have childeren , maybe they will start fining people whom have more than they are allowed to have? or maybe just take them away?
Think it's impossible?
I don't it is a slippery slope and People better wake up and see whats coming and stop it now before it is to late.

Its not just Levine that hates people having pets. Its PETA, the HSUS and Judie Mancuso. All the while claiming they "love animals" at the same time are working to exterminate them. Wake up and fight these extremists California.

I continue to offer my support for mandatory spay and neutering.

I have years and years of my own personal memories volunteering and working in animal shelters throughout the Bay Area, and I have seen the problem from the inside. I don't need any reports to tell me any different. Too many animals and not enough qualified homes. Period. I have personally euthanized way too many perfectly healthy and adoptable animals of all ages ranging from newborns to six month old puppies to the old and sick ONLY because their legally allotted time ran out and there were way too many more coming in the next day. I have seen other technicians euthanize healthy adoptable animals day after day, year after year. I have very vivid memories of barrels full of dead animals of all ages and types only because their time was up. I have personally seen where these animals come from because I have been an officer in the field picking up way too many stray dogs and cats day after day that never get claimed, and I have worked the front counters where people of all types surrender their own personal animals for way too many bizarre reasons. I have picked up owned animals in the field because the owners wouldn't take the time to come into the shelter to surrender them.

I whole heartedly support early spay and neutering. Shelters have been doing these surgeries for several years. The SOLE reason for the early spay and neutering prior to being adopted is to prevent the animals being adopted from shelters contributing to the problem of overpopulation. I will continue to support early spay and neutering because I would not want another six month old cute, cuddlely and wiggly puppy having to endure the pain and confusion of a needle being pushed into the vein in its front arm containing the "blue juice" by an overworked and overtaxed and under appreciated shelter worker instead of running around in its fenced in yard playing with the children in the family that adopted it the day before.

If somebody wants to breed their dog let them purchase a permit. I don't care if this is inconvenient or expensive for anybody. It is a hell of a lot less expensive and more time efficient than euthanizing thousands and thousands of animals over and over every single year. In many shelters there are employees whose sole duty is to euthanize animals, and they do these for eight hours straight at a time, most of the time spend covered in blood and feces. How many of these people that oppose this legislation have actually spent any of their precious time volunteering at a shelter and listening to all the people that come in all day long surrendering their animals, or try to hold still a large lab mix while a technician injects "blue juice" into its veins? I think even one day at a large municipal shelter would change the minds of people very quickly.

If you look at the list of groups that want this bill to pass they are the shelters and rescue groups that actually volunteer their time and their homes to help out as many animals as possible. Go to some of these sites and you will see over and over how many animals they could not help solely because there weren't enough foster homes or money to hold these animals until somebody was willing to adopt them. These are the people that see the problem every single day and want it to stop. These are the people that get off their asses and actually do something. I know every one of these rescue groups would love to no longer exist because all the animals in shelters were being adopted to wonderful homes and there were no extras. Too many people are willing to spend several hundred to over a thousand dollars for a precious purebred dog, yet they won't spend a minute of their time to go out of their way to help a dog that ends up in a shelter and homeless just because their owners were to lazy to close the gate.

The people that say that this bill will stop all mixed breeds and purebreds from future existence seem to also forget that the reason why law enforcement exists in the first place is because there will always be the people who ignore laws and decide to do their own thing. They will still be breeding their dogs intentionally or unintentionally whether they receive a citation or not. That is why law enforcement of all kinds exists.

If you want to know what it feels like to euthanize a healthy adoptable puppy just because its time was up, I would be happy to explain the technique in excruciating details. I remember all their cute faces every single day, and I don't want to forget them so I can do my part to get this legislation passed.

I have read too many times that certain cities like San Francisco no longer euthanize adoptable animals. I personally know that is not true.

In December of 2006 I adopted a year old dog, who I now call Dino, from Grateful Dog Rescue out of San Francisco. The previous September Dino was surrendered by his owners for the sole reason that they had too many kids and could not take time for him. He had spent his whole life outside in their yard in San Francisco. Understandably he was scared and confused. After several days The San Francisco Animal Control deemed him unadoptable only because he was too mouthy. He was scheduled to be euthanized the next day, but Grateful Dog Rescue adopted him. That is the only place they get dogs, and they are regularly full and can't take them all. According to the adoption volunteer at Grateful Dogs there are a lot healthly, adoptable animals that SFAC deems unadoptable and later euthanizes. And Grateful Dogs is not the only rescue group that works with SFAC. This is 2006, not 10 years ago like many opponents of this bill want to believe.

And this is only one shelter, and supposedly one of the best, but it still euthanizes healthy, adoptable animals. All they have to do is to call the animal unadoptable, and they can euthanize it. Does it sound like the Adoption Pact that Richard Avanzino constructed so many years ago is actually working? Or does the public only want to see what they want to see to suit their own needs and fill their own pockets while wonderful, sweet dogs like Dino get put down because people choose to stick their heads in the sand like cowards.

Wake up and smell the cookies, and see what is really happening in these shelters. I wholeheartedly support Assemblyman Levine's bill. Let's start talking the truth here rather than a bunch of lies.

Good luck with getting this bill passed. Even if it does pass, no one will obey it and all the people who have been involed with the passing of this bill WILL REGRET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OH YAH, AND DID YOU KNOW THAT ORTHODOX JEWS CAN NOT GET THEIR PETS "FIXED" BECAUSE IT IS AGINST THEIR RELIGION?

If AB 1634 is what this site calls Progressive Legislation....... I quit.

When I read in the S.F. Chronicle that you would amend your lousy bill to allow "mutts" to have a litter, I almost fell through the floor!

Are you so asleep that you do not realize that is where the problem lies? People with "mutts" want to have a litter so their children can "experience" the wonder of birth. Big deal. I am also sure the big $$ sign is behind their choice. No health checks on the parents or regard to non existant pedigrees. Just you have a dog, I have a bitch-so lets have puppies. Do you honestly belive they care where the puppies end up?

We, as responsible breeders of health checked dogs/bitches, do health checking. Heart, hips & thyroid, which is very expensive. We are very particular as to who we breed our bitches & dogs to, and I can assure you, we are also very particular as to where our pups go. We also keep track of our pups through their life span.

This wonderful bill of yours, will do nothing but assure that "backyard breeders" & puppy mills will flourish, while repectable breeders will die on the vine.

I am a registered Democrat. I can assure you, you will NEVER get my vote!

