Need Help with Spay/Neuter Law

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

You are missing the fact that the dogs and older puppies don't come directly from breeders.  Those animals come from irresponsible owners who will have no problem coming up with someone who will sell or give them a puppy. 
 
AB1634 does absolutely nothing to help these older animals.  It will just reduce the number of tiny puppies in shelters.  That is not going to free up much money for implementing AB1634 and will certainly not provide the up-front money for establishing bureaus to issue breeder's licenses.
 
AB1634 is a political smoke screen pretending to be effective action to reduce the animals in shelters.  In truth it will just replace healthy, well-bred puppies with [font=verdana]haphazardly bred puppies.  If replicated across the U.S., it will provide the framework for PETA and other organizations to stop most canine breeding in the U.S.[/font]

In truth it will just replace healthy, well-bred puppies with haphazardly bred puppies.

 
With the current exemptions in the bill, why would anyone want or need to quit breeding healthy, well-bred puppies?  I guess I just don't see this as a likelihood.  I think there's more of a chance that people who didn't take the time to get health certificates, etc., would throw in the towel, but I'd think that woud be a good thing anyway.

With the current exemptions in the bill, why would anyone want or need to quit breeding healthy, well-bred puppies? I guess I just don't see this as a likelihood.

Implementation of this bill is going to be a nightmare.  There are no funds for setting up the initial bureaus for issuing breeder's licenses in localities that don't have such bureaus.  Projected future savings (from less dogs in shelters) are not available now.
 
There is no definition of "valid breed" or a list of the organizations/registries that will determine it.  There are no guidelines for who can get a breeder's license.  Is there going to be a patchwork of locations where one can't breed a pit bull?  If Aunt Susy is breeding Shelties, will Joe Blow be denied a license to breed them? 
 
Must a breeding program be put on hold while a locality gets its act together and establishes a bureau for issuing breeder's licenses?  Alternatively will anyone who wants a breeder's permit get one because no one wants the hassle.
 
Too much of AB1634's implementation is vague.  Many responsible breeders don't
(1) have the funds or
(2) have enough dogs of the right ages
to ride out several years of confusion and still have a breeding program left.

ORIGINAL: timsdat

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.

And many of these dogs  were given to the owners by people at malls with cardboard boxes full of pups they didn't plan for. Lazy and ignorant people that didn't bother to  S/N their animals and then are surprised when a litter arrives and scramble around trying to figure out who they can give the pups to. Same thing with purebreds.  I see quite often, people selling Pit Bull pups at mall parking lots in my area  for $100 a piece, to people that were shopping for food or clothing and had no intention of getting a dog. These are the dogs that are brought into shelters every day, when the puppy grows up and they decide that it is too much to bother with. 

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

With the current exemptions in the bill, why would anyone want or need to quit breeding healthy, well-bred puppies? I guess I just don't see this as a likelihood.

Implementation of this bill is going to be a nightmare.  There are no funds for setting up the initial bureaus for issuing breeder's licenses in localities that don't have such bureaus.  Projected future savings (from less dogs in shelters) are not available now.
 
There is no definition of "valid breed" or a list of the organizations/registries that will determine it.  There are no guidelines for who can get a breeder's license.  Is there going to be a patchwork of locations where one can't breed a pit bull?  If Aunt Susy is breeding Shelties, will Joe Blow be denied a license to breed them? 
 
Must a breeding program be put on hold while a locality gets its act together and establishes a bureau for issuing breeder's licenses?  Alternatively will anyone who wants a breeder's permit get one because no one wants the hassle.
 
Too much of AB1634's implementation is vague.  Many responsible breeders don't
(1) have the funds or
(2) have enough dogs of the right ages
to ride out several years of confusion and still have a breeding program left.

So apparently  what you are recommending is letting the present "Nightmare" continue to repeat itself every day with the execution of thousands of thousands of innocent dogs and cats in shelters ,  because some work might be involved in changing the status quo?  I like animals too much, to see that continue no matter how much effort is needed to change the present situtation... It is so easy to bash the proposed solution, and keep things as they are, but that is not acceptable for people that want to help the animals.  

Boy, this is sure getting tedious.  Let's keep THIS particular conversation on one of the other threads where it belongs, and go back to the OP and answer THAT question, here in THIS thread.

I know NH has a great low cost s/n program that is quite effective in reducing the intake numbers at shelters state-wide - the program was state funded but I don't remember where exactly those funds came from.

