<BTW, dooliter: I understand that the California vets support this bill.>

It's far from unanimous. My vets --- particularly my holistic vet --- hate it, and the President of the CVMA told a San Diego paper that he'd be applying for waivers.

The local ACOs in my SoCal town both hate it: yes, there are just two of them, overworked and horribly underpaid. They think it's insane.

This bill, supporters will tell you, is based on a successful Santa Cruz County spay/neuter law, but that isn't true --- there's no resemblance. Six months is the, erm, cut-off date in Santa Cruz, with reasonable requirements for intact permits and sensible exemptions for sevice dogs, police and rescue dogs and stockdogs. Santa Cruz banned volume breeding and pet shop sales --- AB 1634 will allow commercial breeders and pet shops to flourish. Supporters of AB 1634 will tell you that California needs a uniform, state-wide spay/neuter law, but AB 1634 leaves every decision [which registries to recognize, for example -- if any] to the discretion of local authorities, which will result in a patchwork nightmare.

I have another reason to dislike this bill: I have a flock of sheep. AB 1634 grants no exemption for dogs used in livestock management --- despite the fact that California raises more sheep and cattle than most other states combined. The best, most compassionate and efficient livestock management involves good stockdogs and livestock guardian dogs. A good border collie [working-bred, not an AKC Barbie collie] helps make procedures like worming, vaccinating and shearing far quicker and much less stressful for the stock than they would be without a good dog. LGDs are a much more successful predator deterrent than traps and poison.

AB 1634 requires that dogs be registered and shown [or titled] in order to obtain an intact permit, but many of the finest stockdogs in California are neither registered nor shown. LGDs are typically mixes, and never leave their flocks. This bill would eradicate California's great stockdogs and livestock guardian dogs, at tremendous cost to the state's agriculture and the livelihoods of many people I know.

I'm a life member of the American Border Collie Association, but I'm not a dog breeder. I've adopted three dogs [two of them pit bulls] from the local shelter. I've researched AB 1634 enough to know that groups like Alley Cat Allies and Best Friends are opposed to mandatory spay/neuter, and even BAD RAP, the Bay Area pit bull rescue, has expressed reservations and is now lobbying for a stockdog exemption and better-written exemptions for other working dogs.

Amazing that in Europe, Norway's Welfare of Animals law and similar legislation in Denmark prohibit spay/neuter without medical cause.

AB 1634 is a terrible bill. Laws like it have resulted in fewer licenses issued and more dogs euthanized. It deserves a sound defeat.

several reasons this is a bad law:

If we don't want the State making health decisions for ourselves, why should we allow it to make these decisions for our pets? And how exactly can the Law tell if a female is spayed, anyway?

The problem with pets ending up in shelters is largely because of OWNER ABANDONMENT. This law does nothing to address that issue. It also does nothing to address the DEMAND for pets... which will continue to be available from high-volume dealers who can readily afford the fees. Poor people wont be able to legally obtain pets.

Mandatory s/n DOES NOT WORK, according to the only multi-jurisdiction study I know of: http://network.bestfriends.org/animallawcoalition/...

why should any law abiding pet owner have to justify health decisions for our pets anyway? Is this still America?

Shelter kill rates are already DECLINING.. continue the education,subsidized s/n, training opportunities and this trend will continue. Pass THIS law and be prepared for a nightmare of conflicting mandates throughout the state.

BTW, dooliter: I understand that the California vets support this bill. I don't want to say the reason is the incredible upsurge in business they will get as the law abiding citizens raid their cookie jars to pay for this expensive operation

I am dismayed by posts such as Johanna's which onlycontinue lies and misinformation. It is as irresponsible as the pet owners who claim "this is not their problem" as responsible pet owners. Such "responsible pet owners" differentiate themselves from true animal lovers, who would realize the suffering that is allowed to continue by such widespread aapthy is a direct result of their me and mine attitude. If you care about the welfare of animals, action must be taken and attention must be paid.

"HMMMM, didn't know a loving home started with a needle and ended in a plastic bag in a supermarket dumpster." This incident was the admitted renegade behavior by two members of PETA. Why'd they do it? Unlike yourself they knew firsthand the likely fate of these poor dumped animals and chose to spare their languishing in the terrifying hell of a shelter only to be gassed en masse or put in a decompression chamber. In many parts of the country this is still the preferred method of killing.

"California shelters import dogs from other states and Mexico because they haven't enough pets to meet demands."

As far as importing animals (what you call pets, but they are not "pets" until they have a home) from Mexico, that is not a response to "empty shelters." Again here, is an unbelievably ignorant statement. Every shelter in America is overflowing. Nobody needs to look outside our borders for a supply of discarded dogs. The practice is in response to preferred types of dogs by the public, ie., puppies and specific breeds and because so many animals are abandoned and mistreated in Mexico, some individuals felt compelled to give them a chance. North Shore Animal League does the same thing with puppies imported from the south, who are sure to meet death in their near future. This is in spite of the fact that New York shelters kill thouands of healthy dogs every year. People want puppies.

