Assembly passes mandatory spay/neuter in CA, sends to Senate
By Christie Keith
June 6, 2007
In a last-minute late night vote, California’s State Assembly approved AB 1634, a bill that would require mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs and cats over the age of 4 months in the state of California.
The bill, which was stalled earlier today, passed at 10:18 PM PT by a vote of 41 to 38 — 41 being the bare minimum number of votes needed to pass. The bill will now go to the Senate for consideration.
Sorry for your disappointment Gina and Christie, but I’m thrilled! You had me pretty depressed about an hour ago when you last posted.
Comment by Barb — June 6, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
Well, it hasn’t passed yet. And hopefully it won’t, as it would do grave harm to the cause it purports to serve.
Comment by Christie Keith — June 6, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
4 months, THAT IS TOO YOUNG!
Comment by Cynthia — June 7, 2007 @ 3:25 am
Did it pass?
Comment by Linda — June 7, 2007 @ 5:52 am
Ugh. Here’s hoping the Senate does the right thing and kills this poorly conceived bill.
And.. here’s hoping the rest of the country doesn’t decide to jump on board and devise similar laws.
This bill is nothing but harmful to pets, owners, and responsible breeders alike, and completely fails to address the true causes of pet overpopulation.
Anyone know what the Governator’s stance is?
Comment by Gwen — June 7, 2007 @ 5:55 am
Comment by Cynthia — June 7, 2007 @ 3:25 am
agree for mandantory. while it’s fine for some pets, it’s not for all.
Comment by straybaby — June 7, 2007 @ 6:30 am
Unfortunately lots of other states tend to follow leads set by California. Hopefully this is one case where everyone else will ignore California.
Comment by Mike — June 7, 2007 @ 6:35 am
If this passes… does this mean that there will be No Puppies or Kittens born in the state??
I mean, like, I’ve read this several times and thats what I get from it…But I just can’t believe it…so, maybe I’m wrong?? I hope I’m wrong.
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — June 7, 2007 @ 6:45 am
Well if it passes it looks like my pup is going into some type of official training program to show even if he doesn’t win much because I am not having him fixed so early.
Comment by Linda — June 7, 2007 @ 6:53 am
If other states follow California, and if there is a drop in the number of dogs and cats, we may have no more “canaries”. Corporations will be looking for new ways to hide their toxic waste and more and more industrial contaminants will likey go directly to the human food chain.
Comment by ango — June 7, 2007 @ 7:12 am
Comment by Linda — June 7, 2007 @ 6:53 am
“Well if it passes it looks like my pup is going into some type of official training program to show even if he doesn’t win much because I am not having him fixed so early.”
Just realized this is ANOTHER reason this bill doesn’t make sense. You can’t show a dog at less than six months of age, and four months is about the earliest any trainer even accepts puppies for “socialization classes”. So how how are you going to document that you’re showing/training them to get the intact examption? (Time warp, anyone?)
Here - again - are some of the specific points I disagree with in the bill and why:
1) The bill requires pediatric spay/neuter. The scientific community remains divided on the question of whether this is harmful to dogs. I don’t want a possibly dangerous choice foisted on me and my dog via legislation.
2) The bill permits each community to set the amount of an intact permit fee. This means an “anti-breeder” community could decide to set fees so high as to be beyond the means of a Responsible Hobby Breeder. And lest you think this is far-fetched, there is a community near me that offers “Kennel License Applications” if you want to keep more than three dogs, but they have never actually ISSUED one. They just use it as a means to find people with more than three dogs, and then they tell them they either have to move or get rid of the “extra” dogs. Happened to a friend of mine, and she moved.
3) The bill requires the posession of a business licence to get an intact permit. Most Responsible Hobby Breeders do not operate businesses. ALL *Commercial Breeders* DO!
4) To get an intact permit, the dog or cat must be “a valid breed that is recognized by an approved registry or association”. Who deems which registries and associations will be “approved”? By what criteria? (AKC? UKC? WKC? APRI? ARBA? Do you know what all of those are? Would you include all of them? Some of them? None of them? Others not named here? Why or why not?)
5) Same problem with the requirement to show with a recognized registry or association. Who deems which registries and associations will be “approved”? By what criteria?
These things alone make it an unworkable bill. So why waste money, time and legislative resources on it instead of putting the money to use finding ways to KEEP dogs in homes once they get there?
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 7, 2007 @ 7:19 am
I’m voting NO on this bill
Comment by Jill — June 7, 2007 @ 7:38 am
Rhode Island law requires that all cats be spayes/neutered, with some excemptions, such as cats on farms. They have until the cat is 6 months old.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13248311/
Comment by ango — June 7, 2007 @ 7:40 am
OTHER Pat,
don’t forget large breed dog growth and other health issues. i’m not keen on having a law that tells me when to neuter a stone forming breed. i’m looking around for the discussions/studies right now where they suggest 50wks for a male Dal. I’ve seen one pro-early s/n vet say age doesn’t matter (regarding this), but i also know all vets are not created equal. especially when it comes to Dals. I have 3 within walking distance and only one that i trust my Dal (and cats!) with.
so who do we need to write to for the next round?
Comment by straybaby — June 7, 2007 @ 7:41 am
Peggy there will still be puppies and kittens born in the state. All those that should and don’t alter their pets will continue to not alter them.
All those the do follow the laws, will alter their pets and shouldn’t.
The shortage will be of pure bred desired breeds. A shortage of good breeders who leave the state for the good of the breed they are breeding.
All the shelters will still be full and there won’t be one possible pure bred animal in the place. Just mobs of the breeds this silly law is thinking it may eliminate.
Perhaps what they need to think of is WHO is not altering their pets and why.
Take a drive across any bigger city. Start off in the higher income areas, no loose/stray animals running at large. As you make your way to the lower income areas, you will notice dogs running at large. I get very frustrated seeing a intact male chihuahua making his rounds through his territory. Common here. Many of which by the looks of them are not breeding stock.
