[RedyreRottweilers]

Permission to crosspost and forward granted.

'California Healthy Pets Act' Assures Unintended Consequences:
Elimination of Healthy Pets!

California Political Desk

The California Political Desk provides information, news releases, and announcements obtained from communication and public relations offices throughout the state.


California Political Desk

June 11, 2007
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - The anti-pet movement has found a sponsor in the California legislature for a bill that strips pet owners of their traditional rights and, in the process, sharply reduces both the quantity and quality of purpose-bred dogs and cats -- including those bred for assistance to the disabled, and for search & rescue operations.

AB 1634 is backed by the extremist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and sponsored by Assembly Member Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys). If it passes, most California pet owners will have to sterilize their pets.

"This bill comes with a noble-sounding name but AB 1634, the so-called California Healthy Pets Act, will not improve the health of California pets," says Patti Strand, National Director of the National Animal Interests Alliance, one of the nation's most respected animal welfare groups.

The bill is fraught with unintended consequences. Among them: a predictable flood of unregulated -- and typically unhealthy -- dogs from Mexico, already the proven source of up to 10,000 illegal dogs sent to California each year according to US Customs and Border Protection: (http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2...er/puppies.xml). "In a global marketplace," according to Strand, "over-regulating the AKC and CFA hobby breeders who are the best source of healthy, well-socialized, home-raised puppies and kittens, creates a vacuum, effectively 'outsourcing' pet production to other countries that don't come close to reaching US standards of animal health, care or quality." The increasing demand for puppies has also led to the importation of strays rescued from foreign countries that are being marketed through non-profit organizations like The Animal Place (www.animalplace.org) and Compassion Without Borders (www.cwob.org). This influx harms California consumers and poses a significant public health threat.

Despite the claims of the bill's supporters, many respected California veterinarians oppose AB 1634, including one the state's most distinguished vets. Dr. John Hamil is past president of the California Veterinary Medical Association, founder of the California Council of Companion Animal Advocates that sponsored biannual Pet Overpopulation Symposia (now the Animal Care Conference), member of the American Veterinary Medical Association's Animal Welfare Committee and the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy and author of the CVMA and AVMA positions on early spay/neuter.

Dr. Hamil, a leader in spay/neuter programs, terms AB 1634 "divisive legislation [that] will not help and may aggravate the situation." Noting that young puppies and kittens are not biologically mature enough for spaying and neutering in many cases, Dr. Hamil states: "It is inappropriate to mandate a controversial and possibly life-threatening surgical procedure."

Also strongly opposed to AB 1634 is Sharon Vanderlip, DVM, former shelter animal veterinary clinician and surgeon, a longtime advocate of voluntary spaying and neutering. "This bill is not a 'healthy' pet act," said Dr. Vanderlip. "It will not help animals or improve their health. It will not reduce the shelter animal population. It will not reduce the number of animal euthanasias. To the contrary, the number of animals in shelters and the number of euthanasias will increase as people who cannot afford to alter their pets, or pay fines associated with non-compliance, will abandon their animals, relinquish them to shelters, or have them euthanized. This has already happened in municipalities that attempted similar legislation."

Christian Osmond, DVM, board-certified veterinary surgeon, opposes the bill on similar grounds. Dr. Osmond says he cannot reconcile his professional oath to "above all else ... do no harm" with programs that place political agendas above sound veterinary practice, a priority that could put pets at risk.

Canine Companions for Independence, an organization supporting assistance dogs for the disabled, opposes AB 1634 because even with exemptions for today's carefully supervised dogs, the bill's long-term effects would greatly reduce genetic diversity and threaten the existence of their breeding program.

Law enforcement groups -- representing tens of thousands of uniformed officers -- oppose AB 1634 because it will drastically reduce the future supply of dogs suitable for apprehending criminal suspects and performing vital Homeland Security tasks. (www.saveourdogs.net/letters.html). The U.S. Congress has recognized the critical need to breed more dogs for Homeland Security work with pending legislation HR 659. AB 1634 would send this important bipartisan effort into a tailspin.

