Tuesday, May 01, 2007

When the State of California's Gonad Nazis knock on your door . . . Will you make the grade? Over 15 million second class citizens in California. They own pet dogs. Enforcement of the King of the Nanny-Staters Lloyd Levine's modest proposal to castrate every pet dog and cat in the state of California was left up to local enforcement personnel. Things might get a little out of hand. Somtimes "things that shouldn't have happened" (to quote L. A. Police Chief William Bratton) . . .do. How is Levine planning to detect those unauthorized gonads, anyway? Let's have a visioning session on the enforcement of AB 1634. Shall we? Door to door searches. I hear animal control is already going door to door in El Paso, Texas, looking for un-microchipped pets. Are dog owners in La-La Land going to be okay with a knock on the door in the middle of the night? Or will that only be necessary in "certain areas" ? Not in Malibu. Not in Beverly Hills. But South Central L. A.? Where "certain people" live? Oh, yeah. Diming dog owners. Will veterinarians, trainers and groomers eventually be required to drop a dime on their dog owning clients? Eyes in the sky. Maybe a little surveillance of known pet owner hangouts? Dog parks, feed stores, PetsMart, whatever?

Report-a-testicle. How about a toll-free "here's your chance to even the score with your pain in the ass neighbor" telephone number?

I'm getting a picture of public service announcements like:

"Do your part to save California! Ratting out your friends is your civic duty! Dial 1-800-CAS-TRATE turn in someone TODAY! All calls strictly confidential. Reports of gonad sightings may be made anonymously."

Miami/Dade used the tactic to locate and kill as many "pit bulls" as it could. Will California communities use Miami/Dade as a model?

Mandatory microchipping, and inclusion in the mother of all data bases. Kiss your privacy good bye, California. Your data will become the property of huge multinationals. You won't get it back.

"Errors" during re-write sessions. Every county and municipal animal control ordinance in the state, all 527 of them, will have to be re-written for AB 1634 compliance. Will due process violations, and other civil rights issues, slip in to the new codes? With 527 opportunities, and municipal governments working at a breakneck pace, its a distinct possibility. Pet owners have fewer civil rights than everyone else

In California under AB 1634, my dog would get the knife. I wouldn't be able to stop it. Chances are, yours would, too.

But some people--those who can afford the intact permits, and who exhibit their dogs at officially acceptable sanctioned events within the specified time frames, and who somehow manage to navigate the layers of local requirements and cross all their t's and dot all their i's . .not that I envy what they'd have to go through, because I don't. . .

It turns out they are "better" than pet owners.

They have more rights.

They get to keep their dogs in one piece if they want to. For the time being, any way.

Pet owners won't. No matter what they say. No matter how good their dogs are, no matter how well they care for them.

That's discriminatory.

This is about civil rights! Not "breeder's rights."

Roughly 85% of dog owners are pet owners. Their dogs are their companions. They aren't "breeders", and they don't want to be "breeders."

Pet owners in California don't know it, but they're about to get screwed over.

Imagine being unable to make your own decisions about the pets under your roof. The pets that you feed and care for.

The pets that have zero opportunity to participate in any illicit matings because you're a responsible owner.

The pets you know better and cherish more than anyone else in the world. . . including the arrogant proponents of Levine's bill that dismiss concerns about expensive, invasive surgery with three words:

"Get another vet".

Dude, where's my California?

What happened to. . . "California has always been at the forefront of protecting our citizens' civil rights. . ."

"WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto is proud of its long and distinguished law enforcement tradition of protecting the civil rights and liberties of all persons."

"WHEREAS these raids overwhelmingly target Latina/o communities such as those conducted in the Bay Area in the past several weeks, and reveal a racist intent to not only criminalize immigrants, but to also terrorize and harass Latino communities and perpetuate second-class treatment . . ."

Police state for pet owners

Somehow pet owners became second class citizens in the eyes of Lloyd Levine and his supporters.