Low cost spay/nuetering clients help solve some of this. The lawmakers sitting up late night passing this silliness could have donated that portion of their wages and paid for many of these at large, unaltered animals. Many of these pet owners unfortunately are struggling to live in California on wages that hardly cover the cost of living in this state.
Why do they have pets then? A good dog is cheaper then investing in an alarm system in what is surely a home they most likely don’t own. Lawmakers have the disadvantage of seeing much of the issues through the rose colored glasses they have on. Without “taking a walk in the real world, cause this ain’t no Mr. Rogers nieghborhood.” Lyric trivia for Christie, it’s a California band.
Hint #2 and one of thosee lyrics that as run through my mind often of late when certain talking heads talk out loud. “You wouldn’t know crazy if Charles Manson was eating fruit loops on your front porch.” One of my personal all time favorite lyrics ever.
Oh Christie there is no prize or winnings in my muisic trivia, it’s just for amusement purposes. I went to look at that music site you edit and thought Christie is soooo cool. Rock on.
Comment by Maudigan — June 7, 2007 @ 7:42 am
What happened last night is that the few democrats that were against this bill were lobbied and switched votes - not because they agreed with the bill - but because they made a deal - okay I will switch but my bill coming up needs a few more votes - so we will trade votes!
But I have a feeling the Senate is going to pass this bill. And on what moral grounds? To lessen the pain and suffering of animals? Seems so noble and it is, but not with this bill. How about stopping commercial breeders and out-of-State puppy mills if these people care so much about the pain and suffering of animals. Stop selling dog and cats in pet stores.
I intend to write the Governor of CA and call too since I reside in the State and I will write all the Senators, not just my district rep.
I think they could have accomplished saving so many unwanted and disposable pets by another and better law.
I heard too that when people want to go on vacation, summer time, is when the SPCA gets most of their pets - I suppose it saves on boarding fees.
Comment by Linda — June 7, 2007 @ 8:30 am
Posted this on the other topic, but realized I forgot to ask — any of your state senators have national ambitions? As an out of stater I’d certainly be willing to tell any of them that I will remember this when they are running for president…
Arghh. I don’t live in California, THANK DOG. And fortunately my state is more likely NOT to do something, because those leftys out in San Francisco did it. We are very red, usually to my dismay, but in this case….
Anyway, I have to agree with Christy, the shelters are full, but getting rid of responsible breeders is not the way to get people to adopt dogs that would otherwise be put down in the shelters. I have a friend who has been looking for a small, non-shedder, who likes kids and cats for several years now. There is maybe one at our local shelter who would work for her, but I’ll bet you she’ll be gone by the time my friend can get to the shelter…
I went to our local shelters pet connection page. There are 100 animals on it. 51 cats, 49 dogs. Of the dogs only 5 are smallish—Chihuahua mix, Jack Russell Terrier, Bichon Frise, Beagle Mix, Shih Tzu Mix. All of the other are biggish/active type dogs Shepherd/Golden Retriever, Australian Cattle Dog/Blue Heeler, Australian Shepherd/Border Collie, Cattle Dog, Border Collie, Border Collie, Border Collie, Border Collie, Catahoula Leopard Dog, Saint Bernard, St. Bernard/Border Collie, Labrador Retriever, Labrador Retriever, Terrier, Shepherd, English Springer Spaniel, Bernese Mountain Dog, Briard, Doberman Pinscher, Rottweiler, Labrador Retriever/Standard Poodle, Labrador Retriever/Dalmatian etc…
I know that they don’t put up pictures of all the Labs, Labxs, Border Collies, Cattle dogs. Etc. If they get one that’s cute and will photograph well, up goes his picture. Then if you go in to look at Buddy the Lab you get to see all of the labs and labxs. I also know that many of the cute little dogs aren’t in the shelter long enough to even get their pictures taken and posted. Most go way quick. I would be willing to guess that the 5 little dogs mostly or maybe all have issues of health or temperament that make them less adoptable. That’s why they are still there. Not to say you can’t get a nice dog, even a nice little dog at the shelter, you can, but you have to circle the place like a vulture and be willing to keep ignoring all the nice labs, border collies, and cattle dogs. My Sable (mini schnauzer) came out of the shelter, but with major health issues that made most people unwilling to take a chance on her. I have been the corgi rescue contact for 5 years or so, and have been involved in taking one corgi that the shelter wasn’t able to quickly place. (an older guy with health issues)
Of the cats easily 80-90% will be put down. 50-60% of the dogs will be put down—mostly the labs, labx’s, border collies, and cattle dogs. Tell me how spaying every corgi and mini schnauzer in the state is going to help???
Comment by schnauzer — June 7, 2007 @ 8:37 am
I know being prefer smaller dogs, especially with our “aging” population, but I my heart aches for the larger ones that go unwanted, untrained, and in desperate need of love and tender care and attention. Poor Souls with pleading, don’t let me die eyes.
Comment by Linda — June 7, 2007 @ 8:53 am
Comment by Linda — June 7, 2007 @ 8:30 am
they actually use ‘vacation’ as reason for surrender!! they wait in line with their pet, and then hand it over. when asked reason for surrender, “we’re going on vacation”. then get pissy when they find out there’s a surrender fee!!
now, obviously they weren’t all that attached, so if it wasn’t vacation, the pet would end up there anyway under one of the other more ‘popular’ excuses . . .
i remember the first time i volunteered at a different building for the city. i was waiting for someone to come out and get me. a woman shoved her cat-in-a-bag under a chair and left when she heard “surrender fee”. just a little young, scared kitty . . . won’t be the first or last, and i doubt a s/n law would have changed her fate. nor will it stop people dumping them in the dog runs, tying them to fences, leaving them in a box out front etc. . .
Comment by straybaby — June 7, 2007 @ 8:59 am
I live in california and i’m not going to vote on that. What if someone wants a small kitten and there won’t be any. I’m mad about this one.
Comment by Jill — June 7, 2007 @ 9:33 am
Jill … you don’t get to vote on it. Call your state Senator — he or she gets to.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 7, 2007 @ 9:35 am
Straybaby 8:59
Yep that’s right.
