California veterinary association pulls support for mandatory spay-neuter bill
By Gina Spadafori
July 5, 2007
Well, it’s about darn time. After getting an earful from its members, the California Veterinary Medical Association has changed its position on the AB 1634 — mandatory spay-neuter — to “neutral.” Just off the phone with the CVMA, and they confirm this.
Never could understand what on earth the top dogs at CVMA were thinking in the first place. Having the government decide something that should be between a pet owner and a veterinarian was bad enough when it comes to neutering. But now with the newly amended “miracle of life for the kiddies to see” language that requires the family pet to be bred by 18 months if at all, AB 1634 flies in the face of medical knowledge.
You cannot certify the health of a dog’s hips, elbows and knees until the animal is two years old. That means the so-called “Healthy Pets Act” is legislating unhealthy pets. As if it needed more wrong with it.
A friend of mine who is very liberal, runs her neutered dogs in agility competitions and cannot remember ever voting for a Republican candidate points out the strangeness of realizing she is firmly alligned with the California state Legislature’s GOP members — for the first time in her life. “I tell you, it does give me pause,” she says. “A lifelong Democrat, walked precincts, gave money to campaigns and here I’m suddenly wondering what else they want to stick their nose into.”
“Does that make me a Republican? Or a Libertarian?” she said. “Or does that tell you what an idiotic piece of legislation this really is?”
Dunno.
All I can continue to say is what I said when meeting with my state Senator earlier this week: I’ve been writing about pets for 30 years, loved and shared my life with them for 20 more (come my 50th birthday, which is not that far away). I’ve taught obedience classes, run a breed rescue, competed in dog sports and never, ever bred a litter. I’ve written books on pet care that have sold more than a half-million copies and been translated into a dozen languages. Every week for more than 20 years I’ve written a newspaper column helping people care for their pets better, and encouraging them to spay and neuter those pets.
I’ve rescued, fostered, vaccinated, had neutered and placed more pets than most people will own in a lifetime.
And I could not be more against AB 1634. Wish the CVMA were against it, too, but “neutral” is better than being in favor of.
The bill goes before the California state Senate Local Government Committee on July 11. If you’re a California resident, here’s information on how to fax and call the members of that committee and let them know where you stand.
I actually don’t believe there won’t be any dog shows if AB 1634 passes — as has been threatened — and most people outside the dog-show world couldn’t care less about that, anyway. But I honestly believe it’s bad legislation that doesn’t address the problem and punishes the people who aren’t the problem at all. And with every attempt to”fix” this thing, it just keeps getting worse.
And it didn’t start out well. Animal-rights activist Judie Mancuso, who’s behind the legislation, admitted to the L.A. Weekly that puppy-millers were given a pass for reasons of political expediency:
Originally sponsored by Orange County animal-rights activist Judie Mancuso, [AB 1634] seeks to reduce the pets flowing into shelters at taxpayers’ expense, more than half of which are euthanized.
Mancuso is a vegan who has relied heavily on emotional appeals. In one video promo, a fashionable, heartbreakingly cute poodle mix fights the shelter worker leading it to its “final journey” — the euthanasia room.
The bill is “a tool that can help animal-control officers address the serious pet overpopulation problem,” Mancuso says. She explains that the bill evolved out of an earlier attempt to force pet stores to spay and neuter pets for sale, “but the pet-store industry is a huge lobby with huge money. Getting this spay-neuter bill through is like moving the Earth — but [the earlier bill] was impossible.” She has repeatedly insisted, “There’s no such thing as a ‘hobby breeder,’ ” and when asked about them, she laughs out loud. “Don’t let them fool you,” she says. “They’re all one in the same.”
There’s truly no middle ground in dealing with someone who doesn’t get (or refuses to acknowledge) the difference between a reputable breeder and a puppy mill (or a backyard breeder), who will not put forward programs tailored to independent studies that show why animals get turned in to shelters and where they come from, and who uses a cute little poodle (which is not what’s in the shelters, but a pit bull wouldn’t be as sad in the eyes of most people, fair or not) to make her point in favor of nanny-state legislation that sticks its nose between the legs of our pets and tells us — the mostly caring, mostly responsible pet-owners in this state – what to do.
Do you want a woman like this deciding what we do with our pets in this state?
I sure don’t.
I hope it does not pass. I am totally against it.
Comment by jill — July 5, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
this is great news. thanks for the update.
I think the current bill is dead.. the only issue is how much bad stuff they will sneak into a revised version. You know that, given how much Levine et al have invested in it, they won’t let it go.