Solutions to Overpopulation of Pets was a driving force in the NH program I believe.

So apparently what you are recommending is letting the present "Nightmare" continue to repeat itself every day with the execution of thousands of thousands of innocent dogs and cats in shelters , because some work might be involved in changing the status quo?

Don't be silly. 
 
I am saying don't put the cart before the horse.  I am saying that reducing the number of puppies born in California won't necessarily decrease the number of older pups and dogs in California shelters.  I am saying that Santa Cruz's results with mandatory s/n do not support AB1634 because other locations have results as good (or better) without mandatory s/n.  That leaves no supporting data for AB1634.
 
I think that a strong, funded, education campaign is the way to get real results.  Tell people how to pick a good breeder.  Tell people to be sure to get a health guarantee.  Tell people where to locate the low cost spay/neuter clinics.  Tell people to be suspicious if a pup is not microchipped.
 
A law that requires mandatory microchipping is one that I can really support.  Selling a pup without a microchip would generate a fine.  Chips will get strays back home and allow abandoned dogs to be traced to their owners.  Why is California not taking this step instead of jumping to mandatory s/n?  Breeders are not the ones abandoning the vast majority of the shelter dogs.
 
Does California have a state-wide puppy lemon law?  If not, why not?  That would help to put bad breeders out of business.  Return of the pup should not be required to get a refund if sufficient vet documentation is provided.
 
Before any mandatory S/N program like AB1634 should even be considered, there should already be a working, state-wide breeder licensing bureau set up.  A patchwork of local bureaus would be a mess to navigate or monitor.
 
Before a breeder could advertise a litter, the ad would have to have a litter registration number (microchip numbers required for registration).  That would get many of the off-the-books BYBers.  The public education campaign would advise people not to buy if the breeder couldn't supply a litter registration number and to check the number on a public web site to be sure that the number's data matches the puppy's age. 
 
Breeders caught selling pups without a litter registration number would forfeit the pups.  That would get a lot of the roadside or parking lot sellers.

[font=verdana]It is so easy to bash the proposed solution, and keep things as they are, but that is not acceptable for people that want to help the animals.  

[/font]
Keeping things as they are is not acceptable to anyone that I know of.  However, poorly thought out, ineffective laws create confusion and distract from actually getting something accomplished.
 
Note that my support of a mandatory microchipping bill would be withdrawn if the bill did not include a provision that specifically prohibited the government from using the breeder licensing information to generate lists of the breeders or owners of any particular breed of dog.  The government would also be specifically prohibited from asking the microchip companies to generate such lists for them.
 
Questions:
(1)  What should the requirements be for a breeder's license?  
(2)  How many litters should a license cover?  
(3)  Should a license for a 1-2 pup litter be the same as the license for a 15 pup litter?
(4)  How long should the license be good for?
(5)  Under what conditions would a license be denied?
(6)  Should any breed restrictions for a license be allowed?

ORIGINAL: stardog85

I know NH has a great low cost s/n program that is quite effective in reducing the intake numbers at shelters state-wide - the program was state funded but I don't remember where exactly those funds came from.

Solutions to Overpopulation of Pets was a driving force in the NH program I believe.

 
RAVEN778944 I think any s/n laws must be more than "s/n or else."  STARDOG85 is absolutely right about NH and from my experience living here the program works.
 
In the first six years of the NH program, the number of animals "put down" in shelters dropped 75%.   I don't know how many of the animals who are put down now are healthy and adoptable---but I would guess it is low or none . Why? Because dogs from out of state are brought to NH shelters and many rescues seem to specialize in mixed breed dogs transported from outside the region.
 
Bottom line: NH shelters and rescues are importing dogs to meet what they see as a need.  Altered dogs are the vast majority around where we live in NH. Intact dogs are the rarity.
 
I don't know all the specifics of the laws, (and they have changed) but I know a big piece was low cost spay/neuter for low income families----it was changed at one point to add pre-surgical immuizations when it was discovered that although a family could afford the surgery, the cost of shots was a problem.
 
