Latest anti-Cali s/n bill letter

[linkhttp://petpac.net/]http://petpac.net/[/link]
 
this was one interesting to look thru.

It's amusing when they say that it will cause the extinction of pets, and then on the same page, say it won't work.  But I don't understand why they have to be so dishonest when they say that it will be the end of service and assistance dogs while ignoring that service and assistance dogs are exempt, and they compare it to locales across the country where s/n legislation hasn't worked, and yet ignore Santa Cruz right here in California, which this bill was patterned after, where it did work and decreased shelter intakes by 68%.

hey dog....the exemptions were amended a few DAYS ago...lol. Not like they've always been exempted properly to include breeders that are NOT active service dogs. This letter was clearly drafted BEFORE the changes and in fact probably went a long way in effecting the amendments. prior to such letters the ignorance of those drafting this bill as to service and working dogs was quite, quite plain.
 
Stats were posted elsewhere on SC and it was discussed. The stats as I recall did not support the bill.

Santa Cruz right here in California

 
Santa Cruz is working so great?  Why is it then that the shelter intake has increased 56% from 2003 to 2006 and the Euth numbers have increased 108% for the same time period. 
Doesn't sound like the law is working!!!
 
If you don't believe me look up the stats on the county web site.  They have statistics for the last 4 years posted.
 
 
 

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.

 
I think the bill wasn't well thought out, that's for sure, but it's typical of so much legislation I've seen.  However, the above statement makes me want to scream.  If spay/neuter laws don't work, then that is the one and only reason I wouldn't vote for it.  But to protect people's "right" to spay or neuter, sorry, not good enough for me.  Not while animals are being euthanized in the high numbers they are every day.  If there's a legitimate reason not to spay, i.e., health, breeding, service dogs or anything else that might qualify, then fine, but there's no reason that we shouldn't be able to mandate that dogs/cats are spayed and neutered at a reasonable age.  Again, if the laws don't work, then they shouldn't pass and I've seen enough data now to be convinced that this law would be a waste of the paper it'd be printed on.

Read some real information on AB1634 instead of rhetoric made up by anti animal rights groups. 


[linkhttp://www.cahealthypets.com/home.htm]http://www.cahealthypets.com/home.htm[/link]

ORIGINAL: timsdat

Santa Cruz right here in California

Santa Cruz is working so great?  Why is it then that the shelter intake has increased 56% from 2003 to 2006 and the Euth numbers have increased 108% for the same time period. 
Doesn't sound like the law is working!!!

If you don't believe me look up the stats on the county web site.  They have statistics for the last 4 years posted.

Another shelter was added at the end of 2004 which caused the number in 2005 to go up slightly.  In 2006, it was down from 6108 to 5533, so your information is not accurate. 

yes, read something heavily biased the other way...lol.
Rhetoric is hardly the sole premise of those who have chosen to "not drink the koolaid".

Here is the real information on AB1634 and why is is bad law.
 
[linkhttp://saveourdogs.net/ab1634.html]http://saveourdogs.net/ab1634.html[/link]
 

so your information is not accurate.

 
The numbers I quote are directly from the county web site. 
 
Your numbers include Other in the intake.  I thought we were talking about dogs and cats.
 
 
 

ORIGINAL: timsdat

so your information is not accurate.

The numbers I quote are directly from the county web site. 

Your numbers include Other in the intake.  I thought we were talking about dogs and cats.

Kindly post a link...

See the following thread.
 
[linkhttp://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=328909]http://forum.dog.com/asp/tm.asp?m=328909[/link]
 
 

ORIGINAL: timsdat
Santa Cruz is working so great?  Why is it then that the shelter intake has increased 56% from 2003 to 2006 and the Euth numbers have increased 108% for the same time period. 
Doesn't sound like the law is working!!!
If you don't believe me look up the stats on the county web site.  They have statistics for the last 4 years posted.