As a liberal myself, I’m appalled that a movement whose aim is to use the power of government to ensure equal rights and protect the weakest members of society has devolved into promoting a fascist nanny state.
Comment by EmilyS — July 5, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
This is great news, and I hope it puts the final nail in the coffin. If the CVMA is now neutral, can I assume that means it is no longer co-sponsoring the bill?
Comment by Linda — July 5, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
I’ve been blogging on this quite a bit. I think bill supporters are not looking at what else they are signing for.
They are only being told that they will save lives by supporting the bill and they are not reading the fine print or not with working comprehension.
ACOs are being given too much power. Spartacus’ story in NY is a case in point. I’m glad he’s getting media attention now, but many other cases have not.
Comment by Semavi Lady — July 5, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/7-5-PM-OPED.pdf
Comment by Jamie — July 5, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
Maybe now this bill is breathing its last. There will always be those people and groups out there who think they know better than everybody else and are somehow entitled to dictate their agendas onto others against their will. Hopefully they will not win this time. Preserving our individual rights are important and worth fighting for.
Comment by elizabeth R. — July 5, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Little by little, hopefully it’s dying . . . . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 5, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
You got your wish. The CVMA is actually listed in opposition - see page 19 in the state analysis.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs.....7-3-07.pdf
Comment by Chris Lewis — July 5, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
Serial Dog Owners are the reason why we have shelter overpopulation. A Serial Dog Owner is an owner who continually gets a new puppy and disposes of it when events/problems come up and then gets another not much later. These are the people filling up the shelter and they will not be impacted by AB 1634.
Smuggling puppies, internet sales. People who want puppies will get them. Most people do not want to get a dog “with problems, adult, etc” from a rescue or shelter to mix with their current kids and pets. This is a fact of life. Just like most people want to adopt babies and not older kids. Just because their is no breeding in CA will not change this dynamic. Just because there are wonderful dogs in the shelter (I have done rescue for 25 years) will not change this dynamic.
What I would like the state to do is to require all public shelters to report age, reproductive status, and reason dog is turned in at intake. And these figures made public each month/year on their website.
I would also like to see the state require all disposition by total animal count of all animals they took in. Including transfers (not counting these as adoptions) and dogs put down for temperament. Total figures is the accurate kill rate, not selected statistics.
And then I would like the state to outlaw ANY public shelter from importing ANY animals. All animals in public shelters should be the place of last resort. Many areas do this but this should not be at public tax dollar expense. If they do not have enough local animals given up (ideal) then they need to cut back their staff and operating expenses. The goal should be for a community to have only a few bodies without any adoptable animals inside.
Let us hold local public shelters accountable for their creative bookkeeping.
Comment by Kym — July 5, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
Kym, what public shelter imports animals?!
I know the NYC shelter is keeping stats similar to what you are asking, but I think they had to when they agreed to work towards “no-kill”. I’m sure they aren’t the only ones. Any shelter using the same system as the NYC one (can’t remembeer the name of it), would have the info you are asking for and should just be able to pull it up. I don’t really see where a public shelter would benefit from creative bookkeeping. Ones that don’t keep the info on everything, generally have high euth rates kill for lack of space, so it becomes irrevelent as to why the animals died. shelters working towards no-kill keep the numbers so they can show eventually they aren’t euthing adoptable animals, which ties into funding. those shelters need to be transparent, and usually have many eyes on them, including volunteer/rescue eyes. so what am i not getting re: the import/creative bookkeeping?
Comment by straybaby — July 5, 2007 @ 7:09 pm
This is a great article- well done! Now that CVMA has backed down, the latest is that PIJAC-that powerful pet-business lobby mentioned in your article- has also declared themselves opposed to AB1634. As for Levine and Mancuso- they deserve each other. Let’s see how far her funraising gets him towards in his Senate move…
Thank you for healping make the public aware of the misery this bill would inflict on both animals and their humans.
Comment by Joan Bernstein — July 5, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
Good article! This bill is so skewed and becoming more so with each attempt to modify it that it would be a joke were it not so sad for California’s responsible breeders, whose choices, should AB1634 become law, would be either to give up what to most is a passionate avocation or to go underground and become criminals.
Comment by Lilian Barber — July 5, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
The public needs to begin turning its attention to the real problem: animal shelterists who have buddied up with militant animal rights groups. It is they who have been pushing for AB1634.
http://www.dog-paintings-and-p.....s-Act.html
Comment by Nick Van Duren — July 5, 2007 @ 9:45 pm
Nick, that first cartoon is very like what is going on with Spartacus!
http://www.cobankopegi.com/blo.....-wild.html
Comment by Semavi Lady — July 6, 2007 @ 2:16 am
Straybaby - some shelters bring ‘highly adoptable’ animals from rural shelters to urban shelters. I have mixed feelings on this.