Lloyd Levine believes pet owners are mentally incompetent. They need the Nanny-State to make their decisions for them.

Freedoms just slip-sliding away in the Golden State

Freedom of choice? Civil rights? Civil liberties in California?

Fading, fading. . .

Faded away? Let's hope not. Caring pet owners are perfectly capable of making good health care decisions for their pets.

Real solutions for real problems: let's ditch the smoke and mirrors

One-size-fits-all "remedies" like mandatory castration at the age of 16 weeks, no exceptions, is as scary as it sounds.

Legislation attempting to force the removal of gonads from pre-adolescent owned kittens won't solve the problem of unowned, feral cats. Alley Cats Allies points out some of the many fallacies and pit falls of Levine's proposal as it relates to homeless cats. To sum it up: AB 1634 may very well do more harm than good.

Young adult dogs, not puppies, are typically surrendered to shelters because they bark, shed, or pee on the carpet. Or because their owners can't find pet-friendly housing. Castration won't solve those problems and unfunded mandates like Levine's proposal may do more harm than good if it forces dog owners to abandon their dogs.

Makes you wonder what "problem" Lloyd Levine & Co. is trying to solve with AB 1634, doesn't it?


Anonymous said...

oh hi Mr Law Enforcement!
you're checking to see if my dog is spayed?
Well of course she is.. I have the vet's certificate right um.. right here.. oh darn, that's not it.

But I PROMISE you my dog is spayed.

Will you take my word for it?

Anonymous said...

Hogwash. How much money do you make off the backs of dogs? It must be plenty for only your narcissistic opinion to count. Read the bill. It's sensational and REAL dog-lovers--if they READ it--will love it.

Anonymous said...

I am sure you will not like what I have to say as you feel really passionate about your ideas but if you could just open yourself up to viewing this from another point of view. If you really love your companion animal, it is much healthier to have them spay or neuter. Ask all of the families who have had to deal with testicular cancer, prostate cancer & breast cancer (increases with each litter). As well, they are typically better behaved, less likely to roam and less aggressive (many dog parks will not allow unneutered animals to enter due to aggression problems). I have had and know many many many neutered animals and they live a very happy life are just as happy to not be in one piece. Our view point and there's are very different.

Anonymous said...

I am a proud owner of five dogs, and six cats. They are all spayed and neutered, to protect their own health. This law would not apply to me or them. It only applies to those who are irresponsible enough to breed and contribute to the pet overpopulation and the killing.
No need to fear anything except fear itself.
California--lead the way to

Anonymous said...

Take a walk through the L.A. City Shelters. Look into the eyes of the animals crammed in cages. Know that most will soon be killed due to lack of space. Then rewrite your ignorant comment.

BlueDogState said...

Two notes from Blue Dog State:

1. Sadly, a couple of the comments posted by a brave anonymous writer were based on racial and/or ethnic slurs. I have rejected them for that reason--not because the writer disagrees with me (although s/he did).

2. I don't "make money off the backs of dogs." I don't breed dogs (or cats), and never have. I prefer to leave such matters to people who know what they're doing.

Anonymous said...

It's like the seatbelt law...it's great and saves lives.
Most people don't realize the horrific pet overpopulation problem in this country. It's getting worse and people need a law to make them do what's right: NOT ALLOW THEIR ANIMALS TO BREED.
I'm thinking your parents shouldn't have bred either.
In this "free" country, we don't allow the stray animals to wander the streets. Instead, thousands are executed every day in the privacy of a shelter's killing room. Someone wanted those animals once.
Our ONLY hope of teaching future generations about responsible pet ownership is AB 1634.

Anonymous said...

Ha ha ha you attract the AR ninnies for some reason...lucky you, BDS!

First of all, cite one scientific study which supports neutering by the age of four months. Just one.

Second, the sad eyes have always been in the shelters and always will be - not because of hobby breeders, because of morons who get dogs without a clue about what's involved in caring for them.

