The California breeding ban: Crunch time coming
By Gina Spadafori
May 29, 2007
This morning, Christie’s column at SFGate.com is about the so-called “California Healthy Pets” act — AB 1634. We have written before about how it is a simplistic approach to a complex pet overpopulation problem, one that pays lip-service to the idea of exempting reputable breeders while giving commercial breeders — aka “puppy mills” — free reign.
As for casual backyard breeders (as opposed to reputable ones), since many of the people who pump out puppies for no reason besides profit often do not license or properly care for their animals now, there is no reason to believe they will change their ways if AB 1634 becomes law. What will happen, though, is that reputable breeders (here and here for the difference) producing healthy, temperamentally sound pets and working dogs will be pretty much shut down.
And of course, what starts in California often becomes a national trend.
Here is a link to our argument against AB 1634. If you live in California, contact your state Assemblymember and Senator. If you do not live here, drop the Governor a note.
I am disappointed to see the California Veterinary Medical Association on board with this legislation, and last week I asked my own veterinarians to join me in telling the CVMA that the organization is off-track.
Turned out many veterinarians feel that way, including Dr. Charles A. Hjerpe, a professor emeritus of the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Hjerpe sent this letter to the CVMA, and gave us permission to share it in an e-mail this morning:
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 10:18 AM
Subject: AB 1634To 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
Over on the Lassie Get Help! blog, some more AB 1634 nonsense:
Why do the “Healthy Pets” spinmeisters keep telling us that the Santa Cruz law is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and the model for AB 1634, when it looks as if they’ve never really read it?
And how did these people wind up crafting legislation for the entire state?
We need legislation that targets the real problems of homeless pets, not feel-good bills with bogus names that hide the true purpose of many animal-rights activists: An end to all domestic animals. “One generation and out,” is their motto.
We disagree.
I hope it doesn’t pass but do we know what Stand the Gov. of Ca. has on this? VETO power works too! He seems like a very rational and kind man to me.
Comment by Linda — May 29, 2007 @ 9:09 am
You can tell the Gov. what you think by calling 916 445-2841 and go through the options until you reach a staff member (1, 2, then 0).
Comment by Linda — May 29, 2007 @ 9:14 am
P.S.
Well, I just called the Gov’s office. He has taken no official position on this bill yet - why because it changes so much if it ever gets to his desk.
And I asked the gal on the phone what was the best way to present my arguments? She said do it now with me. So I just told her what I thought and she listened, lots of yes, yes, okay, okay. I did have to wait a bit on the phone, maybe five minutes, but I did get through.
Comment by Linda — May 29, 2007 @ 9:25 am
My neighbor showed her dogs all 4 days during the Mission Circuit event this past weekend in Pamona. She said Arnie stopped by on one of the days and seemed very receptive to the dog fancier’s feelings opposing AB 1634. Let’s hope and pray they were able to make a lasting impact on him. I can’t say for sure which way Arnie will swing, but my neighbor (a 3rd generation handler and breeder) did feel very optimistic.
Comment by Ally — May 29, 2007 @ 9:50 am
Ally - GOOD NEWS INDEED.
Comment by Linda — May 29, 2007 @ 9:52 am
We see him around Sacramento. He’s shorter than you’d think! :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 29, 2007 @ 9:54 am
:)
But he’s The Teerrrrminnnnnatorrrr!!! Ain’t no way he’s short!!! :) Must be his stand-in!! ;)
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — May 29, 2007 @ 10:05 am
Will non-CA residents writing to the governor have an impact? If so, I’m on board but I hadn’t thought before now that a non-CA resident’s opinion would matter to the governor of CA.
Comment by slt — May 29, 2007 @ 10:11 am
Everything helps. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 29, 2007 @ 10:12 am
My son has met him several times - he says that Arnie is very polite and quite well-built for a larger than life political celebrity.
Comment by Linda — May 29, 2007 @ 10:18 am
I’m with Gina on this one. I’d say write Arnie no matter what. The more he hears from those opposing AB 1634 can’t hurt. I keep thinking about the meeting where one legislator came in with two stacks of letters and the taller stack represented all in opposition to the bill. I just love visual aids, don’t you? ;)
Strength in numbers certainly can’t hurt, especially in a battle of this nature. If you haven’t already, get busy letting the Gubernator letting him know how you feel and that if he doesn’t listen, tell him “I’ll be baaack!” :)
Comment by Ally — May 29, 2007 @ 10:45 am
Comment by Gina Spadafori — May 29, 2007 @ 10:12 am
didn’t he get bombarded on the Hayden Law when he tried to change it a couple years ago? and listen . . . ?
Comment by straybaby — May 29, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
“tell him “I’ll be baaack!” :)”
I can REALLY say that as I moving back in the next year or 2 ;)
Comment by straybaby — May 29, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
One thing non-residents could mention in a letter to the Governor is whether they plan on possibly vacationing and/or retiring in CA if A(nti)B(reeding) 1634 passes.
Comment by slt — May 29, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
One note - when I called the gov. office - they took my name and listened but did not ask me the state I was from…….
Comment by Linda — May 29, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
LAMO, non residents having a impact. Ok maybe its just me but this austrian born man with money and *cough* his wife. Ahem, it would seem odd if it WASNT allowed then again.
It’s politics folks anything goes.
