The proponents of this bill claim that a state-wide solution is necessary because local jurisdictions do not have the expertise, time or resources to develop their own local ordinances. How, then, can a local agency be expected to research, analyze and develop rational criteria with regard to dozens of animal registries and associations? What are the qualities of a "bona fide registry or association" and in what way does it advance the interests of reducing shelter intake and shelter killing to make this distinction?

I find it hard to fathom that those who should be seeking to increase public willingness to adopt a pet regardless of breed or heritage could support this bill. Isn't one of the challenges of placing shelter pets that the public so often perceives an animal as more desirable solely because it "has papers?" So now we give legislative sanction to that notion. This kind of provision is a prime example of the counter-productive nature of this legislation.

122336.1. (a) Subject to subdivision (c), a person shall not own or possess within the state any cat or dog over the age of six months that has not been spayed or neutered, unless that person possesses an intact permit, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 122336.

Since the purpose of this is to ensure lack of reproduction this should address the capability to reproduce, not the reason for, or means by which that condition was achieved. This language should be changed from that has not been spayed or neutered to "capable of reproduction".

Exactly what is a person supposed to do about it if their pet is incapable of reproduction but does not meet the definition of "spay" or "neuter" because the condition is natural or was not performed by a licensed veterinarian. If, just for the sake of argument, they used some illegal means of rendering the animal incapable of reproduction, then that could be addressed by the applicable laws. If the condition is natural, or is legally applied but without a veterinarian, or occurred prior to the person taking possession, in all instances person is unable to meet the legal requirements but the goal is nevertheless achieved.

Note: the conditions listed in subdivision (a) of Section 122336 do not provide an exemption. A permit is still required. If the local agency does not issue permits then the animal must be desexed regardless of how perfectly it meets the conditions of subdivision (a) of Section 122336.

   (2) At the time a citation is issued, the citing authority shall provide the person being cited with information as to the availability of spaying and neutering services for free or at reduced cost.

And if the information is "There is no spay or neuter service available free or at reduced cost?" And if the person is unable to obtain the transportation required, what then? There are many pets that are simply never in a circumstance to breed, they are under control at all times. Low cost services get to be low cost by cutting corners. That is not a healthy thing to do for the pet involved. It is naive to believe that common sense and justice would prevail. There is ample history of petty over zealous official behavior.

Why even risk that a senior of limited means will feel compelled to give up their pet? That is one critical thing wrong with this bill. It will cause pets to be relinquished or abandoned even though that pet was never going to add to the shelter population. And that is why no amendment can make it work. What works is to make shelters more friendly to the public, provide support services, don't trap and kill, focus on solutions, not blame.

(c) If an owner of a cat or dog provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that it is the medical judgment of the veterinarian that the cat or dog should not be spayed or neutered prior to the age of nine months, the owner shall not be in violation of this chapter. No earlier than 30 days after the cat or dog has reached nine months of age, the veterinarian may provide a letter to the owner extending the date for spaying or neutering the cat or dog to 12 months of age. The letter from the veterinarian shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, and a description of the cat or dog in question.

In dogs growth plates typically do not close until 14 months, even later in some breeds. Under no circumstances should any person be forced to desex their dog prior to the close of the growth plates.

Note that the earlier version of the bill had a 75 day exemption for any pet with a vet letter stating that "that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog." Now this exemption is strictly age related.

This will increase the burden on placing animals that are older than 12 months with health problems. Older animals are already difficult to adopt out. Ill animals are already difficult to adopt out. Now if a person is willing to take on an ill animal older than 12 months they may face the additional burdens of attempting to obtain an intact permit, which may or may not even be available. Why are we making it more burdensome to adopt the older pet in poor health?

 (d) Any civil penalty imposed under subdivision (b) shall be waived, in whole or in part, by the local jurisdiction if the person in violation provides verification that his or her cat or dog has been spayed or neutered.

Expect an increase in "proactive" abandonment or relinquishment. People who who cannot obtain desexing whether for price or lack of transportation will abandon or relinquish their pets to avoid costs they are simply unable to meet. Reducing abandonment and relinquishment caused by this bill will require that every community have affordable desexing, and the means of transportation to bring together the clinic and the pet.

Here is a question for the veterinary community - what is the degree of reliability in determining that a bitch has already been spayed? If someone agrees to adopt a bitch as an adult (we do want to encourage adoption of adults, don't we) can we reliably avoid unnecessary surgery? Will a veterinary examination be sufficient verification?

 (f) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impose any obligation on a veterinarian to enforce the provisions of this chapter or to require the veterinarian to provide information to a local animal control agency as to the spay or neuter status of a cat or dog.