Adoption rates at rural shelters are very low and they are much more likely to be kill shelters. Also in many urban areas small dogs are more easily adoptable than large do to size restrictions imposed by landlords and condo associations. Its hard to say that if the rural dogs weren’t brought in, more of urban (larger dogs or those with bad reps like pit bulls) would be adopted. But the rural dogs would most likely face the death penalty.
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 6, 2007 @ 4:43 am
I’m actually very much in favor of bringing the animals where the population is. And I don’t care what you do: Someone who wants a small, quiet dog is not going to take a young, energetic dog or a dog they’re afraid of, fair or not.
Leaving a dog people want to adopt to die in a rural municipal shelter in order to “force” someone to adopt the unwanted dogs you have does nothing but send people to puppy-mill retail outlets to get what they want.
Even if you could make them take a young, ill-mannered Lab mix or a pit bull, what then? The person who adopts a dog who’s not suited to the home situation will not cope well, and the dog will boomerang back into the shelter — or worse.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 6, 2007 @ 5:59 am
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 6, 2007 @ 4:43 am
“Its hard to say that if the rural dogs weren’t brought in, more of urban (larger dogs or those with bad reps like pit bulls) would be adopted. But the rural dogs would most likely face the death penalty.”
And honestly - do we want to get into deciding which dogs “deserve to live” more? In general, taking actions that keep the maximum number of dogs alive in good homes where they and their owners are well-suited to one another would seem to be the best approach. In fact, rescue groups do this all the time via transport of dogs to owners that want them - and it’s not at all uncommon for that transport to be clear across the country.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 6, 2007 @ 6:38 am
Do a Google search on “Rescue Transport”, and you get LOTS of hits.
http://www.google.com/search?h.....+transport
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 6, 2007 @ 6:39 am
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 6, 2007 @ 4:43 am
Oh, I know private shelters do this, but I wasn’t aware of public ones doing it. We have a large private org that brings them up by the truck load here. While I understand the practice, they are not really brining up just what people want that isn’t already available here nor do they take full responsibility for the animals, so imo, they make the practice look bad. They are not shipping in those cute small dogs, but lots of puppies (many lab, hound mixes etc). I might feel differently about them if they were and they had better policies in place ;)
Comment by straybaby — July 6, 2007 @ 6:41 am
Does California have any laws regarding puppy mills? It seems that this is where resources would best be used. I think as more people learn about this current legislation, the less they are going to like it (that includes me).
Obviously, a lot of our comments are based on the system we are familiar with. Several years ago, several large privately funded shelters along with the public ‘dog catcher’ banded together to figure out a way to get the most animals adopted. Not suprisingly, different shelters get different types of potential adopters.
The Chicago Anti-Cruelty Society, which is the largest by far had gotten a well deserved rap for cherry-picking animals and euthanizing anything that wouldn’t move quickly. Some of the cat only shelters couldn’t place kittens readily. So now there are a dozen or so shelters that do swap animals.
Anti-Cruelty which is the most family friendly get the kittens and young cats. AC partners with PetSmart here (along with a couple of private agencies) so they have lots of exposure for these animals.
The cat only facilities take young cats that wouldn’t do well in a caged environment as well older or special needs cats. These shelters tend to attract adults (mostly without children) often looking for a little older cat to add to their cat tribe or perhaps a new companion for an older cat that has lost a friend.
And instead of being a hold/kill facility, Chicago animal control will pass on unclaimed animals to one of the other shelters so that they can hopefully find a home. They do not bring animals in from other places.
I wish I could tell you more about the dog situation - but I’m not familiar enough with all the goings on.
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 6, 2007 @ 7:06 am
The only way you could have laws regarding “puppy mills” would be if you could legally define what a “puppy mill” is. And the closest you can come to that would be “USDA Licensed Commercial Breeder”.
And the thing is, Commercial Breeding is NOT illegal. In fact, it’s encouraged. When farmers were having trouble making ends meet by conventional farming practices (we’re talking around the 30s here) the USDA came along and said “Hey - have I got a deal for you! Build a bunch of cages, start breeding dogs, sell them to pet shops, and you’ll turn a tidy profit”.
And that’s really where the business of puppy farming got its start in this country. Initiated, supported, and encouraged by the US government who also oversees these operations by licensing these breeders under APHIS Animal Welfare.