Comment by Linda — June 7, 2007 @ 9:48 am
All my cats have been strays I picked up after someone dumped them on my street. You can tell the ones that were dumped - they sit under the lamp post and cry and cry and cry…..
This bill is not going to solve pet dumping because the “lack” of pets, the vacuum, will be filled by greedy pet mills from out of State (or in State too I suppose - the big operators)- and I bet the pet population stays near the same levels, and strays and dumping will continue.
And many people from the midwest will be advertising here in local papers, which is done, or on the net and the quality of pets will diminish - very sad.
Comment by Linda — June 7, 2007 @ 9:58 am
Thanks for explaining, Maudigan. I did mean *legally* no puppies or kittens could be born. So it’s true, then?? That’s crazy, just crazy. Will Californians have to import pets from other places? Would that even be allowed? I’m sorry but I just can’t wrap my head around this. Are there no exemptions for breeders at all? Good responsible breeders that is, who could be licensed or something…
Comment by Peggy (AKA: Big Fat Momma Cat) — June 7, 2007 @ 11:21 am
“This bill is not going to solve pet dumping because the “lack” of pets, the vacuum, will be filled by greedy pet mills from out of State”
Or by puppy smuggling from Mexico:
http://network.bestfriends.org...../3658.html
Comment by expat — June 7, 2007 @ 11:28 am
Expat:
Oh and they smuggle them inside cars and it’s terrible and then they sell them at flea markets etc and then dump what they can’t or don’t sell. Frightful. And people are buying these designer pups for a thousand or more dollars which just fuels the illegal smugglers.
Comment by Linda — June 7, 2007 @ 11:34 am
I just wonder if that bill(if passed)will result in dumping more unwanted( not neutered/spayed) on the street. People might be afraid they will get into trouble if they take their unwanted pets, or puppies/kittens to an animal shelter, or if they cannot afford mandatory spaying/neutering ,even at low cost, especially if multiple pets, will dump them somewhere.
I do hope that if bill is passed that a grassroot animal group will temporarily offer no cost spaying/neutering to such pet owners.
Mind you, I am very much involved in a TNR group in my area. Am all for spaying/neutering on stray/feral cats and cats that are allowed outside. But even two of my house cats(never go outside) are not spayed. One is a bleeder, the other is so tiny/fragile (>3lbs) that even my vet thought it was better not to have her spayed.
Grassroot TNR groups in Ca, have done/are doing an excellent job IMO. Donot think a mandatory law in current form is necessary.
Comment by Serijna — June 7, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
“I do hope that if bill is passed that a grassroot animal group will temporarily offer no cost spaying/neutering to such pet owners.”
would that really be fair? not all are behind this bill, so why should they have to use precious funds they generally don’t have to support this. the ones who should pay should be the ones that are trying to pass this. the PETA type groups, their supporters and the polititians, imo. CA is a huge state, so they have a lot of area to cover with low/no cost clinics.
the TNR groups most def should keep their funds to continue their work.
fwiw, my youngest male is not neutered yet. he will be, but i had reason’s for waiting until he matured. he’s also stricktly indoors aside from the occassional kitten social visits to the pet supply store etc (on leash). he’s just over a year old and is a poly. i was afraid he might have an issue on one paw and wanted to do a wait and see so if it needs to be corrected, it’s only once under. and i may be right *sigh*. i will say an unaltered, male indoor cat is much easier to hide than a male dog would be . . .
Comment by straybaby — June 7, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
Why can’t we get emergency attention in some state, any one of 50 would do, and expedite a food safety bill. The things they push through with a vengeance never cease to amaze me while more urgent issues are sidelined and seemingly invisible. I will never understand politics as long as I live.
Comment by DMS — June 7, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Because there’s some big money (e.g. PETa, DDAL, HSUS, etc.) behind the moves to eliminate companion animals altogether (just as there’s big money behind stopping the implementation of COOL).
Like Steve keeps saying - “Follow the money . . . . . . “
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 7, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
Bob Barker is behind this bill and if people don’t abide by it then they will have to pay a 400.00 fine. I hope it does not pass.
Comment by Jill — June 7, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
It was on the news tonight. the article above.
Comment by Jill — June 7, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
What if a person wants to get a kitten and if the Bill passes then what are they going to do if they can’t get a kitten. I would not want to get a full grown cat.
Comment by Jill — June 7, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
I realize I’m the only person on this thread who’s in favor of this law (or a better version of it, anyway.)
But I have to ask - when’s the last time any of you walked through a high-kill shelter and really looked at the dogs slated for euthanasia?
Okay, Gina, as you said on another thread, maybe most of the shelter dogs in Sac’to are pit bulls. But in my time living in Sac’to (West Sac, actually), a few years back (2001-2004), I found and adopted two purebred chihuahuas (mother and daughter). They AREN’T all pitbulls. Some are just overbred breeds.
I was at our local shelter last week. I saw Dalmatians, Labs, poodle mixes, bassets, Goldens, and yes, some pits. Most are dead now. Not just the pit bulls.
Would a law make bad breeders stop? No. But it would give law enforcement some leverage. Here in NC, there’s a local woman who brings a litter of kittens into the shelter every six months. The staff there says she won’t get the mom-cat spayed because it’s “bad for her health.” Yeah, tell that to the dozens of now-dead kittens she’s borne.
If there were a breeder law here, at least the locals would have some leverage to force this woman into a low (or no) cost spay clinic. But as it stands, there’s nothing they can do, except euthanize the kittens they can’t place…which’d be most of them.
I understand the bill is a long way from perfect. But I also hear the comments here from pure-bred fanciers who say dogs with papers are the only ones people want. Sorry, but we’ll have to agree to disagree. (Have you seen what designer mutts are going for lately?)
Cutting down on backyard breeders WILL cut down on homeless pets. Most of these folks don’t do their homework on genetics, and they sure as heck don’t take their puppies back.
Should they have to be licensed as a business? Heck, yes, they should! I don’t buy tires from an unlicensed business. Why would I buy a pet from one? Let’s face it - hazy, soft-focus images of “responsible hobby” breeders aside, most of these folks are in it for the bucks. Why shouldn’t they be regulated, like any other sector that deals with live animals?