SLB-

Mr. Levine
This bill is so wrong in so many ways, I couldn't even begin to put it into words. Thanks to all the previous letters, that said it all for me.
Do your research!
Spay/neuter at 4months is unhealthy!
Vote NO on AB1634

I'm a volunteer at our local animal shelter. Although our shelter has made progress in finding homes for unwanted dogs there are still many dogs that needlessly lose their lives due to human carelessness and selfishness. In May our shelter euthenized 154 dogs alone and that is just one city! This may not be a perfect bill but it a step in the right direction. Shelters do have low-cost spay/neuter clinics and do their best to educate people about the need to spay and neuter their animals and it isn't working. I find some of the personal attacks on Assemblyman Levine appallingly nasty. He does not sound like a person who hates animals to me but someone who is trying to do something to save thousands of animals lives. There are exemptions for legitimate breeders, for law enforcement and working dogs. Some of the supporters for this bill include "The Dog Whisperer", Cesar Millan, the Humane Society, many veterinarians, and dozens of dog rescue groups. I challenge anyone opposed to this bill to spend a couple hours at your local animal shelter. Look into dogs faces who are scared and in over crowded kennels and know that many of these dogs who would make fine pets will lose their lives because of human selfishness. Mahatma Gandhi once said "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be measured by the way in which its animals are treated." Let's listen to the people who work in the trenches with these dogs and try to put thousands of unwanted animals lives before our selfishness.

PETA Kills

With no apparent sense of irony, they chose the dumpster of a Piggly Wiggly supermarket to drop off the carcasses, wrapped in black plastic bags. Among them were a mother cat with her two very healthy kittens, and seven little puppies – dead by injection.

Nor did either of them appear to evince the slightest cognitive dissonance in acting as agents, and employees, of the very inaptly named “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals” (PETA). For at least two months they had been slaughtering and dumping animals that they obtained under false pretenses from shelters: they assured the attendants they would find the adoptable animals ‘good homes.’

Andrew Benjamin Cook and Adria Joy Hinkle are charged in a North Carolina court with only 31 felony counts of animal cruelty, eight misdemeanor counts of the illegal disposal of dead animals, and a charge of criminal trespassing. Yet they are apparently responsible for the death of more than a hundred animals. This is ethical?

We must not allow ourselves to be so distracted by the sordid details of this case that we view it as an aberration. Instead, it is all too emblematic of the core “values” of the PETA cash and terror machine.

In “Better Dead Than Fed”, Debra Saunders observes that “this is not the first report that PETA killed animals it claimed to protect. In 1991, PETA killed 18 rabbits and 14 roosters it had previously ‘rescued’ from a research facility. ‘We just don’t have the money to care for them,’ then PETA-Chairman Alex Pacheco told the Washington Times.”

The Center for Consumer Freedom Documents on its website PETAKillsAnimals.com that “from July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other ‘companion animals’ – at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That’s more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of the animals it took in during 2003 alone.”

In fact, the CCF reports “on its 2002 federal income-tax return, PETA claimed a $9,370 write-off for a giant walk-in freezer, the kind most people use as a meat locker or for ice-cream storage. But animal-rights activists don’t eat meat or dairy foods. So far, the group hasn’t confirmed the obvious – that it’s using the appliance to store the bodies of its victims.”

Why does PETA kill? “In 2000, when the Associated Press first noted PETA’s Kervorkian-esque tendencies, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk complained that actually taking care of animals costs more than killing them. ‘We could become a no-kill shelter immediately,’ she admitted.”

“Besides,” relates Saunders, “PETA always has been about killing animals. A 2003 New Yorker profile included PETA top dog Ingrid Newkirk’s story of how she became involved in animal rights after a shelter put down stray kittens she brought there. So she went to work for an animal shelter in the 1970s, where, she explained: ‘I would go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself. Because I couldn’t stand to let them go through (other workers abusing the animals). I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day.’

“That’s right. PETA assails other parties for killing animals for food or research. Then it kills animals – but for really important reasons, like because it has run out of room.”

As the CFC’s David Martosko told Saunders, "For years, we thought that PETA just cared for animals more than they cared for humans. But now it seems they don’t care much for either.” Consider, for example that “Newkirk also told The New Yorker the world would be a better place without people. She explained why she had herself sterilized: ‘I am opposed to having children. Having a purebred human baby is like having a purebred dog – it’s nothing but vanity, human vanity.”

Those aren’t the limits of her misanthropic sentiments. In September 1989 she told Vogue magazine that “animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy, they’re all mammals.” She added, for good measure, “even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we’d be against it.”

So, as the CFC reports, “PETA kills animals. Because it has other financial priorities.

“PETA raked in nearly $29 million last year in income, much of it raised from pet owners who think their donations actually help animals. Instead, the group spends huge sums on programs equating people who eat chicken with Nazis, scaring young children away from drinking milk, recruiting children into the radical animal-rights lifestyle, and intimidating businessmen and their families in their own neighborhoods. PETA has also spent tens of thousands of dollars defending arsonists and other violent extremists.” And contributing funds to the Earth Liberation Front, which the FBI’s Deputy Assistant Director John Lewis considers “one of today’s most serious domestic terrorism threats.” Carson Carroll, Deputy Assistant Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives adds that “since 1987, ATF has initiated over 100 investigations related to ELF and ALF incidents. Some of the investigations involved explosives incidents, as well as, acts of arson. While the number of ELF and ALF incidents has fluctuated from year to year, the magnitude of the incidents appears to be on the rise with a number of high-damage arsons occurring since 1999. Between 1999 and 2005, ATF opened 58 investigations related to ELF and ALF acts of violence.”

The Hudson Institute’s Michael Fumento relates that “last month the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives told a Senate panel that animal rights extremists, along with eco-terrorists, pose one of the most serious national terrorist threats – one growing by leaps and bounds. Unlike such groups as the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), PETA takes no credit for such actions as torching laboratories. But it does support these groups both vocally and financially.

“‘I find it small wonder that the laboratories aren’t all burning to the ground. If I had more guts, I’d light a match,’ Newkirk has said. Other gems: ‘I wish we would all get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down,’ and ‘Would I rather the research lab that tests animals is reduced to a bunch of cinders? Yes.’ She also insisted, ‘I will be the last person to condemn ALF.'

“PETA vegetarian campaign coordinator Bruce Friedrich has declared that ‘blowing stuff up and smashing windows’ is something PETA doesn’t do ‘but I do advocate it.’

“PETA has donated to the Earth Liberation Front, a certified terrorist group that, according to the FBI, along with the ALF has committed more than 600 criminal acts causing more than $43 million in damages. During the 1990s, PETA paid $70,200 to an Animal Liberation Front (ALF) activist convicted of burning down a Michigan State University research laboratory. During sentencing, the federal judge implicated Newkirk in the crime.”

