CVMA withdrawals support for AB1634

    • Gold Top Dog

    CVMA withdrawals support for AB1634

    The CVMA (California Veterinary Medical Association) has withdrawn its support for AB1634.  The organization had failed to poll its members before supporting the bill and has now bowed to their angry opposition to the bill.  The official CVMA position on the bill is now "WATCH".
    http://capwiz.com/cvma/issues/bills/?bill=9534361 
     
    Example veterinary opposition letter:
    www.naiaonline.org/issues/Dr._Vanderlip_to_Assembly.htm 
     
    The newest version of AB1634 in the California senate (June 27, 2007) extends the spay/neutering age from 4 to 6 months. 
    www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20070627_amended_sen_v93.html 
     
    There is also a strange new section in the bill allowing an intact permit for the purpose of allowing a female to have a single litter.  It is unclear how this type of intact permit would differ from any other intact permit except for
    (1) different requirements that do not include showing or competing and
    (2) a provision that the female must be spayed after the litter has been weaned.
    Under this permit the puppies must be given away not sold.
     
    This new section requires the owner to state that he/she "has considered having the animal microchipped for purposes of identification." 
    • Gold Top Dog
    That's a shame, but I would guess some of the vets probably felt they would lose some income  due to the decrease in the number of dogs in California.
    • Gold Top Dog

    Bobsk8
    I would guess some of the vets probably felt they would lose some income due to the decrease in the number of dogs in California.

    Why would they be concerned about something they don't believe would happen if AB1634 was passed?  Their actual reasons are in the opposition letter in my original post.
     
    By the way, it wasn't just "some" vets.  It was enough of the the CVMA membership to have a strong impact.
    • Gold Top Dog
    LOL yeah the "free puppies" thing really got to me. There's something that'll help dogs. 
    • Gold Top Dog
    Here's just an excerpt from the article for the curious:


    AB1634 will open the floodgates for puppy smuggling from Mexican puppy mills and other areas. Several thousands of puppies are smuggled through San Diego annually. These puppies are invariably taken from their mothers too soon, are very sick, heavily parasitized, and near death when confiscated after traveling in the cruelest of conditions tucked away in the wheel wells or crevices of vehicles. These smuggled puppies contribute to the number of euthanasias that supporters of AB1634 decry. I know, because I#%92ve seen several hundreds of these animals. In addition, out of state puppy mills (commercial dog breeding farms that produce puppies for profit, without regard to health, quality, socialization, or temperament) will ship young puppies of inferior quality into California, while responsible dog breeders will be seriously restricted in their ability to raise their top quality dogs and protect their breeds#%92 valuable gene pool. The ever growing demand for puppies will be filled with animals from puppy mills. These puppies are often sick and many have genetic defects (such as abdominally retained testicles, hydrocephalus, epilepsy, luxated patellas). When pet owners cannot afford to treat the problems, many puppy mill puppies end up in the shelter and add to the euthanasia statistics. I have witnessed this countless times. These animals also pose a zoonotic (diseases contagious between humans and animals) threat to public health.
    AB1634 does nothing to address the biggest, shelter population and euthanasia problem: feral cats. These are wild, untamed cats without owners. These cats are largely the offspring of other feral cats, not of client owned cats. More than 85 percent of cat owners neuter their cats. Feral cats spread zoonotic diseases, kill songbirds, and struggle to survive. Eventually they are hit by cars; eaten by predators; or die of starvation, disease, or fight wounds. The rest end up in animal shelters. The large majority of feral cats in animal shelters are seriously ill, injured, pregnant, fractious and non-adoptable.  It has been estimated that feral cats account for 70 percent of shelter euthanasias. AB1634 does not address and will not solve the feral cat problem.
    • Gold Top Dog
    ORIGINAL: Cita

    Here's just an excerpt from the article for the curious:


    AB1634 will open the floodgates for puppy smuggling from Mexican puppy mills and other areas. Several thousands of puppies are smuggled through San Diego annually. These puppies are invariably taken from their mothers too soon, are very sick, heavily parasitized, and near death when confiscated after traveling in the cruelest of conditions tucked away in the wheel wells or crevices of vehicles. These smuggled puppies contribute to the number of euthanasias that supporters of AB1634 decry. I know, because I've seen several hundreds of these animals. In addition, out of state puppy mills (commercial dog breeding farms that produce puppies for profit, without regard to health, quality, socialization, or temperament) will ship young puppies of inferior quality into California, while responsible dog breeders will be seriously restricted in their ability to raise their top quality dogs and protect their breeds' valuable gene pool. The ever growing demand for puppies will be filled with animals from puppy mills. These puppies are often sick and many have genetic defects (such as abdominally retained testicles, hydrocephalus, epilepsy, luxated patellas). When pet owners cannot afford to treat the problems, many puppy mill puppies end up in the shelter and add to the euthanasia statistics. I have witnessed this countless times. These animals also pose a zoonotic (diseases contagious between humans and animals) threat to public health.
    AB1634 does nothing to address the biggest, shelter population and euthanasia problem: feral cats. These are wild, untamed cats without owners. These cats are largely the offspring of other feral cats, not of client owned cats. More than 85 percent of cat owners neuter their cats. Feral cats spread zoonotic diseases, kill songbirds, and struggle to survive. Eventually they are hit by cars; eaten by predators; or die of starvation, disease, or fight wounds. The rest end up in animal shelters. The large majority of feral cats in animal shelters are seriously ill, injured, pregnant, fractious and non-adoptable.  It has been estimated that feral cats account for 70 percent of shelter euthanasias. AB1634 does not address and will not solve the feral cat problem.



    The text that you quoted is from one vet's opinion,  and is posted on the NAIA website. NAIA is the organization that is headed by a Lawyer from the Circus, so I would view anything from that site as not very credible. It is the same NAIA rhetoric that keeps popping up with the same nonsense, over and over again.
    • Gold Top Dog

    ORIGINAL: janet_rose

    I would guess some of the vets probably felt they would lose some income due to the decrease in the number of dogs in California.

    Why would they be concerned about something they don't believe would happen if AB1634 was passed?  Their actual reasons are in the opposition letter in my original post.
     
    By the way, it wasn't just "some" vets.  It was enough of the the CVMA membership to have a strong impact.


    The problem is, that they do realize that this law will work and they don't like the prospects of what it will do to their P and L statement , once AB1634 goes into effect. The  breeders are concerned about this law spreading across the country, which will force them to put their income from breeding "on the books" and pay taxes on it.  Vets are concerned about the dog and cat population being reduced, which will reduce their potential income due to the shrinking patient base. As always, it appears that the opposition to this bill is all about the dollar bill. 
    • Gold Top Dog
    Opposers of the bill musn't be complacent with this...it's not opposition but neutrality. Keep those letters and dialog with the vet's going.
    • Gold Top Dog
    I just spoke to someone at the CVMA office, and asked him what specifically was mentioned in the bill that caused them to suddenly  shift from supporting the bill to a neutral position on the bill  or the "watch" position. He couldn't give me an answer to that  question other than the members suddenly changed their minds.  I then asked him if it was due to pressure from breeders causing the sudden shift in supporting the bill, even after it was amended on the 27th of June. He quickly said " No that's not it"...  Hmmmm   very curious......   Not very believable IMO  Sounds more like, " Don't bite the hand that feeds you" ( No Pun intended)
    • Gold Top Dog
    Oh, yeah, it has nothing to do with breeders who are concerned that their non-AKC breeds will die out, or working dog owners who are concerned for the health of their dogs or their ability to breed from superior, highly trained individuals (retaining the ability to make sterilization decisions until a dog is fully trained), and vets aren't the least bit concerned about the impact of punitive taxes on responsible breeding, and widespread juvenile sterilization.

    If anything, this was a bonanza for vets the way it was written before. Unhealthy pets (widespread joint disease from juvenile sterilization, medication and euthanasia for incontinence) and enforced surgery would be a goldmine, you'd think, right? Hey, if you really thought it was all about the money, we could always write in a little tax bonus for vets who participated in a program to tattle on non-compliant patients - way cool, huh?
    • Gold Top Dog
    ORIGINAL: brookcove

    Oh, yeah, it has nothing to do with breeders who are concerned that their non-AKC breeds will die out, or working dog owners who are concerned for the health of their dogs or their ability to breed from superior, highly trained individuals (retaining the ability to make sterilization decisions until a dog is fully trained), and vets aren't the least bit concerned about the impact of punitive taxes on responsible breeding, and widespread juvenile sterilization.

    If anything, this was a bonanza for vets the way it was written before. Unhealthy pets (widespread joint disease from juvenile sterilization, medication and euthanasia for incontinence) and enforced surgery would be a goldmine, you'd think, right? Hey, if you really thought it was all about the money, we could always write in a little tax bonus for vets who participated in a program to tattle on non-compliant patients - way cool, huh?