As for burgeoning underground markets - yes, that’s a problem. But better enforcement and better buyer education would help. People will go on buying Mexican puppies whether the law passes or not - they’re cheaper, plain and simple. But if law enforcement took that a little more seriously, it wouldn’t be as big a problem.
And maybe if animal control didn’t spend 24 hours a day chasing down the progeny of un-sneutered animals, many from backyard breeders, they’d have more time for enforcement.
Just my .02 - and I’m now donning my fireproof suit. Flame away.
Comment by Laura — June 7, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
But I have to ask – when’s the last time any of you walked through a high-kill shelter and really looked at the dogs slated for euthanasia?
Laura, I’m almost 50 years old. I don’t know how old you are, but I’ve been in more shelters, participated in more rescues, seen more hellish things, than I can count or remember — I find it insulting and arrogant that you assume I haven’t. I know Gina has as well.
I was at our local shelter last week. I saw Dalmatians, Labs, poodle mixes, bassets, Goldens, and yes, some pits. Most are dead now. Not just the pit bulls.
But again, this just underscores my very point: WE NEED LAWS AND PROGRAMS THAT MAKE SENSE LOCALLY. Why should a single law that will do NOTHING for the problems in some highly populated areas be implemented everywhere? It makes no sense!
Would a law make bad breeders stop? No. But it would give law enforcement some leverage.
Law enforcement HAS leverage. They don’t use it. They currently rarely enforce license laws, leash laws, and in many areas, ABUSE laws. I have lived places where animal control wouldn’t drive over and check on a dog who was abandoned without water or shelter in hot weather because we were too remote, while working hard to pass a “breeding ban” in the county.
Here in NC, there’s a local woman who brings a litter of kittens into the shelter every six months. The staff there says she won’t get the mom-cat spayed because it’s “bad for her health.” Yeah, tell that to the dozens of now-dead kittens she’s borne.
And yet you will always have these kinds of people. If you pass a law like this, she’ll just dump them without coming into the shelter. Do you really think people like this will obey a law like this? And even if SHE does, that her ilk will? These are the very people who don’t obey the current laws!
If there were a breeder law here, at least the locals would have some leverage to force this woman into a low (or no) cost spay clinic. But as it stands, there’s nothing they can do, except euthanize the kittens they can’t place…which’d be most of them.
I don’t know what you meant by “NC,” if that is Northern California or North Carolina, but the shelters I am familiar with can always adopt out the non-feral kittens they get. It’s older adult cats and ferals who are the problem, which tells me that programs that target the surrender of currently owned adult cats, and feral management, will be what reduce shelter deaths, not mandatory spay/neuter.
And again, programs to reduce shelter deaths should be based on LOCAL conditions. Why should your experience in one are of the state or country be used to craft a program for a situation that might be completely different somewhere else?
I understand the bill is a long way from perfect. But I also hear the comments here from pure-bred fanciers who say dogs with papers are the only ones people want. Sorry, but we’ll have to agree to disagree. (Have you seen what designer mutts are going for lately?)
NO ONE has said that, it’s a complete misrepresentation of what has been said! What I and others have said is that people GO TO SHELTERS… where you do not get dogs and cats with papers!… looking for the dogs they want, usually smaller dogs. And what they find is run after run of lab mixes, pits, big dogs, adolescent dogs… and if you tell them there are no small dogs, they aren’t going say, oh, okay, then I’ll take one of those lab mixes.
Cutting down on backyard breeders WILL cut down on homeless pets. Most of these folks don’t do their homework on genetics, and they sure as heck don’t take their puppies back.
Okay, then tell me how this law will cut down on backyard breeders? Most of them have one single litter in their lives, according to AKC statistics, so they have their one ooopsie litter, which they’ll still have, because they’re lame pet owners and aren’t going to comply with this law any more than they comply with licensing and leash laws, or common sense for that matter. And they still won’t take back the puppies.
Should they have to be licensed as a business? Heck, yes, they should! I don’t buy tires from an unlicensed business. Why would I buy a pet from one? Let’s face it – hazy, soft-focus images of “responsible hobby” breeders aside, most of these folks are in it for the bucks. Why shouldn’t they be regulated, like any other sector that deals with live animals?
NO hobby breeder is in it for the bucks, that’s why it’s called a “hobby.” However, let me put it to you this way: The whole idea that hobby breeders should get business licenses is a big red herring. Because hobby breeders BY DEFINITION are home breeders whose dogs are family companions, not kennels or commercial operations of any kind. Thus the homes where the “business” would be licensed are not zoned for a business license, and almost no one would actually be able to get one.
So your common sense “of course you’re a business” might seem logical at first glance, but in reality, would be completely unworkable… unless the real goal is no more hobby breeders. Then it works really well.
As for burgeoning underground markets –- yes, that’s a problem. But better enforcement and better buyer education would help. People will go on buying Mexican puppies whether the law passes or not – they’re cheaper, plain and simple. But if law enforcement took that a little more seriously, it wouldn’t be as big a problem.
Well, great. So law enforcement isn’t already taking something seriously, but they’ll take this new law seriously?
Also — since commercial breeders and pet stores are EXEMPT from the provisions of this law, that is where the “traffic” will go, obviously… there and the Internet. So the puppy mill trade, which is NOT illegal, can’t be stopped by law enforcement.
And maybe if animal control didn’t spend 24 hours a day chasing down the progeny of un-sneutered animals, many from backyard breeders, they’d have more time for enforcement.
So, they should be chasing down my bitch’s uterus instead. They don’t have time to do their job now, so the answer is to give them more job to do. Somehow I’m missing something there.
Just my .02 – and I’m now donning my fireproof suit. Flame away.
I really don’t see why we have to characterize civil disagreement as “flaming.” I think you’re mischaracterizing the problem and the law. I’m telling you why I think that in response to what you’ve said. That is not “flaming.”