Third, the breeders I know spend much more money on breeding than they take in from placing the handful of pups they don't keep for showing and sports. Believe me, they aren't making any money. They're spending thousands a year on their hobby to breed maybe two litters. Maybe.

Fourth and finally, all this law will do is increase shipments from miller states like Missouri, Ohio and PA and allow commercial breeders to carry on unchecked selling pups in pet shops and over the internet. They will be able to keep up with the paperwork and insulting presumption of clueless fanatics disguised as politicians and bureaucrats.

Man, you AR types are really brainwashed.

I am a

Lifetime Dog Owner
Non Breeder
Opponent of BSL
Opponent of Govt Messing with my Dogs
Owner of Voluntarily Neutered Dogs (done at the proper age, minimum one year, preferable 18 months to 2 years or later depending on breed).


Anonymous said...

Over 800,000 yes you read it right:
over eighthundred thousand!!!! unwanted animals are dumped into city and county shelters in California every year. Over 400,000 never make it out alive, they are being killed at tax payers expense.
Is that really what you want? Having all these animals killed because some irresponsible people want to experience the miracle of birth and end up with more animals than they can handle?
Give me a break!!!
Santa Cruz' kill rate is half of what it used to be after the ordinace of mandatory spay/neuter was introduced.

Experimental Knitter said...

Methinks that Anonymous, that brave soul, is one and the same Anonymous.
Do gonads count for protection under the 14th amendment? What if my dog says he wants to be left intact? As his GUARDIAN, can I force him to have unnecessary surgery?

BlueDogState said...

One of the "anonymous" posters writes--
"Having all these animals killed because some irresponsible people want to experience the miracle of birth and end up with more animals than they can handle?
Give me a break!!!
Santa Cruz' kill rate is half of what it used to be after the ordinace of mandatory spay/neuter was introduced.

The number of puppies in shelters is actually quite small. Studies indicate that support of dog ownership--helping owners overcome behavioral and other practical barriers to keeping their dogs--is what is necessary.

Not surgery.

Regarding the "miracle" of mandatory spay-neuter programs: shelter populations are already dropping dramatically across the country. Without draconian laws.

Go figure.

BlueDogState said...

The "seatbelt" anonymous poster writes--
"[Pet over population is] getting worse"

Wrong. Again, the population of dogs in shelters is already dropping steadily across the country. Especially in places like Calfornia.

"people need a law to make them do what's right: NOT ALLOW THEIR ANIMALS TO BREED."

Pet owners contribute very, very few dogs to shelter populations. Most of them have already neutered their dogs, for cripes sake.

If you're referring to CATS. . .the problem is unowned, feral cats that would not be covered by AB 1634.

"I'm thinking your parents shouldn't have bred either."

I'm thinking you need a nap, buddy.

"In this "free" country, we don't allow the stray animals to wander the streets."

Correct. So how and where is all of this random breeding of pet dogs and cats taking place?

"Instead, thousands are executed. . .Someone wanted those animals once."

Bingo. They did once have homes. Why not address the issues that removed them from their homes, instead of pretending that they never had homes to begin with? Huh?

"Our ONLY hope of teaching future generations about responsible pet ownership is AB 1634."

Yup. you definitely need a nap.

Anonymous said...

Here's a question for Peta's flying monkeys:

What percentage of the dogs in shelters are registered, purebred dogs?

Answer: Very, very few.

Since purebred dogs make up a maximum of 20% of the dog population, why would anyone in their right mind penalize the minority who are not the problem? These are not the dogs in rescues and pounds.

It's not 'breeders' who are responsible for unwanted dogs. It's people who get dogs and think they require no effort, or who won't address typical behaviour in young dogs, or who teach their puppies bad habits because it is 'cute' when they jump up and bite, tug on the lead, growl over a toy, etc. Then, when Bruno is about 8 - 10 months old, weighs 90 lbs and is knocking the kids over, counter-cruising, fighting the lead, etc, it's off to the pound.

