$500 Fine for Pets not Spayed or Neutered by 4 MONTHS!!!

[Yorkiedaze]

They make these laws to cut down on breeding, but they don't have any people to actually enforce it. If you buy a puppy and don't have it spayed or neutered, how will they know you didn't? Who is going to come to your home? They have good intentions, but no back-up!

[Akina]

I understand why they want to do this, however I think we need to think it through more carefully.
I'll be fined right now because Momiji is 7.5 month old and not spayed yet.
I want to but she is so small so my vet wants to wait little longer to make sure she is strong enough to go throught the surgery.
So if they pass the bill, my Momiji had to get her surgery at 4 month old when she only eight 1.9 lb!!!!! That's crazy.
Responsible owner will NOT have unwanted pregnancy and won't let puppy end up in the shelter.
The problem is puppy mill with unhealthy puppies.
We need to take care of that problem instead of penalizing responsible pet owner!!!!

[Mardelin]

This law will not do what it says it's suppose to....
75% of the dogs in California today are being bought over the internet. Other's are being brought in Eastern Block Countries.....

You won't be stopping the puppy mills and or commercial dog breeders.....they've figured out how to get around laws, they are cunning and without morals....so they'll be here long after the reputable breeder is gone.

[Dan & Corinne]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

This law will not do what it says it's suppose to....
75% of the dogs in California today are being bought over the internet. Other's are being brought in Eastern Block Countries.....

You won't be stopping the puppy mills and or commercial dog breeders.....they've figured out how to get around laws, they are cunning and without morals....so they'll be here long after the reputable breeder is gone.

You are doing a fantastic job trying to explain what is wrong with this bill. Thank you! You are helping me express what I feel is a very bad idea. The "sell" is save the animals but like so many proposed bills and laws don't deliver what they promised or is represented falsely and this is one of them.

Bottom line, this bill will not cut back on the number of shelter animals. It's all about making money and controlling the suppy and demand.

Here are the main points that this bill is bad:

No More Purebred Cats or Dogs in California - The bill provides a complex exception for show animals that no cat or dog in California can meet. For example, it requires that by the age of four months a cat or dog must have competed in a ?legitimate show.? Dogs must be at least SIX MONTHS of age to compete in sanctioned events so this is an impossible test to meet. The proponents of AB 1634 have carefully crafted both versions of the proposal so that the future of show cats and dogs in California is doomed.

Reputable Breeders Are Not the Problem ?Reputable breeders already adhere to national Codes of Ethics that requires that their ?pet? offspring be neutered as a condition of sale and that their ?show? offspring be developed as potential outstanding specimens of their breed. Their offspring DO NOT become part of the abandoned animal population.

California Pet Buyers Will Be Harmed - AB 1634 will cause fewer good quality pets to be available from California breeders to California pet buyers, but it will not diminish the public's demand for pets. By discouraging local breeders, the demand will be met from other sources. Some California shelters are already importing pets from overseas for adoption and puppies are smuggled into California from Mexico every day to meet current demand.

Unwanted Pet Population Will Not Be Reduced ? Most owned cats are sterilized, as high as 92% in some studies. Many of the cats euthanized by shelters come from the free roaming/unowned cat population. These wild, unowned cats will not be affected by a new law. Reputable dog breeders reclaim their unwanted or abused offspring so they do not become part of the ?unwanted pet? problem. Dogs from irresponsible, often out-of-state, breeders too often end up unwanted and euthanized. Those breeders will not be subject to, or comply with, any new law.

This Law Will Burden Local Shelters - AB 1634 is an unfunded mandate on local government. It will only further burden counties and municipalities and divert limited resources that would be better utilized elsewhere. The cost of enforcement will be high and California taxpayers will ultimately pay for this legislation. Jurisdictions that have imposed unaltered dog/cat licensing and breeder permits have found them to be costly and unenforceable.

[Dan & Corinne]

Here's another view against this bill:


Industrial breeders are exempt. If you aren't cranking out enough puppies to need a business license and Federal and State tax id numbers, you are done.

