[ SHOWGSD-L ] CA AB 1634
- From: Peggy <pmick12@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Showgsd-l <Showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 00:43:51 -0400
Permission to crosspost
Lodi News Sentinel :
Proposed pet law would harm dog breeders and owners
First published: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 Last updated: Tuesday, April
3, 2007 6:43 AM PDT
Comments (34)
Dog owners and fanciers have their hackles up and are prepared to bark
loudly when the California Assembly Business and Professions committee
meets April 10 to consider a controversial bill.
If passed, the bill will effectively fine, tax and punish lawabiding
hobbyists who have done no wrong, and it will do nothing to alleviate
the problem of dogs abandoned in shelters.
The so-called "California Healthy Pets Act," AB1634, has everything to
do with the elimination of pets as we know them, and nothing to do with
their health.
All of us are touched by the plight of animals abandoned in shelters.
Those of us who are animal professionals would like to keep those dogs
from ever getting there, but this bill is not the way to do that.
What AB1634 proposes is that the owner of every dog or cat in California
be forced to surgically alter them by the age of four months.
They say that neutering your pet makes it healthier. Common sense says
that surgical removal of healthy organs does no such thing. New studies
show that pediatric spay/neuter places dogs at an unusually high risk
for certain types of cancer and other ills, not to mention the risk of
surgery itself.
Subjecting your dog to major surgery is a serious decision and one not
without risks both medical and financial. But AB1634 wants to take that
decision out of your hands and let the state make it for you.
At first blush, the well-meaning but uninformed person might think "this
will save the poor little puppies and kitties in the pound."
And that's what animal rights activists (or anti-pet extremists, as I
like to call them) would like you to believe. But their entire premise
is based on falsehoods and skewed data and their true agenda is the
elimination of pet ownership as we know it.
The vast majority of dogs in shelters are adult mixed breed dogs, not
purebred puppies, but this law proposes to punish and take away the
rights of breeders of various purebreds, as well as the popular mixes
such as Labradoodles, for example. None of them will be allowed to
remain intact or be bred, either.
The demand exists and people will get puppies when they want them, but
if this law passes the only place to get a puppy will be from a
commercial puppy mill or a smuggled import from Mexico or elsewhere.
Legitimate California breeders will have been knocked out of the box,
but "unintentional breeders" who allow their dogs to roam will be untouched.
The authors of the bill use misleading statistics and skewed data to
make their argument. They count all species of animals brought to the
shelter, including feral cats, which by definition don't belong to
anyone. How is it that dog breeders are to be beat over the head with
the numbers of feral cat population?
They count dogs which were voluntarily brought in by their owners for
euthanasia, either due to behavioral problems, ill health or simply
because they have become inconvenient. Or because its cheaper to dump
them at the pound than take them to the vet.
Under AB1634, a list of "approved" registries and activities will be
established. People who participate in these "may apply" for a costly
permit to maintain their dogs intact. Take careful note of the phrase
"may apply." This application process will have to be administered by
employees. Who will need salaries. And benefits.
Is there money to pay for this when we have severe problems with our
prisons and schools?
This little act will put the state in the position of "licensing"
breeders and deciding which registries they approve.
Did you know that the AKC and UKC are only two of many dozens of
legitimate registries for purebred dogs? Breeders of working dogs, such
as police, search and rescue, guide dogs for the blind, working ranch
dogs, stock dogs and hunting dogs of many kinds rarely, if ever, attend
AKC dog shows, nor should they have to.
Dedicated hobby breeders are the backbone of purebred dogs. They are the
ones who raise puppies in their homes with significant human contact,
socialization and nurturing. They screen their buyers so that the
puppies end up in lifetime appropriate homes, and they will gladly take
back a puppy any time if it turns out to be inappropriate for the home.
Most of all, they have the space, the time and the expertise to devote
to developing their dogs and they don't just "let her have a litter" and
"get rid of the puppies." But it is precisely these breeders who will be
punished, while the commercial level kennels of concrete and chain link,
for-profit production of puppies will be given license to make more
puppies that turn into unwanted dogs.
Should you spay or neuter your pet? In many cases, yes. Most pet dogs,
purebred or not, are not of a quality to be bred. More importantly, most
owners are not equipped to act as proper breeders, which entails more
than putting two animals together and producing puppies.
If you don't have the time, resources, expertise or means to maintain a
proper breeding program and carefully place all the puppies in lifetime
homes, then absolutely you should refrain from breeding your pet.