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals: they are not ethical. They kill animals. And it is only a matter of time before the allies that they fund and support kill people.

If you live in CA , call the CVMA at 1-916-649-0599 and find out who the delegate is for your area..then call them and ask them to VOTE NO

Ass. Levine doesn't care about animals. He doesn't even have a pet. I just heard him lie yet again about the bill. What a repugnant human being to work with animal rights extremists and helping them with their goal of pet extinction.

To Al and others:

I can understand opposition to legislation and policy differences that you may have that lead you to vehemently oppose AB 1634. However, the tone of some of these comments and the gross mischaracterizing of who is in support of this bill and calling Mr. Levine a repugnant human being doing the work of animal rights extremists is over the top and beyond the pale.

Looking at the website in support of AB 1634, http://www.cahealthypets.com/home.htm in a couple of minutes, one can learn that this is sponsored by the California Animal Control Directors Association, California Veterinary Medical Association, City of Los Angeles, Social Compassion in Legislation, State Humane Association of California, over 25 Mayors and Councilmembers, and over 20 Police Departments and Sherrifs from across the state and a lot more folks and organizations..

Are you painting all these organizations and individuals with the same broad brush? Shame on you if you are. You will not do your cause justice by such exaggerated rhetoric.

There have been many excellent arguments posted here regarding Levine's and CA Healthy Pets supporter's use of suspect data and suspect arguments to further this bill. The National Animal Interest Alliance is one of the most respected sources of information in the arena of animal welfare. They recently posted an analysis that clearly shows that shelter impound data used by CA Healthy Pet Act supporter's for Santa Cruz County does not match Santa Cruz County Shelter data reported, by law, the the California Department of Health Services - Veterinary Public Health Section. Please see NAIA's website for this and other information:

http://www.naiaonline.org/index.htm
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/BigLieGraphs.pdf
http://www.naiashelterproject.org/
http://www.saveourdogs.net/

For people who vote and wish to use voting records as a metric in determining whom to vote for in future, I will provide the names and voting status of all Assemblymembers who weighed in on this bill in a follo w-up comment. If you are planning on not voting for them in the future, you should let them know why. It is a disservice to them, and to you, not to.

For those who work in or have dealings with shelters, we understand the horrid concept of euthanizing anything living. And to witness or participate in the series of events leading up to a euthanasia knowing, in advance, what the outcome will be is also horrid. We understand the sense of panic in wanting to do something...anything... to change things. But some of us also understand that this bill does not address any of the real reasons that people relinquish animals to shelters in the first place. Desperate arguments such as going to shelters to look at the faces of animals about to be euthanized are appeals to pity.

The results of decisions based upon appeals to pity are doomed to failure and can be disasterous because there is no causality between problem and solution. Outcome of decisions based upon appeals 'to pity' or to 'the people' or to 'the gallery' are unpredictable in that the unintended consequences will have a greater influence on the outcome than the stated solution.

A valid and useful method used to test complex or emotive arguments for fallacies is to leave the construct of the argument unchanged, but change the objects in the argument to be more familiar and less emotive.

For example:
Argument 1:
problem?: too many pets are being relinquished to shelters
Data: top 9 reasons for shelter relinquishment:
1 - Moving
2 - Landlord issues
3 - Cost of pet maintenance
4 - No time for pet
5 - Inadequate facilities
6 - Too many pets in home
7 - Pet illness (es)
8 - Personal problems
9 - Biting
Solution?: castrate all pets at 4 months of age except for those exempted as determined by their local jurisdiction

Argument 2
problem?: too many children are being relinquished to adoption
Data: top 9 reasons for adoption relinquishment
1 - removal from the home because of maltreatment by their biological parents
2 - unable to adequately care for the child
3 - interfere with their future plans and goals
4 - societal stigma of single parenthood
5 - Rape/incest
6 - drug addition
7 - prefer adoption for the sake of avoiding an abortion
8 - parent unable or unwilling to take care of child with special needs
9 - court strips parents of parental rights
Solution?: castrate all people at 10 years of age except for those exempted as determined by their local jurisdiction

The two arguments are logically identical but, because of subject familiarity and somewhat neutralizing the passion, the second one is seen as almost comical in its solution. Immediately one sees that the solution will work but not because it solves the problem directly. Instead it will solve the problem eventually but only after it first extinguishes the human race. And oh the folly and corruption along the way because of the power given to the local jurisdiction. There is no nexus between problem and solution and one instantly concludes that this is a stupid solution. And, the reader also instantly recognizes that it must be applied globally before it can really work. It is so preposterous that it is funny. You can even add to the joke...Guess what? It also cures cancer, stops criminals and ends global warming! It is instantly clear that if the true goal is to only reduce the number of children relinquished for adoption, then this is a really crummy solution.

Now go back and re-read the first argument.

I currently own two rescue dogs, have always had rescue dogs and volunteer in an animal rescue shelter. I am pro spay and nueter but this bill is going down the wrong path. You are trying to put a law on something that would be tougher and more expensive to enforce than the shelter fees you think you are eliminating. You are not saving money for the taxpayers and you are punishing responsible pet owners and breeders only to encourage a prohibition type of irresponsible pet breeders and puppy mills that will literally destroy dogs as a breed.
You need to get your facts straight and to come up with a better solution. Stop trying to fool the public that this is a good bill and trash this one altogether.
I have already informed my local reps that he has lost my vote forever by siding with this awful bill and now I add you to the list.

Mr. Levine,

We'll dispense with the sugar-coating, if you don't mind.

This bill will do little but place additional burdens on the pet owners and enthusiasts who already act within the boundaries of the law, much to the contradiction of your previous allegations. Nowhere in your legislation does it have a solution to the problem of puppymills or fighting dog breeders. The puppy mills will be granted their permits and will continue to churn out vast numbers of dogs (and cats), and the fighting dog abusers will still evade licensing and other legal channels (seriously, how many of those people take their animals regularly to the vet or license them with the city?). And where does it provide for chasing down all those feral cats, who are the major contributors to the animals in the shelters?

In fact, it isn't too far-fetched to intuit that this bill will actually encourage more people to avoid the vet and proper licensing.

One day, people will wake up to bills such as these which do little to solve any problems, but rather create more problems (not to mention additional layers of bureaucracy) and accomplish much in the way of impinging on our rights to make our own decisions about our property and our families. I would encourage you to cease chasing bills like these and do something more useful. Thank you.