Presumably these farms are required to meet minimal care standards for these animals and are penalized if they don’t. But never forget - these animals are considered and treated as livestock, and even when housed and cared for in accordance with USDA regulations, their living conditions are far different than what most of us consider to be what we’d want for our dogs and cats.
It’s not a simple problem. These puppy farmers DO have a legal right to do what they’re doing, and the only way the government is going to step in is when they fail to meet USDA standards. If we could get rid of the ENTIRE USDA Commercial Breeding industry, we’d see some real changes. But they’re powerful, they have money, they have political clout, and I think all of us here on this blog know what that means.
And that - unfortunately - is the way it is.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 6, 2007 @ 8:42 am
What concerns me about his entire issue, is the pressure from breeders against this bill? Could this be an issue more from a financial stance than anything else?
If required to obtain permits for breeding with restrictions, how much of the actual earnings from breeding and selling animals would then have to be reported for Federal taxes? Maybe a bit too much of a problem for some perhaps? I’d like to see the income taxes of some breeders to see how much is being reported presently.
Comment by ks dale — July 6, 2007 @ 11:45 am
I see your point - but when I read about animals living in their own filth, sick animals, dead animals - one would hope that such things wouldn’t be allowed under USDA licensing.
I know, I live in a fantasy world. Like the FDA, the USDA seems to be a do nothing agency when it comes to enforcement of already existing laws.
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 6, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 6, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
“Like the FDA, the USDA seems to be a do nothing agency when it comes to enforcement of already existing laws.”
Yup. I used to post to a board where a number of USDA licensed breeders posted, and they had no end of stories of inspectors who were unpredictable and inconsistent in what they would and would not cite as violations on inspection visits. (Not that it broke my heart to see their lives made more difficult - I just wish the dogs didn’t have to continue to suffer in their cages).
It’s very much like the FDA - underfunded, too few inspectors to really do an effective job, and powerful lobbying forces (JB Hunte - the biggest puppy mafia in the land) getting in the way of any meaningful changes.
But the one current that runs through all of it - the thing to keep in mind - is that this is the United States Department of AGRICULTURE. These animals’ “wellbeing” is being looked after by the same people who decide what constitutes acceptable care for cattle and swine. And that’s the mindset that rules - they see dogs and cats as *livestock*, and that colors EVERYTHING.
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 6, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Bravo to Gina for an absolutely marvelous article…clear, concise, communicative. And bravo to the California Veterinary Association for taking back control of their own organization.
Comment by Alan Alford — July 6, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Andrea 2CatMom: Here’s an interesting series of pages on what the USDA regulations *legally* allow for the space provided for dogs in licenced facilities (and anyone reading this - “licensed” facilities are expressly *permitted* in AB1634):
http://www.kimtownsend.com/csusda.htm
Comment by The OTHER Pat — July 6, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
Other Pat - About as bad as I thought - and when you think of the mills that don’t even do the minimum, its sickening.
I guess states will have to continue to step up because relying on the Feds for anything from food safety to port and border security to getting your passport renewed in less than 6 months is a joke.
So how come I feel like crying?
Comment by Andrea 2CatMom — July 6, 2007 @ 8:57 pm
“So how come I feel like crying?”
that seems to be a common reaction these days if you really look at the fed gov . . . .
Comment by straybaby — July 7, 2007 @ 6:29 am
I wonder if Mancuso had children? Or did she get fixed? We really don’t need any more of her ‘breed’ overpopulating the earth. She obviously only has the ability to view things in black and white and therefore felt no need to research her subject before letting her bill and views loose on society.
Comment by cheryl — July 7, 2007 @ 10:00 am
First of all, I live on a sailboat going from island to island in the Caribbean. Did you know that in the US Virgin Islands, there is a program that asks those flying back to the States to contact the local USVI SPCA who will provide a homeless dog, and pay its airfare if one is willing to take the animal back. Like we need more homeless dogs in the States? The weird part is that they do not spay or neuter in the islands that much. The USVI is not the only place that is trying to get rid of unwanted dogs in this manner. Check the BVIs, Martinique, and others. Maybe this needs to be looked into.
Comment by Jordan Fisher — July 12, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
Some quick comments about the the US Virgin Islands program which sends dogs to the states. The program is called “Pets from Paradise and is run by the St. Croix Humane Society.” They are not dumping dogs; the dogs being sent to the states are small dogs requested by shelters because many stateside people are looking for smaller dogs which are not so readily available. All the dogs which are sent have been spayed or neutered. The shelters on St. Croix and St. Thomas - St. John are doing an excellant job promoting spay/neuter programs however there is a resistance among some local people and especially people from down island to have it done.
Comment by Liz Goggins — July 13, 2007 @ 10:02 am