No automatic exemption for AKC, UKC, or ADBA. Those of you who thought you got a pass are now in the boat with everyone else, dependent on the whims of your local animal control agency
So you want to try to keep your puppy intact. To qualify for a permit he/she must have been shown within the past two years at a venue approved by your local animal control agency. It's a four month old puppy. Who shows baby puppies?!

Police dogs and guide dogs would be exempt...once they are fully trained. The baby puppies that might grow up to be police dogs or guide dogs must be spayed or neutered. The young adults in training must be spayed or neutered also. What happens when they are "documented as having been trained"? Do their parts grow back somehow?
Where do police dogs and guide dogs come from? Their parents must be spayed or neutered. Guess they come from the State approved puppy-mills.
You jump through all the hoops and manage to keep your once-in-a-lifetime ideal bitch intact for a few years. You retire her from competition to let her be a mother. Two years later you must spay her because she hasn't competed in two years.

Working stock dog? No exemptions. They are history.

We thought the purpose of this bill was to reduce the number of animals euthanized in shelters. This draft grants a blanket exemption to industrial breeders. Small breeders who choose their stock carefully, breed a couple of litters every year or two, and personally interview every prospective new owner are doomed. So instead of a small number of well bred puppies in carefully selected homes, we now get State approved puppy-mill puppies available to one and all at your local mall.
The San Francisco Dog Show sponsored by Golden Gate Kennel Club at the Cow Palace is one of only four all-breed benched shows left in the country. Well, make that three. Animal Control can stand at the door and slap every out of state entry with a $500 fine for not having an intact permit. Think anybody will enter? All other national and regional dog events will suffer the same fate.
As bad as mandatory spay/neuter is, the thing that makes this bill so much worse is that everything is "in the sole discretion of the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency." That means every year when you go to renew your intact permit you are at the mercy of whoever is in charge at that time. So can you get a permit for your ASCA Aussie? Who knows? It depends on the whims of your local animal control agency. If your county says "No ASCA Aussies," you are out of luck because they have "sole discretion". That means they get to decide and nobody can do anything about it. In doesn't matter what they did last year or what another county does. They can do whatever they want.

[proudyorkiemom]

reputable breeder usually dont have more then 10 dogs, right?
well, 50 to 100 dollars per dog isn't going to stop any breeder from breeding. especially since yorkies sell for so much.
I totally think breeders should have permits!
if anything it will start the process of better regulations on puppy mills

[Sukoshi's Mom]

My vet wouldn't even spay Sukoshi until she was AT LEAST 6 months old, and he said he may want/need to wait even longer, depending on her size at 6 months. As it happens, we ended up spaying her when she was almost 7 months old, but 4 months?!?!? Who even came up with that number?!?!?!?

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by Sukoshi's Mom

My vet wouldn't even spay Sukoshi until she was AT LEAST 6 months old, and he said he may want/need to wait even longer, depending on her size at 6 months. As it happens, we ended up spaying her when she was almost 7 months old, but 4 months?!?!? Who even came up with that number?!?!?!?

Those Animal Rights Activists, who would like to do away with Pure Bred dogs and any pet ownership completely. There is a difference between Animal Rights Activits, PETA, HSUS, etc and Animal Welfare.

[Mardelin]

Puppy Mills & Commercial Breeders will not be stopped they are breeding to sell puppies period and can afford the fees.

[MeganS]

I do think it can do a lot of good. But they generalized WAY too much. First off, there are MANY dogs (ie, yorkies) that are, at 4 months, still too old to be spayed/neutered. and sometimes they are so small that it is dangerous no matter what age they are. and what if you get a new dog that is over 4 months old and you haven't gotten it fixed yet? That's not very fair.

But there are a lot of pros, too.

[stow1]

Outsourcing Pet Owner Privacy for Profit

Lloyd Levine's mandatory castration proposal could lead to record
corporate profits -- pet owners are in the crosshairs

Has your personal information been databanked ?

Read it and weep, California pet owners. Last week we did a little
speculating on enforcement strategies for Lloyd Levine's radical proposal
to surgically sterilize every single pet dog and cat in the entire state
of California.

But that was then, and this is now. The beat goes on.

