Need Help with Spay/Neuter Law

That is simply not true. There are millions of dog owners that are "into dogs" that S/N their pets....

 
Those of us into their animals:
 
Know when the appropriate time and circumstances as to when to medically alter our animals if that is our choice.
 
Don't want the government or any politician (who doesn't even own animals) making medical decisions for our animals. 
Don't want the government to set an arbitrary age as to when to Castrate or Spay our animals.
Don't want the government to infringe on our 14th amendment rights.
 
 
Those of us that are into animals also see this as a systematic effort of many animals rights types and groups (including the HSUS and PETA) as the first step in their stated goal of the ELIMINATION of companion animals.
 

but none for those whose activities with dogs lie outside the kennel club world - service dogs, protection dogs, public safety dogs, and hunting and livestock working dogs.

 
I keep telling myself to stay out of this...but I just can't.  Becca - unless this bill has been amended again since 5/31, there is an exemption for all of these dogs.  This bill has been amended enough that you think it would satisfy most folks.  Maybe there's no need for this bill.  Maybe it's a bad idea for other reasons, but the special interest groups, and I honestly don't mean that in a nasty way, have all been appeased.  The only group I see having a reason to protest now is the "non-recognized breed" groups, and I don't know if that's Goldendoodles or what, but heck, if it's important enough, get it recognized.  Sorry......like I said, I should stay out of it but I just feel like not supporting it and giving it a chance is the same as saying "sorry too bad, so sad" to all the animals that will continue to be killed in shelters.
 
I am 100% in support of more education though and I hope that if this bill passes, dies or gets vetoed (likely), that all of us (me too) do everything in our power to push for better education, low cost spay/neuter, etc. 
 
 

Becca - unless this bill has been amended again since 5/31, there is an exemption for all of these dogs.

 
Check the bill.  It allows the local authories the ability to grant exemptions.  It doesn't guarantee that the local authories will grant them or require them to grant exemptions and it also doesn't state what allowed criteia for an exemption would be.  It states that it is up to the descretion of the local authority.
 
 

ORIGINAL: Raven778944

.... What reason do you really have for not altering your pet unless there is a legitimate medical exemption?

Well, I've owned eight dogs in the past 20 years. I've kept one of them intact, and she was bred once. Here are what I consider to be valid reasons for not spaying her:

- She has better hips than 90 % of others of her breed submitting results to PENN Hip.
- She was tested and found clear of two defects that are very widespread in her breed
- She also has no ancestors, siblings, aunts, or uncles that had ever experienced seizures or bloat, two other fairly common problems in her breed.
- She is an excellent example of what a member of her breed is supposed to look like and move like as determined by professional judges who awarded her a Championship, wins over other champions, and a group placement.
- She has an outstanding temperament, as evidenced by my daily observations of her living in my home as a companion, and as evidenced by her ability to earn advanced titles in obedience, and tracking and beginner titles in herding.

I felt that this combination of qualities, combined with the fact that I had a half dozen people who had asked me about purchasing a puppy from her, justified maintaining her excellent combination of genes within the gene pool of her breed.

Just as an aside, of the eight puppies she produced, six of them have been spayed/neutered. One is still intact because the owner is showing her, but she will not be bred. The remaining intact male has been bred twice for pretty much the same reasons his mother was (slightly different record of show accomplishments, but equally meritorious). So, why support legislation that would have forced me to spay my bitch, but would have exempted breeders like this:
[linkhttp://www.thehuntecorporation.com/details.aspx]puppy broker[/link]?

[align=left]

[align=left] [align=left]So, why support legislation that would have forced me to spay my bitch,

[align=left] [align=left]Even in the introduced version of this bill, you would not have been forced to spay your dog.  I'm trying to keep an open mind about the downside of this bill, but when everyone just keeps making erroneous statements, it hard to do.  If the anti-spay/neuter folks have a reason to hate the bill, then let's talk a) facts as they relate to the language or b) supposition and fear as it relates to the "maybes" and "what ifs".  [align=left] [align=left]122336.1. (a) A person shall not own or possess within the[align=left]state any cat or dog over the age of four months that has not been[align=left]spayed or neutered, unless that person possesses an intact permit,[align=left]as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 122336.

No bill will make a difference to the irresponsible pet owners who it is aimed at.And while we are talking irresponsible,getting animals spayed/neutered at 4-6mths or younger isnt the right thing to do in the interests of the animal!

