Proponents state that this is necessary because local jurisdictions lack the time and resources to come up with their own legislation. Yet this legislation ties the hands of local jurisdictions. It forbids them from enacting anything that is simpler to administer and more effective. It forces them to spend precious resources trying to give meaning to the vague terms of the bill, regardless of whether their particular jurisdiction even has a problem.
It will reduce licensing even in counties that aren't going to enforce the provisions because they don't see enforcement as needed or effective. People are going to take proactive measures to protect themselves and their pets.
It will increase shelter intake and reduce the willingness of people to adopt both inside and outside of the shelter system. (see my notes on the bill to understand why)
It will divert funds and resources from addressing the actual source of the problem feral cats, people needing guidance and support to keep their pet, adoption outreach, improved shelter accessibility.
CVMA claimed to support as an answer to a "patchwork" of regulations. This bill increases that patchwork effect from a few jurisdictions to all jurisdictions.
There is no valid reason for requiring that the venue evaluating the qualities of the dog needs to be a pedigree registry. If I'm out to show that my border collie is wonderful at herding the best venue in the United States for the breed is USBCHA. It is not a breed registry, nor do dogs have to be registered to compete. Its purpose is to evaluate the herding qualities of the dog. It is a much better venue to truly test the capabilities (and thus breeding quality) of the dog than a pedigree registry such as AKC.
The Protection Sport Association holds competitive trials for protection dogs. It is a much more legitimate evaluation of the dog's qualities than competitions held by most pedigree registries.
As noted elsewhere in this discussion working dogs such as sheepdogs, cattle dogs, and protection dogs are not necessarily going to be registered with a pedigree registry known to local government officials. That does not mean the dogs are unregistered or that those pedigree registries are in any way disreputable. They may be foreign, they may be created specifically to avoid the big business politics of the more commonly known registries. This legislation, however, leaves it up to each individual jurisdiction as to what registries to accept.
It allows commercial breeders to continue breeding poorly bred dogs while making it much more burdensome on the responsible breeder.
Breeder One is a commercial breeder, breeds every other heat for six years, produces 48 puppies, doesn't know and doesn't care where they end up. As a commercial breeder the breeder is not required to take any steps to prove the breedability of the dogs bred and chooses not to do so. The dogs bred are not required to be registered or purebred. The dogs bred are not required to acquire titles or attempt to acquire them.
Breeder two is a hobby breeder, breeds once in the lifetime of the dog (age 6), produces 8 puppies, knows where each is, keeps in regular contact, has an enforceable spay/neuter contract for "pet" puppies, follows ups, microchips all puppies and requires the dog be returned rather than sent to a shelter. As a non-commercial breeder the breeder is required to meet additional criteria - registration and title acquisition. The breeder might do this anyway although not necessarily using criteria of government officials removed from the world of canine genetics, evaluations of structure and movement, evaluations of working qualities etc. The government may find reference to pedigree registries to be easy, but there is only so much time in the day and wasting time in a pedigree registry "performance" program that is viewed as basically useless for truly evaluating the qualities of the dog is not in the best interests of good, responsible and caring dog breeding.
If an "intact" license cost is $100 per year then the cost to breeder One totals $600 or $12/puppy. After which Breeder One dumps the bitch in the shelter as no longer cost effective.
Breeder Two pays a total of $600 or $75/puppy. After which the bitch is naturally spayed and of course kept as a much cared about companion. In addition the breeder puts out thousands of dollars toward proving the qualities of the dog.
The point really isn't that Breeder Two is spending more. Breeder Two will spend considerably more with or without government intervention. The real point is which breeder are we most enabling? Good breeders are used to losing money. But it does seem more than a little backwards to make it easier on the commercial breeder who is not better for the dogs.