122336.2. (a) A local jurisdiction shall issue an intact permit, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 122336, if the owner provides proof acceptable to the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that any of the following conditions are met:

Supporters often say "What's the problem, if you want to keep your pet intact, just get an intact permit!" The problem is that many dog breeds and dog types cannot qualify for an intact permit under the very restrictive terms of this bill. There is much stereotyping and misconception in this bill. Dozens of dog breeds and types will become extinct under the terms of this bill. The intact criteria set up under this bill is bad for the long term health of dogs. It overly narrows gene pools and eliminates entire breeds simply because they do not follow the stereotypical models. That they are different does not make them unworthy.

An intact permit many not be available even if the conditions for one are met. Despite the use of the term "shall" the remainder of this bill establishes that this section does not mean that meeting the conditions will result in a permit. Local jurisdictions are not required to issue any permits, and they are specifically entitled to make more restrictive requirements. 122336.5. (a)

   (2) The owner's cat or dog belongs to a recognized registry or association, and complies with at least one of the following:

Restricting breeding to only animals with a closed gene pool is bad for the long term health of our pets. Good breeding practices include opening the gene pool as necessary, and that will depend upon the particular circumstances.

Why does status as a registered get different treatment? It is the qualities of the breeding that makes for a healthy animal, not the arbitrary status as belonging to a registry. Lurchers have been created for centuries - they are cross breeds. The top winning sled dogs are not "purebred." The best stock dogs are typically created by the age old method of selecting based on performance rather than arbitrary pieces of paper.

There is nothing in these sections that advances the public interest, and much that harms it. Careless breeding occurs regardless of pedigree and registration status is no counter to careless breeding.

     (A) The cat or dog is used to show or compete and has competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition hosted by, or under the approval of, a recognized registry or association within the last two years, or by whatever proof is required by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency demonstrating that the cat or dog is being trained to show or compete and is too young to have yet competed.

The term "legitimate" has no legal meaning. It does not give any notice to the persons who must comply as to what they must do to conform. Who determines what is "legitimate"? What is the criteria? What is a "recognized" registry? Who determines this and how will a person know whether the registry for their animal is "recognized?" Is the Jack Russell Terrier Club of America going to be "recognized" in all jurisdictions? There are dozens of registries that focus on one particular breed or groups of breeds. How does one ensure that all local jurisdictions will "recognize" them?

What is "being trained to show or compete"? For many activities it is unwise and unhealthy to train for competition at a young age. Pets are given the time to grow and mature physically before putting them to the mental and physical demands of training for a particular activity.

Many perfectly "legitimate" registries do not hold competitions, nor do they issue titles. Let us take, for example, the American Border Collie Association. They are a breed registry. They register about ten times the number of Border Collies as are registered with AKC. The do not themselves hold competitions. They do participate in sponsoring competitions with USBCA. However, under even assuming that this provision would apply it would require an older dog that has well proved itself in competition to be desexed merely because it has not competed in the last two years. Yet waiting until a dog (especially the male) has well proven itself is exactly what the very top breeders do. Taking this dog out of the gene pool is long term bad for dogs. And as there are no titles issued the dog cannot obtain an intact permit under the following section either.

This problem is not limited to just this example. It is a problem faced by dozens of breeds, most of whom never appear in shelters and thus are not in the minds of the local agencies. In the case of many of these breeds the registering organization does not even sanction competitions. Some are not even US registries. Working Kelpies, for example, are often registered with their home registry in Australia.What public interest is there in causing such breeds to become extinct?

These limitations on breeding are what give lie to the term "Healthy Pets Act". It is bad genetic policy to be overly restrictive in which dogs breed. It is bad genetic policy to be too narrow in the criteria for what is appropriate for breeding. Breeding toward strong genetics requires knowledge of and evaluation of the entire picture.

  (B) The cat or dog has earned, or if under three years old, is in the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other title from a recognized registry or association.

How will owners get notice of which are approved? What is the criteria for approval? What is meant by "registry"? Is that limited to organizations that both register pedigrees and provide titles? Or does that include organizations that only register animals for the purpose of obtaining a title? What is a "title" and who is going to determine if something is a "title"?

Where does this leave the many breeds that are registered with a pedigree registry that does not issue titles of any kind?

   (3) The owner is a breeder of mixed breed or purebred working dogs, or is supplying mixed breed or purebred dogs for training as working dogs to law enforcement, fire agencies, or professional or volunteer private sector working dog organizations.

   (5) The owner of a cat or dog provides a letter to the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog.

