California Healthy Pets Act - AB1634 is NOT the solution

Bullmastiff Puppy - The end of puppies?
@breepeace (3027)
July 10, 2007 4:01pm CST
The original bill: The 'revised' bill: The "California Healthy Pets Act", AB1634' is a disaster for California pets and their owners. Under AB 1634 virtually all pet dogs and cats will have to be sterilized by the time they are six months old with exceptions for owners who have a permit. AB 1634 will not decrease shelter populations or euthanasia rates in California. The authors keep amending AB 1634 but all that has done is make an already unworkable bill more complicated by trying to inject ever-more-complicated exceptions to the mandatory sterilization requirements. AB 1634 is fundamentally flawed: It attempts to solve a "problem" that is overstated and grossly misunderstood by the authors and in attempting to do so, it dramatically impinges on the property rights and demeans the intellect of California pet owners. This will NOT reduce the numbers in our shelters. Those unable to spay or neuter their animals will be forced to surrender their animals INCREASING the numbers. Not only does this bylaw NOT fix the problem, as they think it will, it will cost MORE to reinforce than what supporters of the bill claim taxpayers are paying now for keeping the stray animal population in check. It does NOT clearly state the guidelines of how it is enforced (are guide dogs exempt?). Another enforcement issue is that the government of California isn't enforcing it's EXISTING laws (speed limits!). The bill is very badly written even after multiple amendments. It's language is vague and does not even achieve the goals claimed by its sponsors. It makes for very poor and very uncertain law. How is an individual going to know whether they can meet the hurdle? There will likely be public health impact: Most puppies and kittens are vaccinated for Rabies at approximately 4 months of age. If clients are concerned that they will be reported to the authorities for non-compliance of the spay/neuter law, they may not comply with Rabies vaccination. This bill will increase business for puppy mills as pet stores increase sales to meet the decline in quality pets available from responsible breeders. Guidelines for pet store protocols concerning non-neutered puppies/kittens four months of age have not been addressed. Pet stores may elect to euthanize animals to avoid the expense of spay/neuter or permitting, thereby increasing the number of animals euthanized annually. This bill does NOT prevent puppy mills and commercial breeding facilities from continuing their ways, as they would be eligible for the 'intact permit'. Small responsible breeders working hard to produce good dogs, and making no profit, may be forced to discontinue producing healthy, quality dogs, or will raise their prices to cover the cost of the permit. Most of all, the decision to whether and when to have your pet undergo surgery is one for the owner to make, not the government. A decision to keep a pet intact is not a decision to breed. The government of California should have more faith in their residents to make responsible decisions regarding their pets instead of forcing laws on them. T'was a place without puppies, and people were sad They'd voted for "healthy pets", --but they'd all been had; Their pets were not healthy, and some breeds died out, Is this what AB1634 was really about? At six months of age, the pets were all spayed, Huge fines were assessed to those who delayed; Don't mind stunted growth, incontinence and cancer, For healthier pets this bill was the answer! The assembly must have been informed when they passed it, Barker said to vote "yes," all they did was cast it. After school a boy sits all alone with a ball, There's no dog in his yard that will answer his call. Before this bill passed, he had a mutt and a schnoodle But their kind has died out, the whole kit-and-caboodle. Now dogs must carry only blood that is purer, And genetic diversity's gone down the sewer. A disabled man drops one shoe on the floor, No service dog's there to pick it up anymore, And a burglar escaped just by running away You know a police dog could have held him at bay. But we made laws to force sterilization, That is what put us in this situation! The senators say this was not their intent Fewer unwanted pets was all that they meant. If not AB 1634, then what should we do? Irresponsible breeding is bad, this is true. We could try enforcing the laws we have now, Instead of the noncompliance we now allow; Or fund some free clinics to neuter and spay the pets of the people who can't or won't pay. I believe its my right to keep my pets intact, I also know I must responsibly act, But I should not be forced to make a decision At six months of age, for which there's no rescission; Let my puppy grow up before I decide, If he's got what it takes to show, train or guide. What can we do so this does not come to pass? We have to make our voices heard all in one mass; We must tell our representatives just how we feel, Let them make no mistake about our appeal. Indiscriminate breeding is nobody's right, We sympathize with the shelter animals' plight. So send your senators a fax, an email, or letter, Heck, a call on the phone might even be better! Tell them we will support the proper action But this bill is not to our satisfaction. Make them understand that we are beseeching, VOTE "NO" ON THIS BILL, IT IS JUST TOO FAR REACHING! Before you decide that this blanket solution sounds like a good idea, do your research and listen the very valid reasons this bill has such adamant opposition. This could mean a pet-less future for us all. At the very least, the end of healthy pets -- so much for a Healthy Pets Act.
1 person likes this
1 response
@nanette64 (17934)
• Fairfield, Texas
16 Oct 15
They are idiots @breepeace , just like when they wanted ALL Pitbulls, Rotweilers, Doberman's etc., euthanized automatically. There are more dog bites by 'small' dogs but they never get reported. The entire country of Australia has NO animal problem because they Trap, Spay, Neuter, Release.