The Mother of All Databases is already a reality

PetData Inc., a private corporation in Irving, Texas, already collects
information on law-abiding citizens who happen to own pets. They say
they have already databanked information on 2 million residents in more
than 20 U. S. communities, and four entire counties. Matthews, North
Carolina, just joined the ranks of municipalities contracts with PetData.

Your personal privacy on the auction block

If you live in a community that outsourced animal licensing functions
to PetData, you may not even realize it yet. When you vaccinate your
cats and dogs for rabies, your vet forwards the details to PetData Inc.

Your name, your address, your contact information. And your dog's, or
cat's, veterinary information- cat's, veterinary information-<wbr>-in
goes into for-profit PetData Inc.'s privately-owned, privately-controlle g
database.

PetData proudly advertises its membership in the Humane Society of the
United States. It has no corporate privacy policy.

From rabies vaccination to Animal Control at the door --two shakes of a
lamb's tail!

These California communities already contract with PetData--

a.. Antioch
b.. Dana Point
c.. Fairfield
d.. Oakland
e.. Riverside
f.. San Clemente
g.. San Luis Obispo
h.. Torrance
i.. Vacaville
j.. Vallejo
k.. County of San Luis Obispo
l.. County of Solano
If you live in one of these California municipalities or counties, your
local elected officials struck a deal with PetData. For a modest fee,
PetData is doing the animal licensing enforcement for your community. If
you vaccinate an unlicensed pet, you're going to hear from PetData.

But it gets better.

PetData can kick back and watch the profits roll in

Matthews, North Carolina, is paying them $3.75 for each one year
license they collect on.

That's just the beginning.

Its the aftermarket sales that are going to be most valuable to
PetData.

Insurance companies, landlords, breed bigots, pet supply marketers. .
.Gonad Nazis

PetData is building itself one hell of a marketable databank. Not just
for California, either. Check out the website. Albuquerque signed a
five year contract with PetData.

But in a world where greed is good. . . who cares? Its the American
way. Plus, your dog or cat is already neutered. You're not breaking any
laws. Life is good. Right?

Wrong.

The New York Times reports that its virtually impossible to find
housing in Manhattan--where housing vacancy rates hover in the very low
single digits-- if your household includes a dog that weighs over 20 lbs. If
you've got more than one dog or cat? Fuhgeddaboutit.

Gawd knows insurance companies are itching to drop dog owners. They
just have to find 'em.

But Gonad Nazis on a mission ? Oooh, baby! PetData is marketing the
reports it can run from the data it collects. Need a list of households
with intact dogs or cats in Riverside, California? Shazaam!

Not paranoia. Not a conspiracy theory. They are coming for you. And
certain sensitive parts of your pets.

The Humane Society of the United States, the largest, wealthiest animal
extremist organization in the country--one that is dedicated to
eliminating pet ownership-- is already using PetData as a mouthpiece.

Will municipalities increasingly outsource law enforcement
responsibilities to profit-motivated private organizations? Ones with no public
accountability?

As a private corporation, PetData's employees are responsible to their
own Board of Directors. We the People don't get to vote on what they
do, or how they do it.

Meanwhile, back at the Nanny-State nursery

Poor, clueless Lloyd Levine.

Levine -- the pro-choice Democrat, representing a pro-choice
constituency in a pro-choice state -- who wants to deny pet owners any choices.

Levine-the-liberal -- now turned animal extremist poop-boy-- intent on
bringing fascism to the homes of California dog and cat owners.

Maybe freedom of choice and the right to privacy really don't matter to
Lloyd Levine. Or maybe he thinks its okay to deny these liberties to
"certain people", like pet-owning Californians.

But I'm thinking the 60+ percent of Californians that own cats and dogs
would kick his butt from one end of the state to the other if they knew
what AB 1634 really means to them, and to the pets they love.

[stow1]

REMEMBER if it PASSES in California, PETA and HSUS will be using CA AB 1634 as model legislation for YOUR STATE NEXT YEAR.

This is not just about the right to own the Pet of your choice it is

about the INSIDIOUS EROSION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES and PROPERTY RIGHTS.