Calornia is going to he-- in a hand basket , Our mayor (who can't keep his paints on ) that's why his wife kick his butt out the door , or good old Rocky , lier-lier . These people should lose there jobs , they are just liers

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa closes City animal shelters
by Ann Angeleno Tuesday, Jun. 19, 2007 at 3:12 PM
annangeleno@yahoo.com

In astounding news earlier this week the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services announced that they are basically closing the shelter doors to owner relinquished animals. Their rationale behind this move as per Ed Boks the General Manager is to "fine tune" "the population during the annual spring/summer crush of neonatal turn-ins." Read that, "we have no more room because we've been warehousing animals all year to keep our euthanasia rate artificially low to try to make me look good."

None of the previous General Managers ever turned away animals yet they had many more animals, smaller shelters, less money and fewer employees. How could Ed Boks the supposed "NoKill King" have no room to receive animals when his shelters are much larger than before and fewer animals are coming in? More importantly, why is the Mayor still doing nothing about the problem? This author wrote an article about all of these issues March of this year and things have only gotten worse. http://www.geocities.com/annangeleno

On June 14, 2007 the Department released the press release entitled "Cat-Tastrophe forces policy change." They stated that as of June 18th they will only accept healthy owned animals Wednesday and Friday from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Tuesday and Thursday from 2:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. This means that people who work could only relinquish their pets during a small window after work. There is already a long wait to relinquish pets when they can do so any day of the week. People line up outside the shelter doors in the mornings. Some just leave their pets in boxes, bags, running free in the parking lot or tied to the fence.

For the past two months the shelters were already telling the public that they should find their animal a new home themselves. If it's a cat, they should spay or neuter them and just set them free in a feral colony. If they don't want to do that, they are instructed to contact private rescues who will "gladly" take the animals. The people take their animals home and call rescuers who are of course all full. In frustration which can be seen by many complaints on craigslist.com, people are just setting the animals free in parks. One man threatened to kill kittens if someone didn't come and get them.

In the days since Boks' press release he has backpedaled a little. He now says that he will accept ill, injured and orphaned owner relinquished animals at any time. He said he will "revisit the policy" if problems arise. He says he will also "politely" accept any animal if the person is really "insistent." So then, has anything changed at all, except for the promise of being "polite?"

The Rescue and Humane Alliance represents most of the animal groups in Los Angeles. They sent out a bulletin about this new policy this morning. They don't believe it's a good idea and raise some valid points which I've paraphrased here. (1) People will not have a change of heart. They will just abandon the animal somewhere else. (2) Then these animals will be picked up as strays which must be held longer than owned animals before being offered up for adoption. (3) People will lie and say their animal is a stray. They already do this because they're embarrassed that they're an irresponsible pet owner. (4) Some may get confused and think this policy applies to all animals so they won't pick up a stray animal. (5) The restricted hours are deliberately inconvenient so few people will be able to relinquish their animal. The public will complain that the Department isn't doing their job.

RHA believes this is "an act of desperation" and I agree. They say "despite all the 'new' programs, the shelters are more overwhelmed than ever and have no real plan and no real solutions." The new policy "seeks to address the problem by not addressing the problem. It amounts to a refusal by LA Animal Services to perform it's charter-mandated public safety function. It seeks to improve statistics at the expense of animal welfare." "RHA-LA is outraged, and you should be, too!" Very well said.

RHA-LA suggests that you contact your LA City councilmember and complain about this new policy now before countless more animals end up on the street. Find your councilmember herehttp://www.lacity.org On a note of levity, the Department's press release fueled another more creative "press release" written by NoKill Joe. http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i20582

Since when did animal shelters become the bad guys? I don't understand this stand. Obviously this comes from people who have never worked or volunteered in shelters. Shelter employees and volunteers are the good guys. They do the rotton, dirty jobs of cleaning up the public's irresponsible habits. They euthanize healthy, cute, newborn puppies and kittens and nasty, vicous dogs left in overnight boxes and everything in between. If you don't like the way animal shelters are run, then go ahead and work or volunteer at one. If you have a better idea on how things should be done, I know everybody would love to hear it. Quit complaining and do something!

PETA Employees face Dog-Napping Charges in Court

Snatched Hunting Dog May Have Been Slated For Death At Group's Norfolk Headquarters

Courtland, VA -- On Tuesday afternoon in a rural Virginia courthouse, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) will endure the latest in a string of black eyes as two of its employees face felony charges of stealing a hunting dog belonging to a local animal control officer. The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) will be in attendance at today's hearing and throughout the trial, documenting the proceedings for its popular PetaKillsAnimals.com website.
The PETA employees, Andrea Florence Benoit and Carrie Beth Edwards, were arrested in October shortly after allegedly abducting a free-roaming Walker hound in Southampton County, Virginia. Police stopped the PETA-owned van the two were driving as they attempted to transport the dog to PETA's Norfolk office. PETA later claimed the employees were trying to determine who owned the dog, but police charged them with felony larceny.

Benoit and Edwards are also charged with the theft of a radio-transmitting collar that the dog's owner had put on the animal in order to track its location. The collar was later found on the side of the road near where a witness saw the defendants putting the dog into their van.

The location of this alleged dog-napping is less than 40 miles from Ahoskie, North Carolina, where two other PETA employees admitted killing dozens of dogs and cats and tossing their bodies into a trash dumpster. That case was the subject of a high-profile animal cruelty trial earlier this year. Records from Virginia's State Veterinarian show that PETA put to death over 80 percent of the pets in its care between 1998 and 2005 -- just over 14,400 dogs and cats in all. The group failed to meet the March 31 deadline for filing its 2006 numbers.

"It's no secret that PETA doesn't like hunters, but the group has no business stealing their dogs," CCF Director of Research David Martosko said today. "Judging from PETA's 80 percent kill rate, it's likely this animal was headed for the death-chamber at PETA's Norfolk headquarters when police intervened. It's horrible to think that a group known for killing defenseless pets spends its time -- and its donors' money -- hunting for furry victims along country roads."

The Center for Consumer Freedom is a nonprofit coalition supported by restaurants, food companies, and consumers, working together to promote personal responsibility and protect consumer choices.

For media comment, contact our media department at 202-463-7112 ext. 115

Actors and Others are all for a b 1634

We are certainly in support of spay/neuter legislation and have worked on many local ordinances. We are officially supporting the state bill. At the moment, we are waiting to see the amendments that we have heard are coming.

