S/N bill pulled.

Well that is GREAT!
I am so glad...I hope he buries it along with his other strange ideas he's had....weird dude, with some even weirder, scarier friends!

 The  killing of animals will continue to  go on in California . I guess the breeders will think that this is a really good move, since it has zero affect on them, and it is apparent, that this was the only thing they were worried about.

We need to remain vigilant, from what I read...if they voted no I guess they could have stopped him from reworking and resubmitting...this way he avoids that. So he might still try again later...but at least we get a break!

I don't know what to say.  I had mixed feelings about the bill, but the bottom line was that I wanted (still want) things to change and it makes me sad to think that they won't. 

Okay - I'm having trouble right now with all this, so I need help from folks like Gina and Steve.  It's really hard to imagine that anyone is happy that animals will continue to die in the hundreds every day in our shelters.  I know you Gina and I know that's not what you're happy about, nor do believe for a moment that Steve is.  I need to get my brain around the fact that the opposition wasn't just selfishly protecting their self-interests without regard to the senseless dying of unwanted pets.  Why does it feel like that though? [&:]

Is this the AB 1634 bill? Sorry, I really haven't been following it. Anyway, so this bill requires all dogs and cats (unless excused by a vet I'm guessing) to be fixed by the age of 6 months...which dogs and cats would be exempt from this? What about show dogs? And responsible breeders?

Okay - I'm having trouble right now with all this, so I need help from folks like Gina and Steve. It's really hard to imagine that anyone is happy that animals will continue to die in the hundreds every day in our shelters. I know you Gina and I know that's not what you're happy about, nor do believe for a moment that Steve is. I need to get my brain around the fact that the opposition wasn't just selfishly protecting their self-interests without regard to the senseless dying of unwanted pets. Why does it feel like that though?

 
I feel this way too.

Cathy,
 
I likely can't help you with your internal feelings on this, opinions about other people are personal things.
What I can say is that dogs die now in shelters...and they would still have died with this bill in effect, because the bill did not address even half of the top 10 reasons people turn in animals to shelters.
 
What needs to happen is that individual cities....base individual education, breeder permitting, laws on THEIR UNIQUE populations...and ENFORCE the rules they have already. There does not need to be this huge blanket thrown over an entire state...because the entire state does not have the same problem. THAT is my beef...that and punishing my friends in Ca and hassling them because they breed their dogs responsibly, are easy and safe to find and pick on!
 
Local government entities, need to get off their butts...go out and do some work...and enforce their own laws...and gather info on the situations unique to their areas...and base any new laws on that. If they studied thier own shelters and found the real reasons people are turning dogs in...they'd likely find some new ways to help...ways that do not involve forcing surgery.

Local government entities, need to get off their butts...go out and do some work...and enforce their own laws...and gather info on the situations unique to their areas...and base any new laws on that. If they studied thier own shelters and found the real reasons people are turning dogs in...they'd likely find some new ways to help...ways that do not involve forcing surgery.

 
Gina - Well said - can I use it in the Op Ed I write? []

Absolutely Cathy.

Local government entities, need to get off their butts...go out and do some work...and enforce their own laws...and gather info on the situations unique to their areas...and base any new laws on that.

Well put and well met Gina. 

You and I know that the main problem, puppy mills, wouldn't have been stopped by this legislation.  It was a punitive towards the independent handler, or hobby breeders.

The reason good caring breeders were against this law is mainly because it would not work. The location that the supporters kept hyping, who put in a spay neuter law and their euthanasia rate went down? Santa Clara? What ever the name was, guess what. The rest of the state's euthanasia rate went down, even more. The location with the mandatory spay/neuter actually performed worse than the rest of the state. Other statistics used by supporters were flat out wrong. Mandatory spay/neuter laws have been shown to be ineffective.
 
If this law by some miracle actually did result in less puppies being born, well there would just be even more imported, and from worse places. You would get more puppy mill babies being imported from the midwest, and even more little puppies smuggled in from Mexico.
 
How many people do you know who have gotten a dog or puppy and then for some reason could not keep it? That is why there are too many dogs in the shelters.
 
There are a whole lot of people with dogs in CA that live paycheck to paycheck, just like everywhere else. They can't afford to get their dog neutered, they can't afford the fines, so what do they do? Get rid of the dog. Very likely ends up at the shelter, only making the problem worse.
 
What does work is more free and low cost spay/neuter programs for low income people. More education campaigns about S/N. It's also cheaper in the long run. Parts of the country that have been very pro-active about these matters have very low euthanasia rates. In Denver, young healthy adoptable dogs are rarely euthanized. In the NE they actually have to import puppies. That's what works.

cakana

It's really hard to imagine that anyone is happy that animals will continue to die in the hundreds every day in our shelters.

Nobody is happy about animals PTS in shelters.  AB1634 might have reduced the number of neonate puppies in shelters and that is the only thing it could have done. That reduction would have been from several categories including
(1)  litters that were not born,
(2)  litters that were drowned by their owners,
(3)  litters abandoned for the coyotes, and
(4)  litters sold/given to dubious puppy brokers - could be used for bait to train fighting dogs.
 
Assuming that a reduction of pups in shelters due to s/n laws would all be due to less pups being born is unfortunately naive.  If taking pups to a shelter is removed from the equation for fear of having an unspayed bitch discovered, people will look for alternate ways to get rid of pups.
 
In exchange for the hard-to-measure reduction in the number of litters born, AB1634 would
(1)  eliminate many hobby breeders,
(2)  discourage vet care and rabies vaccination (risk of discovery),
(3)  increase abandonment/relinquishment/euthanasia (always happens when monetary demands are made),
(4)  alienate vets (more paperwork; interference in medical decisions), and
(5)  require local governments to come up with funds and personnel for enforcement and any new breeder's license bureaus.
 
Is an unenforceable law with dubious benefits and severe drawbacks worth depriving people of the right to breed their animals?  Lots of us think the answer is "no".

The first step in determining how to decrease the PTS numbers is to determine the characteristics of the animals being PTS.  California needs a statewide database of PTS statistics (with funding). 
 
To be of any real use in determining effective action, these statistics must separate adoptable/unadoptable dogs, stray/surrendered dogs, healthy/ill dogs, small/large dogs, puppies/adults, puppies by age, black/other colored dogs, etc.  The languages spoken by people surrendering dogs should be noted.  Overall PTS stats don't even distinguish between old age, disease problems, vicious animals, and animals people just don't want in a particular area. 
 
The database could show how areas could exchange animals to meet local needs.  It could show areas that need more vaccination programs.  It could show areas that need programs in languages other than English.   Etc.