AB 1634 California Mandatory Spay/Neuter bill got pulled!

At least temporarily. This is a small victory for breeders who would have been hurt by a bill like this passing.

All the major cat associations, CFA, TICA, etc were fighting it.

I'm glad people stepped up to the plate to oppose this and so far they've won.

Here's the CNN story: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe...day/index.html
Scroll down the page to read :Assemblyman withdraws bill that would have required pets be spayed

So glad to hear that good news!

I thought breeders and show pets were exempt?
A registration process of some sort and a small fee?

I also heard that it was getting watered down so much as to be no longer producing the desired result of less pets in shelters.

It's not my state and I haven't read the latest on it, so i could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Mom of 4

I thought breeders and show pets were exempt?
A registration process of some sort and a small fee?
.

Click to expand...

From what I understand it is the licensed business breeders (these would be puppy/kitten mills) that were exempt. Which would put the small hobby breeders out. And those are the responsible breeders.

Originally Posted by Mom of 4

I thought breeders and show pets were exempt?
A registration process of some sort and a small fee?

I also heard that it was getting watered down so much as to be no longer producing the desired result of less pets in shelters.

It's not my state and I haven't read the latest on it, so i could be wrong.

Click to expand...

We have been fighting this since April and I'm so glad that it was pulled.

Here are some of the fundemental problems with the bill:

1. Breeders could be exempt by submitting their Federal Tax ID, State reseller's permit, and thier breeding license, etc but the problem is the local government doesn't have to issue. Especially if they feel zoning laws are being violated.

2. After 2012 there are no more permits issued.

3. Fees for the permit are not defined. Figures being tossed around are $150.00 per yr, per animal. That would mean an additional $900.00 per yr for us.

4. Was is disguised as "The Healthy Pets Act" is really the start of the end of pet ownership.

5. The bill did not address the true problem of the shelters which is irresponsible pet ownership or address the feral cat problem.

6. The statistics and figures being quoted by the supporters was false and misleading.

Where we live there are no breeder permits or licensing. They just have Animal permits for households that contain more than three animals.

We are looking into getting a Breeders permit from USDA. This would make us exempt from Local regulations.

OK, I'm from California, and it was my understanding that reputable breeders would be exempt from having to spay and neuter. Of course they would have to pay a fee, and I believe they would have to re-apply for their exempt statis every few years.

The purpose of this bill was to stop BYB's as well as moggy cats breeding due to owners letting them outside. It was supposed to put and end to a lot of killing that has to be done in shelters due to so many homeless and unwanted cats, dogs and other pet animals. I can't understand why reputable breeders are against this bill, since they along with the people who breed service animals, would be allowed to continue breeding. It would just curtail the birth of so many unwanted animals, who end up in shelters, and who are put to sleep. It would have also lowered our taxes somewhat, because it is the citizens of California who have to pay out of our taxes for the shelters and the killing of those animals. Personally, I'm not happy to pay for killing of cats and dogs. I'd rather my tax dollars go for other things and animal murder.

Please read the bill. Although softened somewhat by the latest revisions, it is still unnacceptable.

The permits are annual per animal and can only be issued until 2012.

The statistics show that these kinds of mandatory laws haven't worked. Also if you goto NAIA the shelter statistics are available. It shows a decline in shelter intakes and euthanasia over the past 20 years in California.

This bill is supported in part by Peta/H$U$ whose ultimate goal is to end pet ownership all together.

This law if passed would mean the end of responsible hobby breeders. Only the BYBs and commercial breeders would remain. BYBs operate below the radar already and would continue to do so.

No one doubts the need for more reponsible pet ownership. But this can be done by enforcing existing laws, education, and low cost spay and neuter. Not by fees and permits.

It sounds like he pulled it so that he can work on a better version and resubmit.

Personally, I'm in favor of a well written one. This one just had too many flaws. It was providing loopholes to the wrong kind of people.

I'm not surprised that PETA and HSUS are helping. As long as the assemblyman doesn't give in to them, whatever if they want to hand him their money. Californias love their pets; they would never approve of something that ended pet ownership. They would approve of something that stopped puppy mills.

The thing is, they need to find a way to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate breeders. So the cat/dog is registered. So what. WHO are they registered with? There's a lot of bad registries. I think this will be the hardest part, especially for new breeds and variations within breeds (traditional siamese and persians). If we ever reached the point where we could ONLY buy purebreds, you'd see a lot of people who just want a plain kitty and would be more likely to own the non-extreme styles of these breeds. There's a lot to take into account there.


The rest of the bill seems fixable. There needs to be a breeder limit to prevent puppy mills. Not a limit on the number of breeders, but a limit on how many unaltered pets, and how many litters a year. It doesn't have to be really low, just something low enough to allow larger breeders (like Nial) but remove the mills and the BYBs. A lot of BYBs breed for money, and it won't be worth it if their limited to only 1 litter per queen per year. Fees for unalters should be minimal, fines for having an unapproved alter should be high enough to offset the cost of any money the BYB would have made off a litter. (And the animal should be rehomed.)