Here is a summary of the program:
[linkhttp://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ih_pro_stop_story]http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ih_pro_stop_story[/link]
 
Here's an article on the NH program written by its founder in 2003---about the 10 year mark.
[linkhttp://content.petfinder.com/journal/index.cgi?article=437]http://content.petfinder.com/journal/index.cgi?article=437[/link]
 
Some general info on programs in NH at a shelter site.
[linkhttp://www.sarl-nh.org/spay_neuter.htm]http://www.sarl-nh.org/spay_neuter.htm[/link]
 
There's even an 800 number: New Hampshire Spay/Neuter Hotline Provides information on participating clinics in New Hampshire's state-wide spay/neuter programs; (800) 990-SPAY (7729)

FYI NH uses a small surcharge on license fees to pay for these programs and vets are required to submit rabies vacc. records to make sure all dogs are licensed. This does not seem to have stopped people from licensing their dogs or getting rabies vaccs.  The number of licensed dogs has about doubled since the law was passed.
 
I don't know how well a city/town s/n ordinance would work vs a state. It may depend on the size of the towns involved.
 
I would also suggest that when the laws are crafted, everyone who is involved should be part of the discussion.
Something I like about the NH situation is that when a legistlative committee was set up to oversee the program, folks who opposed it from the beginning were included and it worked.
 
From Peter Marsh's article at the petfinder link:

  
A legislative committee was set up to oversee the program. I had real doubts at first that the committee would accomplish a great deal. There was concern that the diverse makeup of the committee -- which by law included groups that had opposed setting up the program in the first place -- would create a legislative gridlock. I was dead wrong.

Over the years, the Pet Overpopulation Committee has become the program's champion and advocate.

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

[font="verdana"]It is so easy to bash the proposed solution, and keep things as they are, but that is not acceptable for people that want to help the animals.  

[/font]
Keeping things as they are is not acceptable to anyone that I know of.  However, poorly thought out, ineffective laws create confusion and distract from actually getting something accomplished.
 
Note that my support of a mandatory microchipping bill would be withdrawn if the bill did not include a provision that specifically prohibited the government from using the breeder licensing information to generate lists of the breeders or owners of any particular breed of dog.  The government would also be specifically prohibited from asking the microchip companies to generate such lists for them.
 
Questions:
(1)  What should the requirements be for a breeder's license?  
(2)  How many litters should a license cover?  
(3)  Should a license for a 1-2 pup litter be the same as the license for a 15 pup litter?
(4)  How long should the license be good for?
(5)  Under what conditions would a license be denied?
(6)  Should any breed restrictions for a license be allowed?

I can hear the howling now from groups like NAIA, and the Anti AR groups, when someone suggests mandatory microchipping:

The Facists are taking over
This is a communist conspiracy
My freedoms are being taken away
It won't do any good
It will make the situation worse

etc,..etc...etc..  The same Mantra that we are getting from the Anti 1634 folks, no doubt. 

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

I can hear the howling now from groups like NAIA, and the Anti AR groups, when someone suggests mandatory microchipping:

The Facists are taking over
This is a communist conspiracy
My freedoms are being taken away
It won't do any good
It will make the situation worse

etc,..etc...etc..  The same Mantra that we are getting from the Anti 1634 folks, no doubt. 

 
You know all of our cars have VINs in more than one place and no one is freaking out.  A VIN can be used to trace the history of a car's ownership and a car cannot be legally sold without a VIN.
 
If you wanted to to chip people, then I think there would be an outcry.
 
I think CA tried to pass a microchip law a few years ago...
 

ORIGINAL: polarexpress

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8

I can hear the howling now from groups like NAIA, and the Anti AR groups, when someone suggests mandatory microchipping:

The Facists are taking over
This is a communist conspiracy
My freedoms are being taken away
It won't do any good
It will make the situation worse

etc,..etc...etc..  The same Mantra that we are getting from the Anti 1634 folks, no doubt. 

You know all of our cars have VINs in more than one place and no one is freaking out.  A VIN can be used to trace the history of a car's ownership and a car cannot be legally sold without a VIN.

If you wanted to to chip people, then I think there would be an outcry.

I think CA tried to pass a microchip law a few years ago...

What on earth does a  Vin number on a car or serial number on an appliance or other purchase, have to do with a mandatory Microchip law on a dog?  [&:]

What on earth does a Vin number on a car or serial number on an appliance or other purchase, have to do with a mandatory Microchip law on a dog? [&:] 

If you can't figure that out, I don't think explaining will help.

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

What on earth does a Vin number on a car or serial number on an appliance or other purchase, have to do with a mandatory Microchip law on a dog? [&:] 

If you can't figure that out, I don't think explaining will help.

Why don't you try?