Preventing reproduction is a simple matter of confining and managing
your pet, in other words, being a responsible owner. Dogs do not get
randomly "pollinated" if you let them outside. They can't breed if you
don't let them.
That should be a decision made by you and your veterinarian, not the state.
The law is unenforceable. Can you imagine a squad of police going
door-to-door or stopping people in parks demanding presentation of a
certificate of neuter? Or ask to inspect their dog's genitalia? Silly,
isn't it? But how else would this be done?
If we make veterinarians report their clients with intact animals,
people will simply stop going to the vet. They won't get the
vaccinations they need, they won't take their dogs in when they are a
little sick, because they don't want to be "reported to the system."
A much better way to deal with the problem of "disposable animals" in
our society is the same thing that works in good dog training: Positive
reinforcement. Instead of shoving drastic measures down our throats and
punishing people who have done nothing wrong, what about making the
fixing of your pet tax deductible?
What we need is education, not legislation. Inform adults so they
understand that acquiring a dog should not be an impulse decision. It
requires a commitment of time, space, attention, exercise, training and
finances.
Teach kids in schools that dogs are not disposable toys, but are living
creatures with lifetime needs.
If you wish to voice your opinion as to the taking of yet another civil
liberty, please fax the Committee Consultant, Tracy Rhine, at (916)
319-3306.
Julia Priest is a professional trainer and freelance writer in Acampo.
For more information visit <http://www.saveourdogs.net
<http://www.saveourdogs.net/>> or e-mail k9julie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:k9julie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:k9julie@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>.
Story Tools
Email this story
<http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2007/04/04/opinion/columnists/priest_julia_070403.eml
<http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2007/04/04/opinion/columnists/priest_julia_070403.eml>>
| Print this story
<http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2007/04/04/opinion/columnists/priest_julia_070403.prt
<http://www.lodinews.com/articles/2007/04/04/opinion/columnists/priest_julia_070403.prt>>
Reader Feedback
There are 34 comments on this story:
Gail Floyd wrote on April 04, 2007 8:51 AM:"Wounderful article thank you
very much I am sure there are many people now who understand what the
state is trying to do thank you. I live in Modesto and read the Lodi
Paper...wish you would put this in the Modesto paper \......."
Elizabeth Winans wrote on April 04, 2007 7:14 AM:"Excellent article. "
Diane Puntenney wrote on April 04, 2007 7:06 AM:"Thanks for a clear
explanation of a problematic proposal. As this article makes clear, AB
1634 would remove the breeders who are one important source of healthy,
well-socialized dogs and increase the numbers of puppy mills and
back-yard breeders to fill the demand for puppies. This can only lead to
more dogs in shelters in California, not less. The legislature needs to
reject this bill and look to education of the public for a realistic
solution to the problem."
M Quick wrote on April 04, 2007 5:19 AM:"This law will negatively impact
responsible breeders who are concerned with preserving breed integrity
it and will open the door wider for puppy mills to continue their
horrific overbreeding for profit. "
D-M Hedgcock wrote on April 03, 2007 9:49 PM:"This is without a doubt
the best newspaper article about CA AB1634. Every word is true. If
AB1634 is passed in any form it is the end of pet ownership as we have
always known it. This bill will be devistating to hobby breeders of
dogs, cats and other pet animals. Hobby breeders have invested their
lives in their animals, developing healthy bloodlines. We must stand
together an fight this bad legislation. "
bestuvall wrote on April 03, 2007 9:41 PM:"Julie: You are AWESOME!What a
wonderful article. It should be published in every newspaper,especiall
y the one where Mr Levine lives. Levine owns no pets but has no problem
with telling us what to do with ours. He is ill informed on the very
bill he is sponsoring. NO MORE PETS..for anyone. PETA and the HSUS say
there will always be mutts. How can this be if this law is enforced? I
think there are better ways to use our police force and our tax dollars
than to fill the jails with the dreaded "puppy breeder".."
Jane Mundy wrote on April 03, 2007 9:16 PM:"This is an exellent article.