"AB 1634 would shrink the pool of dogs that are suitable for search and rescue, undermining our ability to do this life-saving work," says Laura Sanborn, California K9 search and rescue volunteer.

The Mixed Breed Dog Clubs of America supports spay and neuter programs and in fact requires compliance for all MBDCA registered dogs. But president Cindy Leung said that AB 1634 will not solve the problem it claims to address. Instead, she said, the bill "punishes organizations, animal shelters, businesses and responsible breeders that have been among the few sources of education in regard to responsible pet ownership and breeding. Over 87% of animals relinquished to shelters are there due to behavioral problems; if California truly wants to solve the pet overpopulation problem it should promote training and behavior education rather than mandatory spay and neuter."

Animal shelter studies demonstrate that pet owners are well on their way to solving the pet population problems of yesterday. Today, California's largest animal problem is feral cats (cats without owners); but AB 1634 establishes no programs for these cats. Worse yet, it imposes penalties on cat breeders who breed and place their kittens with care.

NAIA director Strand notes that AB 1634's chief advocates claim they have "no relationship to animal extremists." However, PETA operatives play key roles in Social Compassion, a sister group to the bill's public supporter, CA Healthy Pets Coalition.

"Beyond AB 1634 itself, the issue at stake is responsible political process," NAIA's Strand concludes. "Will the California Assembly rely on the expertise of the state's animal professionals - including leading veterinarians, experts in law enforcement and service dog breeding programs, dedicated breed enthusiasts, animal welfare groups, the leading organizations for cats and dogs like Cat Fanciers Association (CFA) and the American Kennel Club (AKC), county Boards of Supervisors, and other respected individuals and organizations - or will they listen to groups that oppose all pets, healthy or not?"

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

-- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis


For more information contact: National Animal Interest Alliance Patti Strand, National Director 503-761-8962 naia@naiaonline.org http://www.naiaonline.org

SOURCE: National Animal Interest Alliance

[skunkstripe]

One can only hope that California lawmakers recognize their error and either repeal or amend this bill before too much damage is done .

[Curbside Prophet]

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

If it passes, most California pet owners will have to sterilize their pets.

This is the intention, yes, and since most dogs are owned by non-breeders or professsional handlers, these dogs should be s/n. I don't want my tax dollars paying to house my neighbor's "oops" litter when their dog could have been s/n.

Among them: a predictable flood of unregulated -- and typically unhealthy -- dogs from Mexico.[/quote]

This isn't a border controls bill. If more needs to be done at the borders, having that exposed as an unintended consequence, I would say is a good thing.

[quote]Dr. Hamil, a leader in spay/neuter programs, terms AB 1634 "divisive legislation [that] will not help and may aggravate the situation." Noting that young puppies and kittens are not biologically mature enough for spaying and neutering in many cases, Dr. Hamil states: "It is inappropriate to mandate a controversial and possibly life-threatening surgical procedure."[quote]

Either find a vet that is skilled in early s/n or find a vet who will write the letter that's requested by the bill. What's the problem? You want to wait, get a letter from your vet. Is that too much to ask?

To the contrary, the number of animals in shelters and the number of euthanasias will increase as people who cannot afford to alter their pets, or pay fines associated with non-compliance, will abandon their animals, relinquish them to shelters, or have them euthanized.

It's up to each individual municipality to fund low-cost or free s/n programs with the fund generated by this bill. To say it dosn't work in one area, yet it does in another, so scrap the bill altogether, does not highlight how it can be successful. It seems like a copout only to point out the failures, when we should be learning from the successes. I'm sure each municipality will have to learn this lesson too.

Christian Osmond, DVM, board-certified veterinary surgeon, opposes the bill on similar grounds. Dr. Osmond says he cannot reconcile his professional oath to "above all else ... do no harm" with programs that place political agendas above sound veterinary practice, a priority that could put pets at risk.

I don't see any problem with Christian writting a form letter for all his patience to have their animals s/n at a later time.

Canine Companions for Independence, an organization supporting assistance dogs for the disabled, opposes AB 1634 because even with exemptions for today's carefully supervised dogs, the bill's long-term effects would greatly reduce genetic diversity and threaten the existence of their breeding program.