What is a "hobby breeder"? A person who is "into" purebred dogs as a hobby is passionate about their dogs. They spend hours attending seminars, researching pedigrees, learning genetics. They are active in public education about their breed, they contribute money to canine health studies. They spend thousands of dollars on their dogs motivated solely by working toward their vision of the "best dog." Because it isn't profit motivated the costs of doing these things is not measured against any financial benefit. When they breed, they breed to further the best interests of the breed, not to derive income. That is what makes them a "hobby" breeder, they aren't doing it for the purposes of profit. The costs of pursuing their passion exceed any income, thus it is not a business, it is a hobby. The primary problem with hobby breeders is that there are not nearly enough of them to meet the public demand for puppies. This void opens the door to profit motivated commercial breeders, and the casual breeder with only superficial knowledge and concern about the dogs themselves and the qualities of the breeds they represent.
It doesn't address the problem. The majority of dogs that end up being killed in our "shelters" had homes. They just didn't keep them. What makes the difference between dogs that get kept and dogs that don't? The primary difference is when the breeder is local and stays involved in the life of the dog. The more help and support the puppy buyer gets the more likely the adoption is to be successful. Instead of mandatory spay/neuter maybe mandatory obedience classes would be more to the point. The majority of dogs given up are in the not-so-cute adolescent rebellion stage.
It is bad for working dogs. The showing requirement in the bill is a stab at making mandatory what most responsible breeders do as a matter of course. But showing is not the only or even necessarily the best way to evaluate the qualities of working dogs. A good working dog is far more highly valued than virtually any show dog in any venue. It can take years to assess the quality of a working dog. The bill has no adequate provisions for this.
It allows "a more restrictive spay or neuter program" than described above. That means that jurisdictions won't necessarily issue a permit even if the standards in the bill are met.
Those who claim success with the Santa Cruz ordinance are confusing correlation with causation. Ever wonder why they aren't using their numbers in comparison to surrounding counties? Well, I have only a small set of numbers available to me at this moment but it looks very much like the comparison with Santa Clara County does not support a conclusion that "it works". Peninsula Humane Society is not supporting the bill because results of the San Mateo County mandatory spay and neuter were "disappointing." I'm working on getting more numbers but most of what I have is requiring typing in the data manually, and I don't have as much current data as I'd like.
Doing something right:
San Luis Obispo County Animal Services Dr. Eric Anderson “We haven't had to euthanize an adoptable animal in about two years.”
Placer SPCA Leilani Vierra, PSPCA's executive director "We haven't euthanized an adoptable animal simply because they don't have a home, for over four years now,"
Peninsula Humane Society "In 2005, approximately 15,000 animals were taken in, among whom all the medically suitable animals were thence adopted into qualified homes."
What happens when a person whose registry is acceptable in one jurisdiction moves to a jurisdiction who hasn't included the registry as acceptable simply because they have never heard of them? What about foreign registries?
They can be perfectly legitimate and more protective of the health and safety of their breed than a commonly known registry, and yet their dogs would be required to be spayed or neutered even though the risks that they or their off spring would be a shelter risk are very small.
This is just bad bill drafting, very bad bill drafting. But it is an excellent example of the absence of basic competence in the provisions of the bill. Bill drafting should be within the competence of the author of the bill. Dog breeding is not within the scope of their competence. If they can't get what they should be competent at right how can they get dog breeding right?
I love my mixed breed dogs. I don't love them enough to support random mixed breeding. I'd love to believe that anyone could make a success of adopting any dog out of the shelter. But it wouldn't be true.
While there is an oversupply of large dogs, and of particular breeds of medium and large dogs, there is an undersupply of stable, friendly adoptable small dogs.
My opposition to AB1634 has nothing to do with controlling breeding. I have no agrument against attempting to get the casual breeder to be a non-breeder. I think it would be a good thing to seriously reduce the casual breeder (which is my term instead of backyard breeder). This should be obvious by my extensive information on responsible breeding. But my reason for desiring to reduce the casual breeder is very different from what the proponents of AB 1634 envision. There is no provision in AB 1634 that in any way addresses how dogs are placed, how they are supported, and how they are protected if the placement fails. Yet these things are cornerstone to my views on responsible breeding. No matter how healthy the dog, no matter how well bred, if you place a dog without properly screening the buyer, without providing support, and without protecting that dog from problems, then you have failed to place that dog responsibly. Reducing the number of casual breeders without at the same time providing for responsible placement does nothing for the dogs.
