Monday, April 23, 2007

Guest Post: Dr John on Cal Spay- Neuter

John Burchard writes:

There are many valid reasons for opposing California AB 1634. Perhaps the most
important are these:

1) It won't work. Mandatory s/n does not reduce shelter or euthanasia numbers.
On the contrary, it makes them worse. It has been tried in many jurisdictions,
always with the same effect: an *increase* in shelter intake and euthanasia
numbers, an *increase* (usually dramatic) in animal control costs, a *decrease*
in licensing compliance and revenues, and a *decrease* in rabies vaccination
compliance, leading to more cases of canine rabies.

2) S/n at or before the age of four months, as prescribed by AB 1634, has many
serious ill effects on the growth, development and health of dogs and cats.

3) the proposed eligibility criteria are illusory ... the only people eligible
to obtain "intact permits" for their dogs would be business-licensed commercial
breeders. No dogs or cats can meet the stipulated criteria for competition
animals or police, service or working dogs at the age of four months. So get a
business license, no big deal? Not exactly. In most California jurisdictions
you cannot legally operate a retail-sale business out of your home; instead you
require a kennel license, which prohibits you from operating in a residential
zone and involves setback and other regulations impossible of fulfillment unless
you own significant acreage in a commercial or agricultural zone. That is only
the beginning of the chain of regulations in which you are then embroiled, and
which only a large scale commercial breeder can hope to navigate successfully.
AB 1634 as written prescribes the elimination of non-commercial breeding from
California.

There's lots more, but perhaps that will do for starters.

3 comments:

essmom said...

I have worked purebred dog rescue for 18 years and I totally agree with you: This is bad law. What's worse than NO LAW? Answer: Bad Law. Interesting fact: Lloyd Levine seems to be the go-to boy for animal rights activists (see this link: http://tinyurl.com/yrth4u). Guess we should have figured that one, right? Since they aren't listening to the AKC, to Canine Companions for Independence, Police Dog groups, and other non-contributors, it must all be about MONEY. Whoever has the most money can get what law they want. To hell with the people who put you assholes in office. I am disgusted by the way this bill is being promulgated and shoved along. You will NOT have me spaying any of my dogs at 4 months of age. I have seen what it can do and I wouldn't wish that on my dogs. Long, brittle bones. Problems with dog aggression. It's unnatural to spay them this young. It's abhorent to a caring humane society to force this on animals we care for. See www.saveourdogs.net

Diane Tebault
Golden Gate Springer Rescue

Semavi Lady said...

Great posting! Big Brotherism is running wild.

Essmom, thanks for that link. New to me. But the content is NO surprise. But now the link is useful to pass on!

H. Houlahan said...

FYI, this turd of a bill has passed its first committee hurdle.

This is not just a California issue, and not just because this kind of legislation metastasizes rapidly. I got my youngest SAR partner from a California breeder -- she'd have never been born under AB 1634. I've sold pups to handlers in California, but I won't if AB 1634 passes.

All those with an interest in functional working and hunting dogs should regularly check out www.saveourdogs.net for updates and deadlines and very clear direction on what you can do.

This site was put up by friends of mine who have put their lives on hold to become single-issue lobbyists. They are in the trenches trying to preserve all of our rights to have working dogs, and to make medical decisions for our own animals.