Comment by AZ — May 4, 2008 @ 10:36 am
I am totally for a mandatory S&N Law, along with a TAX for breeders on ANY animal they bring into this world. The $$$ can be used to support NO KILL shelters. The only people against mandatory S&N are the breeders themselves, naturally. It is the REAL animal lovers of the world, the rescuers, who get to clean up the “mess” of “unwanted” animals the breeders are RESPONSIBLE for bringing into this world, and NO ONE, org., govt, or otherwise,is helping them. They are ALL overwhelmed! Mandatory S&N and a TAX on the producers is the only way to correct pet over-population or the “unwanted” animal problem. Ray Charles could see that! Why cant you?
Comment by MuleKist — June 26, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
Ray Charles could see that! Why cant you?
Comment by MuleKist — June 26, 2009
I’m guessing we can’t “see that” because we’re not haters who want to punish pets and the people who love them with laws that kill more animals than they save.
Just guessing, though.
And by the way, you don’t know crap-all what the laws you want really are about, you don’t know what good breeders do, and you certainly aren’t the only “real” animal lover in the world. But you certainly ARE being led to push the extinction of pets by people who are manipulating your emotion for their agendas.
Mandatory spay-neuter has worked exactly NOWHERE, and it has KILLED MORE ANIMALS than it saves exactly EVERYWHERE, all at higher cost to taxpayers. And many of those breeders you trash have done more rescue work than you have, I’ll guarantee you.
Bring some facts, not just your talking points, and lose the hate or shove off. I’m tired of talking-point parrots who can’t be bothered to think beyond the hate and sound bites handed to them by extremists. Just because something “sounds good” and makes you feel “special” doesn’t mean it works or that you can a clue.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 26, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
Go Gina!
Comment by JenniferJ — June 26, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
The only people against mandatory S&N are the breeders themselves, naturally.
Comment by MuleKist — June 26, 2009 @ 2:03 pm
I’m not a breeder.
I’m against MSN.
Thus, your argument is proven invalid.
Comment by K. B. — June 26, 2009 @ 3:21 pm
mulekist - you should read the last few comments from the article - There’s Nothing “Progressive” about Mandatory Spay/neuter - or better the whole article and all the comments - one of the past comments asked for a slogan type of thing to quickly educate the negatives of mandatory spay/neuter - I apologize to who came up with it but its MSN - COSTS, FAILS, KILLS - even if someone doesn’t know exactly why MSN is not a good idea their interest would be triggered by the slogan - sooo what if breeders, RESPONSIBLE loving breeders came up with a slogan - something that emphasizes loving caring, preservation of lines, parentage - and you know all the good things - just the word breeder has a bad connotation and I really hope I’m not stepping on toes saying so….but it’s what I’ve seen and been around and sounds like mulekist has been fed the same stuff - so to correct misconceptions emphasize the compassionate green side of breeding…
Comment by francis — June 26, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
Oh, I forgot to add this:
When did we forget about the people who put pets in shelters in the first place - the OWNERS. Not the breeders, not people who buy from responsible breeders, but the owners who, for whatever reason, decided to abandon their pets?
Do they not share any of the blame for the “over-population”?
(which actually isn’t an over-population problem, it’s more of a distribution problem, but let’s not ruin a good argument with any stinkin’ facts).
Comment by K. B. — June 26, 2009 @ 3:24 pm
Hmmm, to be fair, MuleKist appears to be dedicated to animal welfare judging from her site and a google search.
But sometimes when your deep in the forest, you cannot see it for the trees.
it’s easy to become frustrated and disillusioned with people, and feel that there just has to be a simple answer out there.
The problem is that with many animal welfare and other social issues, it ain’t as simple as “if there was only a law!”
MuleKist, the No-Kill Advocacy Center has a real problem with MSN. Alley Cat Allies has a real problem with MSN. The “little” 501c3 rescue that processes 125-150 dogs yearly which I’ve been part of for 22 years now has a real problem with MSN. And if this law passes, I fear we will lose many of our foster homes as they are, get ready for it, Responsible Breeders. Under SB250, keeping an extra dog for even a few days or getting one annoyed neighbor calling on a barky new foster ONE time and they will lose their right to keep not just their licensed intact dogs and any in the future.
But even if you HATE breeders and feel intact domestic pets are somehow offensive and evil, how can anyone concerned with the welfare of animals support laws which are PROVEN killers of pets and strays?
MSN COSTS, FAILS, KILLS.
You’re a member of ASPCA. They don’t endorse MSN
Comment by JenniferJ — June 26, 2009 @ 3:29 pm
francis, that’s mine and please do use it as much as you like!
that’s the point :D
oh and whoops, my post had the half finished thought about ASPCA. The point is they do NOT endorse MSN per their own published statements, as it has never been shown to actually help while VOLUNTARY programs do. :)
Comment by JenniferJ — June 26, 2009 @ 3:33 pm
Jennifers - MSN would be a hindrance for foster homes - excellent point - pet limit ordinances are a hindrance big time in my area for foster homes - I recently saw on the news in China they are enforcing a one dog limit without grandfathering in the law - so pet owners are forced to give up their pets to meet the quota - Sophie’s Choice for dogs, very sad…
Comment by francis — June 26, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
Two excellent summations on the downsides of MSN and limit laws
http://www.nokilladvocacycente.....rylaws.pdf
http://www.nokilladvocacycente.....itLaws.pdf
Comment by JenniferJ — June 26, 2009 @ 4:10 pm
Chris (Mulekist), may I respectfully suggest that you attend to your ability, financial and otherwise, to provide proper husbandry to the animals who are in your custody and for the care of whom you are legally and morally responsible.
Now, having that all under control *does not* give anyone carte blanche to dictate how others care for their animals. But not having that under control provides clay feet for any argument one presents about what the government should force other people to do to and with their privately owned pets.
Comment by H. Houlahan — June 26, 2009 @ 7:33 pm