    All the "issues" that you mentioned are not true. Any breeder can get an exemption. Read the new version of the bill. What exactly are the "punitive taxes" ,and be specific, and please  reference in  the latest version of the bill?   I think the punitive taxes that the breeders are worried about may be the Fed Income tax that is not being paid now, by breeders not reporting their income. Again , in my opinion, these false arguments are the same ones that the breeders keep repeating over and over again, trying to sway public opinion, so that this law won't go into effect and save thousands upon thousands of dogs and cats from being executed in shelters in California. 

    The constant claim by the anti crowd that this law won't work by people that don't even live in California, shows that they know it will work, and that if it passes, it will soon be in their state when the voters see how much money can be saved by  S/N laws.  If they thought it wouldn't work, they would be saying " hey go for it, it won't have any effect" , but you and I know it will work, and that is why they are so vehement in fighting it. 

    Here is a good article in the Sacremento  times on AB1634

      HONESTLY, PEOPLE. Here it is, the day after Independence Day, and some "independent" citizens you all are, still expecting someone else to clean up after you. There are all kinds of public messes — from leaving it to the schools to discipline your kids, to trashing the public landscape. (Last week, a driver in front of me at a red light tossed his fast-food empties out of his car. If I'd had time to scoop it up and dump it back in his window, he'd probably have shot me, and the headline would have read: "Columnist trashed one last time.") This time, I mean the animal messes. Not the ones you let your pets leave on the sidewalk, but the criminal mess of pets you allow to be neglected and killed. Not every Californian trashes the highways; not every Californian is callous to animals. But enough of you are that half a million unwanted, homeless cats and dogs get put to death by California's city and county shelters every year. Just about one life every minute. I'm one of those who cleans up your messes.

    Every dog I've rescued and found a home for is one you flicked aside like an empty Arrowhead bottle. Dogs like Oliver, eating garbage outside the market. Penelope, pushed out of a car on a freeway. Bob and Osgood and Annabelle and Hattie and Lucy and Woodrow and blind Berkeley and all the dozens of others, left to starve or become road kill. Like many other freelance animal lovers, I've spent hundreds of hours and thousands of bucks saving dogs and finding them good homes. I'm tired of cleaning up after you. California is tired too; its cities and counties have no room or money to keep all the homeless kittens and puppies, all the old dogs and cats you allow to overbreed or leave out on the street like an old refrigerator. And so they have to kill them. Who cares? You should. You, the California taxpayer, shell out a quarter of a billion dollars a year for this. And because you won't tidy up your messes, other people have to do it for you. Like Lloyd Levine, the Van Nuys Democratic assemblyman whose proposed California Healthy Pets Act could save millions of dollars and thousands of creatures.

    The bill requires California dogs and cats 6 months and older to be spayed or neutered. If you get caught with "unfixed" animals, the $500 fine can be refunded once you do the right thing; the fine comes with a guide to cheap spaying and neutering. If you want to breed your pet, you can buy a permit that allows one litter a year. The objections to Levine's bill run from the selfish to the ridiculous. The American Kennel Club has threatened to pull its annual Long Beach dog show over this, even though purebred show animals and licensed breeders' animals would be exempt from the law, as are police dogs, rescue dogs and therapy and guide dogs. The bill's opponents yammer that it's animal social engineering, socialism, mutt genocide (around my house, please remember to say "multicultural canines") and anti-business — and therefore un-American. There's one business the bill is anti: illegal, underground animal breeding — all those backyard puppy mills churning out defective Dalmatians or border collies or whatever purse-sized dog happens to be hot. My vet took in an abandoned puppy-mill Chihuahua — Scooter, born without front legs because of overbreeding. Want to ruin your own life? Perfectly fine by me. Heroin? Live it up, baby — just don't break into my house to pay for your habit. Ride your hog without a helmet? Go for it — unless your smashup means my taxes pay to support you for the rest of your comatose life. Same goes for critters. When thousands of them have to die for humans' irresponsible choices, playtime's over. Yet even some animal lobbies are fighting Levine's bill, because it's either too much or not enough. But you don't kill a good bill because it isn't a perfect bill. Some point out that Levine's AB 1634 doesn't address pet smuggling. But if the federal government can't halt illegal immigration, a California law can hardly stop the flow of contraband Chihuahuas. The bill also doesn't stop people from dumping their sick pets at shelters because they can't afford treatment. These are matters for another bill and another session; AB 1634 doesn't have to do everything to accomplish something. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to do what I do every July 5: look for terrified dogs who broke loose and ran away because of the noise from illegal gunfire and illegal fireworks shot off by you boneheads. Someone's got to stop them from becoming road kill — just as Sacramento should do for Levine's bill.
    • Gold Top Dog

