[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by Quincy

cshellenberger, the certain breeds you maybe refering to probably would have been present in Santa Cruz County, and all other things you mentioned probably would have also been present and had been thought about. Now think about was there any actual problems from early spay neutering and if there was I feel it would have been splattered everywhere in the media. Now think of the following and similar results maybe obtained throughout California if the Santa Cruz model was similarly applied.

"Santa Cruz County implemented a mandatory spay and neuter law in 1995. Within two years, the county began to see a noticable reduction in the number of animals entering its shelters. Within eight years, despite a 15 percent growth in the county’s human population, the number of animals entering Santa Cruz County shelters had been cut in half."

.

You keep showing that figure yet, you can't even read the numbers or labels on the axis on it. It could be saying anything. Who preformed the analysis? Where is the raw data? Did they do any tests of statistical significance on it? Show me the study, the data, analysis and tell me who funded and did the research. You can make numbers say basically whatever you want. And correlation does not equal causation anyways. What kind of statistics were done and was statistical significance even proven? Most 'statistics' you see online are horribly biased or not even relevant.

I have also seen these stats relating to the same thing:

Posts: 225
Joined: 3/5/2007
From: Florida
Status: online
Here are the statistics from Santa Cruz county from the last 4 years. They don't have anything on-line further back than that.
Intake Euthanasia's Euthanasia Rate
Year Cat Dog Cat Dog Cat Dog
2006 2,924 2,101 1,666 486 71.85% 23.13%
2005 3,254 2,151 1,712 444 66.10% 20.64%
2004 2,165 1,503 1,051 257 69.42% 17.10%
2003 1,805 1,403 1,805 225 77.73% 16.04%

http://www.theanimalcouncil.com/file...mary_95-05.pdf

So until I see either way proven to me by a reliable source, I don't know who to believe.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

No, some people just don't like their rights being stripped away.

What rights are those, the right that irresponsible people have to not S/N a dog or cat so that one male and female dog living for about 7 years could potentially produce thousands and thousands of animals, the majority of which will wind up in shelters to be euthanized, which may be done by drugs, gassing , or electrocution?

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by Captbob

What rights are those, the right that irresponsible people have to not S/N a dog or cat so that one male and female dog living for about 7 years could potentially produce thousands and thousands of animals, the majority of which will wind up in shelters to be euthanized, which may be done by drugs, gassing , or electrocution?

No, the right that responsible people have to decide when, where, and if their own dog should undergo an operation.

You can have intact dogs for many reasons and they do not have pups if you are responsible.

And i doubt one male and one female could produce thousands of dogs.

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

So until I see either way proven to me by a reliable source, I don't know who to believe.

I'm not going to help you as you seem quite determined against what's happening. But I will say that not everything is on the internet and if you want that information then contact Santa Cruz County, ask nicely and someone there can direct you to a person who can provide you with what you seek. Alternatively, contact those directly involved with AB1634 and someone might provide what you seek.
.

[SFury]

Originally Posted by Quincy

Personally I think the bill is a good thing, we (as a society) have to find solutions to the horrific pet overpopulation crisis and the mass killing of pets. The whole purpose of the Bill is to help address this and it does as seen in the Santa Cruz model. Breeders can obtain exemptions and what it costs them they will pass on to puppy buyers, so it's the pet owners that this Bill really targets and it's the pet owners who create the massive demand for puppies. It certainly seems wrong for all of us responsible pet owners to have to pick up the slack and spay neuter, but that's just the way it is like it or not, we (as a society) have to find solutions to the horrific pet overpopulation crisis and the mass killing of pets. Those who can offer a better solution then please contact those directly involved with the Bill.
.

Wow. Talk about imposing stupid laws on law abiding citizens. This is the same type of legislation that they try to pass for gun control laws. The only people affected are those that follow the law.

BYBs and puppy mills will still be spitting out dogs. BYBs won't be registering their animals, and the mills will be exempt. Don't be naive to think that people who want an unaltered animal won't have one. This is the same problem with people who want drugs. They can easily get illegal drugs throughout most of America. Why not focus on that instead of an ineffective animal population bill?

They can't keep handguns away from criminals where strict gun bans are enforced. What makes you think that AC personnel can enforce this incredibly broad law?

There is also evidence out there supporting the fact that neutering large dogs too soon can cause problems. There needs to be a more defined neuter/spay policy that addresses the health concerns for those big dogs.