Susan Taylor

Executive Director

Don't come to California to visit and PLEASE don't move here , if you move here , leave your dogs/ cats nuts there , Because California leaders are nutty enought . In 5 years there will not be any pure bread dogs / cats left in California , Because Levine sold her soul a long time ago . He doesn't care about dogs / cats . he just wants to be senator and doesn't care who gets hurt or who he steps on to move on up , If the fool runs for senator , then all of the people in California that had to stop breeding --must put a stop to this nut , GOD HELP US BECAUSE OUR LEARDERS DON'T HEAR US AND THE A.R. are now running California

BILL NUMBER: AB 1634 AMENDED
BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 27, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 31, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 9, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 30, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 17, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 9, 2007

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Levine
(Principal coauthor: Senator Padilla)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Nava and Solorio)

FEBRUARY 23, 2007

An act to add Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 122336) to Part 6
of Division 105 of , and to repeal Section 122336.21 the
Health and Safety Code, relating to pets.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

AB 1634, as amended, Levine. California Healthy Pets Act.
Existing law sets forth provisions relating to veterinary public
health and safety and provides for or regulates spay, neuter, and
breeding programs for animals.
This bill would prohibit any person from owning or possessing any
cat or dog over the age of 4 6 months
that has not been spayed or neutered, unless that person possesses an
intact permit, as defined. The bill would establish an intact permit
fee in an amount to be determined by a local jurisdiction, and would
require the revenue from these fees to be used for the
administration of the local jurisdiction's permit program. The bill
would make a violation of these provisions , as
specified, punishable by a prescribed civil penalty. It would
require all revenues derived from these civil penalties to be used
for funding the outreach efforts in connection with, and the
administration and enforcement of, these provisions, and, to the
extent funding is available, free and low-cost spay and neuter
programs, and outreach efforts for those programs, which would be
required to be established by each local animal control agency.
By increasing the enforcement responsibility of local agencies,
this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
This bill would, until January 1, 2012, authorize a local
jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency to allow
for issuance of an intact permit for one male and one female dog per
household in order to allow the dogs to produce a single litter of
offspring, subject to specified criteria. It would authorize the
imposition of an intact permit fee for these purposes in an amount
determined by the local jurisdiction, to be used for funding the
administration of the local jurisdiction's permit program.
The bill would become operative on April 1, 2008.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the
California Healthy Pets Act.

SEC. 2. Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 122336) is added to
Part 6 of Division 105 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:
CHAPTER 9. SPAY AND NEUTER PROGRAM FOR CATS AND DOGS

Article 1. Definitions

122336. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions
shall apply:
(a) "Intact permit" means a document issued annually by a local
jurisdiction or its local animal control agency if authorized to
issue these permits, that authorizes a person to own or possess
within that locality an unaltered cat or dog and meets the
requirements of subdivision (a) of Section 122336.2. A dog or cat
license that meets the requirements of subdivision (a) of Section
122336.2 shall be considered a permit for purposes of this chapter.
(b) "Local animal control agency" means the municipal or county
animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing
animal-related laws.
(c) "Local jurisdiction" means any city, county, or city and
county.
(d) "Spay or neuter" means any procedure, as performed by a duly
licensed veterinarian, that permanently sterilizes an animal and
makes it incapable of reproduction.

Article 2. General Provisions

122336.1. (a) Subject to subdivision (c), a person shall not own
or possess within the state any cat or dog over the age of
four six months that has not been spayed or
neutered, unless that person possesses an intact permit, as defined
in subdivision (a) of Section 122336.
(b) (1) Subject to subdivision (c), any
person who violates subdivision (a) shall, for each animal for which
a violation has occurred, be subject issued a
citation subjecting the person to a civil penalty of five
hundred dollars ($500) if the person fails to provide proof that
the person has met the requirements of subdivision (a) within 30
days of the date of the issuance of the citation . This penalty
shall be imposed in addition to any other civil or criminal
penalties imposed by the local jurisdiction.
(2) At the time a citation is issued, the citing authority shall
provide the person being cited with information as to the
availability of spaying and neutering services at reduced cost.

(c) If an owner of a cat or dog provides a letter from a
California licensed veterinarian indicating that due to age,
poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or
dog and that arrangements have been made to spay or neuter the cat or
dog within 75 days from the date the cat or dog reaches the age of
four months, and the owner has his or her cat or dog spayed or
neutered within that 75-day period, the owner shall not be in
violation of this act. licensed veterinarian stating
that it is the medical judgment of the veterinarian that the cat or
dog should not be spayed or neutered prior to the age of nine months,
the owner shall not be in violation of this chapter. No
earlier than 30 days after the cat or dog has reached nine months of
age, the veterinarian may provide a letter to the owner extending the
date for spaying or neutering the cat or dog to 12 months of age.
The letter from the veterinarian shall include the veterinarian's
license number, the name of the owner, and a description of the cat
or dog in question.
(d) Any civil penalty imposed under subdivision (b) may
shall be waived, in whole or in part, by the
local jurisdiction if the person in violation provides verification
that his or her cat or dog has been spayed or neutered.
(e) (1) Any person who is in possession of
any document issued by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local
animal control agency that permits the owner to possess an unaltered
cat or dog shall be deemed in compliance with this act until the
document expires or January 1, 2009, whichever occurs first.
(2) Upon expiration of the permit, the owner of the intact cat or
dog permit shall obtain a new permit pursuant to the applicable
provision of Section 122336.2 in order to be in compliance with this
section.
(f) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impose any
obligation on a veterinarian to enforce the provisions of this
chapter or to require the veterinarian to provide information to a
local animal control agency as to the spay or neuter status of a cat
or dog.

