By the way, a while back I read about some veterinary professor and his wife who was a AKC breeder and judge who where were against this Bill, and I'm still waiting to read a reply from the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) about their claims about early spay neutering. It's been some time now and all I see is still the original official statement on the CVMA's website as mentioned below and from this address:-
[link
http://www.cvma.net/doc.asp?ID=3175]http://www.cvma.net/doc.asp?ID=3175[/link]
Questions and Answers about the CVMA#%92s Co-sponsorship of AB 1634
1. Why is the CVMA co-sponsoring this bill?
The CVMA became a co-sponsor to this bill because first, we support spaying and neutering to stop the killing of unwanted animals. Second, by being a co-sponsor we are “at the table” and have a voice in crafting the language so it will be the best bill possible for the veterinary profession. Already, we have made several favorable amendments to the bill, such as extending the time frame by which the spay/neuter must be performed (to up to 6½ months) and assuring that the surgeries must be performed by a California licensed veterinarian. Third, a standard statewide law regarding spay/neuter is better than a slew of local ordinances, many of which would be unfavorable for pet owners and veterinarians. Opposition to AB 1634 will continue current policies favoring euthanasia for hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats.
2. Will veterinarians have to enforce the provisions of the bill?
No. Veterinarians will not play any role in enforcing the law, and will not have to report their clients, or anyone, to authorities. Enforcement is handled solely by local animal control agencies.
3. What if you object to spaying or neutering a pet at four months of age?
Spaying and neutering at four months of age is required by this bill. However, veterinarians can still make decisions regarding the well-being of each individual animal, and can delay spaying and neutering by providing the owner with a letter. Also, veterinarians have the ability to exempt an animal altogether from spaying and neutering due to age, poor health or illness.
4. Isn#%92t the fee for an intact permit too high?
The bill does not specify a fee for an intact permit. That will be up to local animal control authorities, who will have discretion and flexibility with regard to permits and fees, just as they do now. (Many local authorities already have higher fees for intact animals.) There is no indication that the fee will be “hundreds of dollars” as some breeder groups have been stating.
5. If this bill is signed by the Governor, there won#%92t be any more mixed breed dogs and cats in the world, right?
AB 1634 will lower the number of unwanted dogs and cats, reducing the number that have to be euthanized each year in shelters. It is highly unlikely that the law will eliminate mixed breeds.
6. Doesn#%92t AB 1634 infringe upon basic rights of ownership – I object to having government intervention in our lives.
Spay/neuter legislation is preferable to killing over 400,000 cats and dogs each year in California, at a cost of more than $250 million. There already are other laws that restrict an individual#%92s right to make decisions regarding their property. Recent examples of this are seat belt laws and helmet laws, which save taxpayer dollars and lives just as AB 1634 is intended to do for our pets.
7. Why weren#%92t the CVMA members polled on this issue
The CVMA has a communication structure in place to hear any member#%92s opinions. The CVMA is overseen by its 15-member Board of Governors, who makes the association#%92s policy decisions. CVMA Board members come from 10 districts representing all of California veterinarians. CVMA members can talk directly to their Board member, and members#%92 opinions are also heard through their local VMAs and through the CVMA#%92s House of Delegates. Those opinions are communicated to the CVMA Board of Governors. Last November the House of Delegates voted for a motion to create model language for local mandatory spay/neuter legislation. Their motion was sent to the Board and accepted as the CVMA#%92s position on this topic. Additionally, the CVMA has a legislative committee which debates the issues. Members who want to get involved more directly are encouraged to contact the CVMA.
8. Why is the CVMA taking the same position as some animal rights groups in supporting AB 1634?
The CVMA supports this bill because of the bill#%92s merits, and not because of whatever other groups may support or oppose this bill. No animal rights group has been involved in creating or amending this bill, or in working to get it through the legislature. AB 1634 is co-sponsored by the California Animal Control Directors Association, the CVMA, L.A. Animal Services and the City of Los Angeles, and the State Humane Association of California.
9. AB 1634 will not reduce the population of feral cats, or teach people how to be responsible dog owners. Does it really solve the problem?
Unfortunately, there is no utopia. True, AB 1634 does not solve all aspects of the overwhelming pet overpopulation problem in our state, but it does address a major source of animals impounded by animal control agencies.
.