I agree that something needs to be done, but that bill goes too far. Find the root of the problem and fix it.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

No, the right that responsible people have to decide when, where, and if their own dog should undergo an operation.

You can have intact dogs for many reasons and they do not have pups if you are responsible.

And i doubt one male and one female could produce thousands of dogs.

First of all, if everyone was "responsible" as you put it, we wouldn't need laws about anything. I meet so many people at the park that tell me that they are not S/N their animals for the dumbest reasons. Then you see people on the weekend with cardboard boxes, outside strip malls giving anyone and everyone taht wants one, a six week old pup, because they found out the hardway that their decision not to S/N wasn't too bright. Communities spend millions and millions of dollars to control unwanted animals. The people that have no sense of responsibility for S/N their pets, have to be forced by law to do it. Apparently, they are not smart enough to realize this on their own.

As for the statistics about reproducing, this was from a Vet college and it simply takes the average number of pups a dog can have in each litter, times the number of litters they can have in a seven year period. Then if all these pups grow up to be adults and have their own litters, it works out to:

Dogs One male and One Female Times 7 years equals 50,000 dogs

Cats One male and One female times 7 years Equals 420,000 Cats.

Now if you have the credentials to dispute this, I would be interested in hearing your statistics and how you derived them.......

Just a side note, It took me about 3 minutes to type this post. During that time in the US alone, 20 pets were killed in this country due to overpopulation. That is one every nine seconds.

[Curbside Prophet]

If anyone read the bill analysis I left in the previous post, there are some alarming points to understand.

For example, there's no provisions for rare breeds, or breeds that are not recognized by the AKC, yet recognized in other parts of the world or dog community.

The law does state that you have 75 days to comply after 4 months to not be fined. However, even for larger breeds like Danes, 6 months is still too early to spay.

The bill states that it's up to jurisdictions to fund education and outreach programs. This is silly! This should be the starting point and the priority.

Jurisdictions have the right to force breeders out of their community, regardless if a breeder meets all the demands of this law.

Jurisdictions can ban breeds. Those of you with powerful animals, you're next. You may have to move because of your dog.

Surprisingly, small communities can give away intact animals out of shelters. Where's the sense in that?

The analysis also listed many arguments for and against this bill, but I did not read a counter argument about how this bill will stop puppy mills. This needs to be addressed.

Of the organizations that registered support or opposition, 267 organizations resgistered support, where 339 registered opposition. The split was clearly defined by rescue versus club.

[cshellenberger]

This bill does ABSOLUTELY nothing about mass production breeders! I'm sorry, but puppy mills are the major contributors to pet overpopulation. I refuse to spay/nueter a giant breed dog before 1 year due to the risks involved. Most Vets who specialize in these breeds will also refuse.

Also, how is this law going to be enforced? Through licensing? Do you have any idea HOW many dogs are never licensed? I assure you there are not enough AC officers anywhere in CA to go door to door checking licensing.

If the people who passed this really cared about controlling pet populations they'd have introduced legislation to make it illegal to sell dogs in a store or swap meet. Thereby eliminating one avenue for puppy mills and pet stores to sell thier pups.

This is from the MCOA code of ethics, it would be excellent legislation to control pet populations and eliminate BYB and Puppy Mills. Keep in mind that this is the code of ethics for most breed clubs and responsible breeders follow this closely.