I hope the committee reads it and takes it to heart. At a time when much
of the public is disillusioned with it's government, it seems foolish
for them to pass such legislation that will put them in such an
adversarial roll with their constituents."
jenny stephenson wrote on April 03, 2007 9:04 PM:"Thank,s so much Ms
Priest on your most welcome article ,,,I oppose this bill 100% ,, the
only ones it is going to hurt is us responsible dog owners ,i don,t see
where it will cut down the #,s of dogs/cats being put too sleep in these
shelthers ,,, but it will cost us tax payers more trying to inforce this
bill "
Jill Holt wrote on April 03, 2007 8:56 PM:"Thank you for a great article
that outlines the real effects of the bill as well as the agenda of
those supporting it. Forcing ethical, responsible breeders out of CA
will drastically reduce the choices people have in pets."
Janet LeClainche wrote on April 03, 2007 8:05 PM:"This is a very good
article and ought to be required reading for our legislators."
R Nunzir, Livermore CA wrote on April 03, 2007 6:23 PM:"Thank You for
FINALLY stating in plain english for your readers, what this ridiculous
piece of legislation is all about. And by the way, most of us who are
hobbyist breeders also have stipulations to take back our dogs if the
owner(s) can no longer take care of them properly rather than turning
the dog over to the local humane shelters "
Sue Matthews wrote on April 03, 2007 4:18 PM:"Thank you Ms. Priest for
explaining the problems with this misguided, draconian proposal. The
decision to spay and neuter a pet, and the age at which to do so, is a
medical decision that should be made by the animal's owner and their
veterinarian, not by some politicians. I would encourage all Califoria
pet owners to contact their representatives and let them know that they
oppose this bad legislation. "
C. Eliason wrote on April 03, 2007 4:15 PM:" This article should be
required reading for legislators "
vonnie taylor wrote on April 03, 2007 4:01 PM:"Great editorial. Hope the
legislature listens. There are so many more needful ways to spend CA tax
money than passing a law that can't be fairly enforced and wouldn't
solve the problems it's supposedly targeting anyway. Those problems can
be solved by fair but rigorous enforcement of existing laws that address
owners who abuse and/or neglect their pets or don't go to the effort to
keep them home."
Cindy Clark wrote on April 03, 2007 3:11 PM:"Bravo, Bravo, Bravo! Well
written article. Thanks for stating the facts on AB 1634. This bill MUST
NOT pass!"
M Milde wrote on April 03, 2007 2:32 PM:"This is an excellent article!
Perhaps the best I've seen so far on the subject. I'd like to add also
that, if passed, this bill would have a highly deleterious effect on
maintaining genetically viable breeding populations of rare breeds and
non-registered working lines. This impact would be even felt outside the
state of California. So - not just a California problem!"
Concerned and educated dog owner wrote on April 03, 2007 1:54 PM:"The
proponents of AB1634 cite a large number of pets being euthanized in the
state's shelters. That number is half of what it was 10 years ago. That
is a positive they don't want JQP to know. They do not tell you that
California shelters routinely import dogs from other countries. These
dogs are usually strays, and often carry diseases that the shelters then
pass onto the public. Education is the key. To find out what the
potential harm and benefit to spay and neuter, read this report at
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf
<http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf>
or http://tinyurl.com/35c7sd <http://tinyurl.com/35c7sd> "
Janice Denny wrote on April 03, 2007 1:33 PM:"I live in Arizona, but
have a daoghter who is a breeder in California. Please do not let them
pass this law. It is not fair to the very concientious breeders. "
Michelle Langenberg wrote on April 03, 2007 12:58 PM:"I have to agree
with the reporter. I have been involved in rescue for roughly 10 years,
this last year we have seen a drastic decrease in the number of dogs in
need. But we fear a law like this will result in lack of vet care for
people will be even less likely to take their pets to the vet in fear of
being reported. There are far more important issues, like education,
immigration, etc."
Debbie Lind wrote on April 03, 2007 12:48 PM:"WOW, Ms. Priest..you're
article is the first one I've seen to actually explain the realities of
this proposed legislation - with no sugar coating from AR people. All CA
citizens will be affected if this passes, as it is an assault on our
personal rights. Targeting breeders is the easy answer, but it's not the
solution to the problem."
Martin Deeley - Florida Dog Trainer wrote on April 03, 2007 12:32
PM:"Thank you for this Article that is full of common senses and correct
information. Julie has taken the potential legislation apart and quite
correctly shown it to be full of illogical thinking. I often ask myself
whether the policy makers have consulted those within the world they are
making legislation on, and if they have whether those they have talked
with are balanced and unbiased in their analysis and advice. Thank you
Julie Priest for this article which demonstrates your true knowledge and
understanding of the dog world and what is really required."