    Bobsk8
    I then asked him if it was due to pressure from breeders causing the sudden shift in supporting the bill, even after it was amended on the 27th of June. He quickly said " No that's not it"...  Hmmmm   very curious......   Not very believable IMO    

    You would have been more convinced if he answered hesitantly?  Tongue Tied  The CVMA leadership doesn't answer to breeders.  It answers to the vets that make up the CVMA membership.  Those vets worked very hard to produce this change.
    • Gold Top Dog

    ORIGINAL: janet_rose

    I then asked him if it was due to pressure from breeders causing the sudden shift in supporting the bill, even after it was amended on the 27th of June. He quickly said " No that's not it"...  Hmmmm   very curious......   Not very believable IMO    

    You would have been more convinced if he answered hesitantly?  [sm=crazy.gif]  The CVMA leadership doesn't answer to breeders.  It answers to the vets that make up the CVMA membership.  Those vets worked very hard to produce this change.


    The breeders have been putting pressure on the Vets, as referenced by several posts on this forum alone. There is no doubt in my mind that this "change of heart", is breeder pressure, the bulk of it probably coming from out of state. When I asked and reasked what specific parts of the bill were a deal breaker for the association, he could not come up with any answer. That shows me that he didn't have a good answer to give me. They caved to pressure from the anti folks, is probably the bottom line, but I don't think it will have much of an effect on the bill passing.   I also think that people that are concerned about the welfare of these animals that will be saved when this ordinance passes , will remember what the Vets did in switching at the last minute from pro to neutral.  We have all read posts  on this forum, about how the Vets are always out for the money, hence the frequent vaccinations, overcharging, etc..etc....  I have alway disagreed with that view because I think they do a great job, but this time, I tend to agree that this is a money thing for the Vets.  That is why the person on the phone couldn't come up with anything specific about the bill that the group didn't like. 
    • Gold Top Dog
    Bobsk8

    The constant claim by the anti crowd that this law won't work by people that don't even live in California, shows that they know it will work, and that if it passes, it will soon be in their state when the voters see how much money can be saved by S/N laws.

    No, it shows that people understand that politicans won't wait to see if the bill works.  They will pass similar bills to show that they are "doing something", rather than spending the effort to examine the programs that are working without draconian measures. 

    newspaper columnist Patt Morrison
    There's one business the bill is anti: illegal, underground animal breeding — all those backyard puppy mills churning out defective Dalmatians or border collies or whatever purse-sized dog happens to be hot.

    Leaving aside the fact that many of the BYBers are not currently illegal, Morrison is right that the shelters might get less pups if the law can be enforced - Oh yeh, there is no funding.  Right now people have no reason to hide, but AB1634 would give them one.  That means more time and money to find them.  It means more search warrants and court cases.
     
    People who have pups will not find it easier to "dispose" of the pups (drown them, abandon them in the boonies, leave them in public places in the middle of the night, sell them to unscrupulous puppy brokers, etc.) than to come up with the means (money, transportation, effort) to spay.  Yeh, anybody believe that?  But that's OK, just keep the pups out of the shelters.
     
    Californians would still get all the puppies they wanted because the pups would come in from all borders and from the big, unregulated puppy mills in California.  With AB1634 politicans could reduce the number of small pups PTS in shelters, but that doesn't mean that the pups that would have been PTS don't die elsewhere.  Some of them might have had a chance at a shelter.

    • Gold Top Dog

    Bobsk8
    When I asked and reasked what specific parts of the bill were a deal breaker for the association, he could not come up with any answer. That shows me that he didn't have a good answer to give me.

    He couldn't give you a "good" answer because there was no "specific" part.  The CVMA leadership supported a bill that their members objected to in principle
      
    Here we go!!  The CVMA has a new president.
      Dr. Faoro was ousted or persuaded to resign.
     
    CVMA - AB 1634 Update  (the "recent" meeting was June 22nd)
    http://www.cvma.net/doc.asp?ID=3189

    On July 2, the CVMA Board of Governors reviewed the latest amendments to AB 1634, the California Healthy Pets Act, and moved from a co-sponsor to a neutral position.
     
    The bill was a major topic of discussion at the recent joint Board of Governors and House of Delegates meeting in Anaheim.  During the joint session of the Board and House, then-CVMA President Dr. Ron Faoro presented a history of the bill, addressed the concerns that members have raised and discussed some of the amendments that were being considered.