The problem is obvious, the solution diverse and should be addressed on several fronts. It has been a crisis and a blight on America's character for decades. For a people who claim to so love animals how have we allowed this to continue for so long? Puppymills should all absolutely be shut down. Why should a handful of business owners be permitted to practice cruelty as their business? No matter what their "conditions" puppy mills are cruel and contribute mightily to the problem.

Pet ownership should be regulated at least as much as gun ownership in most states. No more "impulse" purchases allowed from pet shops. "Consumers" should fill out an application and references checked (as they are in shelter adoptions) and a waiting period observed, as well as educating people to the expense and time and energy of caring for a dog. These animals should all be spayed/neutered either before purchase or followed up by the store owner; breeders should have the same responsibility. And there should be title of ownership sent to the local health department, so they can keep track of dogs "out there" that need to be licensed and spayed/neutered.

Other things that might help the wholesale abandonment of animals; mandatory behavioral training. Many "responsible pet owners" dump the family dog because Lucky is a handful; he bites and chews, destroys property, etc. Well Lucky does that because he hasn't been trained. Dogs are also doomed by the growing trend of landlords who specify "no pets allowed" under any circumstances, even if offered substantial pet deposits as guarantees for possible damage.

These are just a few suggestions, the point being a comprehensive and wholistic strategy is required. The most important first step is waking up good people everywhere to the reality that there is a problem. Like other past atrocities in society (child abuse, domestic violence, etc.) it is hidden, behind the walls of shelters, or on rural farms where mass breeding is inflicted, except for the occaional stray that might catch your eye, you don't have to see it, you don't have to look at it. And then we can go about our daily lives loving our pets and saying how much we all love dogs and cats, and billions can be made catering to the needs of the lucky ones with love and homes. By the way, anybody in the pet business should be charged a tax/surcharge to fund free or low cost spaying services. If they profit, they should contribute as well.

This should be on the news and in the newspapers, not every once in a while, incessantly. We should harrass our legislators, who have proven in the past they will do nothing without pressure and response from the people, to pass laws with teeth and consequences, the crucial first step is to shut down the puppy mills.

Let's set an example for the world, for too much of the rest of the world treats their animals dismally; a country that loves its cats and dogs, that treats all creatures with compassion. Let's show what a great nation we CAN be, by the way we treat our most vulnerable citizens.

You know, the real problem with laws like this is that it only hits those responsible people anyway. The back yard breeders and whatnot will still do whatever the darn well please.

It IS sad it has come to this.

ooh, a hot button issue for me, too. I am absolutely against the CA bill.

With dogs, is the problem DOG over-population or IRRESPONSIBLE HUMAN over-population? Are these dogs being dumped as puppies, or are the majority young, unruly adults? I suspect the latter, meaning that these dogs were wanted at some time (in general it seems more difficult for dogs to survive going feral than for cats). The irresponsible humans were the ones that didn't train them or restrain them and ended up dumping them after the cute factor wore off and the PITA factor increased. If dogs are more expensive, then perhaps fewer irresponsible people will purchase them on the spur of the moment, but I think it's more likely that they will find puppies from a bitch who is unfamiliar with health care, lacked proper pre-natal care, and whose puppies also never saw a vet, didn't receive decent nutrition, and weren't socialized. And this is going to fix what?

I'm really glad I'm not in CA, because I'd probably go underground now, with my two spayed bitches, in preparation for the intact male I want next. Enforcement is going to be a painful farce -- most places are incapable of enforcing existing laws. If PETA, HSUS, etc. want to make a difference, they could fundraise to enable towns/cities/whatever hiring the people they need to enforce existing regulations.

I agree. Let's make the penalties mean something. Enforcement has always been the problem and will continue to be the sticking point. New restrictions mean nothing to the real perpetrators but tougher sanctions might.

On the four month thing: I advocate spaying and neutering at 4 to 6 months. Teeny-tiny eight-weekers? Absolutely...but in a shelter environment only. Why? Because all our info on anesthetics suggests that less mature pets are more at risk. At six months they're practically adults. Mandating 4 months is cutting it close, IMO. For the record, I would only undertake spays and neuters below this cutoff when the goal is population control. And once a pet comes to see me in my *private* practice, it's about *individual* health first, population control second.

Note that the law currently leaves it up to the vet's discretion to determine whether a pet is better off not being neutered or spayed. I can imagine signing a lot of these waivers as a CA vet, especially for large breed male dogs and small breed young-uns I deem too tiny for surgery. Responsible owners will probably find plenty of vets out there willing to hand out exclusions. It's certainly no consolation, though. It's sad that our overpopulation problem has come to this...