The letter from the veterinarian shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, a description of the cat or dog in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the condition of the cat or dog, and the date by which the cat or dog may be safely spayed or neutered.

 (b) Any cat or dog owner who is not a resident of California shall be exempted from the permit requirements set forth in this chapter if the owner provides proof, as determined by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that the cat or dog is temporarily in California for training, showing, or any other lawful reason.

 (c) (1) Any individual or organization breeding animals for services provided by guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs, as defined in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, shall be presumptively entitled to an intact permit issued pursuant to this chapter.

And what if there is no intact permit? The proponent's web site explains that this bill is necessary because "Most of our overburdened city and county animal services do not have the time or resources to develop appropriate local ordinances. "

The proponent's have created a bill that requires a significant amount of drafting, public hearings and other processes to give meaning to the terms of the bill and provide for the issuance of intact permits. If we accept that statement as an honest explanation for this bill then we can expect that many of these overburdened city and county animal services will not have the time or resources to develop the local ordinances required to provide for intact permits. Thus it is entirely credible that there will be no intact permits.

 (e) (1) The amount of the fee for an intact permit shall be determined by the local jurisdiction, and shall be no more than what is reasonably necessary to fund the administration of that jurisdiction's intact permit program.

122336.21. (a) The local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency may allow for issuance of an intact permit, and imposition of an intact permit fee, for one male and one female dog per household in order to allow the dogs to produce a single litter of offspring. In no event shall the intact permits issued for this purpose have a duration in excess of one year. In addition, the following conditions shall be met for purposes of obtaining and retaining the permit:

This sounds like it contemplates dogs sharing a household to be the specific dogs bred. That should not be even implied as an expectation as the best breeding practices involve finding the best mate, not the most convenient one.

Limiting a permit to a single year either encourages (or requires depending upon interpretation) breeding an immature animal. Healthy breeding practices should encourage and support waiting until the animal is fully mature and physical development is sufficiently advanced to complete meaningful heath screening.

Limiting permits to a single male and a single female is exactly wrong for the best breeding practices. Which animal has the health and temperament to justify breeding cannot be determined before full growth and maturity.

This provision promotes the very worst of breeding practices. The time to decide whether an animal should be bred is after maturity. Reducing the choices too early is bad for making the best breeding decisions.

Again, there is no inherent better or worse based on whether the animal belongs to a stereotyped group. What matters for the future health and fitness of dogs and cats is the quality of the breeding. This provision makes it limits the ability to breed thoughtfully, knowledgeably and intelligently.

This section seems to have been created on the stereotypical notion that an animal that does not fit the other criteria really does not have anything to contribute. But this is wrong. It is a notion based on narrow views and stereotyping. The world of dogs includes much more than AKC purebreds and careless mutt breeding.

Certainly some people have stereotypes created by their limited views and exposures None of these are in a position to do what is right for those outside the stereotype. Yet is is the very foundation of our country that we account for and protect those groups as well.

This is not, nor should it be, a mixed breed vs purebred issue. There should be no criteria that separates out animals by the existence of pure blood lines, or lack of them. The shelter problems are caused by irresponsible people who allow their animals to stray or who fail to understand and commit to the needs of their pets.

Over-representation of a particular set should be dealt with by the reasons they exist, not their genetic status. The No Kill Advocacy Center is filled with observations and solutions that address the actual problems. Shelter directors who close their doors when the public is available are part of the problem. There are three things that could have an immediate positive impact (1) shift hours to those convenient to the public for finding their lost animals and for adopting available animals (2) for cats stop accepting trap and kill. Support trap, neuter and release, but don't invite, encourage or support cats and kittens being brought in that are unowned. Provide legal protection for people who trap, desex and release cats that are on public property, or with the permission of the property owner. (3) outreach adoption. Get the animals out of the shelters, and into the community where they can be seen.

This section does not apply to cats. Why not?

     (C) The dog is fully contained on the owner's property and provided appropriate exercise.

     (A) Offspring of the unaltered dog may not be adopted or sold before they reach eight weeks of age.

Yet another provision that is contrary to the practices of many respected breeders. It is common and encouraged that buyer commitments be made well before the puppies are ready to be placed in their homes. The age should relate only to transfer of possession, not the time at which the contract for sale becomes final. And even then there should be provisions for transfer of possession at an earlier date when necessary for the best interests of the animal. For example, if the dam dies, is unable to care for the puppies, is a risk to the puppies or other circumstances then the puppies should be able to be transferred to someone who can provide for the best interests of that puppy.

 (d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2012, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2012, deletes or extends that date.