The whole thing is a house of cards. Hopefully, it will tumble soon.

ARfighter said...

The AVMA only supports this nonsense because their members stand to make MILLIONS...

Aparently the speuter nazis can't read because The CA state Constitution "declaration of rights" clearly states that:


"SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

This proposal is totally unconstitutional! FYI folks, a license is a provisional permit to engage in an activity that would otherwise be illegal. Requiring a breeder’s license would make owning animals as property, in their natural state, illegal, in direct conflict with the guaranteed rights of California citizens. It's a shame that the people must continually remind their elected officials of this FACT.
Those of us that ARE literate couln't help but notice other key RIGHTS guarenteed by the CA Constitution...further reading reveals:
"(4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or
modifies any
provision of this Constitution, including the
guarantees that a
person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due
process of law, or denied equal protection of the
laws, as provided
in Section 7."
"SEC. 13. The right of the people to be secure in
their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
seizures and
searches may not be violated; and a warrant may not
issue except on
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
describing the place to be searched and the persons
and things to be
seized." That might even making the seizing body liable for the veterinary expense. Hope there's no complications! Imagine all those judges having to write warrants for fluffy's uterus, and Fido's testicles...because:
"SEC. 19. Private property may be taken or damaged for
public use
only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury
unless waived, has
first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. The
may provide for possession by the condemnor following
commencement of
eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and
prompt release
to the owner of money determined by the court to be
the probable
amount of just compensation." I know I won't waive my right to a jury trial. The court system will collapse under this burden. Even better:
"SEC. 20. Noncitizens have the same property rights as
" So out of state visitors could sue too!

Anonymous said...

I LOVE YOU, BLUE DOG!!! Keep it up.

Anonymous said...

"Well, your opening remark is not entirely accurate. It's not EVERY dog and cat. Exempt from the bill are purebred dogs, guide & service dogs, showdogs, search & rescue dogs, pets that are elderly , ill or in otherwise poor health, pets that are non-residents, and pets that have won titles for obedience, agility, protection, working or herding competitions. I think it's important to keep the facts straight to avoid confusion."

Note from Blue Dog State:
There is no mistake in my opening statement, which refers to PET dogs (and cats).

Your contention that exemptions are readily available is very misleading:
--Dogs and cats owned by licensed [commercial] breeders may be exempt (not pet owners).
--Purebred dog and cat exhibitors, using certain registries, who comply with a specified timetable for competitions, who exhibit or compete with their dogs/cats at certain officially sanctioned events within a certain time frame may be exempt. (not pets)
--Service dogs may be exempt (not pets)
--Additional fees for "intact" permits, as well as
--local [municipal and/or county] restrictions and requirements, will also apply.

But if you can get a letter from your vet stating that surgical castration will kill your pet dog or cat, then you may be exempt.

Anonymous said...

Regarding these 'exemptions'.

Since no one can tell if a dog has show or breeding potential until they mature at between 1 and 2.5 years, I don't see how anyone will get an exemption based on competition.

You can't even enter conformation until a dog is a minimum of 6 months old. Dogs aren't bred until they finish their conformation careers at a minimum of 2 years of age.

Dogs can't participate in sports until they have good musculature and bone mass - usually they start around 1.5 years and up.

By 'dog' I mean both sexes.

Question: (my questions are never answered by the AR types):

Who came up with this 4-month idea?

It's unheard of in the dog world except in special circumstances such as:

1. The SPCA in my area will employ juvenile spay/neuter in order to ensure that their dogs are not going out intact. They realize the medical implications but figure the trade-off is worth it. I agree with them on this one.

2. Some breeders of Toys and Terriers whom I know send their pups out s/n because Toys are a miller magnet and they don't want people breeding pet stock. This I don't agree with necessarily, but I get where they are coming from.

Other than the above any dog owner with a clue lets their dog mature before s/n.