Comment by Christie Keith — June 7, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
Christie -
“Laura, I’m almost 50 years old. I don’t know how old you are, but I’ve been in more shelters, participated in more rescues, seen more hellish things, than I can count or remember—I find it insulting and arrogant that you assume I haven’t. I know Gina has as well.”
Umm, that wasn’t personally addressed to you or Gina — it’s a rhetorical question. A lot of folks who like to talk about what’s in shelters are the folks who don’t bother to even walk through, let alone volunteer their time or give money to help. I’m not sure how you interpreted that as a personal attack, but it clearly wasn’t addressed as one.
“NO hobby breeder is in it for the bucks, that’s why it’s called a “hobby.” However, let me put it to you this way: The whole idea that hobby breeders should get business licenses is a big red herring. Because hobby breeders BY DEFINITION are home breeders whose dogs are family companions, not kennels or commercial operations of any kind. Thus the homes where the “business” would be licensed are not zoned for a business license, and almost no one would actually be able to get one.”
Okay, so….? I personally know three really well-intentioned people who are backyard breeders (Chis, Poms, and Aussies) who wouldn’t do it if it cost them more. They’re good folks, but they shouldn’t be breeding anything - they love their individual breeding-stock dogs, but the breeding thing is extra income - they admit that. So I don’t agree with your premise.
As for zoning? Sorry, but that’s fair. If my next door neighbor decided to breed chickens or goats, I’d be worried about my property values. A casual breeder of dogs is no different. Just louder. And if they’re selling them, it’s a commercial operation by its very definition.
{Re Mexican puppies:)
“Well, great. So law enforcement isn’t already taking something seriously, but they’ll take this new law seriously?”
Right. So let’s not pass any new laws about anything, right?
The reason authorities aren’t taking Mexican puppy dealers seriously is because it isn’t currently against the law.
“So, they should be chasing down my bitch’s uterus instead.”
No, I was talking about Mexican puppy dealers. Your “bitch’s uterus” never even made the short list.
“I really don’t see why we have to characterize civil disagreement as “flaming.”
See above re the attack on your “bitch’s uterus.” What part of that was civil?
There’s no room for disagreement or middle ground with you folks. If all cats and dogs can’t procreate, then none can, right? And no one will be able to get a puppy or kitten in CA ever again, right?
Wrong. There’ll still be plenty. But as supply shrinks to meet demand, maybe a few less will have to die.
Comment by Laura — June 7, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
Comment by Laura — June 7, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
“I personally know three really well-intentioned people who are backyard breeders (Chis, Poms, and Aussies) who wouldn’t do it if it cost them more. They’re good folks, but they shouldn’t be breeding anything – they love their individual breeding-stock dogs, but the breeding thing is extra income – they admit that. So I don’t agree with your premise.”
Those people you know and describe are *not* Responsible Hobby Breeders. Why should the Responsible Hobby Breeders have to be swept along with breeders like the ones you know (apparently you haven’t made the acquaintance of any Responsible Breeders) leaving only the Commercial Breeders to continue churning out puppies unabated?
That makes *no* sense whatsoever.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 7, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
TOP -
Nope, I didn’t say I don’t know anyone who does it for love. But I am saying there ARE folks out there who breed in their backyards to make money, first and foremost. They aren’t puppy mills (which, I agree, are definitely the biggest problem). But they aren’t dewy-eyed fanciers, either. And there are a lot more of them out there than a lot of folks want to admit.
So again, I ask - why shouldn’t these folks be regulated?
Comment by Laura — June 7, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
Comment by Laura — June 7, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
“As for zoning? Sorry, but that’s fair. If my next door neighbor decided to breed chickens or goats, I’d be worried about my property values. A casual breeder of dogs is no different. Just louder. And if they’re selling them, it’s a commercial operation by its very definition.”
A Commercial Breeder cares only about the $$$ they can generate “manufacturing” puppies to sell. While for a Responsible Hobby Breeder, the money doesn’t even make “the short list” - *THEY’RE* in it for the love of the dog (both as an individual and as a breed).
Deciding they now need to meet the requirements of becoming a “business” WILL make it impossible for them to continue to breed and raise healthy, well-socialized puppies in their home (which - by definition - is the only way to raise a “well-socialized puppy” - socialization is not an issue for the farm animals you used in your non-relevant example). Once again, the bill is designed to drive out the ones doing it the *right* way, and leave *only* those who treat the production of puppies as a cash crop and nothing more.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 7, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
Comment by Laura — June 7, 2007 @ 10:27 pm
“So again, I ask – why shouldn’t these folks be regulated?”
Because - for the reasons enumerated time and time again - the provisions of this bill will do far more than “regulate” them. It will make it *impossible* for them to continue as Responsible Breeders.
So you get rid of all the Responsible Breeders. Who is *that* a victory for? (Here’s a clue - the answer is composed mostly of various collections of initials . . . . )
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 7, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
TOP -
Hey, I get it. But I think you’re falling into the myopic trap of “good” hobby breeders versus bad puppy mills.
There are a LOT of people in the gray area in-between. They aren’t breeding their labradoodles or shih tzus to improve the breed. They’re doing it to make a few bucks. And they sell a lot of puppies.
I’m completely in favor of exemptions for registered, proven, responsible breeders, and completely against puppy mills. But there are SO many dogs (and cats) produced by folks who are neither. Again, why not regulate them?
If my neighbors want to license themselves to breed whatever, then fine. But what’s the real difference, ethically, between someone who sells Avon for extra money and someone who sells Affenpinschers for extra money? They’re both businesses.
Comment by Laura — June 7, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
It’s time for bed. But a USDA Class A Licensed Dealer isn’t permitted to keep breeding animals in their home.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 7, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
I suggested some time back and I’ll repeat it here, now it may have some flaws but it might work. Put restrictions on advertising dogs and cats for sale in the paper - and then a person needs a permit to sell puppies and then 75% of the money goes to the county to take care of the animals etc. Outlaw selling animals at flea markets and even on-line and also for bringing pets into the State or shipping out of it - where most of the money one would make now goes to the County or State. I know the really good breeders of top show animals are not into it for the money but many people are - so hit there where it hurts in the pocket book.