They also need to change the regulations for how soon the animal is altered. It seems reasonable to fine people for unaltered animals UNLESS they have a permit. In which case, they can have, I don't know, 20? unaltered, unregistered animals that are under 1 year of age. That gives plenty of time for breeders to decide what to do with a cat. At one year, there are two options: a) the cat is registered as a breeder, counts toward the breeders limit, and the breeder fee is paid or b) the animal is fixed. Only registered breeders get this option, they only get it for cats under year, and there's a limit to deter people from breeding the cats early. If a female gets pregnant, that cat is consequently disqualified from this exemption, fees and registration must be done, and the cat counts towards the limit. 20 is probably not a reasonable number, not sure how many kittens under one a large breeder has running around. But you get the idea.

Anyway, I think the hardest part is just deciding what it means for a cat to be "registered". What registry, what about new breeds, what about "oops" litters, what about non-showable variants of a breed, etc. If they can figure that out, the rest should be easier.

This also should all be phased in slowly. If it happens right away, there will very quickly be not enough pets to go around, which is exactly what PETA and HSUS want. As less animals arrive in petstores and shelters, there will need to be more breeders falling under the guidelines. It takes years for a breeder to get up to speed, so the whole timeline will need to be 10 years or so.

Is there any reason why the ethical breeders don't try to work out a suggestion themselves? Are there just too many unethical breeders gumming things up? It seems that, if you guys could create something, it might be a really good option. After all, it's in your best interest. It would prevent people from tarnishing your reputations, and there would be more people interested in purchasing your cats (simply cause they have no where else to go)!

Is there any reason why the ethical breeders don't try to work out a suggestion themselves?

Click to expand...

Many ethical breeders already spay/neuter their pet/show alters prior to going to their new homes. Also, there was an idea of "taxing" pet food to fund spay/neuter clinics.

The fact is legislation like this is part of Peta/H$U$ grand plan of liberating animals. First it is "intact" permits then before you know it, it will "pet" permits and then no pets.

I know a lot of breeders spay/neuter or are involved with shelters, but why not suggest legislation?

I think there's no chance that legislation leads to no pet ownership. Look around. EVERYONE owns pets, and no ones going to give that up, regardless of the crazies over at PETA. I'm sure PETA would like to think that they can do that, but they can't.

The thing is, without this kind of legislation, breeders being ethical by example hasn't and isn't going to work. There are way to many unethical breeders, puppy mills, and people who just don't know better. I have one friend who recently bought two "purebred" puppys from a pet store. They're definitely inbred and from a mill. The animals have weird psycological issues, which my friend puts off as normal and cute. I have another friend who thinks it's ok to let her "siamese" cat be unaltered and run loose because he's "purebred siamese" (he's got white spotting...) She also breeds her lab for money and has a doxie male for stud service. When her lab went into heat, she didn't separate the two. She just shrugged at me; figured she can get money for "rare" lab/doxie mixes.

Ethical breeders doing the right thing have no impact on people doing the wrong thing. There just aren't enough of them.

PETA's ideal would happen if it all went into affect at once. However, if a slow transition occurred, we could have no unwanted pets.

M parents used to live in Germany and went to adopt a dog from the local pound. The "pound" had 4 old dogs that had lived on an acre together for the last several years. My parents didn't adopt because they looked so happy there. The ONLY way for them to get a dog was to get on a breeders waiting list. They did, and they had an amazing German Wirehair Pointer.

They even have legislation there about the size of home you must have to own a particular breed, and how many dogs can be in it. My parents' neighbor actually called the police on them once for "animal neglect". My parents both were working, so the dog was alone in the yard for 8 hours a day. The police didn't do anything, but they DID come out to investigate and make sure the dog wasn't alone for longer than a standard work day and was getting his walks.

That's the kind of thing I'd like to see someday. A pound with only enough animals to count on one hand. Anyway, point being, our current situation isn't working, and we can have legislation without PETA-like madness. And I think the ethical breeders are the right group to propose something that's fair and will work.

Originally Posted by bab-ush-niik

M parents used to live in Germany and went to adopt a dog from the local pound. The "pound" had 4 old dogs that had lived on an acre together for the last several years. My parents didn't adopt because they looked so happy there. The ONLY way for them to get a dog was to get on a breeders waiting list. They did, and they had an amazing German Wirehair Pointer.

They even have legislation there about the size of home you must have to own a particular breed, and how many dogs can be in it. My parents' neighbor actually called the police on them once for "animal neglect". My parents both were working, so the dog was alone in the yard for 8 hours a day. The police didn't do anything, but they DID come out to investigate and make sure the dog wasn't alone for longer than a standard work day and was getting his walks.

That's the kind of thing I'd like to see someday. A pound with only enough animals to count on one hand. Anyway, point being, our current situation isn't working, and we can have legislation without PETA-like madness. And I think the ethical breeders are the right group to propose something that's fair and will work.

Click to expand...

As a breeder, I can understand and agree with some of the things you're pointing out. But do you realize how much enforcement of these proposed laws will cost the tax payers? Do you want Government to have control of every single aspect of our lives? Germany is like that. My aunt and uncle are citizens there. Germany's income tax is over 50%!

We all know there is a pet over-population issue in this country. It needs to be fixed, but I don't want my government regulating every move I make and I certainly don't want more taxes, fees and permits.
I also don't want to have to pay for a whole new arm of law enforcement that will certainly be needed to go around and check people's homes for compliance with spay/neuter laws.
Without enforcement, such laws would be worthless, and it will take a huge number of people to enforce.