Question 2: Why is it that when I visit my local SPCA (as I do often to see how things are going) I only see a handful of young mongrel pups maybe once a year (which come from the reserve, federal territory in Canada)?

Why are SPCAs and others importing product - er, I mean dogs from other jurisdictions and other countries?

Because there aren't enough unwanted dogs to keep their operation going.

High s/n compliance, vaccination and pest control compliance among the pet-owning public has reduced the number of unhealthy and unwanted dogs. That is what is shown by statistics.

Numbers on their own mean nothing. You need a comparison to make the point.

Saying there are 800,000 dogs unwanted in CA is meaningless - how many were there 5 years ago, 10 years ago, etc. How many dogs are there in the population? Due to a lack of enforcement of licensing, no one knows.

In US estimates, 48+% of households own at least one dog. Ballparking CA's population at 30,000,000, that means there are at least 15,000,000 dogs, likely more due to multiple dog households.

If you can discover how many of these dogs are actual owner handovers, which won't be anywhere near 100% of all dogs put to death, then you can do a ratio and compare with previous years.

On its own, the number 800,000 doesn't tell us anything, if it is accurate, which I doubt.

togo said...

I just finished reading the late Vicki Hearnes's book Bandit. In it she says that treadmills for dogs are banned in CA as "dogfighting paraphenalia". I recalled that National Geographic's Cesar Millan is involved is a lawsuit re his use of a treadmill in dog training. Has the law been changed since the writing of the book? Or is Millan getting special treatment?

togo said...

For those who haven't seen this:
Guest Post: Dr John on Cal Spay- Neuter
John Burchard writes:

There are many valid reasons for opposing California AB 1634. Perhaps the most
important are these:

1) It won't work. Mandatory s/n does not reduce shelter or euthanasia numbers.
On the contrary, it makes them worse. It has been tried in many jurisdictions,
always with the same effect: an *increase* in shelter intake and euthanasia
numbers, an *increase* (usually dramatic) in animal control costs, a *decrease*
in licensing compliance and revenues, and a *decrease* in rabies vaccination
compliance, leading to more cases of canine rabies.

2) S/n at or before the age of four months, as prescribed by AB 1634, has many
serious ill effects on the growth, development and health of dogs and cats.

3) the proposed eligibility criteria are illusory ... the only people eligible
to obtain "intact permits" for their dogs would be business-licensed commercial
breeders. No dogs or cats can meet the stipulated criteria for competition
animals or police, service or working dogs at the age of four months. So get a
business license, no big deal? Not exactly. In most California jurisdictions
you cannot legally operate a retail-sale business out of your home; instead you
require a kennel license, which prohibits you from operating in a residential
zone and involves setback and other regulations impossible of fulfillment unless
you own significant acreage in a commercial or agricultural zone. That is only
the beginning of the chain of regulations in which you are then embroiled, and
which only a large scale commercial breeder can hope to navigate successfully.
AB 1634 as written prescribes the elimination of non-commercial breeding from

Anonymous said...

Anonymous and other sad souls that are in favour of AB 1634 be made aware that it is not the breeders/people you are targeting that are the bad ones, go after those that freely turn their animals into the pound, those that let their animals run loose that are at fault.

If bill ab1634 is passed it will be a sad day in the state of ca, hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue will be lost and thus ca will no long be the 5th largest economy in the world it will just be another poor part of Mexico.

Think of the jobs lost if ab1634 passes, no animals in ca people exiting to go live where the freedom to do what they wish is still available, it certainly will not be ca.

Anonymous said...

Oh and to Anonymous' comment about
"How much money do you make off the backs of dogs?"

I have yet to see a reputable, responsible breeder MAKE any money from their breeding and selling of their dogs, that's how much you know

Anonymous said...

someone needs to tell Diane Jessup.. she has bought into the lie that any "working" or service dog can readily get an exemption.

and tell her that she herself would be unlikely to be able to get a permit for her own small breeding program..

do these people actually ever READ the bill they are supporting???