Are they reading the original bill? It's been amended a few times to address this issue for service animals.

Over 87% of animals relinquished to shelters are there due to behavioral problems; if California truly wants to solve the pet overpopulation problem it should promote training and behavior education rather than mandatory spay and neuter."

I agree, and we should think about writting a bill for this too.

Animal shelter studies demonstrate that pet owners are well on their way to solving the pet population problems of yesterday.

Yes, well on their way, and they need momentum.

NAIA

I tend not to listen to yahoos on either side of this issue. They aren't helpful in finding solutions.



This will be my only contribution to beating this topic into submission. We'll give this thread 10 pages, and after that it will be closed for ya'll to start another one, I'm sure.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - The anti-pet movement has found a sponsor in the California legislature for a bill that strips pet owners of their traditional rights and, in the process, sharply reduces both the quantity and quality of purpose-bred dogs and cats -- including those bred for assistance to the disabled, and for search & rescue operations.

Can't you do better than posting such an obviously biased article? To start, it's not anti-pet and it doesn't reduce the quality. Just the opposite. It's pro-pet because it helps to insure that less animals are born, thereby giving more of a chance to homeless pets, and it improves the quality by stopping irresponsible breeding. It improves the quality by insuring that all breeders take part in competition, as part of a responsible breeding program.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

AB 1634 is backed by the extremist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and sponsored by Assembly Member Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys). If it passes, most California pet owners will have to sterilize their pets.

More biased reporting. The bill is also backed by hundreds of other humane groups and rescue groups, as well as the association of shelter managers.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

"This bill comes with a noble-sounding name but AB 1634, the so-called California Healthy Pets Act, will not improve the health of California pets," says Patti Strand, National Director of the National Animal Interests Alliance, one of the nation's most respected animal welfare groups.

NAIA is not an animal welfare group. They are lobbyists who represent animal industries. Their purpose is to fight for the rights of people to use animals. They are about "animal interests" not the interest of animals. They are not respected by people and groups that are working to make life better for the animals, and who understand what NAIA is about.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

The bill is fraught with unintended consequences. Among them: a predictable flood of unregulated -- and typically unhealthy -- dogs from Mexico, already the proven source of up to 10,000 illegal dogs sent to California each year according to US Customs and Border Protection: (http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2...er/puppies.xml). "In a global marketplace," according to Strand, "over-regulating the AKC and CFA hobby breeders who are the best source of healthy, well-socialized, home-raised puppies and kittens, creates a vacuum, effectively 'outsourcing' pet production to other countries that don't come close to reaching US standards of animal health, care or quality." The increasing demand for puppies has also led to the importation of strays rescued from foreign countries that are being marketed through non-profit organizations like The Animal Place (www.animalplace.org) and Compassion Without Borders (www.cwob.org). This influx harms California consumers and poses a significant public health threat.

People can breed whatever they want right now, and as pointed out, there is currently an influx of dogs from other countries. The answer is to tighten our borders, not to encourage breeding here by the average pet owner that knows nothing about producing healthy and well socialized animals. It's also ludicrous to say that an increased demand has led to importation from foreign rescue groups. Those groups are mostly bringing in the same type of dogs that are dying in the shelters here. If it was a problem involving demand for more animals, all people would have to do is go to their local shelter. Instead, foreign rescues tap into the compassion factor by letting people know that the foreign dogs are in much more dire straits than our humanely euthanized (hopefully) dogs. This is no different from the humane group caring for victims of disease and injury in foreign countries - "Doctors Without Borders" - instead of concentrating on victims of disease and injury here. To blame this on AB1634 or any other spay/neuter law, or breeder regulations, is an attempt to lie to the public.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

Despite the claims of the bill's supporters, many respected California veterinarians oppose AB 1634, including one the state's most distinguished vets. Dr. John Hamil is past president of the California Veterinary Medical Association, founder of the California Council of Companion Animal Advocates that sponsored biannual Pet Overpopulation Symposia (now the Animal Care Conference), member of the American Veterinary Medical Association's Animal Welfare Committee and the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy and author of the CVMA and AVMA positions on early spay/neuter.

