There’ll never be another Old Yeller

Or Shep, or Fido, or Spot, or Puff, or, or Mehitabel. At least if Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has his way. Levine is sponsoring Assembly Bill 1634, the oxymoronically named “California Healthy Pets Act”, more accurately the California Unhealthy Pets Act or Hardly Any Pets Act. http://saveourdogs.net/ or http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1634&sess=CUR&house=A&search_type=bill_update

AB 1634 would require nearly all dogs and cats in California to be spayed or neutered by the age of four (4!) months. In certain limited circumstances, an “intact permit” could be obtained. And doesn’t that just make you want to cross your legs real tight?

The rationale is that our shelters are so full of unwanted cats and dogs, we must stop making any more. Oddly, this bill is proposed at a time when we seem to be making good progress on this front. Data maintained by the California Department of Health Services indicate that total dog and cat impoundments have been dropping for the last few decades, while the rate of adoption has increased and euthanasia has dropped significantly. In recent years this trend has accelerated. Why propose this draconian measure now?

The bill will force law-abiding citizens with nice family pets to spay or neuter their cats and dogs. Meanwhile feral animals and animals in the underground dog world of fighting rings and drug dealers will continue to breed. Not animals you’d want to take home to the kids.

Local communities may already enact spay/neuter ordinances reflecting local conditions and values. This bill would pre-empt local control. Will cities be forced to create squads of pet police?

AB 1634 is bad for public safety

Speaking of the police, dogs used in law enforcement are typically intact males. AB 1634 exempts dogs used for law enforcement or rescue activities from spay/neuter, but at four months it’s impossible to know which animals will enter law enforcement. They don’t even enter formal training ‘til they’re one, and not all make it onto the force. Breeding programs just for law enforcement would be impractical, since maybe five percent of dogs specifically bred and raised for police work actually make it. Law enforcement dogs usually spend the first part of their lives as pets.

A significant majority of law enforcement and search-and-rescue dogs serving in California are bred in California. The dogs search out missing persons, criminals, narcotics, and explosives. A dog may save an officer’s life at the cost of his own. http://www.vet.upenn.edu/schoolresources/communications/publications/bellwether/49/canine_hero.html Without dedicated, working-dog hobby breeders, the supply of these dogs would dry up. The California Organization of Police and Sheriffs estimates an additional cost to state and local law enforcement of $43 million per year.

And remember, once intact pets were outlawed, only outlaws would have intact pets. Would owners of unaltered dogs and cats be less willing to report crime or come forward as witnesses?

AB 1634 is bad for public health.

If AB 1534 passed, expect fewer people to license and vaccinate their pets. After all, if your pet is unaltered, you can’t get a license. Plus, if your animal’s intact, the vet is pretty much the first person who’d notice. And you wouldn’t dare go the one of those low cost vaccination clinics run by a government agency.

People may even become reluctant to get Tabby to the vet at the first signs of illness—many of which can be passed on to people. It’s not just rabies, either. There are parasites and diseases like leptospirosis and toxoplasmosis which can cause miscarriage and birth defects in people. Problems would be exacerbated if, as was proposed in Sacramento, veterinarians were forced to become the pet police.

Don’t forget about the role of cats and dogs in rodent control, either. While there is an exemption for pure-bred cats which are on the pet show circuit, I doubt if these cats would be out for an evening killing rats

AB 1634 is bad for pet health

There are pros and cons to sterilization of pets. However, when performed at a very young age, problems far outweigh the benefits including urinary incontinence, various cancers, obesity, orthopedic problems, and behavioral problems such as environmental fear and dog on dog aggression. As noted above, AB 1634 could cause owners of intact pets to avoid veterinary clinics.