I think you need to look at the ages of the animals being euthanized.  My guess is that most of the dogs being euthanized are older than 5 or 6 months old.  If that is true, then what you have is not an overpopulation of puppies, but an owner-responsibility problem.  (This is at least the 3rd time I've asked about ages of the euthanized dogs.  Someone else also asked, but I haven't seen a response.)    Perhaps requiring a dog-ownship class would be a better idea or free training classes or an owner-hotline.  It seems to me that people who view animals as disposable are going to do just that.  They will pay what they have to (we know this is true if you've ever seen petstore prices), then dispose of the animal when they get tired of it. 
 

ORIGINAL: cakana


Even in the introduced version of this bill, you would not have been forced to spay your dog.  I'm trying to keep an open mind about the downside of this bill, but when everyone just keeps making erroneous statements, it hard to do.  If the anti-spay/neuter folks have a reason to hate the bill, then let's talk a) facts as they relate to the language or b) supposition and fear as it relates to the "maybes" and "what ifs".  [align=left] [align=left]122336.1. (a) A person shall not own or possess within the[align=left]state any cat or dog over the age of four months that has not been[align=left]spayed or neutered, unless that person possesses an intact permit,[align=left]as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 122336.

Ah, but yes I would have been forced to spay her if a bill like this had been in place and enforced. While I was busily earning titles on this bitch, which the proposed legislation requires in order to obtain an exemption, I would not have been able to breed her. Hard to earn points in the conformation ring, or herd sheep with a pregnant bitch. So now I would have had a two year window in which to get her bred. She didn't come into season until seven months after she earned her title and I chose not to breed her then because the litter would have been born at the busiest time of year at work. Next season was eight months later (15 months after her title) and that breeding failed. Next time she came into season was another eight months later (total of 23 months now) - oops - too bad, she'll need to be spayed next month, no time for a litter.
Sure, not every bitch would be prevented from breeding because of this two year limitation, but this dumb law, if actually enforced as written, would force people to make breeding decisions based on squeezing in breedings within a arbitrary time frame, rather than making decisions based on when the most suitable male is available, when the owner has the time to devote to socializing the litter, and a thousand other factors that ought to be more important that satisfying some dumb time limit.
But even more to the point, there isn't even any guarantee that exemptions would realistically be granted. It's left totally up to the local jurisdiction to determine whether or not to actually grant exemptions, and it is left entirely up to local jusrisdictions to set any fee they want for issuing permits. So one could jump through all the hoops, and still be told, "ok, here's your exemption. That'll be $1000 please."
I asked this question in another thread, and it was never answered so I'll ask it again. The statistics for Santa Cruz County with its much touted mandatory spay/neuter ordinance show that the rate of shelter killings declined LESS in that county than in the state of California as a whole over the same time period. So, given that the supposed model county for mandatory spay/neuter was less successful in reducing shelter killings than the rest of the state as a whole, what exactly is the point of this bill other than to make conscientious breeding more bureaucratically burdonsome?

This bill has been amended enough that you think it would satisfy most folks.

Really???? 
 
Problems:
(1)  The bill is unfunded.
(2)  There is no standardization of the requirements and cost for a breeder's license or even a requirement that all localities set up a bureau for issuing such a license.
(3)  There is no list of the approved registries or associations that will decide the definition of a a "valid breed".
 
If you are supposed to have a breeder's license, but your locality has no way to issue such a license, what do you do?
 
The law is based on the idea that there are too many small puppies in shelters.  I have asked repeatedly, but the pro-AB1634 folks have not been able to tell me what percentage of the dogs PTS in public shelters are puppies (healthy or otherwise) from litters surrendered by breeders.  The bill will not prevent commercial breeders, out-of-state breeders, or Mexican breeders from providing all of the puppies that people want.  The bill may drive up the cost of a new puppy.
 
The data behind the bill has a big logic flaw.  "Santa Cruz has a mandatory S/N bill, so the good results there are due to the law".  That is the same thing as saying "People eat carrots.  Later people die.  Therefore people die because they eat carrots."  Since reductions in the number or rate of dogs PTS in other areas of California rival those of Santa Cruz, there is reason to doubt that Santa Cruz's mandatory S/N law is really effective.
 