J. Perciaccanto wrote on April 03, 2007 12:16 PM:"It is about time a
newspaper finally elected to report the truth about what these laws are
attempting to do. The reality is, legislation will ultimately end up
support puppy mills and spay neuter dogs of quality out of existence.
These programs have not worked in the areas where they have already been
implemented. I wish more newspapers had the common sense to write such
articles so the public can understand what their legislators are doing."
Merry Shelburne wrote on April 03, 2007 12:01 PM:"Thank you for an
excellent article explaining AB 1634. Let us hope that this bill dies in
committee."
H. Houlahan wrote on April 03, 2007 11:57 AM:"I applaud the author for
cutting to the meat of this horrible, damaging bill. AB 1634 will do
nothing to help shelter animals. It is simply an intrusive, dictatorial
nanny-state law that denies Californians the right to make medical
decisions for their own pets. By giving an exemption to puppy-mills, it
supports an abusive industry that will no longer have to compete with
knowledgable, ethical, small-scale breeders of pets and working animals.
AB 1634 will also burden every California municipality with jobs they
are not qualified to do, and almost certainly do not want to do."
Vicki wrote on April 03, 2007 11:25 AM:"GREAT Article Legislation like
AB 1634 criminalizes responsible pet owners and breeders. Legislation
needs to focus on encouraging voluntary spay/neuter, development of low
cost spay/neuter programs, education of the general public on
responsible pet onwership, higher placement of shelter dogs, shelters
developing good working relationships with legitimate rescue groups,
enforce leash and containment laws, enforce nuisnance laws, and give
jail time to people convicted of aniaml cruelty. "
Mimi Dygert wrote on April 03, 2007 10:38 AM:"Thank you for the good
article on AB 1634.While I no longer live in California I do feel that
Ca. sets the standard for the rest of the country. Thses are very
serious long reaching decisions. "
M. Pogorzelski wrote on April 03, 2007 10:27 AM:"I applaud the author
and this newspaper for explaining the realities of the proposed
legislation. Education, not legislation - is key. Many excellant points
were covered in this article."
Kathy wrote on April 03, 2007 10:21 AM:"Well said!"
W. O. Ward wrote on April 03, 2007 9:55 AM:"I agree with the author of
this article. If AB 1634 is passed, the state will have made one more
unnecessary intrusion into our lives. Reputable breeders will be
adversely affected and scofflaws will continue to follow bad breeding
practices. The "good guys" will lose and the bad guys will laugh."
Edith Hoyt wrote on April 03, 2007 9:54 AM:"Thank you for the good
article on AB 1634. I Oppose this legislation and feel that you are
correct about the need for education, not legislation. I feel that this
legislation is an all out assault on my personal liberty and property
rights. "
Walt Hutchens wrote on April 03, 2007 9:47 AM:"You tell 'em, Ms. Priest!
This is one of VERY few newspaper pieces I've ever seen to get this
right. Laws like this have NEVER worked. Should AB 1634 pass, you'll be
able to watch all the progress reverse, as good breeders leave or stop
breeding, as 'just for a buck' puppy moonshiners and back of the pickup
truck importers replace their dogs. When the law fails the ARs will say
"It works but people are just so irresponsible that we need STRONGER
ENFORCEMENT." "
Mark Herrick wrote on April 03, 2007 9:21 AM:"Hello, This is a great
article. My compliments to Ms. Priest. I am a member of California
Rescue Dog Association [CARDA], the largest and oldest K9 search and
rescue organization in California. We provide trained and State
certified search and rescue K9s to all the citizens of California at no
cost to the tax payers of California. Ab1634 will adversly impact the
breeding of genetically strong, working dogs used for search and rescue
work in California. The citizens of California will suffer from this
legislation. Regards, Mark Herrick CARDA #600 "
D Surber wrote on April 03, 2007 8:50 AM:"Thanks for a clear analysis of
the bill and the issues. No one thinks killing animals in shelters is
good, but this bad bill throws the baby out with the bathwater."
Laura Sanborn wrote on April 03, 2007 8:45 AM:"This is an excellent and
well-thought out column, coming from an experienced and very
well-respected California dog trainer and breeder of working dogs for
law enforcement, search-and-rescue, and service. I hope Californians
will stop and think about the collateral damage AB 1634 would cause. AB
1634 would drive responsible dog breeding out of California, replacing
it with irresponsible backyard breeding and mass-production
"puppymills". Nobody would benefit from that."
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2007. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
