Dear
I have followed the introduction and amendments of AB 1634 with troubled eyes. Why are we creating a state sanctioned distinction between animals based on their status as "purebred"? 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.
Is judgment by bloodline the direction this state should be headed? In what way does it benefit and support adoption of shelter animals for the State to take the position that purebred animals are to be treated as a separate class from those of mixed breeding? How are we benefiting and supporting getting pets out of the shelter by creating State mandate that if your pet is registered with one organization it has a different legal status than if it is registered with another or not registered at all?
I have published my views on responsible breeding now for more than a decade. It has been published, republished, and applauded in breed magazines and forums. Negative reaction has been been minimal. Yet it does not include criteria that the breeding must be purebred, registered or meeting breed standard. This is not an accident. It is true that it is easier to achieve my criteria with a registered purebred dog meeting breed standard. But the focus of the criteria has always been to address the reasons dogs lose their homes. That hasn't changed, and it requires knowledge, not a particular pedigree to achieve. It isn't something that come out of legislation. It comes out of commitment, study and knowledge. Legislation can only interfere with its achievement by wrongly restricting choices.
There are many damaging and counter-productive problems with the whole concept of mandatory sterilization. This legislative position of awarding different privileges based on bloodlines is among the most damaging. It is not a matter of whether mixed breeds will or will not become extinct. It is a matter the State devaluing those same animals that this bill is supposed to be trying to save.
Imposing heavy fines for failure to sterilize a pet will increase the rate of abandonment and requlishement, especially in the absence of affordable services and the means to access them. This is a large and diverse state. Conditions vary widely both as to available services and transportation. But now the State increases the risk of abandonment and relinquishment by contributing to the devaluing of such a large segment of our pet population.
This piece of legislation is disaster for our companion animals. It sends the wrong messages and it entirely fails to address the real problem areas. Lack of affordable housing that accepts pets. Lack of affordable training and behavior resources. Lack of educators who speak the language and understand the cultures of all the varieties of people who keep pets. Most shelters fail to keep hours that are accessible to those looking for their lost pet, or looking to adopt one. Shelters fail to keep good records and to make them easily accessible. Shelters are failing to report completely, honestly and timely as required by law. For 2005 16 out of 61 agencies show "Did Not Report" in the required reporting to the California Department of Health Services for Rabies Reporting. For 2004 12 agencies failed to report, and an additional 4 did not report fully. Failure to keep and submit valid accurate data deprives the public of important information from which to evaluate the issues and appropriate solutions.
Shelters are accepting and killing hundreds of thousands of cats that could be sterilized and released to significant savings to the public. Public outreach and support could further reduce these numbers. Adoption outreach is an important element in successfully reducing shelter killing. Outreach is critical in reducing abandonment and relinquishment. We need to be looking at more ways people can keep the pets they have. And we need to help people learn to value them.
Reducing shelter populations is less about breeding and more about changing public perceptions and understandings about what they can expect when they acquire a pet. To the extent that supplying pets is market driven changing changing those public demands will do far more to change breeder behavior than any legislation.
--
Diane B.
http://dogplay.com/
DogPlay Home Page
Lost? PageList lists all the DogPlay pages.
Check the Help page. 
Learn more About DogPlay.
Dog Books and Videos at 4 M Dog Books
Fun dog related designs on T-Shirts, sweatshirts, mugs, buttons, stickers and more at DogPlay Mall and DogPlay Shop.
Before making a link request, check my criteria.
Shop or Create What's On Your Mind at CafePress.comCopyright © 2007,
Diane Blackman
Created: April 2, 2007
Updated: June 1, 2007
Help with Contacting DogPlay
For information on linking and other uses of this material see the copyright
page.
Disclaimer and Privacy Policy
Unauthorized copy discovery is enabled
Help About Feedback Partners Listing Home