AB 1634 goes far beyond controlling breeding. It substitutes governmental judgement about the best medical decisions for our dogs. It applies criteria that run counter to the best breeding decisions to maintain some breeds in their original form and function. And because it does nothing to adjust the buyers behavior in selecting a responsible breeder it actually will make things worse for dogs. Because as far as I can see it will simply shift the source of dogs to a more troubling source, the commercial breeder. In other words I don't see this as even a good first step.
To even consider that these things might be "worth it" I need to see some really solid evidence that it will have a significant beneficial effect. It can't be just hopes and suppositions. The adverse effects of this bill on good dogs and good people are really significant. If they are to make the sacrafice for the greater good then it needs to be much more than just an idea it will work.
An intact permit can only be issued to
(1) A licensed commercial breeder
(2) a "valid breed" recongized by an "approved registry or association" AND
(A) has proof that the animal either competed in a "legitimate" competition hosted by or under the approval of a "recognized registry or association or is being trained to compete and is too young to have yet competed
OR
(B) has earned or is in the process of earning a title from "an approved purebred registry or association"
(3) a service dog
(4) a dog used by "law enforcement agencies"
(5) in the opinion of a veterinarian is "unsafe" to spay or neuter the animal.
This does not provide sufficient scope for local agencies to meet the needs of all working dogs. Some service dog organizations raise dogs specifically for service work. That is not true, however, of many service dogs, nor is it normal for most law enforcement dogs. Law enforcement agencies do not contract with breeders to create, raise and "groom" dogs for the work. Instead they seek out dogs that have been identified as having potential, usually at around 18 months of age. To narrow the field down to specific dogs or specific breeders would further reduce an already insufficient supply of suitable dogs. Stock dogs are generally not "put to stock" until they are close to a year old. Ranch dogs typically do not engage in recreational trials and they are chosen for their ability to work not their registration status.
Hello
I'm the owner of two mixed breed neutered dogs. I think your support for AB 1634 is well meant but misses a lot. It is the right cause, and the wrong solution.
We need to pay closer attention to what has been actually working and not continue to repeat things that have been proven failures. To solve the problem properly we need to get better information, and better understanding of which animals are in the shelters and why they are there. There is an unfortunate and deadly tendency to treat dogs and cats as mere numbers. But a pit bull is not a pomeranian. And a Ragdoll cat is not a feral cat. And a cat is not a dog. We cannot get a fair and useful picture when we ignore important differences that will influence effective solutions. Let's stop wasting efforts on failure and look at what works.
Keeping animals in their homes requires both a good match and appropriate support. We will never make progress if we ignore the realities of why people choose the pets they do, and why they choose to relinquish them. Take a look at this article in "No Kill Solutions" http://www.nokillsolutions.com/pdf/mandatorylaws.pdf
"I challenge anyone to come away from a visit like that and tell me, unequivocally, that mandatory spaying and neutering of pets is a bad idea."
Mandatory spay and neuter is a bad idea. It will result in more pets getting dumped, not fewer. A law that will result in more dead dogs and cats is a bad law, regardless of what it intends.
"If breeders want to continue to breed and owners of show dogs want to continue to show, I feel that these people will do what is necessary to obtain the permits to continue to do so."
The dog world is not limited to pet owners and breeders/show people. There will be many important groups of dogs that will not be eligible for permits, but should remain intact. Failure of proponents to understand the extent of the negative side effects is what got me started in active opposition.
"This would not even take into consideration the economic impact of not having to house and kill so many unwanted and abandoned pets."
There are many ways of reducing the unwanted and abandoned pets. There is a reason that some communities have enough room in their shelters that they can take on animals from other shelters. Better to take a lesson from them. The mandatory spay and neuter route has proven ineffective over and over and over.
There are many reasons why neither the economic nor life savings will be realized. Most of the dogs in shelters are adults. They come from irresponsible owners. Nothing in this bill in the slightest changes that irresponsible ownership. They don't need the local backyard breeder as their source of dogs. Getting a dog will remain easy. And they will dump the dogs as easily as they do now, except that more will choose to dump them on the street. Most of the cats killed aren't even owned, they are feral. This bill won't help that either.
