Do you like this story?
Veterinarians divided on California mandatory spay/neuter
By Christie Keith
June 21, 2007
The California Veterinary Medical Association House of Delegates and Board of Governors is meeting this afternoon, where current president Ron Fauro, DVM, is expected to defend the group’s co-sponsorship of California’s AB-1634. This proposed legislation was recently passed by the California State Assembly and is under consideration in the State Senate. It would mandate the spaying and neutering of all dogs and cats in the state by the age of 4 months.
To the apparent surprise of the CVMA leadership, there is considerable controversy among state veterinarians over the bill — so much so that on June 15 Fauro wrote to members of the CVMA:
We did not anticipate that our position would divide the veterinary community, that breeder clients would threaten to change veterinarians based on CVMA membership and demean the character of our highly respected Association.
CVMA president-elect Jeff Smith, DVM, wrote:
I believe that those that do not have a legitimate reason to keep their pets intact should be compelled to alter them–so do most veterinarians.
More under the jump.
But a number of veterinarians, including past CVMA president John Hamil, DVM, have spoken out against this legislation.
Dr. Hamil is also founder of the California Council of Companion Animal Advocates, a member of the American Veterinary Medical Association Animal Welfare Committee and the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy, author of the CVMA and AVMA positions on early spay/neuter, past chairman of the Orange County Animal Shelter Advisory Board, and recipient of the Hill’s Animal Welfare and Humane Ethics Award. In a letter dated June 1, he wrote:
The CVMA has always been known as an organization that is science based, thorough, deliberate and open in its decision making. In this case the CVMA has let its membership, the people and the animals of California down. CVMA did not seek or ignored statistics about the problems associated with mandatory spay/neuter and seems unaware of readily available information about the factors contributing to animal relinquishment from sources like the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy. To be successful in solving such a multifaceted problem, it is important to bring all contributing groups together. Instead of being the rational voice in this difficult arena, CVMA was swayed by the emotional cry, “we have to do something.” More important, this decision was made without the input of CVMA’s membership. CVMA has always used the governors, delegates and the California Veterinarian to poll its membership when making decisions of this magnitude. I know of no one in my district who was aware of your deliberations before this decision was made.
Other veterinarians have also been vocal in opposition to various elements of the proposed legislation. In May, a group of California veterinarians wrote state legislators that:
We are licensed veterinarians in the State of California, and many of us are also members of the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA). We OPPOSE AB1634 for several reasons, detailed below, but first and foremost, we feel this should be an issue resolved at a LOCAL level, not at the STATE level. We are only a small portion of the veterinarians in California who strongly OPPOSE this bill. The issues of concern are NOT statewide issues, and there is no reason to penalize this many people and animals for issues that are more limited in occurrence. We also object to the involvement of our state veterinary association, WITHOUT the input of members.
We oppose Bill AB1634 because:
1. We object to government intervention on this issue
2. We were not consulted nor informed about this bill during its development
3. The bill is poorly designed, cannot successfully be enforced and would be extremely costly to attempt to enforce
4. The bill does not address the true source of pet overpopulation
5. The bill penalizes responsible citizens
6. The bill has a significant negative impact of the California economy
The letter has been signed by nearly 50 California veterinarians and can be read here.
On May 27, Charles A. Hjerpe, DVM, emeritus professor of veterinary medicine at UC Davis, wrote:
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…. You should have researched this whole issue more thoroughly, before you put the collective heads of the veterinary profession “on the chopping block”.
California veterinarians who oppose this proposed law do so for a variety of reasons, among them medical concerns. Sharon Vanderlip, DVM, wrote to the State Assembly on June 1, saying:
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.
She concluded:
Politicians and animal activists supporting AB 1634 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.
It remains to be seen what, if anything, will come of today’s meeting, but Fauro and Smith appear to be committed to the proposed legislation, despite the concerns of some California veterinarians. Acknowledging the acrimonious nature of the dispute, Dr. Smith wrote:
Many members, especially in the case of AB 1634, are misinformed or uninformed about the details, the changes, and the process of formulating legislation. Some members, with personal agendas of their own, are not necessarily advocating the soundest opinion even though they may be the loudest voices at the table. At the end of the day, each leader has to do what they feel is right and what is best for CVMA. The point is that if you want to put this to a direct poll/vote of the membership, then that needs to be done in an appropriate manner which is both difficult and cumbersome–hence, the reason for representatives. Otherwise, we need to rely on our best judgment and a very unscientific sampling of CVMA members’ opinions.