Yes, the cost of pets will go up - but so what - maybe animal neglect will decrease - and people will think real hard before they spend the money on that cute baby.
So people could still breed their show dogs or family dogs just not make any money out of it. And maybe the county could expand their animal control services to include pets for sale where all dogs and cats being put up for sale are now offered through a website or on-site County services.
Just a thought so we could cut down on over population and still have good breeding.
Comment by Linda — June 8, 2007 @ 6:10 am
Comment by Linda — June 8, 2007 @ 6:10 am
“Outlaw selling animals at flea markets and even on-line and also for bringing pets into the State or shipping out of it “
I agree that selling puppies at flea markets is deplorable, but who’s going to police it. Similarly for on-line sales - the Internet is a worldwide market. They can’t even control porn spam - how are they going to control online puppy sales?
As for bringing animals in and out of state - I don’t know if you realize that one of the costs of operating as a Responsible Breeder includes shipping your bitch to whatever stud is the best match for a particular breeding. Chances are that dog is NOT in your backyard, and frequently that dog is out of state. So you find the dog that’s the best match (one of the things that makes the learning curve for being a Responsible Breeder much steeper than for other kinds of breeding) and you ship to him.
Similarly, in the ongoing breeding program of a Responsible Breeder, it will - from time to time - become necessary to bring new dogs into his/her own program, and again - a Responsible Breeder searches carefully for this new dog and then brings that dog in from wherever he or she may be - frequently from out of state.
Eliminate the ability to do this, and you’ve tied the hands of the Responsible Breeder.
“I know the really good breeders of top show animals are not into it for the money but many people are – so hit there where it hurts in the pocket book.”
“So people could still breed their show dogs or family dogs just not make any money out of it.”
What makes you think there is any profit to be made on a Responsibly Bred litter? The ones who make money are cutting corners - at the expense of the dogs’ health and quality of life. The Responsible Breeders put a LOT of money into that litter before it ever hits the ground - and continue pouring in the money afterwards. To get some idea of why a Responsibly-Bred litter does NOT yield a profit, take a read through this site (1999 numbers, but the basic concepts still hold):
http://www.wonderpuppy.net/breedingposts.htm#emily
“And maybe the county could expand their animal control services to include pets for sale where all dogs and cats being put up for sale are now offered through a website or on-site County services.”
Do you mean the *county* gets to sell the Responsible Breeders puppies FOR them? Online?
Sorry - but another characteristic of a Responsible Breeder includes the responsibility for placing EACH AND EVERY ANIMAL THAT THEY HAVE PRODUCED into the best-possible home that they have PERSONALLY approved. People who are willing to abdicate that responsibility to someone else are NOT - by definition - Responsible Breeders.
“Just a thought so we could cut down on over population and still have good breeding.”
I’m sorry, but these are just more ways to sweep Responsible Breeders into the same net as all the others and eliminate them.
Just think how much *easier* and less complicated it would be to get rid of ALL the breeders! Then this whole pesky problem would just go away (which is - I’m sure - one of the reasons why legislation like this is so attractive to lawmakers - it just makes everything look so black-and-white.)
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 8, 2007 @ 6:49 am
Comment by Laura — June 7, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
“I think you’re falling into the myopic trap of “good” hobby breeders versus bad puppy mills.”
No - my position is of “good” RESPONSIBLE Breeders v.s. “bad” all the other kinds.
For some reason, I just seem to equate the word “Responsible” with the word “good”. I don’t think that’s “myopic” - I think it’s logical.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 8, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
This is my first time on your site, and I CAN’T BELIEVE what I’m reading. How can so many of you be so self-centered? I can’t understand how you worry about the wellbeing of your puppy without respecting the purpose of and need for the proposed bill. My god, the millions that die because people only feel motivated to care for their own pets but not for the animal population in general.
Look, why not just suggest to your representatives that an exemption or temporary stay be granted on the basis of a vet’s statement about potential negative impact of sterilizing too early or for this breed or in that instance… that way, the broad purpose of the bill is supported while still allowing for individual circumstance.
VOTE YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by shocked — June 8, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
It has nothing to do with being “self-centered.” It has everything to do with pointless, punitive nanny state bill that doesn’t do what it purports to do, and has nothing to do with “Healthy Pets.” As for a “broad purpose” — it’s not a broad problem. It’s a lot of different problems that require different approaches — to feral cats, to people who propose more pit bulls than can ever be adopted, and to problems that differ city to city and county to county.
AB 1634’s author was so keen to pass it late Wednesday night that he got his last votes by promising every family could get a pass to breed the family pet, no matter the health, temperament or breeding of the animal, making an idiotic bill even more pointless. (Remember, it ALREADY gives puppy mills a pass.)
I’ve never bred a litter, I’ve run a breed rescue and I have indeed held healthy pets in my arms as they died unwanted. I’ve spent lots of time in shelters. And I could not be more against this bill.
Here’s why.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 8, 2007 @ 8:46 pm
“the animals most people don’t want – the unadoptables, because of breeding, age or behavior”
it is clear to me that you are either out of your mind, flat-out lying or never been to a pound (and yes, I do mean “pound” and not “breed rescue”). The vast majority of animals put down in this country are not rejected because of objectionable characteristics. It’s absolutely ridiculous to suggest that this is the case. The real problem is one of numbers. The people-animal ratio is off and something has to be done to limit the growth of the pet population.
Of course this is catch-all legilation! It’s impossible to legislate that only the cute, perky and purebred puppies (which according to your logic, are the characteristics that make an animal adoptable and therefore wanted)are allowed to reproduce. If you know anything about government and administration, then you know that it’s a fantasy to think that this bill could be more narrowly tailored.
So then, Gina - if the choice is between doing something to fix the problem (overpopulation, not too few cute animals, mind you) and prioritizing the supposed “right” to breed your perfect puppies, where do you land?