Article 3. Permits

122336.2. (a) A local jurisdiction shall issue an intact permit,
as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 122336, if the owner
provides sufficient proof proof acceptable to
the local jurisdiction , as determined by the local
jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that any
of the following conditions are met:
(1) The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or her
business license and federal and state tax number, or by other proof,
as required by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal
control agency, that he or she is doing business and is licensed as
a breeder at a location for which the local jurisdiction or its
authorized local animal control agency has issued a breeder license.
(2) The owner's cat or dog is a valid breed that is recognized by
an approved registry or association, and complies with at least one
of the following:
(A) His or her cat or dog is used to show or compete and has
competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition
hosted by, or under the approval of, a recognized registry or
association within the last two years, or by whatever proof is
requested required by the local
jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency that the
cat or dog is being trained to show or compete and is too young to
have yet competed.
(B) The cat or dog has earned, or if under three years old, is in
the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting,
herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other title from an
approved purebred registry or association.
(3) The owner is a legitimate breeder of mixed breed or
purebred working dogs, or is supplying mixed breed or
purebred dogs for training as working dogs to law enforcement,
fire agencies, or legitimate professional or volunteer private sector
working dog organizations.
(4) The dog is being raised, groomed, socialized, or otherwise
prepared for duties as a legitimate working dog.
(5)
(4) The dog is being actively used by law enforcement,
fire agencies, or legitimate professional or volunteer private sector
working dog organizations for law enforcement, fire service, search
and rescue, or medical service activities , or is being
raised, groomed, socialized, or otherwise prepared for duties
for any of these purposes .
(6)
(5) The owner of a cat or dog provides a letter to the
local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency from
a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor
health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog.
This letter shall include the veterinarian's license number
and shall, if this information is available, include the duration of
the condition of the dog or cat, and the date by which the dog or cat
may be safely The letter from the veterinarian shall
include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, a
description of the cat or dog in question, and, if this information
is available, the duration of the condition of the cat or dog, and
the date by which the cat or dog may be safely spayed or
neutered.
(b) Any cat or dog owner who is not a resident of California shall
be exempted from the permit requirements set forth in this chapter
if the owner provides proof, as determined by the local jurisdiction
or its authorized local animal control agency, that the cat or dog is
temporarily in California for training, showing, or any other
legitimate reason.
(c) (1) Any individual or organization breeding animals for
services provided by guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs, as
defined in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of
Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, shall be presumptively entitled to an
intact permit issued pursuant to this chapter.
(2) Any animal possessed by any individual with a disability
protected by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(Public Law 101-336) shall be exempt from the provisions of this
chapter if the animal is providing guide dog, service dog, or signal
dog services, as defined in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (6) of
subdivision (b) of Section 54.1 of the Civil Code.
(3) Guide dog, signal dog, and service dog programs licensed by
the State of California are exempt from all of the provisions of this
chapter.
(4) A person in possession of a cat or dog to be used for any of
the purposes set forth in the federal Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C.
Sec. 2131 et seq.) shall be exempt from the provisions of Section
122336.1, provided the person is licensed by or registered with the
United States Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the provisions of
the Animal Welfare Act.
(b)
(d) An unaltered cat or dog for which an intact permit
was issued who ceases to meet the requirements of subdivision (a) is
subject to the spay and neuter requirements set forth in Section
122336.1.
(c)
(e) (1) The amount of the fee for an intact permit
shall be determined by the local jurisdiction, and shall be no more
than what is reasonably necessary to fund the administration of that
jurisdiction's intact permit program.
(2) A local jurisdiction shall waive the intact permit fee for an
unaltered cat or dog that meets any of the requirements described in
paragraphs (3) to (5), inclusive, and (4)
of subdivision (a), and the provisions of subdivision
(f) (c) and may waive all or part of the intact
permit fee for an unaltered cat or dog meeting the requirements of
paragraph (6) (5) of subdivision (a).
(3) Any fee assessed by a local jurisdiction pursuant to this
chapter shall not be duplicative of any other local fee in that
jurisdiction.
(d)
(f) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local
jurisdiction from adopting or enforcing a more restrictive spay or
neuter program pursuant to Section 122331, provided that the program
allows for a cat or dog to be temporarily or permanently exempted
from a spay or neuter requirement for the reasons set forth in
paragraphs (3) to (6) to (5) ,
inclusive, of subdivision (a), or the provisions of subdivision
(f) (c) .
(e) Any owner of a cat or dog who is not a resident of California
shall be exempted from the permit requirements set forth in this
chapter if the owner provides proof, as determined by the local
jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that the
cat or dog is temporarily in California for training, showing, or any
other legitimate reason.
(f) (1) Any individual or organization breeding animals for
services provided by guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs, as
defined in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of
Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, shall be presumptively entitled to an
intact permit issued pursuant to this chapter.
(2) Any animal possessed by any individual with a disability
protected by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act shall be
exempt from the provisions of this chapter if the animal is providing
guide dog, service dog, or signal dog services, as defined in
subparagraph (C) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 54.1
of the Civil Code.
(3) Guide dog, signal dog, and service dog programs licensed by
the State of California are exempt from all of the provisions of this
chapter.
122336.21. (a) The local jurisdiction or its authorized local
animal control agency may allow for issuance of an intact permit, and
imposition of an intact permit fee, for one male and one female dog
per household in order to allow the dogs to produce a single litter
of offspring. In no event shall the intact permits issued for this
purpose have a duration in excess of one year. In addition, the
following conditions shall be met for purposes of obtaining and
retaining the permit:
(1) The animal has been examined by a licensed veterinarian and is
following the preventative health care program recommended by the
veterinarian.
(2) The owner has not been convicted of one or more violations of
the following offenses:
(A) Section 121705 of the Health and Safety Code.
(B) Section 286.5 of the Penal Code.
(C) Section 596 of the Penal Code.
(D) Section 597 of the Penal Code.
(E) Section 597.5 of the Penal Code.
(F) Section 599aa of the Penal Code.
(G) Section 487e of the Penal Code.
(H) Section 487f of the Penal Code.
(I) Section 487g of the Penal Code.
(3) The owner has not been convicted of two or more violations of
any local ordinance involving the dog for whom the unaltered animal
certification is sought.
(4) The owner has not received an order from the local
jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency involving
the dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought.
(5) The dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought
has not been determined by local jurisdiction or its authorized local
animal control agency to be a "vicious animal."
(6) The animal is properly housed and cared for as follows:
(A) The animal is provided sufficient quantity of good and
wholesome food and water.
(B) The animal is provided shelter that will allow the animal to
stand up, turn around, and lie down without lying in its feces, and
the area where the animal is kept is properly cleaned and
disinfected.
(C) The animal is fully contained on the owner's property and
provided appropriate exercise.
(D) The animal owner otherwise complies with any applicable state
law concerning the care and housing of animals.
(7) The owner furnishes the director of animal control services
with a signed statement agreeing to the following conditions:
(A) Offspring of the unaltered animal may not be sold and may be
adopted without a fee only after they reach eight weeks of age.
(B) Records will be kept documenting how many offspring were
produced and who adopted them.
(8) The dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought
is currently licensed pursuant to local requirements.
(9) The owner has considered having the animal microchipped for
purposes of identification.
(b) The owner shall maintain records documenting how many
offspring were produced or adopted, or both, and shall provide proof
that the dog has been spayed or neutered after a single litter. This
information shall be made available to an animal control agency upon
request.
(c) The amount of the fee for an intact permit issued under this
section shall be determined by the local jurisdiction and shall not
exceed the cost of administering this section.

