ORIGINAL: mrv
This is a personally interesting topic because the state next door to me is currently looking at legislation very similiar to the CA bill.
My concern is the impact of a bill written by folks who really do not understand animal husbandry.
I would propose lets find some common ground. All individuals would like to see shelter deaths decreased. Most individuals would like to see pet options (with respect to sources) stay variable (breeders or rescues/shelters). Increases in pet ownership responsibility is a worthy goal.
Issues of contention with the current legislation.
Early spay neuter of every animal in a community would take considerable manpower; read that salary and benefits of a civil servant. Being a civil servant in the public school system, that aint cheap. So, does any current legislation have adequate funding provisions. If not it is an unfunded mandate. Unfunded mandates rarely result in the intented outcomes, because other issues take priority within a budget. Which municipality will lay off fire fighters or police personnel to check up on licenses?
Early spay neuter can have health problems with competition/working animals and increasing evidence suggests temperment issues primarily phobic reactions and sound sensitivity. The studies are currently being conducted.
Mandatory spay neuter programs blanketly target all breeding program including those of people with breeds that should not be bred prior to ages 2-3 due to health problems.
Many of the mandatory spay neuter bills are supported financially by groups who have a very different agenda than the one printed on paper. Political support can easily transfer to expectations of votes to support the agendas of those financial contributers. I know when I support a political campaign, I expect that.
I have absolutely no problem with community legislation to address tracking of pet ownership. I have no problem with following up on every ad on puppies for sale to look for a breeding permit. I have no problem with checking for licensing in ways such as stated by Mirandadobe. In my community animal control personnel can ask for license proof at any time in any place. But they dont, because there is not adequate financial support for enforcement.
In CA the financial situation is critical in many public service areas, I fail to see any evidence that this legislation will be funded to the level it will make any impact. Although I am not able to recall the county that implemented such a program, but their euthansia numbers went up.
As to commercial breeders, they will just add any cost to price of the puppy and continue on their merry money making way producing crap dogs that break peoples hearts and pocket books, without offering life long support and first right of refusal returns as found in responsible breeder contracts.
There are plenty of folks disregarding the current laws in place... Fund those first, then lets look at the data. If the data has not changed positively, then I would consider supporting a well written law,,,, not the cobbled together piece of legislation that will prevent me from every coming to CA and I may just have to learn to like wines from other states.
One of the original authors of the California bill was Ed Boks, who is the head of the Los Angeles Animal Services department. I would wonder what kind of animal husbandry qualifications he would need to satisfy you that he knows what he's doing. But assuming for the moment that he doesn't, why is it that no legislation to eliminate irresponsible breeding is ever written by those who are proficient in animal husbandry? Why is it that the AKC and mustered breed clubs are always fighting legislation and never proposing any of their own? Why is it that in the past, when they have fought legislation, when it's over, they go back to business as usual? I've even heard complaints that the authors of the various bills won't work with breeders, and yet the answer to that seems plain as day - breeders should step in and do it themselves.
You're right, early s/n would take considerable manpower, but what makes you think that it needs to be done by civil servants? We already have a lot of free and low-cost spay/neuter programs in California, but what we don't have is a mandate saying that people should use them. As rescue, I'd much rather put my own money, and fund raising monies, into spay/neuter programs than into shelters for killing unwanted pets. We have a great rescue community in California, but what we don't have is places to put the animals, and enough homes to put them in, because there are just too many. It makes a lot more sense monetarily to spay/neuter one dog than to have to deal with it's 10 offspring.
You say early s/n can have health and temperament problems, and you base that on studies that have not been completed yet? The fact is that the AVMA supports early spay/neuter. In rescue, we've been doing it for well over a decade and though it's anecdotal, are not seeing the problems you claim. On the other hand, spay/neuter at 4 months (which isn't even all that early compared to the 8 weeks that many shelters successfully do early s/n) insures that a dog won't go into heat and won't increase the risk of reproductive cancers.
Mandatory s/n programs do not target breeding programs of breeds that should not be bred due to health problems at any age because all the owner has to do is get their vet to issue a statement that the dog isn't a viable candidate for s/n.
I don't understand your comment on political support at all. Are you saying that you support candidates that can be bought? I sure don't. It is a concern though, with AB1634, that those who oppose it are in a position to offer such support - groups like PIJAC. Was that the group that concerned you?
Tracking pet ownership here is not the problem. Los Angeles, for instance, for years and years, depended on meter readers (electricity/gas) to take note of homes that have dogs. Vets require dogs to have rabies shots in order to provide vet services, and then they turned proof of those shots over to the city of L.A. who then issued a notice for licensing. If someone doesn't pay their license, after a couple of warnings, a warrant is issued. Licensing isn't the problem - the problem is that people have the legal right to produce as many litters as they see fit, even if it means they have 10 litters a year and dump them all at the shelter each time. That needs to be stopped, and education alone won't do it because some people refuse to be educated.
The city this law was based on was Santa Cruz, and the euthanasia did not go up, their intace went down 68%. And yes, the financial situation in CA isn't good, but part of that is because millions of dollars are spent sheltering and killing unwanted pets. Those millions of dollars that are earmarked for shelters already, can be used to implement this law.
You say that commercial breeders will add any cost to the price of the puppy - but hobby breeders or responsible breeders, or whatever you want to call them, can do the same exact thing.
What current laws are you speaking of? There certainly aren't any about producing unwanted animals, or breeding animals to be placed in homes that will dump them on the shelter system. And I'm sorry that this piece of legislation might keep you from drinking our wine, or coming here, but frankly, that's not as important to me as reducing the shelter deaths.