It is about the NANNY GOVERNMENT (city/county/state/federal) telling

AMERICAN CITIZENS WE ARE NOT SMART ENOUGH to CONTROL OUR OWN LIVES
Failure to comply will mean facing FINES of $500 per pet for each 30

days you are out of compliance. Additionally there will be CIVIL and

or CRIMINAL PENALTIES. Imagine having a CRIMINAL RECORD because you

did not have radical surgery performed on your puppy or kitten.

They say that there are exemptions for SOME pure breeds that are

registered with AKC for dogs or CFA for cats and a few other

registries but no rare breeds no designer breeds. The requirement for

these exemptions are all but impossible to meet. This MEAN SPIRITED

legislation mandates that the cities and counties write laws that are

incompliance with the legislation or more strict.

[stow1]

AB 1634 will require all dogs and cats in California be surgically sterilized at 4 months of age unless they are purebreds and can qualify for special, government-issued permits. Owners of unaltered dogs and cats will be fined $500 per pet and face possible criminal penalties. More » READ AT PETPAC.NET This bill is not the answer! Read it! My city is so greedy that they will charge a fortune. Might start small, but you can bet, once they figure they can make money the fines and fees will sky rocket! This could be your City or State too!

[maybeiloveyou]

A bill to reduce the number of unwanted dogs and cats by requiring the spaying or neutering of pets has won approval in the state Assembly -- with a little help from retiring "The Price is Right" host Bob Barker.

The measure passed the Assembly by a 41-38 vote Wednesday, the bare majority it needed to move to the Senate.

Supporters mounted a lobbying effort that included phone calls to wavering Democrats by Barker, who contacted lawmakers after hosting his final show Wednesday.

He had ended each show by asking that viewers spay or neuter their pets. Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, the bill's sponsor, said he also had support from singer Lionel Richie.

"Bob Barker, Lionel Richie -- we had a lot of help on this," Levine said after the vote. "It's a huge team effort."

The bill would require most dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered by the time they are 4 months old, the age at which they begin to reach sexual maturity. Failure to have the procedure could result in a $500 fine for owners.

Levine said the bill was needed to ease a huge population of unwanted pets that is costing state and local governments $300 million a year.

The bill includes several exceptions, including for show animals, police dogs and guide dogs and for animals that are too old or ill to be spayed or neutered.

Critics of the bill called it "micromanaging at its worst" and feared it would force breeders and other pet owners to pay "extortion fees" to get exceptions.

Levine promised to amend the bill in the state Senate to allow any dog or cat owner to buy a permit that would allow the animal to remain unfixed and have one litter a year. The permit would have to be renewed annually.

Levine also said he would modify the bill's language to ensure that a pet owner cited for failure to have an animal spayed or neutered would not have to pay the $500 fine if he or she agreed to have the animal fixed.
----------------

I guess it's up to the Senate now?

[candybaby]

I think its just another way for the government to make money off us . I don't think anything will change backyard breeders (or whatever you want to call them) will just find ways around the law and we will STILL have all the unwanted dogs/cats in the pound. Some people don't even register their dogs now, so what makes them think they are going to register them when the bill passes..

This law is a win/loose situation a win for the government (more money), and a loose for the pets (they will still be unwanted dogs/cats in the pound). Do you know how much money they are going to make off righteous breeders at around $100 per breeder dog , it's insane. It's ALL about money but they suger coat it with, "it's better for all the animals", bull crap it's ALL about them making MORE money.

We DON'T own ANYTHING in this country, we have to pay house taxes every year, car registration fee's every year, taxes on food, hell we don't even own our lives we get taxed/ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt, it's our lives we're putting at risk nobody elses but we still get fined, and lets not talk about health insurance, I can't believe if you are dieying and need a transplant or something and you don't have the health coverage or money they will turn you away , and now reputable *sp* breeders won't own their dogs, they will have to pay a high tax for them EVERY YEAR

Think about it when a reputable breeder gets money for a dog/puppy that they put their hard sweat and tears into, sells it, does the government get to tax them? Nope, it's like reputable *sp* breeders are getting money under the table, and "OH NO" the government wants their share, where is their share of the money? So, here comes Uncle Sam a knocking with this bill..

When will all the money gouging *sp again* STOP Look at our gas prices