(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2012, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2012, deletes or extends
that date.

Article 4. Funding

122336.3. (a) (1) Any civil penalty collected pursuant to
subdivision (b) of Section 122336.1 shall be used for funding the
administration, outreach, and enforcement activities set forth in
Article 5 (commencing with Section 122336.4).
(2) To the extent that funding is available pursuant to this
chapter, a local animal control agency shall establish a free and
low-cost spay and neuter program for low-income individuals. The
agency shall undertake outreach efforts to inform qualified persons
about these programs.
(b) All permit fees collected pursuant to subdivision (c) of
Section 122336.2, and subdivision (c) of Section 122336.21,
shall be used for funding the administration of the permit
program in the local jurisdiction in which the permits are issued.

Article 5. Enforcement

122336.4. A local animal control agency shall be responsible for
enforcing, conducting outreach efforts in connection with, and
administering, this chapter.
SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a
local agency or school district has the authority to levy service
charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or
level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section
17556 of the Government Code.
SEC. 4. This act shall become operative on April 1, 2008.

Judge Reminds PETA That Dognapping Is A Felony

June 27, 2007


SPECIAL REPORT: Judge Reminds PETA That Dognapping Is A Felony

Yesterday, the latest People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) employee to run afoul of the law made her get-out-of-jail-free arguments before a Virginia judge. It didn’t go too well. At the end of a 90-minute “probable cause” hearing in the aptly named town of Courtland, Virginia, PETA worker Andrea Florence Benoit stood charged with the October 2006 felony theft of a hunting dog. And we learned a great deal more about this disturbing case, and just how far PETA will go to substitute its judgment for everyone else’s.

Before the hearing even began, the prosecutor declared that he wouldn’t pursue petty larceny charges related to a radio-tracking collar Benoit removed from the dog before she put it in a PETA-owned van. Benoit’s lawyer now admits that she took the collar off, but tossed it by the side of the road. (PETA has had trouble with littering in the past, as our readers will remember.) The prosecutor also said he won’t press charges against Benoit’s PETA co-worker Carrie Beth Edwards, who now appears to have been a minor player in the alleged dog-napping.

One bombshell after another fell during the hearing. Here are just a few:

Detectives (and Animal Control officer John Thomas Cooke, who owned the dog) testified that when they stopped Benoit’s van, she lied about having taken the animal. Only after Cooke described the animal in detail did she admit it—saying “Oh … that dog. It’s in the back.”
Cooke also testified that Benoit lied about the tracking collar, saying “I have no idea what you’re talking about.”
When Benoit put Cooke’s dog into her PETA-owned van, it was wearing an identification collar with Cooke’s name and cell phone number on it. Its coat was also marked with an identifying number and with Cooke’s initials.
Criminal defense attorney Stephen Benjamin, speaking for Benoit, admitted that the dog was perfectly healthy when she took it.
Benjamin added that Benoit and Edwards “did what was, quite frankly, consistent with their training” at PETA.

This morning, PETA’s hometown Virginian-Pilot newspaper notes that in his parting shot before the judge, prosecutor Steve Edwards summarized the case as “a hound that was picked up by an organization from another jurisdiction to do who-knows-what with.” (Note: Steve Edwards is no relation to PETA employee Carrie Beth Edwards, nor to judge Robert B. Edwards.) And we’re reminding the media that “who-knows-what” may have involved deadly drugs and a trash bag.

Between 1998 and 2005, PETA put to death over 80 percent of the animals it brought back to its Norfolk headquarters. In 2005 that number was more than 90 percent. (The group has ignored the State of Virginia’s March 31 deadline for providing its 2006 pet-killing statistics.) And in courtroom testimony earlier this year, a PETA manager testified that the group doesn’t have any facilities for long-term animal sheltering.

The next step for Andrea Benoit will likely be a Grand Jury indictment, followed by a trial in Southampton County Circuit Court. The “Class 5” felony of grand larceny (click here to see the charging document) could bring Benoit a prison term of between 1 and 10 years. And, of course, a perpetual black eye for PETA. The animal-rights group’s legal godfather, attorney Phil Hirschkop, was in the courtroom yesterday keeping a watchful eye on things (as he was this winter during PETA’s highly embarrassing animal-cruelty trial). From the looks of the evidence, he has his work cut out for him.

Breaking News

Here's a sampling of other stories that have caught our interest today. To see a one-week archive of these items, click here.

Scripps columnist on trendy popcorn bans: "Everybody relax. It's just popcorn. Calm down."
UK police charge another woman with animal-rights threats
Restaurant chains "unfairly targeted" by NYC menu-labeling demands
Our new favorite daily comic. Does PETA have hit men? You decide.
The Colbert Report tackles "freeganism." Really tackles it. Really.
"Vegetarian" Paris Hilton gorged on chicken noodle soup in jail
Study: Families, not diets, help kids slim down
UK Environment Minister rules out foie gras ban
PETA attacks Michael Moore for being fat. (It's hard to pick a villain in this one, folks ...)

Recovery from Misuse of Funds Takes Years

SANTA CRUZ, Calif.; SEVIERVILLE, Tenn.­­Catching alleged misuse of funds by trusted executives can be difficult. Recovering from the damage may be harder still, the recent experiences of tbe Santa Cruz SPCA and Sevier County Humane Society seem to illustrate­­while some of the people involved with each organization maintain that their major problem all along has just been unfriendly news coverage.

Serving an affluent and picturesque California coastal community, the Santa Cruz SPCA is just a long but pleasant commute from either the Silicon Valley­­the Santa Clara Valley on maps ­­or San Francisco.

The Sevier County Humane Society, in Sevierville, Tennessee, serves Appalachian hollows ("hollers" in local dialect) best known for exhausted strip mines, poverty, and country music.

Yet both are in comparable situations involving loss of community confidence, embattled leadership, and no clear route toward recovering stability and a good reputation.

Santa Cruz
The Santa Cruz SPCA debacle exploded into public view in March 2002, after the board fired the third executive director it had hired in four years, and asked Santa Cruz County plus the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola, and Scotts Valley for a 56% increase in the amount it was paid to provide animal control services.

The Santa Cruz SPCA claimed to have lost more than $500,000 in fulfillment of the previous contract over the preceding two years.

County auditor Gary Knutson reported, however, that the Santa Cruz SPCA owed the county $229,000 in fees and fines collected but not relayed to the county, as required.

On April 20, Knutson added that in 1999 the then-Santa Cruz SPCA husband-and-wife management team of Jo Storsberg and Brian Taylor spent $8,355 on unauthorized travel, dining, and personal purchases, using an SPCA credit card without board approval.