Comment by shocked — June 8, 2007 @ 9:01 pm
“it is clear to me that you are either out of your mind, flat-out lying or never been to a pound (and yes, I do mean “pound” and not “breed rescue”). The vast majority of animals put down in this country are not rejected because of objectionable characteristics. It’s absolutely ridiculous to suggest that this is the case.”
Take some yoga breaths, “Shocked.”
Go over to the Pit Bull Forum and read the April 13 post by BAD RAP’s founder:
http://www.pitbullforum.com/vi.....ht=#832957
‘Let’s be real here —- we all know that most of the dogs dying in the shelters are pit bulls and pit bull mixes.” Is BAD RAP’s founder Donna “out of her mind, flat-out lying or never been to a pound”?
She’s forgotten more about the state’s shelters than you’ll ever know.
“Shocked,” if you live in California and are determined to do everything you can for shelter animals, adopt a pit bull from the local pound. I’ve adopted two.
Speutering all the stockdogs, Scottish deerhounds, Gordon setters and Clumber spaniels in the state won’t stop the mouth-breathing dropout on the bad side of town from breeding his poor pit bull bitch on every heat.
And honestly? When up to 80% of shelter dogs in California [more, at my local pound] are pit bulls and pit mixes —- if you haven’t adopted at least one pit bull from a state pound, “Shocked,” you’ll get precious little respect in this debate from me.
Comment by Luisa — June 8, 2007 @ 9:37 pm
shocked, is it really necessary to insult one of the owners of this blog who has done so much for dogs and cats throughout this horrible poisoned pet food crisis? (Answer in case you need a hint - is “No.”)
When you say the vast majority of animals in this country are not rejected because of objectionable characteristics, are you basing that on anything?
Here’s another hint. Spend some time reading through the articles and the links at this site:
http://www.petpopulation.org/
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 8, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
Yes, I’ve been to shelters plenty. And don’t blame me for the fact that someone who wants a fluffy little dog isn’t going to adopt a large dog of a breed or mix with a bad reputation.
It would appear that you haven’t been in shelters lately, and you apparently missed the fact that I’ve never bred a litter, “perfect” or not, in 35 years of having pets and 25 years of writing about them professionally. In many cities, shelters put down the pit bulls because no one wants them, and import the dogs people DO want. Yes, they IMPORT THEM.
A bad bill isn’t any better than no bill at all. Especially in this case, which is a Trojan horse for the animal rights extremists’ goals of no domestic animals, with the banner being carried for them by frustrated people who work in shelters and good-hearted but ill-informed people who think a “healthy pets” act must be a good thing.
Shut down reputable breeders, and people will buy from puppy mills (again, legal under this bill), from people who don’t now and won’t then license or care for their dogs, and from people who smuggle in sick puppies from Mexico.
We all want the killing to stop. But this seriously flawed, overly simple and pointlessly punitive piece of crap legislation with a “feel good” name won’t help a bit.
If you continue to be “shocked” by the facts then we’re going to have to agree to disagree, because you’re not operating from a base of knowledge of the situation as it exists here and now in this state.
Our reasons against AB 1634 are here. Letters from promiment veterinarians against are here and here. Finally, Christie’s piece on what being a reputable breeder really means and her piece on SFGate.com.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 8, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
look here,
i don’t give a hoot about these statistics that you are parroting at me. 80%? i’d love to know where that number comes from.
1. I am a college student who lives in Indiana. I have five previously-stray dogs (one golden, and four mixed including one pit-mutt, one lab-wiem, one hound-mutt and one that’s anyone’s guess). does that get me your stupid respect or do you only count purebreds?
2. If there is an over abundance of pits, then I imagine that this is the result of landlord sanctions and other liability-based barriers. I absolutely do fight the “dangerous breed” notion at every turn.
3. You and a number of the other posters don’t seem to understand that this is not about breed. It’s about the mass killings that result when the ration of human:domestic animals gets out of hand. I also haven’t seen one of you justify yet where you get the idea that this will disproportionately affect the “good” breeders vs. the “bad.”
4.You are welcome to reply, but I won’t spend another minute reading your elitists rants.
Comment by shocked — June 8, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
Comment by shocked — June 8, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
“You are welcome to reply, but I won’t spend another minute reading your elitists rants.”
Well, that’s a relief, because you’re clearly not interested in any kind of a rational discussion.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 8, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
It comes from the shelters in California, Miss Indiana, but I’d bet the numbers are similar in Indianapolis, if you’d care to check instead of calling us “elitist” for calling you on your lack of knowledge both on the situation as it exists in a place you don’t live, and on the complexities that are apparently beyond your ability to understand.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 8, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
Well, didn’t mean to spark such controversy. I know that good breeders don’t make money on their pets - and maybe there’s some way to exclude show dog breeders etc. It was just a brainstorm idea on something that might work.
I was hoping to think of an idea that might cut the purse strings of those that do breed for money, not the good breeders that are our friends here at Pet Connection and other places.
In any event, brainstorming begins with a germ of an idea and is tweaked along the way to account for various situations. The County would not find homes for young ones but would facilitate and collect money so that these people that breed their bitches until their nipples drag the floor will stop - no money in it for them.
Anyway it’s a thought thrown out. I’m sure there are many good ideas around that might work.
God bless you all.
Comment by Linda — June 8, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
After reviewing the discussion I am disappointed that “shocked” doesn’t seem interested in furthering her education by actualy reading the links that gina provided since she responded in only 4 minutes. I would hope that being fully informed would be a goal for a college student. I apologize if my assumption is wrong. I am a professional dogwalker with over 18 years experience with groups of offleash dogs-6 or less in various park settings. While I am a strong proponant of spay/neuter [I have personally convinced a number of owners to do so] and educated many others on the many reasons for doing so, I do not support this bill- 4 months is too young! Please read a well researched paper by Dr. C.Zink at http://tinyurl.com/ygj5e9. While health is my #1 objection re this bill, behavior is another. Dogs raised in a home setting are better socialized than in large kennels. The majority of breeders/foster families who raise any service type dog do so in the home. I would like to see requirements for anyone who breeds to be educated about genetics and othe relevant information and more free spay/neuter clinics. Many of the alternative ideas presented by the opponents to this bill are worth exploring. Rushing to pass a law that is not well thought out is bad law. Bad law is worse than no law. Nancy S.