P-nut & Captain said...

To those who think AB 1634 (and other like minded Anti-pet laws) will make a positive difference if passed -

Please explain...why again do we need the government to pass more laws that will not be enforced? Dont we have enough of those already?

Shall the government also come to your home and tell you whether or not you may remain 'intact' before you decide to procreate? What about that boy you bred? Shall he remain 'intact' too? Did you purchase your human breeding license? After all, since you have your reproductive organs perhaps you or your offspring may attack a child, drive into a family, or become aggressive or socially unstable.

Or to use your logic, due to your remaining intact, as you were put on this earth, you may develop cancers or other diseases - off with your testicles at once! It is for your own good. I'd hate to see you discarded. For once your testicles are removed via castration, surely your family will want you forever.

Dogs and cats are different from humans you say? Not to AR groups they are not. Which side do you support?

Anonymous said...

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. The reason why this bill will work is because it reduces the abundance of animals coming into the shelters. Animals are turned in by the box full due to backyard breeding or oopses! This bill will prevent that! Not by knocking on doors, but hopefully by voluntary compliance...also, when fido ends up at the pound because someone was irresponsible and left him out all day, if he is intact, there will be a $500 fix it ticket! If you fix fido the ticket goes away!The Ticket stays with the owner so if he/she gives up fido (the owner)still has to pay ticket.And Lloyd Levine is a great man and what the hell have you ever done for the animal world besides belive it's your God given right to do to them what ever the hell you want! Dog ownership is a priveldge not a right! Think often of the things you spare yourself the sight of.~anonymous You need to come and volunteer at a shelter and see if you can look at all the mange covered and tick infested animals and still say to me that all dog owners should have the right to do what ever they want. I say no they don't! It's what is best for the animal and society. Do you want your tax dollars spent on killing dumb ass dog owners mistakes?Not all dog owners are irresponsible just most of them!!!

Note from Blue Dog State:
Funny that this Anonymous poster brings up the points s/he did.

I was just re-reading an analysis from Nathan Winograd, one of the country's most vocal proponents of "no kill" shelters. He could not disagree with you more.

Winograd blasts the so-called "legislative approach"--pointing out is many dismal failures--and reiterates a theme common to a number of observers. To paraphrase Winograd: Stop blaming the public, stop experimenting with legislative "fixes". The solution lies within the sheltering system itself.


Anonymous said...

The problem with people who work at shelters is that they only see a very small piece of the big picture. They then extrapolate that to cover the entire pet-owning group. This is common with those who work at shelters, especially young people.

Obviously, they see the downside of things quite often but to then extrapolate it to the population at large is erroneous and illogical. They are seeing between 2% and 5% of pet owners, which is not enough to justify their stance.

I know a lot of dog owners and pay attention to dogs wherever I live or travel.

I see very few dogs that I would say are mistreated or neglected. I'm not saying I don't see any, but it's not a large-scale, serious societal problem. For example, there are a couple of dogs in my town who are outside most of the time which I don't agree with, especially in winter. That said they are healthy-looking dogs who seem happy with their lot.

If anything, the majority of dogs today are better cared-for than they ever have been.

You can't legislate compassion or decency. This legislation will backfire if passed and will create more problems than it could ever solve. This is because the problem it purports to solve doesn't exist.

What does exist is the AR agenda towards the elimination of domestic animal husbandry.

Question: Where will all the shelters be when there are no more pets for them to process?

P-nut & Captain said...

Anonymous said... "The reason why this bill will work is because it reduces the abundance of animals coming into the shelters. (PLEASE explain to me why this is a true statement?) Animals are turned in by the box full due to backyard breeding or oopses! This bill will prevent that!" (HOW?)

Just one of many reasons this bill will NOT work is because it will NOT reduce animals coming into this country by import brokers. Where do you think those pet store pups come from?