I have two neutered males. Agadore, the standard poodle, was neutered at 4 months. Beaner, the rescued pit, was neutered at about 9 months. Agadore's was just because it's how I was raised...pets are neutered.. it's the only responsible choice. Now remember I said PETS..not show dogs. Beaner was neutered because it's supposed to reduce aggressiveness. Since he's a pit, that was a selling point.

Now, a houseguest, an intact chesapeake bay retreiver, pees on everything. He marks here, he marks there. Stand still long enough, he'll mark you. He also picks fights, is VERY toy aggressive. Other than that,he's a nice dog. But he is intact, and it seems to make a HUGE difference.

Now for the law they wanna pass. There's an old saying in law enforcement....
"You can't legislate common sense". This also applies to morality and responsibility.

Instead of a new law, let's just make the current laws' penalties more harsh. Make an effort to put puppymills out of business. Don't make new laws. Hire more animal control officers to get out, inspect, and enforce the laws already on the books.

I'd like to see a year of no new pups. None. You want a pet, go to the shelter and get one there. I can't imagine a situation,even among show dogs, that taking one year off would harm. IT'd be great for all the guys in the shelters.....

HSUS and PETA, two sides of the same coin, support AB1634. That should tell you something right there. Remember PETA and their "humane" van killing and dumping of pets that were ostensibly going to be rehomed into loving homes. HMMMM, didn't know a loving home started with a needle and ended in a plastic bag in a supermarket dumpster. California shelters import dogs from other states and Mexico because they haven't enough pets to meet demands. I don't doubt there are problems which need to be addressed, but I feel certain they can be addressed short of this "atomic bomb" approach.

Marie, have you read the paper I linked to? It's the first link in my comment up above. It's a very balanced paper that examines veterinary literature for the health risks and benefits of spay/neuter (particularly early spay/neuter). It doesn't address behavioral concerns, but only health issues. I like it because it's fair to both sides of the argument. :)

"At issue is a proposed bit of legislation mandating spays and neuters for all of California’s pets aged four months or greater."

I'd like to clarify that it would mandate spaying/neutering for all California CATS AND DOGS, not all pets. Although other mammalian pets can be spayed/neutered they seem to rarely have the procedure done, and I do not think it is currently possible to perform on non-mammalian pets.

Other pet species also have overpopulation problems (that is, more pets than people willing to adopt them), but as they are fewer in number and less in the public eye, less is done about it.

I had my male akita neutered at 9 weeks. I am not against early alter. If you do research there are vets the support both sides. Kinda hard to weed through THAT quagmire. So I made my own decision. Akitas can be a tough breed. I wanted every behavioral advantage there was. I now have a male akita I can run off leash with other dogs. (see my blog for videos)

Remember they came up with 6 months back when the technology was much different. They wanted to be able to keep them alive and didn't feel comfortable doing them younger for that reason. Things are different now. Until they do REAL studies I will go with what thousands of shelters are doing every day.

AmandaJ, I think it's 4 months because one can pretty much guarantee (in the case of the girl dogs) that they haven't gone into heat yet. 6 months is usually when vets recommend spay/neuter, from what I've seen. Also, the first rabies vaccine is required at 4 months and so is licensing (at least where I live), so perhaps that's another reason for the 4 month thing...it can coincide with that.

Yeah, this law has some issues.

I'm very set on spaying and neutering MY pets. None of them are purebreds, and none of them have any job that requires reproduction. My dog, Little Guy, whom I had for almost 17 years, was neutered, as is my cat Daniel . My coming-home-tomorrow cat, Emily, is already spayed. Patrick-the-evil-lap-kitten isn't yet neutered, but only because he just hit 3 months old which is the absolute earliest you can get him neutered around here. Most vets in our area (Central Florida) want to wait until they're about 6 months, actually, which makes me wonder where the California legislature got this four-months-old cut-off date.

Then again, it takes things awhile to pass from CA over to FL. Who knows.

That said, we need responsible breeders in our country, and as already pointed out, those are the hobbyists who will be hit with another large tab outside of veterinary and other pet care bills. They're the ones who are going to be hurt, along with responsible pet owners who may not be breeders but opt not to neuter for a variety of reasons. The puppy mills aren't going to be hurt. The owners who let their Heinz 57's wander the streets impregnanting willy-nilly aren't going to be hurt. It's the responsible folks in the pet game who are going to bear the burden of this legislation in California.

I have an intact male. He's a show dog, although currently not being shown. He's had all his health tests (has a CHIC#) is 4.5, and has yet to be bred (and never will be.) And they want to require ME to neuter him because of all the unwanted animals that are euthanized each year?

Umm, I. Don't. Think. So.

I am not the one adding to the unwanted pet population.

And also, considering some information has come to light about the risks of spaying/neutering giant breed dogs early (increasing risk of bone cancer and other growth problems etc.)? I don't think ANYONE has the right to tell me I have to risk my pet's health because of other unresponsible humans!

Makes me hot!