1. I will not allow a bitch to be bred prior to her reaching twenty-two (22) months of age, nor shall any bitch be bred after her seventh (7) birthday. A bitch will not be bred more than once in any (12) month period unless she does not whelp a litter, the litter is stillborn, consists of a single (1) pup, or as part of a veterinarian's recommendation for treatment of pyometra. Any other reason would need to be stated in writing, along with a licensed veterinarian's certification of good health, to be received by the Recording Secretary at least fourteen (14) days prior to the breeding for the Board's approval.
2. I will sell a Mastiff only to a buyer whom I believe to be interested in the protection of the breed and who would agree in writing to provide the highest quality of care for said Mastiff, including quality food, water, proper shelter from heat or cold; active companionship, appropriate exercise, socialization and professional veterinary care whenever necessary.
3. An MCOA member will sell each Mastiff puppy/adult on a written contract signed by all parties. Said contract shall contain, but is not limited to the following provisions:
4. Complete care/feeding instructions.
5. A record of inoculations and worming with a recommended continuation schedule.
6. Provide the buyer with a five (5) generation pedigree on the litter.
7. Furnish a signed AKC registration or transfer form, unless written agreement is made with the buyer that such papers are withheld or are to follow.
8. A provision that ensures that the breeder is contacted whenever an owner can no longer keep a dog at anytime in the dog's life and that the breeder will take back that dog if asked to do so.
9. Stipulate that the buyer have a veterinary check-up within five (5) working days of the sale, (or whatever is applicable in your state of residence), to determine that the Mastiff is healthy. If the veterinarian determines that the Mastiff is not in good health, the breeder will, upon the Mastiffs return, refund the purchase price or replace the Mastiff.
10. I will not knowingly sell or provide a Mastiff for resale, gift or prize or to a broker/agent for resale. I will not engage in the brokering of puppies, (selling or buying), EXCEPT in a case that would prevent a potential rescue situation. ALL SUCH CASES MUST be documented by letter to the MCOA Recording Secretary.
11. I will not sell a puppy/adult who is sick, nor will I ship or deliver to the buyer a puppy less than eight (8) weeks of age.
12. I will show good sportsmanship at all times and in all matters relating to Mastiffs. I will maintain the highest degree of honesty and integrity. I will not knowingly make a misstatement of fact in any serious discussion of my Mastiffs or the Mastiffs of any other Mastiff owner that I might have with persons not qualified to judge the facts for themselves. When advertising my Mastiffs in any media (magazines, internet websites, mail, email, etc.) I will not make false or misleading statements. I will only use a picture of another owner's Mastiff with the owner's express permission and I will clearly identify that Mastiff and the Mastiff's owner in the ad.
13. I will take back any Mastiff bred/sold by me who has been displaced. If I am unable to do so, I will assist MCOA Rescue or a regional Mastiff club rescue in the placement of said Mastiff. I will reimburse MCOA Rescue for all costs incurred not to exceed $300.00.
14. I will require the neutering/spaying of any puppy/adult I place or sell as pet quality as soon as the dog reaches the appropriate age. The MCOA recommends puppies deemed pet quality be placed with "Limited" Registration; puppies whose quality is questionable should be placed with "Limited" Registration which is reversible, if appropriate, when said puppy becomes more mature and a better determination of quality can be rendered; show/breeding quality puppies should be placed with either "Full" or "Limited" Registration.
15. I will not sell, nor use, a Mastiff for the purpose of attack training, fighting, or any other sport detrimental to the breed and its reputation.
16. I will not produce more than eight (8) litters in any twenty-four (24) month period per household nor will I permit my stud dog to be used in a program which would exceed eight (8) litters per twenty-four (24) month period per household. I will not purposely evade these guidelines by putting my dogs in the name of friends or other family members.
17. I will provide the highest quality care to all Mastiffs that I own, or that are in my possession, for as long as they are in my care including quality food, water, proper shelter from heat or cold; active companionship, appropriate exercise, socialization, and professional veterinary care whenever necessary. I will never abuse, nor knowingly allow abuse of these same Mastiffs.

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by SFury

There is also evidence out there supporting the fact that neutering large dogs too soon can cause problems. There needs to be a more defined neuter/spay policy that addresses the health concerns for those big dogs.

If that is so then I suggest you gather all that supporting information and immediately present it to those directly involved with this Bill, this so amendments maybe considered and made to the Bill before it becomes Law. Personally I feel that this should have been done ages ago by the Breed Clubs concerned.

Also I suggest you present that supporting information to the media particularly so during this time of the Bill as I feel the media would be interested, but keep in mind I feel that the media may also want to obtain a view regarding this from the veterinary association and veterinary specialists and in what they experienced in actual practice particularly where early spay neuter laws have already been applied.
.

[Curbside Prophet]

How about controlling the real source of the problem, owners!

http://www.petpopulation.org/exploring.pdf

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

This bill does ABSOLUTELY nothing about mass production breeders![/list]

The Bill targets pet owners (the demand) and they are the ones this spay neuter Bill really effects, and Breeders can obtain exemptions and also those who compete in showing can obtain exemptions including "working dogs". If you want this Bill or another Bill to target mass production breeders then submit your proposals, and you might consider a collective endevour via Breed Clubs or the AKC which may produce better proposals.

Keep in mind that this Bill is based on Santa Cruz, and which did not target mass production breeders, yet they obtained great results in what they wanted where there was a 63% decrease in dogs and cats in their pounds/shelters, as the numbers were reduced this then gave all those there a chance to find a new home.
.