This country has too many laws as is. Focus on the laws we already have! Why not examine why the system isnt working now.

Laws of morality cannot be governed - a pet is for the life of that pet - if unforeseen circumstances arise, a responsible breeder (which is where you should be purchasing your animal in the first place) will insist upon taking that animal back at any time in its life. Would a commercial breeder (i.e. puppy mill, puppy importer) do this? No way! This law allows the commercial breeders to continue breeding. It destroys the small specialist breeders who are more responsible and can keep track of the animals they produce.

I do not need government telling me what I should or should not do with my property. I am responsible enough to govern myself. Those who are not - well, thats their business, not for me to say. Why is it for you to govern them either?

Anonymous said...

May 9 2007

I work at the Central California SPCA. I was a volunteer for 3 ½ years before I became a full time employee. I love my job and I love my shelter but mostly I love the animals. We want to stop killing them!!! I work with a dedicated group of individuals that feel the same as I do.

When I first heard about AB 1634, I thought this will be easy, everyone will want to help stop the killing, everyone will want to help the animals, who could not want this? We have so many that come through our shelter; sometimes we don’t even get time to really meet them all. We hear continually how “I could never work there”, either they would take them all home or they would end up killing someone. Yep we understand that!!! We have to be nice to those who are bringing in dogs and cats that are in horrible condition. We get scolded by the public; asked how could you let them walk out, why did you not do more? All we can do is gently educate, while being careful not to humiliate. The outcome of that would be worse.

Many members of our community just need education and we are always up for that. However many more individuals are only interested in helping the animals and their fellowman for that matter, if it can be done without cost or inconvenience to them. It’s time we think about how inconvenient it is to die, because there are no homes available. Not for tiny kittens, young puppies, old sweethearts, healthy adolescent animals with years of love and life ahead of them. Accidental mixed breeds, intentional mixed breeds and purebreds, we see them all. Most are not vicious or unadoptable most are just the opposite.

AB 1634 gives us the ability to start making great changes for the animals. We will be sending out a message it’s not ok, to do this to our living creatures anymore. It’s criminal to keep letting your pets have litter after litter without regard for what will happen to them.

I am trying to understand why legitimate breeders and handlers feel so targeted. Why they have felt such a need to attack us, (like we are not attacked enough already) why there have been so many lies? We don’t want to hurt them; we just want to prevent death.

I walk the kennels and tell them (the animals) not to worry that we are working hard for them. That some of the greatest minds in animal welfare are working hard for them. That soon all animal lovers will see it is the right thing to do.

I spoke to a wonderful lady, who told me that her dog was 10 years old and if there had been a law telling her to neuter him, he would be neutered. No problem she would have done it right away. She did not really know why they never altered him; it was just not something they thought about. Oh and yes he did father puppies with the female next door. She was promptly spayed after that, but no one found a need to neuter him.

Even if 10% of the public spay / neuters their animals because it’s the law it is 10% better then where we started. I can assure that in the euthanasia room 10% is a hell of a good start.

Shelter Education Employee

Note from Blue Dog State:

Since you say you are an "education employee" perhaps you ought to do a little investigating before you parrot back the party line.

I wonder if you have even read the proposal. There is a huge, huge difference between voluntary, funded spay-neuter programs (which I personally support whole-heartedly) and AB 1634.

Penninsula Humane Society, the California organization that "invented" mandatory spay-neuter? PHS does not support AB 1634.


"Some pet owners would abandon their pet when they learned of the cost to get their animal out of the shelters."

Think about it.

Anonymous said...