The House has already reviewed this topic and came to the conclusion that mandatory spay/neuter was a worthy cause. Mandatory spay/neuter has been part of the Board’s vision planning for a number of years. So AB 1634 should not be a surprise to anyone and it certainly should not be considered an issue that was kept away from the House. I do take umbrage with the accusation that CVMA has willfully ignored its members or traipsed off in a direction unbecoming to veterinarians or inconsiderate of animals. We have had disagreements on the Board before (non-economic damages, cat declaw,and so forth), but they have never degenerated to this level of discontent or rabble rousing.
[....]
Many of the bill’s detractors have expressed the opinion that there is no middle ground. Rather than offer constructive input, the attack has degenerated to hostile and belittling remarks about CVMA and its leadership. The rhetoric being thrown about is very inflammatory, and that is distracting the discussion over the merits and problems of this bill. I’d like to propose that we concentrate on the bill itself, specific objections, and solutions to those objections. Otherwise, those “for” and those “against” need only to “agree to disagree.”
What will be the outcome of this internal debate for CVMA as an organization? Dr. Smith concluded:
Beyond the issue of AB1634 lies the bigger issue of CVMA’s credibility in the Legislature specifically and around the Capitol in general. We are very close to bringing forth a law that most of us can support and I encourage you to consider the repercussions of reversing course midstream. CVMA is a very well trusted and well-regarded entity in Sacramento, because we are well prepared, measured, and thoughtful in our actions there. We have a record of consistency and quality. If we choose to oppose this Bill, our integrity may be compromised.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
Christie, how many pet owners and responsible breeders do you believe many actually choose to move away from the state of California if this bill succeeds? Although I currently reside in another state I would have to seriously consider leaving were I a Californian.
Comment by elizabeth R. — June 21, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
“…should be compelled to alter them”!
Fascist mentality much? “Compelled,” how? Threats of high fines, jail time, confiscation of a beloved dog? Denver ACOs had armed police back-up when they took friendly, well-behaved pit bulls from their owners —- is that the sort of thing Dr. Smith would like to see here in California?
My terrific holistic vet has said she’s ready to drop her CVMA membership because of AB 1634. I expect president-elect Jeff Smith’s remarks should convince her that’s the way to go.
Comment by Luisa — June 21, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
The issue of spay and neuter is easy to be for or aginst only if you know virtually nothing about the subject. This is not the simple issue of unwanted pets that it appears the proponents have persueded themselves to believe. If you want some idea of just how complex are the issues for and aginst this issue the paper at thefollowing link is worth reading:
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs.....InDogs.pdf
Cherry picking health effects pro or con has nothing to do with science and because the documented health outcomes are so clouded it is not really possible to give definitive advice. Enacting legislation without a clear understanding of the outcome is just plain silly. Compensation would seem to be in order for any created health problems such as hip displaisure or cruciate ligament failure in the same way the pet food companies have agreed to cover health costs for the pets they caused to be injured.
Comment by Dave — June 21, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
Don’t these legislatures have anything better to do?
Comment by VJ — June 21, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
Hi, Christie. It might have been useful to mention in your post that your rebutting DVM, Sharon Vanderlip, is in fact herself a breeder and seller of collies - see http://www.rainshadecollies.com/about.html
So she ain’t exactly partial - she stands to lose money on the bill. As do all the other breeders who violently oppose it.
In fact, is anyone who ISN’T a current or former breeders actively opposing this?
And can someone please explain her argument above that “AB1634 WILL SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE NUMBERS OF ANIMALS IMPOUNDED, ABANDONED, AND EUTHANIZED EVERY YEAR.”
Yes, I read the letter. No, I don’t get it. Last I heard, the bill was going to cause a *shortage* of adoptable pets, not an over-abundance. Did something change?
Comment by Laura — June 21, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
Gina. As you well know. Stop being disingenous.
And I haven’t bred a dog in nine years, Laura… explain how I have ANY kind of financial interest in this? I mean, other than the thousands of dollars I save by not breeding anymore?
Comment by Christie Keith — June 21, 2007 @ 11:01 pm
How do the people advocating this bill not see that the beneficiaries are the puppy mills? I truly don’t get it. Follow the money folks - it does not end with the show people. Guess what? They really are NOT making money unless they are working like dogs (sorry) training, handling, giving classes - maybe selling things at the vendor booths.
Check out the “professional breeder associations” - these are the big money puppy mills I believe - not the people taking their dogs to the shows.
Ok - I have issues with the show people too - the AKC is behaving reprehensibly (sp?) in my opinion by not wanting to lose those big money makers - the mills - can’t they crack down on them? And many show people are simply alienating others by smashing all AR people - tarnishing them with the same brush. The AR people are busy spreading complete untruths about the show people - it’s just nuts. But - guess who stands to gain from dividing people?? yup - again - the puppy mills.