[Laurelin]

Originally Posted by Quincy

I'm not going to help you as you seem quite determined against what's happening. But I will say that not everything is on the internet and if you want that information then contact Santa Cruz County, ask nicely and someone there can direct you to a person who can provide you with what you seek. Alternatively, contact those directly involved with AB1634 and someone might provide what you seek.
.

Interesting... All I'm asking for is the study you pulled your chart off of, the stats to go along with it and a larger version of it. I find it odd you keep presenting that and do not care to back up your claims with facts. I'm not claiming any statistics, just pointing out I saw other stats for the same thing also supposedly from Santa Cruz Cali and they are conflicting. neither seems to be cited, so what do I believe. Neither. If you have a real study, show me.

I'm also confused as to why you only seem to post on threads relating to AB 1634 and nothing else...

And fyi: I'm in NO means against spaying/neutering. Two of four of my dogs are fixed, and I do believe all purely pet dogs should be fixed.

[sillylilykitty]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

And fyi: I'm in NO means against spaying/neutering. Two of four of my dogs are fixed, and I do believe all purely pet dogs should be fixed.

I agree, all purely pets should be spayed. I only wish the AKC had a different class for spayed/neutered dogs like CFA does. My cat is a spayed show cat and I love showing her. One day I want to show a purebred dog, only problem would be im not sure if I want a whole dog around. Not because I dont like whole dogs, but because I dont want any accidental puppies. Everyone makes mistakes.

I love cat/dog shows.

[Curbside Prophet]

This is how mandatory s/n can actually cost municipalities more in the long run.

NAIA: A performance analysis of King County Animal Control Ordinance

Great idea, but it doesn't work in all cases...especially when the demand for good dogs is greater than the supply, or when owners are too lazy to educate themselves.

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by Laurelin

I'm not claiming any statistics, just pointing out I saw other stats for the same thing also supposedly from Santa Cruz Cali and they are conflicting. neither seems to be cited, so what do I believe. Neither.

Sounds like your starting to do a study, continue on and if the information you gather conflicts then I suggest you hand it over to those in direct opposition to the Bill. Also, where you see information mentioned in the media where it conflicts with what you have gathered then contact the media.
.

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

This is how mandatory s/n can actually cost municipalities more in the long run.

NAIA: A performance analysis of King County Animal Control Ordinance

Great idea, but it doesn't work in all cases...especially when the demand for good dogs is greater than the supply, or when owners are too lazy to educate themselves.

I read something that revenue generated by licensing went in to a "general fund", and instead of that money being used for spay neutering programs as intended actually most of it went in to an out-of-control spending spree on parks, playgrounds and social services. Maybe a lesson that money collected from licenses really should go in to it's own "special fund" so it cannot be used by others for other things.
.

Originally Posted by sillylilykitty

I only wish the AKC had a different class for spayed/neutered dogs like CFA does. My cat is a spayed show cat and I love showing her.

That might be achieved in the AKC, and maybe it's a matter of getting enough people together to work on a proposal and submit it then see what happens. Also there maybe people interested in showing their young puppies, say in a "baby puppy class" for ages 3 to 6 months old but maybe in this class they are not eligible for points to title, again as above maybe submitting a proposal is required.

It's good to look around to see what others have done and borrow from their experiences, say like in the CFA cat registry, and also include looking around the world. Say like over in Australia I see a "baby puppy class" and also "neuter classes for dogs and bitches", so if they have such things maybe that could be included in AKC shows and maybe it's a matter of submitting proposals, see a Part of the Regulations for Conformation Showing for Australia at this address:-
http://www.ankc.aust.com/regspart5.html
.

[cshellenberger]

Quincy,
to put it quite simply you still haven't told me how this will be enforced. The result of this will simply be that people don't license their dogs to avoid spaying and Nuetering. Spay nueter education has been around for many years and done little good. We are not talking about responsible pet owners, responsible owners seldom give up their pets to shelters. We are talking about people who look at dogs and cats as disposible and will not put out the money to spay/nueter. They would rather allow animal services to take an animal rather than do what they should, then go out to the swap meet or pet store to buy another pet.

One other thing I don't see is an exemption for dogs with certain medical conditions tht could make a spay/nueter dangerous or complicated. These conditions include von Willibrands and ectopic uterer as well as severe heart murmers.