The claim made by the bill's supporters is the truth - the CVMA did endorse this bill. Inherent in any groups endorsement is the fact that there will always be some in the group who do not agree. At one time, it was a fact that America supported the war, but to say so in no way was an indication that every American supported the war. To say "despite the claims" makes it sound like the bill's supporters lied, and that is false.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

Dr. Hamil, a leader in spay/neuter programs, terms AB 1634 "divisive legislation [that] will not help and may aggravate the situation." Noting that young puppies and kittens are not biologically mature enough for spaying and neutering in many cases, Dr. Hamil states: "It is inappropriate to mandate a controversial and possibly life-threatening surgical procedure."

It's already mandated in shelters throughout the state. Has Dr. Hamil fought that? Or doesn't he give a damn about shelter animals? According to the AVMA, young puppies and kittens are biologically mature enough, and the bill has provisions for the minority that aren't by allowing vets to certify that they aren't candidates for surgery, thereby creating a postponement.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

Also strongly opposed to AB 1634 is Sharon Vanderlip, DVM, former shelter animal veterinary clinician and surgeon, a longtime advocate of voluntary spaying and neutering. "This bill is not a 'healthy' pet act," said Dr. Vanderlip. "It will not help animals or improve their health. It will not reduce the shelter animal population. It will not reduce the number of animal euthanasias. To the contrary, the number of animals in shelters and the number of euthanasias will increase as people who cannot afford to alter their pets, or pay fines associated with non-compliance, will abandon their animals, relinquish them to shelters, or have them euthanized. This has already happened in municipalities that attempted similar legislation."

Note that she doesn't cite what those municipalities are so that situations can be compared. If someone can not afford to alter their pet, how are they going to afford caring for puppies or kittens and making sure they are altered so that the cycle doesn't continue? There are low-cost programs available, and I predict there will be even more when this bill is passed. The aim of the humane community is not to cause people to dump their animals, but if it happens, it's still going to be more manageable than trying to find homes for the litter after litter of unwanted puppies or kittens that animal would have had. As rescue, I'd sure prefer helping one dog than it and it's litter.

[DogAdvocat]

Continued..

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

Christian Osmond, DVM, board-certified veterinary surgeon, opposes the bill on similar grounds. Dr. Osmond says he cannot reconcile his professional oath to "above all else ... do no harm" with programs that place political agendas above sound veterinary practice, a priority that could put pets at risk.

I guess he doesn't know that animals are already at risk - in California's shelters. Because of the flood of kittens into the Los Angeles shelter system, this week they have closed intake to only a couple of hours a week, meaning that people will be trying to drop off their unwanted kittens and find the door closed. This is going to cause more to be dumped on the streets, or in rural neighborhoods where it becomes someone else's problem, or worse. The solution can't rely solely on extermination - it has to address the birth rate that causes the problem.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

Canine Companions for Independence, an organization supporting assistance dogs for the disabled, opposes AB 1634 because even with exemptions for today's carefully supervised dogs, the bill's long-term effects would greatly reduce genetic diversity and threaten the existence of their breeding program.

Why? Are they using backyard bred dogs in their program? If anything would reduce the health of their dogs, it would be to use irresponsibly bred dogs in their breeding program. This bill would help insure that only responsibly bred dogs would be bred, which would increase the quality of dogs available for the assistance programs.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

Law enforcement groups -- representing tens of thousands of uniformed officers -- oppose AB 1634 because it will drastically reduce the future supply of dogs suitable for apprehending criminal suspects and performing vital Homeland Security tasks. (www.saveourdogs.net/letters.html). The U.S. Congress has recognized the critical need to breed more dogs for Homeland Security work with pending legislation HR 659. AB 1634 would send this important bipartisan effort into a tailspin.

The last thing these programs need is irresponsibly bred dogs. This bill would help insure that only responsibly bred dogs would be available for these programs.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

"AB 1634 would shrink the pool of dogs that are suitable for search and rescue, undermining our ability to do this life-saving work," says Laura Sanborn, California K9 search and rescue volunteer.