This seems like a terrible bill just on the face of it. You lose the show people and you lose some of the best education around for the average dog owner, and from what I can see you would lose a huge chunk of the people rescuing.
Didn;t even touch on the issue of poverty and pet ownership. Nope it’s not a god given right I guess, but wouldn’t you want everyone to have the chance to love an animal and deepen their humanity? You can make inroads on excessive breeding through education (really you can)- would happen quicker if folks could work together instead of against each other. If you must pass laws, take the time to make them good, workable laws rather than knee jerk reactions which will indeed worsen the situation!
There - whew! I’m sure I wasn’t clear and will regret this, but by golly it’s making me nuts! :)
Comment by deej — June 22, 2007 @ 12:06 am
“So she ain’t exactly partial – she stands to lose money on the bill. As do all the other breeders who violently oppose it.”
if she’s a good breeder, she’s not making any money to start with. so she may just stand to lose MORE money. i hope all good breeders oppose it. either that or claim all in the litters show quality until further notice (6-8mos at least)!
this bill may stop some of the accidental litters and encourage others who shouldn’t be breeding not to, but those are not the problem. education would work just as well. if you want to see an impact, get rid of puppy mills, pet stores, crack down on the mass importing of puppies from Mexico and Europe, and start tracking down those pumping out litters to sell on the internet and make sure their ‘business’ is in order. but don’t tell me at what age to alter my future puppy. or fine me because i choose to wait until my indoor only male kitten is mature before i alter him. sorry, not having it.
early s/n is fine for rescues and shelters and some breeders (if they choose), but not for all for various reasons. i also find the 4 mos age limit odd. seems my whole life vets have always opted 6-8mos vs early, even now with early s/n so common in some areas such as already mentioned.
Comment by straybaby — June 22, 2007 @ 5:21 am
Comment by Laura — June 21, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
“In fact, is anyone who ISN’T a current or former breeders actively opposing this?”
Yup. Me.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 22, 2007 @ 5:23 am
I’ve written about pets and their care for 25 years — the last 10 in national syndication. I’ve written award-winning pet-care books that have sold more than half a million copies, been translated into multiple languages. I’ve run a breed rescue, fostering and placing dozens of dogs a year. I’ve taught dog obedience classes. I’ve trained for and competed in a handful of different dog sports.
I’ve never, ever bred a litter. Not one.
And I could not be more against AB 1634.
To suggest that the only people who are for it are those who make money breeding again shows ignorance over reputable and responsible breeders vs. backyard breeders and puppy millers. The ignorance at this point must be intentional. In fact, the people who do make money breeding — puppy mills — are exempt from AB 1634.
I know a know a lot of reputable breeders. I don’t know any who make money at it — or care if they do. That’s not the motivation for good breeders, not at all.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 22, 2007 @ 5:42 am
When I read the bill, the first thing thought that formed in my mind is that this bill penalizes reputable breeders and people who responsibly own intact animals. People who aren’t responsible won’t change their ways — they won’t care if their animals are seized.
What I don’t get is how people think reputable breeders make money. By the time all the health clearances are done AND the dog or bitch is campaigned to prove that it is worthy of being bred…. No hobby breeder I know wants to calculate how much money they’ve spent on training and entry fees, not to mention hotels, food and gas.
They and I do all that because it’s our hobby. We do it for the good of the breed and seek out other breeders and afficianados who are like-minded.
For the bitch owner, there’s time and expense that goes into properly whelping a litter as well. Beyond that, the perfect sire is more than likely many states away, if not across the country or somewhere else in the world. (I cringe when I see an ad that says the sire and dam are at the same location. To me, that screams “backyard breeder, in it for the money.”)
So I want it explained to me how it is that a reputable breeder makes any money.
This bill is so wrong. Across the country people are watching, since CA so often leads the way re: what happens elsewhere. How much better if legislative efforts were directed towards eliminating puppy milling and towards education. Backyard breeding will always exist, I’m afraid, as long as there are gullible people willing to buy the ill-bred pups.
As usual, address the demand side and the supply side will be addressed as well.
Comment by Deanna — June 22, 2007 @ 8:10 am
I don’t understand how this “punishes” reputable breeders. Anyone in California who sells two or more animals per year is already required by law to obtain a permit and pay taxes on the income. Though I’m sure there are many “responsible” breeders that are not doing that.
Comment by Heather — June 22, 2007 @ 8:44 am
You are incorrect: There are no permits required. And yes, you are to pay tax on after-expenses “profits.” Backyard breeders and puppy-millers have them; reputable breeders almost never do.