AB1634 would reduce the number of feral cats because people will gladly report loose litters and it may drive up the cost of a puppy.  It will not keep people from abandoning their dogs and older puppies. 
 
I question the reason for the bill (too many puppies surrendered by breeders and PTS), the data (Santa Cruz), and the writing (too many holes and omissions).  If passed and replicated across the U.S., bills like AB1634 will reduce the number of healthy, well-bred puppies available because many breeders will just find it too difficult to get a license. 

So now I would have had a two year window in which to get her bred.

I am in no way defending this law, but the latest version says
"(B) The cat or dog has earned, or if under three years old, is in the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other title from an approved purebred registry or association."
 
That version gives you 3 years to get some type of title and then an unlimited time to breed - if you have a as yet undefined "valid breed".

I was wondering.  I'm not a cat person and know no one that that is a purebred cat fancier so maybe someone could answer these questions since we have been focused on dogs.
 
I know there are some shows for purebred cats out there but can they start competing at 4 months of age?
Are there classes out there for purebred cats so they are taught to be shown?
I have never heard a a cat training club!!
 
Sounds to me like all the exemptions listed apply to dogs only and how would someone that breeds purebred cats qualify?
 
 

ORIGINAL: agilebasenji

I think you need to look at the ages of the animals being euthanized.  My guess is that most of the dogs being euthanized are older than 5 or 6 months old.  If that is true, then what you have is not an overpopulation of puppies, but an owner-responsibility problem.  (This is at least the 3rd time I've asked about ages of the euthanized dogs.  Someone else also asked, but I haven't seen a response.)    Perhaps requiring a dog-ownship class would be a better idea or free training classes or an owner-hotline.  It seems to me that people who view animals as disposable are going to do just that.  They will pay what they have to (we know this is true if you've ever seen petstore prices), then dispose of the animal when they get tired of it. 

Aren't these older dogs the result of puppies, or am I missing something here???? [&:]

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

This bill has been amended enough that you think it would satisfy most folks.

Really???? 
 
Problems:
(1)  The bill is unfunded.
(2)  There is no standardization of the requirements and cost for a breeder's license or even a requirement that all localities set up a bureau for issuing such a license.
(3)  There is no list of the approved registries or associations that will decide the definition of a a "valid breed".
 
If you are supposed to have a breeder's license, but your locality has no way to issue such a license, what do you do?
 
The law is based on the idea that there are too many small puppies in shelters.  I have asked repeatedly, but the pro-AB1634 folks have not been able to tell me what percentage of the dogs PTS in public shelters are puppies (healthy or otherwise) from litters surrendered by breeders.  The bill will not prevent commercial breeders, out-of-state breeders, or Mexican breeders from providing all of the puppies that people want.  The bill may drive up the cost of a new puppy.
 
The data behind the bill has a big logic flaw.  "Santa Cruz has a mandatory S/N bill, so the good results there are due to the law".  That is the same thing as saying "People eat carrots.  Later people die.  Therefore people die because they eat carrots."  Since reductions in the number or rate of dogs PTS in other areas of California rival those of Santa Cruz, there is reason to doubt that Santa Cruz's mandatory S/N law is really effective.
 
AB1634 would reduce the number of feral cats because people will gladly report loose litters and it may drive up the cost of a puppy.  It will not keep people from abandoning their dogs and older puppies. 
 
I question the reason for the bill (too many puppies surrendered by breeders and PTS), the data (Santa Cruz), and the writing (too many holes and omissions).  If passed and replicated across the U.S., bills like AB1634 will reduce the number of healthy, well-bred puppies available because many breeders will just find it too difficult to get a license. 

California has spent over $ 2,000,000,000 ( That's 2 billion folks) in the last 10 years housing and executing  dogs and cats in shelters. I think that even a small percentage of that money will more than be enough to fund enforcement of this bill. 

Aren't these older dogs the result of puppies, or am I missing something here????

 
What Janet is saying is that these dogs had homes.  The owners didn't want them or couldn't keep them.  That is an owner responsibility problem that this bill won't correct.  They weren't born on the streets.  According to many reports I have read the number 1 reason for a dog ending up in a shelter is the owner moving.  Sounds like there is a much larger problem with pet friendly housing.
 
 

California has spent over $ 2,000,000,000

 
I wonder whether some of the provisions in the Hayden Act could have something to do with the rise in expenses?