They're using irresponsibly backyard bred dogs too? Shame on them. And shame on all of them that they would sacrifice hundreds of thousand of animals in order to find a few that they think will do the work needed, instead of supporting the responsible breeding of dogs.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

The Mixed Breed Dog Clubs of America supports spay and neuter programs and in fact requires compliance for all MBDCA registered dogs. But president Cindy Leung said that AB 1634 will not solve the problem it claims to address. Instead, she said, the bill "punishes organizations, animal shelters, businesses and responsible breeders that have been among the few sources of education in regard to responsible pet ownership and breeding. Over 87% of animals relinquished to shelters are there due to behavioral problems; if California truly wants to solve the pet overpopulation problem it should promote training and behavior education rather than mandatory spay and neuter."

Training has been available forever. There are low-cost, and even free, training programs available in California. The problem isn't with those that want to train their dogs. The problem is with those that refuse to do so. The issue with people claiming behavioral problems as the reason to give up their dog is that they bought the dog impulsively, probably from a backyard breeder who didn't care that it wasn't going to be a suitable home, without considering that they had neither the time or interest in training the dog. The "cuteness factor" wears off when the dog becomes an out-of-control juvenile that's full of energy and it's easier to just get rid of it than to train it. Promoting training and behavior education more than it already is, isn't going to change that.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

Animal shelter studies demonstrate that pet owners are well on their way to solving the pet population problems of yesterday. Today, California's largest animal problem is feral cats (cats without owners); but AB 1634 establishes no programs for these cats. Worse yet, it imposes penalties on cat breeders who breed and place their kittens with care.

First, being licensed is not a penalty. The only penalty is to those that are breeding irresponsibly, and they do not breed and place their kittens with care. They are the reason that kittens are dying in the pounds. And they are also the reason for feral cats - cats that were abandoned to the wild to produce more cats.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

NAIA director Strand notes that AB 1634's chief advocates claim they have "no relationship to animal extremists." However, PETA operatives play key roles in Social Compassion, a sister group to the bill's public supporter, CA Healthy Pets Coalition.

Again, there are hundreds of groups and individuals that have come out in support for this bill. All one has to do is go to the official website to see all the rescue groups that have endorsed it. Focusing on one controversial group and making it sound like it's the driving force is unethical.

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

"Beyond AB 1634 itself, the issue at stake is responsible political process," NAIA's Strand concludes. "Will the California Assembly rely on the expertise of the state's animal professionals - including leading veterinarians, experts in law enforcement and service dog breeding programs, dedicated breed enthusiasts, animal welfare groups, the leading organizations for cats and dogs like Cat Fanciers Association (CFA) and the American Kennel Club (AKC), county Boards of Supervisors, and other respected individuals and organizations - or will they listen to groups that oppose all pets, healthy or not?"

If it was the either/or situation she's stating, then she might have a point, but it's not. She makes it sound like it's all vets that are against it, and that is untrue too. Last thing I heard, law enforcement and service dog programs had approved the bill because their programs are now exempt. But the main thing is she makes it sound like the only groups for this bill are ones that oppose pets, and that's a flat out lie. Once again, go to the official website and note all the rescue groups that dedicate their time to rescue because they passionately love pets, and support this bill. http://www.cahealthypets.com/home.htm - Supporters include:
"National Animal Welfare Organizations

Virtually all the major animal welfare organizations involved in California, including:

- American Humane Association
- Animal Legal Defense Fund
- Animal Protection Institute
- Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
- Doris Day Animal League
- Humane Society of the United States
- In Defense of Animals
- International Fund for Animal Welfare
- ast Chance for Animals
- National Cat Protection
- United Animal Nations
CA State Rescue Organizations

Over 220 California based animals rescue organizations including virutally every major rescue group. "

But according to this article, I guess those are all pet haters, right?

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

-- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

"The greatness of a nation and it's moral progress can be judged by the way it's animals are treated." -- Mohandas Gandhi

[Curbside Prophet]

So much for being civil. Any singling out of members, versus ideas, will be cause for future banishment.