For a year I tracked a Labrador/Labradoodle breeder through Craig’s list (before Craig himself banned live-animal sales). She was a backyard breeder in it for the dough. Be my rough calculation she made $30K in puppy income, and since that was “cash only” I can’t imagine she paid a dime in taxes. Since she didn’t show or otherwise compete with her dogs and she didn’t have pre-breeding genetic certifications done on any of them, that was in fact largely profit. Bitch that I am, I figured out who she was and turned her in to the IRS. :)
On the other hand, the woman who bred and co-owns my three retrievers has a PhD in economics — if anyone understands profit and loss, it’s her.
And she is quite upfront that she works as a university professor so she can afford to breed healthy, temperamentally sound working dogs. Doing so costs her several thousands a year. Not in earnings — in losses. From genetic testing, top-quality food and veterinary care (including extremely expensive “FedEx” artificial insemination breedings from top studs far, far away — and sometimes no longer living!), and the high costs of training and competing in show, agility, obedience and field trials/hunt tests. Not to mention traveling the world watching working dogs elsewhere. She knows where almost every dog she has bred in 30 years is — and there haven’t been that many — and she has taken back every dog who wasn’t working out or whose owners died. (My own will directs my dogs go back to her.)
Can you try to get the difference? It ain’t that hard, really.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 22, 2007 @ 9:09 am
Yes the money that reputable dog breeders put into their dogs, in health care, health testing, showing, premium feeding, training, gas, entries (my show entries for rarities is 100.00 per dog per weekend, that adds up really quick), hotels, microchipping, whelping supplies, puppy supplies, toys, advertising in our national catalog, returned dogs expenses(which I pay gladly to know they are safe) and the list just goes on and on. I do track how much I spend annually on the dogs, and how much I get from any of my litters and so far I’ve never made money. I’m in the hole by thousands and I do not support any legislation like AB 1634. Responsible breeders will be devestated by legislation like this, but those who produce poor quailty dog and/or have no network for returns and rehomes will still be able to “profit”.
Comment by Alison — June 22, 2007 @ 9:53 am
“Bitch that I am, I figured out who she was and turned her in to the IRS. :)”
handy ‘tool’, isn’t it ;)
Comment by straybaby — June 22, 2007 @ 9:55 am
I am not in favor of this bill - namely I don’t agree with neutering dogs so young - that’s just much too young.
I am in favor of stopping mindless backyard breeders who churn out puppies while feeding their piggy banks and want these puppy mills shut down completely.
I am not in favor or overbreeding and it doesn’t matter to me who is doing it - hobby breeders or pure bred enthusiasts or backyard breeders or puppy mills or farmers or whatever. A couple litters a lifetime of anyperson seems more than enough no matter who they are.
And I don’t believe education alone will solve the problem - we need laws to provide the structure when self regulation doesn’t work.
Sad to say but our animals will continue to suffer - and when humans fail to do what is right, our pets fall through the gaps and then are sorely neglegted, abandoned, or killed.
Thousands of unwanted disposable pets a year in the State of California, maybe even millions, something needs to change.
Shame on the people that breed and breed and breed some more.
Comment by Linda — June 22, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
For Heather…
you are quoting directly from the California Healthy Pets Act website and your information is very incorrect.
While there is no official use of “hobby breeder” in California tax law, the concept is vey well established and accepted.
Hobbyists fall under the general rule for occaisional sales. An example would be the difference between some one having two yard sales in one year versus someone with a regular booth at a farmers or street market.
The former qualifies under occaissional sales and not only does not need a business license, but cannot qualify for one. The latter does.
Additionaly, the general rule has been consistently interpreted to allow the sale of part or all of two litters per year, not individual puppies(unless you are talking about two litters of one puppy each), as the threshold for occaisional sales in the case of small volume breeders.
If someone breeds more than this, they would potentially need a business license, taxes are then paid by the buyer and remitted to the state by the seller.
If a hobbyist tries to operate as a business, they may deduct all expenses pretaining to their dogs. As hobbyists generally do not even break even, there would simply be no taxes owed. Another reason the State Board of Equalization does not want to deal with low volume hobby breeders.
The vast majority of hobbyists should not get a business license as they legally cannot qualify as a business.
This issue has been raised on several occaisions in relation to previous canine legislation in Ca. This information would not have been difficult to access but this apparently has not been done by the authors and sponsors of AB1634. To my mind, the posting of innacurate information on the bill’s official website raises serious questions
Comment by Jennifer J — June 22, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
Dear “straybaby”
“Bitch that I am, I figured out who she was and turned her in to the IRS. :) handy ‘tool’, isn’t it ;)”
See Jennifer J’s comment below yours. If people would only spend the time to inform themselves, they wouldn’t make such asses of themselves. Turning someone in only works if they’ve committed an actual crime. Sadly, this is the level of discourse carried on by pro-Pet Extinction Act people.