As time went on, and people could no longer get dogs from small hobby breeders, the void would be filled by puppy mills. Even the best of these are essentially “dog factories” where, even if clean and sanitary which is by no means guaranteed, dogs are kenneled for life, perpetually pregnant or nursing, without play or other stimulation. http://www.prisonersofgreed.org/Commercial-kennel-facts.html

Often, the mills are an absolute abomination http://www.anewstartonlife.com/puppymill.htm. ( You may want to get the kleenex before going to this site.) There is one goal: Produce as many puppies as possible, as cheaply as possible. Three quarters of these are in Kansas and Missouri, with the rest predominantly in the Midwest and east. The U.S. Border Patrol estimates that about 10,000 puppies per year are brought into San Diego from Mexico. http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2006/jun_jul/other/puppies.xml

Nationally, less than one percent of puppy mill dogs are currently bred in California. Look for this to increase, since breeders with an expensive breeder’s license, and business license or state tax number would be exempt. Obviously they would have to sell more pups to pay for the breeder’s license.

But doesn’t California have rules guaranteeing humane treatment? Under the State law, kennels must be kept sanitary, and animals must have “adequate space”. So what’s “adequate space”? As stated in Health and Safety Code Sec. 122065:

"adequate space"means sufficient space for the dog to stand up, sit down, and turn about freely using normal body movements, without the head touching the top of the cage, and to lie in a natural position.

Plenty of room, like spending your life in a cell the size of a twin bed with a ceiling no higher than a typical door frame—if you’re lucky. You would be performing your bodily functions there, too.

California breeders are required by law to take back pets if health problems arise within a given time, but often problems don’t show up until later. Animals taken back will be unloaded on someone else or disposed of—and it’s not always a “good death”, as implied by the Greek roots of the word “euthanasia”.

Even if the commercial breeders provided heaven on earth, it would still be bad for the pet population. Less than one percent of privately owned dogs meet the intact criteria of AB 1634. Genetic diversity is important to maintaining healthy populations, whether cat, dog, bird, or human. Genetic diversity is important in adapting to changing conditions and fending off disease. The more limited the gene pool, the more likely that a given genetic mutation will proliferate. Do we want our pets to resemble the royal houses of Europe?

AB 1634 is bad for California business

AB 1634 would adversely affect a range of economic sectors. California's $1.5 billion cattle industry and $54 million sheep industry depend on working dogs. The dogs have been carefully bred for generations for their ability. They are not show dogs, and are often not registered “pure bred”. If AB 1634 passed, these lines would be destroyed. Some breeds such as our very own California breed, the McNab http://www.flyballdogs.com/personal/mcnab.html , or http://www.legacyconnemaras.com/McNabHistory.html could be nearly eliminated. Perhaps hardest hit would be small, independent cattlemen producing range- fed beef. A ranching friend told me more than once that a good herding dog is worth four hired hands. Consider the difference in cost. We’ll be stuck with factory feedlot beef and factory dogs. Lovely. And that factory steak will cost more, too.

Hunters too, would face a limited supply of working stock, resulting in a hit to California’s $16 million hunting license revenue, not to mention loss of at least a portion of the $315 million hunters spend in California annually.

AB 1634 is elitist

AB 1634 will not affect the factory breeder who will be able to charge more for inferior dogs, only the small hobby breeder that produces one litter every few years from a high quality animal. AB 1634 won’t affect the wealthy and careless who can afford to plunk down a couple thousand for the flavor of the month in accessory canines and felines, be they dalmations, chihuahuas, or teacup Persians, without regard to the origin of the animal. AB 1634 will affect moderate income families who just want a nice dog or cat to love.

Why do I care? Why should you?

By way of full disclosure, I do not have an unaltered dog, and have no interest in breeding pups, but I’ve been the ownee of a long line of shelter dogs, rescue dogs, and a couple straight from the on-premises mom. They have enriched my life immeasurably.

I also have friends on working ranches and know how indispensable a good working dog can be. I fear that should AB 1634 pass, the only dogs and cats available would be through means that I could not in good conscience utilize or problem animals, whether due to health or disposition.

Dogs in particular have adapted over millennia to live and work with man, as man has adapted in return, creating unique bonds between the species. Let’s not break that bond.

Please contact your assembly member, your state senator, and Governor Schwarzenegger now.