If Santa Cruz County's spay neuter law wasn't working don't you think they would have repealed the law by now, and the law is still functioning today. Maybe you should contact their Animal Managment Services and ask them if their spay neuter laws are working or not.

The dates you mentioned included in the County a City Watsonville (pop 50,000) which sprung up and was established, and that population obtained pets and where a shelter was needed so the stats for the County would have sprung up in proportion to the overal stats within that timeframe.

Anyway, these are the stats from Santa Cruz County and which was presented to the Assembly, and notice the recent rise and on what I just mentioned, the original file is at this link address and I included a photo of the graph below:-
[linkhttp://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a40/CA-HealthyPetAct/SantaCruzStats.pdf]http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a40/CA-HealthyPetAct/SantaCruzStats.pdf[/link]
 

 

ORIGINAL: rwbeagles

This is a good one...permission to cross post was given.
 
"Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2007 10:18  AM
Subject: AB 1634
To President Ron Faoro and the  California Veterinary Medical Association
(CVMA) Board of  Governors:
Dear Dr. Faoro and CVMA  Governors:
 
- - - - - - - - - - - -

Sincerely,
Charles A. Hjerpe, DVM
former CVMA member and
emeritus professor of veterinary  medicine, UC Davis"

 
Yes one Veterinarian and his wife whose an AKC breeder/judge are certainly in opposition to this Bill, and I feel there are many other veterinarians who go the other direction and support this Bill and some of these are also rofessors of veterinary medicine.
Early spay and neuter surgeries performed on cats and dogs before the age of sixteen weeks has been safely and effectively practiced in the United States for over 25 years. The nation's highest esteemed veterinary medical health professionals all advocate early spay and neuter in cats and dogs to combat pet overpopulation. These animal health leaders include the American Veterinary Medical Association ("AVMA"), the California Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, HSUS, ASPCA, UC Davis Veterinary College and other respected veterinary colleges.
If you feel that your animal is too young for spaying/neutering, the law provides for a delay, if approved in writing by a veterinarian. And, the bill provides an exemption if your vet feels that your animal is too unhealthy or old to be safely altered.
Also there are other means included in the Bill where spay neutering can easily be avoided and where an Intact Permit will be issued.
 
Some breeders already do spay neuter their pets and for various reasons, and this even to stop Puppy Millers, Backyard Breeders and Designer Breeders from getting their hands on their sexually entire dogs even if they are pets, and some breeders certainly do "impose by contract mandatory laws" on pet owners who want to buy their pets where they must spay neuter at this age or that age. Many Pet Owners who have no intention of breeding don't mind if their pets are spay neutered, such as it may help address things like marking issues or in-season blood stains on floors or lounges, and there are health issues to consider like the probability of pyometra, prostrate cancer, etc.
 
American breeders will do as breeders have always done, and that is pass the costs of these Intact Permits on to those who buy their puppies, and over a litter of pups the cost each puppy purchaser pays maybe less than a cup of coffee, and the breeder gets their money back from each puppy purchaser.
Los Angeles Animal Services has already on record stated that an Intact Permit in LA will cost exactly $0.00, LA is planning on just using the current "Intact Dog License" as the permit, at no extra charge. Maybe we can expect other jurisdictions might follow suit, or to set low-cost intact permit fees. At Santa Cruz (the functioning model for this Bill) they charge right now $15 for their Intact Permits (Unaltered Animal Certificates), and maybe some other jurisdictions might follow this suit, see for yourself $15 on that form via this link address:-
[linkhttp://www.scanimalservices.us/uac.pdf]http://www.scanimalservices.us/uac.pdf[/link]
  
In many places pet owners who do have spay neutered dogs can obtain cheaper yearly dog licenses, and this over the lifetime of a dog plus combined with low cost spay neutering it could be cost effective to spay neuter. Maybe this Bill intention just might be to give heaps more pet owners a little push in this direction.