I have walked thru the L.A. shelters many, many times. As a rescuer, I have done this regularly for a number of years. I don't do it any more because there are SO MANY "rescue groups" in the L.A. area now that literally fight over the young, healthy, and good natured dogs that my help is not needed. (Ask any shelter manager and they have a policy of never telling one rescue group what "other" rescue grop a dog was released to - because of fear of liability when the two "go at" each other over "who got the dog"!) Rescue, especially in Southern CA, has become a "cottage industry" for those who grab the limited number of "cute and adoptable" from the shelter and turn around and sell them at "PetSmart" or some "Adoption Event" on the weekend. These small business people are easily riled up against anyone who breeds animals on ANY scale because they see those folks as "competitors" in selling a "product" -- and usually where the breeder's "product" is more desirable to a discriminating public. Today there are far fewer "adoptable" dogs who actually need to be "rescued" than ten or twenty years ago, and those are typically "snatched up" within minutes of arriving at the shelters by the "cottage industry" people. Mostly you will find aggressive, severely ill, feral bred, offspring of illegal fighting dogs, and some puppies illegally brought into the country in the L.A. shelter system now. Mandating spay and neuter will not affect that situation at all. Unjustly placing fines on reputable breeders and individuals who have read the balanced research on statisics regarding infant hysterectomy and castration on dogs and chosen not to subject their young pets to such surgery will have no effect on the L.A. shelter system, either. Anyone who believes that it will is severely misinformed. But then, that's the usual tactic of the Animal Rights movement - play on the sympathies of uninformed animal lovers and get them all worked up about "the poor animals" while you are pocketing their donations and purchasing legislation to effectively eliminate their pets and all pets from existence.
Yeah, I've walked thru the shelter,
and yes, I've read AB 1634. What one has to do with the other is about as relevant as what crack babies in the ghetto have to do with the idea of making it illegal for young graduate students to have children. The latter, in both cases, is not only ridiculous, it's
a wholly horriffic civil rights violation.

Anonymous said...

Re: Infant Spay / Neuter:

"Male and female dogs that underwent gonadectomy before one year of age had an approximately one in four lifetime risk for bone sarcoma and were significantly more likely to develop bone sarcoma than those that were sexually intact".



Anonymous said...

My Dog agrees with this one: http://www.cafepress.com/petlaw.109081852

Anonymous said...

You don't need to specualte. Stanislaus county is already sending DEPUTY SHERIFFS ( wonderful use of our law enforcement time and dollar) door to door to enforce their law. LA hired at a cost of over $1 MILLION 20 AC officers to do the same thing. The "Brave New World" is here. For all those afraid to id themselves - check the facts not your emotions. Less than 4% of dogs enter a CA shelter. Less than 1.5% are killed. Those are the problem dogs whose irresponsible OWNERS ( not breeders) did not put the time and effort into civilizing them. In April La sent out a press release stating "that NO adoptable cats or dogs were -- more --
Page 3
euthanized in Los Angeles City shelters in March.' Last year in San Diego only TWO that's right TWo dogs that were euthanized were listed as healthy and adoptable. The others were unhealthy or unadoptable. Shelter populations have declined by 86% in the last 30 years while staffing and budgets have quadrupled. LA shelters have one manager for every 12 staff people. Get wise folks this is all about money and power and has nothing to do with the animals. Beth Shea

Anonymous said...

Genesis 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Laury said...

SO sad. Who is going to get lost in the shuffle of this battle? The dogs and cats, that's who.

To anonymous (whichever anoymous you were) shelters are NOT just filled with unadoptable aggressive animals. 25% of animals in shelters are PUREBRED. The rescue I volunteer with has several pulled from a high kill shelter in the South.

My rescued purebred lab was one, pulled the day she ws to be euthanized for lack of space at the shelter.

Also, over 70% of dog bites are inflicted by unaltered male dogs. It doesn't take an animal behaviorist to recognize the emotional and physical benefits to speutering cats and dogs.

As for the breeder, you may be responsible, but too many are not. The treat their dogs and cats as chattel and the inhumane conditions that I have seen would sicken even the most hard hearted.

No this bill is not perfect, government action rarely is in ANY instance. However we need legislation such as this to insure that animals will not have to continue to suffer becuase of our own selfish stupidity.