An informed source told ANIMAL PEOPLE that at least half of the allegedly unauthorized spending involved legitimate expenses incurred in connection with attending the Humane Society of the U.S. Expo in Las Vegas, but few if any other organizations spend anything like that much money just to send two people to a conference.

Continuing his audit, Knutson on June 18 concluded that the SPCA had misused $715,000 in all.

"The audit also showed that public money had been used to pay for a leased Audi" for Storsberg and Taylor, Santa Cruz Sentinel staff writer Jeanne Harlick reported.

But Storsberg and Taylor departed in 2000 when the board did not renew their contract, Harlick explained, and declared personal bankruptcy, putting them apparently beyond reach­­at least with any hope of recovering the money.

The county reclaimed the animal control contract, but two months of stalled efforts to negotiate a lease of the Santa Cruz SPCA shelter obliged the county animal control staff to work out of temporary facilities, boarding impounded animals with local veterinarians.

The SPCA board resolved on July 1, meanwhile, to disinter countless animals from the 1.5-acre Pine Knoll Pet Cemetery, a community landmark, and sell the property to repay the funds owed to the county­­although the exact amount to be repaid remained unsettled.

Said the Santa Cruz SPCA board of directors in a joint statement, "The county claims we owe them $500,000 for not following their budgets. We have agreed that we owe them $226,000 for license fees that we collected and used to pay for animal control services, but the claim for half a million dollars is unjustified and absolutely disputed. All money was spent on animal control and sheltering."

The notion of selling the pet cemetery was not well-accepted. Charles Edward Graves, DVM, founded both the SPCA and the cemetery in 1938. Roy Graves, his son, said there were at least 300 registered pet graves on the site, and hundreds of others left unmarked.

The animals' graves were excavated and their remains removed, ANIMAL PEOPLE was told, but the plan to sell the cemetery was stalled and eventually withdrawn when the site turned out to be habitat for two endangered species­­ the Mount Hermon June beetle and the Ben Lomond spineflower. The land may not be sold, legally, until and unless a habitat conservation plan is approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Sevierville
The Sevierville Humane Society fired former shelter director Reba Click for alleged embezzling in August 2000. Click was convicted in February 2002 of stealing more than $17,000, but $80,000 remained unaccounted for, SHS board secretary M.C. Wilson reportedly told Anna Garber of The Mountain Press.

Board member Dawn Elberson succeeded Glick until May 2002, when newly hired executive director Riley Campbell and volunteers found "dead cats, drug paraphernalia, and urine-soaked piles of garbage" on the premises, according to Mountain Press managing editor Jeannie Brandstetter. Campbell reportedly also found an inoperable crematorium filled with partially burned and decomposed remains, and numerous diseased and heat-stressed animals in urgent need of help.

Campbell summoned emergency aid from other Tennessee humane organizations. Officers of two of the organizations separately told ANIMAL PEOPLE after the rescue mission that in their view the SHS board should be prosecuted for neglect.

The Mountain Press meanwhile revealed a recent history of management failures, including not filing documents required by the state of Tennessee to keep nonprofit status, not remembering to bill Sevier County and the cities of Gatlinburg and Sevierville for animal control services, and allegedly paying $8,900 to Hal Johns, the husband of board president Sheila Johns, for a "barn renovation" that Campbell said was little more than a paint job. Sheila Johns argued that the actual amount was $8,400, that substantial renovation was done, and that her husband only relayed the money to subcontractors.

Campbell and office manager Fred Sawyer, whom Campbell hired, ran into trouble in early August when the SHS board of directors reportedly found that Campbell's resume could not be verified, while Sawyer had never submitted one. Reputedly a former reptile trainer, Camp-bell had also made more than 54 hours' worth of cell telephone calls in barely six weeks to people believed to be reptile dealers. Both Campbell and Sawyer resigned, apparently taking the SHS drug use and euthanasia records with them.

Elsewhere
Other humane societies may soon be going through similar.

At least a dozen prosecutions of former humane society executives are pending elsewhere around the U.S., most of them beginning after economic hard times forced boards of directors to more actively audit the organizations' accounts.

Most of the pending cases involve relatively small sums, but the Los Angeles SPCA in late March 2002 sued seeking recovery of $928,352 that former chief financial officer Kenneth Brookwell allegedly took from a retirement fund.

The LA/SPCA, which paid Brookwell $73,140 per year in salary and benefits, "contends Brookwell wrote at least 74 checks drawn on the fund to himself, to his banks, to his credit card companies, and even to companies building his home," Associated Press reported.

Hired as controller in January 1996, Brookwell reportedly won four promotions in as many years before going on disability leave in July 2001.

Been there, done that
South of Santa Cruz, on the far side of Monterey Bay, SPCA of Monterey County executive director Gary Tiscornia could testify from direct experience about the difficulties that the Santa Cruz SPCA, Sevierville Huame Society, LA/SPCA, et al can expect to meet ahead. Tiscornia headed the Michigan Humane Society for a decade after predecessor David Wills departed, leaving an unexplained deficit of $1.6 million.

Bookkeeper Denise Hopkins was successfully prosecuted for allegedly embezzling a small portion of it. Wills was successfully sued in 1994 for taking money under false pretenses at his next stop, the defunct National Society for Animal Protection, and was in 1997 convicted of embezzling from the Humane Society of the U.S., where he was vice president for investigations, 1991-1994.

Wills was never brought to account for any of the missing Michigan Humane money, however, and although Tiscornia was credited with impressively rebuilding the organization, the losses had a ripple effect evident even 10 years afterward, when Michigan Humane cut back a discount pet sterilization program because tight funding inhibited hiring enough veterinarians to keep it operating at all three of the MHS shelters.

This seems so backwards to me. We have our priorities all mixed up. Why not do like they used to do for Doris Day Spay and Neuter Day? Make the Spay and Neutering Free or a token of $5.00? The city that we live in used to help out with that day too and it was a big success. There weren't enough appointment times available for everyone who wanted to have their pets "fixed."

We don't need more laws or more animal controls.. We need to have free or less cost Spay and Neuter Programs.

Everything has gone up. Cat and Dog Food, Litter, licensing fees, etc.. Let's be reasonable about this over population problem... Let's give people a chance to do the right thing.

I think that Katlady needs to find a job or a hobby. She obviously has way too much time on her hands, and is taking up way too much hard drive space and forcing everybody to spend too much time scrolling past her jiberish.

Jackie , if you don't want to read what I write . then done . You must be good buddy with Levine

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.