Comment by Nancy S. — June 9, 2007 @ 12:50 am
Comment by Linda — June 8, 2007 @ 10:06 pm
“Well, didn’t mean to spark such controversy. I know that good breeders don’t make money on their pets – and maybe there’s some way to exclude show dog breeders etc. It was just a brainstorm idea on something that might work.”
Linda, one of the things I remember when I first started getting involved was how simple things seemed at first, and the way a lot of things were done just didn’t make sense to me, *based on what I knew at that time.*
As I got in deeper, and learned more, I discovered - as is so often the case - that the more I learned, the more I realized I *didn’t* know. And it’s really fairly complex - a subject that doesn’t lend itself readily to “sound bytes”.
I’ve actually got a lot of patience to talk through the various issues with people who will take the time for actual *discussion* (kind of a “pay it forward” thing - when I was first getting involved in dogs and asked my endless questions, most of the time, the answers I got consisted basically of “Because that’s the way it’s done. Now go away, kid - you bother me!” When someone finally DID take the time to patiently answer my questions and help me see how logically it all hung together, I resolved that I would always extend that same patience to anyone who asked similar questions of me. But be warned - answers aren’t always that simple).
So do I agree with everything that show dog breeders do and everything that goes on in the show world? Nope! It’s that old human element of selfishness and greed that gets in there and has a way of messing up even the most well-intentioned of systems.
But from an idealistic viewpoint, and looking at the overall picture in a logical, coherent way, it still makes more sense than any of the alternatives I’ve seen (and largely the alternatives that get proposed consist of “Don’t breed one until there are none”)
“I was hoping to think of an idea that might cut the purse strings of those that do breed for money, not the good breeders that are our friends here at Pet Connection and other places.”
The problem here is that a lot of the things that distinguish Responsible Breeders from all the rest are *ethical* considerations, and trying to legislate ethics can be a real slippery slope. I’d like to see legislation that goes after clearcut offenders (one example being sales of puppies and kittens in retail outlets such as pet stores) but from there, the lines begin to get blurred in a lot of cases. It comes down to owner/buyer education, critical thinking, and a resolve to do the “right thing”.
“In any event, brainstorming begins with a germ of an idea”
Yes it does - which is why I’m always open to rational discussion.
“and is tweaked along the way to account for various situations.”
It’s the “tweaking” that can start lead down some bad paths if you’re not terribly vigilant in the process. And unfortunately, the tweaking is often done via “decision by committee” which leads to the kinds of messes we’re seeing (for example, this legislator’s gambit to get the bill through no matter what by promising every family could breed their dog - ANY dog - “just once” - an idea which runs directly counter both to the spirit of the bill he is pushing and to the statistical facts that say some huge percentage - don’t remember the numbers - of puppies in shelters come from ‘just once’ breedings.)
“The County would not find homes for young ones but would facilitate and collect money so that these people that breed their bitches until their nipples drag the floor will stop – no money in it for them.”
The way to make sure there is no money in it for them is to get people to stop buying from them. That requires education - always a more involved and difficult prospect than the easy fix of saying “No more breeding for ANYONE!”
“Anyway it’s a thought thrown out. I’m sure there are many good ideas around that might work.”
Linda, to really address the problem, the problem must be understood. And at it’s base, the starting question is this:
Given a choice, would you prefer to see:
1) Selective breeding?
2) Random breeding?
3) No breeding at all?
Those are the only three choices available, and there are ramifications to be discussed for each one of them.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 9, 2007 @ 6:38 am
The Other Pat:
All good points and so nicely presented and thought out. It breaks my heart to go to shelters and see the loving longing eyes of the disposable dogs and their crime - being born.
My little Angie who has this Lymphoma at an elderly age - was just such a dog - ears cut off - sweet disposition - and her crime probably was that she was too small to fight - it’s a wonder they didn’t just use her as bait - I’m glad they didn’t.
But sad to say, I’m afraid that getting people not to buy from these backyard breeders or flea markets will be very difficult - cheap is tempting and the unethical abound.
Comment by Linda — June 9, 2007 @ 8:29 am
MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER IS A NO-BRAINER.
For every person born in the USA, there are 45 cats & dogs born. Only 1 out of 10 dogs born ever get a home. Only 1 out of 12 cats born ever find a home. 800 dogs & cats are KILLED each HOUR in the U.S, because there are not enough homes for them. This does not take into consideration the animals who never make it to a shelter. The rest die on the streets, cars, other animals, disease and starvation.
IT IS A NO-BRAINER. Work with an active street-wise rescue group for 6 months and try to tell me this is not a great idea!
Comment by Jan Milbyer — June 18, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
I can see a bit on both sides after reading a lot of opinions. But working for rescue (as I do) does make you realize that making spay/neuter mandatory will never mean no puppies or kittens are born (the person that said that has NO CONCEPTION OF REALITY). But it might convince all the middle-of-the-road people -that just haven’t gotten around to spaying and neutering and thus creating ‘oops’ litters- to get their butt in gear and fix their pets! Yes criminals and bad people will always break the law regardless, but that’s a dumb reason not to pass a law. That’s like saying murdering should be legal because people are going to do it anyhow.
On another note, where are all you people getting your info from that FOUR MONTHS is TOO YOUNG. It absolutely is NOT too young! As a someone who works in a veterinary clinic I will tell you that it is a perfect age. You catch puppies and kittens before their first heat cycle, thus virtually eliminating certain cancer risks, and the ‘oops’ litters (because yes, 4-month old kittens can and WILL get pregnant), and you pet recovers quickly because of their young age. And it also reduces the marking behaviors because you are stopping it before it becomes a habit that is hard to break. It is actually safer than spaying/neutering older pets.
Comment by Amanda — August 14, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
On another note, where are all you people getting your info from that FOUR MONTHS is TOO YOUNG.
We’re getting it from the veterinary literature.
Comment by Christie Keith — August 14, 2008 @ 2:42 pm