The Hayden bill mandates that "adoptable" animals can't be euthanized. But there is a difference between adoptable and marketable. As long as the kennel space isn't needed the "adoptable" will fill it at taxpayer expense. I'm happy enough for my taxpayer dollars to give these poor dogs a chance, but I'm realistic enough to know that keeping them alive is much more expensive than killing them. And even if we assume, and I can't, that there is a decent drop in animals surrendered the cage space won't be empty. It will become a place to warehouse the unmarketable. I have to wonder if that is really a favor to the animal. There will not be taxpayer savings.
"The fact of the matter is that many animal shelters have a program in place by which most of the pets are spayed and neutered before being adopted by new families."
Well they better have. It is illegal for them to release the pet without being spayed or neutered. I agree with that law.
"The law is designed to force irresponsible pet owners to take care of their pets' breeding problems."
Next time you drive on the freeway remind yourself that there is a speed limit law, and that the speed limits are set to save lives. Then look at the compliance rate. What is your compliance rate? Creating a law does not force compliance. Look at the serious drop in licensing in jurisdictions that implemented mandtory spay and neuter. The law will increase shelter relinquishment without seriously impacting irresponsible breeding. It will kill more animals. That was the result in those areas that have tried it. Look at Long Beach. They have had a breeding ban for 30 years. Has that helped? No, it has not.
"Those are our neighbors who let their cats or dogs repeatedly breed, never bothering to spay or neuter their pets because they say that it may be unnatural to do so. Let's face it, these owners are either ill-informed or too lazy to take care of the obvious problem. A law to dictate mandatory sterilization for these pets would be a godsend."
A much better solution would be incentives to spay and neuter, including subsidised spay and neuter. The people you speak of will either ignore the law or dump the dog to avoid having to comply. This bill will increase shelter deaths, not reduce them. Far better to find ways to encourage and support the owner relationship with animal control. Offer low cost subsidized behavior counseling and pet manners classes. Pay attention to and adjust to cultural differences. Other communities have done it, successfully. Maybe it doesn't feel as good to be nice to those "bad owners." Or maybe we are just lacking in the vision that positive methods tend to be more effective than punitive. As long as we keep the hit them instead of help them mentality we will fail.
In addition to being ineffective and counterproductive the law has other adverse side effects. Many breeds would become extinct under the current provisions because they cannot meet the criteria, they are not AKC breeds. Jack Russell Terriers are regisered with JRTCA. Under JRTCA rules they cannot be registered until they are over a year old. JRTCA dogs can't meet the AB 1634 criteria and thus can't obtain an intact permit. ABCA registers ten times as many Border COllies as AKC. ABCA does not hold competitions, does not issue titles, and is adamantly opposed to showing for conformation. ABCA dogs can't meet the AB 1634 criteria and thus can't obtain an intact permit. Kelpies are registered with a registry that does not hold competitions and does not issue titles. I could continue listing breeds that will become extinct if their owners actually comply with the law.
Working ranch dogs are necessary for the daily work of a rancher. They may not even be registered, and they certainly aren't going to be spending time in useless competitions, but they are needed and they need to remain intact to continue capable working lines. They can't meet the criteria of the bill.
This bill is flawed from bottom to top. There is nothing that can be done to "fix it" because the basic premise is wrong. Mandatory spay and neuter is not effective in reducing shelter killing. If it were, the intake and euthansia rates at Santa Cruz would have fallen at a faster rate than the state-wide rates. That is the opposite of what happened. State-wide rates fell faster than for Santa Cruz. Reducing shelter killing is the right cause, mandatory spay and neuter is the wrong solution.
--
Diane Blackman
diane@dogplay.com
http://dogplay.com - Fun stuff to do with your dog
http://www.cafepress.com/dogplay - dog lover's items
http://dogplayshops.com - dog cartoons, fun dog stuff
Information on Responsible breeding
Check out the No Kill Solution
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.com
Copyright © 2007
Diane Blackman
Created: May 5, 2007
Updated June 15, 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