Honestly, this legislation does more to protect mass breeders while taking away the choices of responsible owners.

[Quincy]

cshellenberger, if you look at any Law you will find some people who don't abide by them, so yes you will find some people who don't license their dogs to avoid spaying and nuetering, but if they somehow do get caught then they could be made to pay dearly.
BUT, keep in mind situations like you described certainly would have been present in Santa Cruz County, yet even so they did achieve well over 50% less dogs and cats in shelters.
To me the Bill will help to address problems and I am not so concerned by some people who do not abide by Laws, besides as time passes the probability increases that sooner or later they will get caught.

As for certain medical conditions then simply apply for an intact permit, and from the Bill here is what needs to be done:-
"e) The owner provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the animal."

I'm not responding to your other comment as I've already posted elsewhere.
.

[Quincy]

cshellenberger, just to add in regards to those who do not abide to laws, well in time authorities just might look around America and in other countries for solutions to address those who do not abide to laws.

Here is something that works in catching those who do not license their dogs, and here they call licences local registrations, and if you don't have enough staff then simply hire a special private firm to do this, and what's collected in fines and increased licences/registrations pays for it plus there tends to be extra money suddenly available that could be put to good use. Who knows just maybe something like this just might be proposed if there was a need to do so. And the below from this address:-
http://www.mountalexander.vic.gov.au...nDoorKnock.pdf

Australia
Mount Alexander Shire Council
Media Release
30 May 2006
Pet Registration Door Knock

Residents of the Mount Alexander Shire are reminder that Dog and Cat registration renewals were due on 10 April 2006. An audit of domestic Dogs and Cats is being undertaken by officers engaged by Bartels Taylor and Associates on behalf of the Council.

Doorknocks of households throughout the Shire will be conducted during the month of June 2006. Owners of dogs and cats are encouraged to register their pets before 1 July 2006.

It is an offence under the Domestic (Feral & Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 to not register your dog or cat. Failure to register your pet by 1 July 2006 will result in a $210 infringement being issued to the owner of the animal. Registration forms are available at Council offices.

For more information please contact Mount Alexander Shire Council, Local Laws on 54711700.
.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by Quincy

cshellenberger, just to add in regards to those who do not abide to laws, well in time authorities just might look around America and in other countries for solutions to address those who do not abide to laws.

Here is something that works in catching those who do not license their dogs, and here they call licences local registrations, and if you don't have enough staff then simply hire a special private firm to do this, and what's collected in fines and increased licences/registrations pays for it plus there tends to be extra money suddenly available that could be put to good use. Who knows just maybe something like this just might be proposed if there was a need to do so. And the below from this address:-
http://www.mountalexander.vic.gov.au...nDoorKnock.pdf

Australia
Mount Alexander Shire Council
Media Release
30 May 2006
Pet Registration Door Knock

Residents of the Mount Alexander Shire are reminder that Dog and Cat registration renewals were due on 10 April 2006. An audit of domestic Dogs and Cats is being undertaken by officers engaged by Bartels Taylor and Associates on behalf of the Council.

Doorknocks of households throughout the Shire will be conducted during the month of June 2006. Owners of dogs and cats are encouraged to register their pets before 1 July 2006.

It is an offence under the Domestic (Feral & Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 to not register your dog or cat. Failure to register your pet by 1 July 2006 will result in a $210 infringement being issued to the owner of the animal. Registration forms are available at Council offices.

For more information please contact Mount Alexander Shire Council, Local Laws on 54711700.
.

If you consider the millions of dollars that the taxpayers will save in caring for the pet overpopulation, they can certainly hire some pretty well qualified people to enforce these laws. They could probably get Vets ro report animals that they see that are not S/N also.. It is so easy for the naysayers to say " Oh it can't work, so let's just do what we have been doing" and have animals killed by the thousands in Shelters.....

[lovemygreys]

They could probably get Vets ro report animals that they see that are not S/N also

So now veterinarians are being turned into the s/n police? Hopefully vets and their assorted associations will protest and/or refuse to be an enforcement arm of the government. If you support this bill, then YOU pay for the enforcement.

This law is wrong on so many levels, it's just sickening. Another example of good intentions implemented through bad legislation. If it passes, I'm sure it will be challenged in court. Thank doG we still have that little document called the United States Constitution which still protects <some> of our privacy and property rights from those who would wish to erode them...or just get rid of them all together.

...off to thank my lucky stars that I don't live in California.