A California dog rescuer of 18 years’ experience
Comment by Diane — June 23, 2007 @ 2:21 am
Comment by Jennifer J — June 22, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
“To my mind, the posting of innacurate information on the bill’s official website raises serious questions”
I expect it comes from the same mindset that led the bill’s author to promise he’d introduce exemptions so everyone could breed their dog “just once” as a means to get the bill pushed through the Assembly.
Ya’ really gotta wonder about the motivations - not to mention the honesty and ethics - of someone like that.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 23, 2007 @ 4:01 am
Comment by Diane — June 23, 2007 @ 2:21 am
“If people would only spend the time to inform themselves, they wouldn’t make such asses of themselves.”
Are you refering to me?! I think I know the difference between a hobby breeder and someone pumping out animals to make a living/extra money.
“Sadly, this is the level of discourse carried on by pro-Pet Extinction Act people.”
Are implying that I follow the AR bent? If so, you would be wrong. I don’t know all the CA business tax laws, as it’s been awhile since I’ve lived/done business there, but I am familiar with my state’s and also the IRS as an independent business person. If I feel someone is flying under the radar selling pets, I see nothing wrong with having them checked out. Same as I see nothing wrong with having the city check out demolition/construction sites in my ‘hood to make sure some of the greedy builders have their ducks in a row (which they don’t always!). I also have pet stores checked out if the puppies/kittens look too young. So sue me :) Doesn’t mean I’m pro-pet extinction or uninformed.
Comment by straybaby — June 23, 2007 @ 6:49 am
Here’s some interesting reading:
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs.....raphs2.pdf
Comment by The OTHER Pat — June 23, 2007 @ 9:30 am
This bill is based on Lloyd Levine’s lies. Contrary to Levine’s bilge, data from Santa Cruz shows a sharp increase in costs after their MSN ordinance went into effect. Also, check data from L.A., again contrary to Levine, intake and euth numbers have not increased, but decreased from 2002. Interesting tho’, the budget has increased 28%. The big question, Is he stupid, a liar or in someone’s pocket?
Comment by georgia gilham — June 23, 2007 @ 10:06 am
I was wondering how Santa Cruz’s data stacked up. Also using a place like Santa Cruz as a model for the State seems off to me. I would hardly consider that community to be the ‘norm’ for the state.
we have MSN here for pets coming out of shelters and rescues, and yes our euth rate has dropped, but I sure wouldn’t say that that is the reason. Contributed, certainly, how much? Too soon to tell as the surplus is still too high (pet stores and BYB’s anyone?!). On it’s own, doubt it would be successful. What is making an impact is all of the groups working together to get pets adopted (rescues pull from the euth list, so duh!, figure goes down!), raising awareness, holding events and and that funny little thing called educatin’! Can’t tell you how many NY’ers didn’t know there was a city high kill shelter, even after losing a pet! It’s hard to miss the Park adoption events on weekends, and I would say they alone have had a great impact in education and awareness and lowering the numbers. Much more than MSN would, imo. Our Spay Days are considered successful, but again, that is happening through awareness and having resources available. The S/N van is pretty popular also (over 30 cats and counting here!). It’s the communities that need to work together to lower the homless population, imo, for long term results in responsible pet ownership (which is more than just s/n!) and a lower euth rate.
Comment by straybaby — June 23, 2007 @ 11:06 am
“Maddie’s Fund President, Richard Avanzino, has confirmed today that if CA AB 1634 passes into law, no community in the state will be able to benefit from Maddie’s Fund grants.”
I’ve posted more about this on my blog:
http://lassiegethelp.blogspot......-1634.html
Also: word has it that debate over AB 1634 was, um… heated [according to the goss] at the Pacific Veterinary Conference this past weekend. Gossip is all I’ve heard about that debate, unfortunately. Any real news?
Comment by Luisa — June 26, 2007 @ 2:28 am
Advocates for the bill claim it will save CA money if there are less animals going to shelters and being euthanized. However, how do these folks plan on the bill being enforced? Are neighbors supposed to snitch on each other when the kids are invited to pet the puppies/kittens? Or is there going to be an army of house to house inspectors checking each pet medically? The other main argument is that it is animal abuse to euthanize and cage these unwanted animals. But couldn’t you also say it is animal abuse to force invasive surgery on these pets when they are “fixed”? Isn’t a big story in the UK about female castration?
Comment by Jon Jon — July 11, 2007 @ 11:20 am