AB 1634 asks that most dogs and cats in the State of California be spayed or neutered. More than 20 common sense exemptions are provided in the bill, including for show and sporting dogs, law enforcement dogs, dogs used in search and rescue, pets that are too old or in poor health, and guide, service and signal animals.Where to begin [sigh]...
The bill is largely modeled upon a successful mandatory spay and neuter ordinance that the County of Santa Cruz implemented in 1995. By 2005, although the county’s human population had grown by 15%, its shelter’s intake numbers had plummeted by well over 50%, the majority of which were already spayed or neutered. This clear success has inspired other jurisdictions, including the Counties of Lake, Los Angeles and Stanislaus, to adopt similar measures.
“The facts of this issue are really very simple. We have overcrowded shelters that are costing the taxpayers millions of dollars annually,” said Judie Mancuso, Sponsor/Campaign Director for the California Healthy Pets Coalition. “This is the right legislation at the right time – a common-sense, humane and taxpayer-friendly solution to a real and costly problem. The needless killing of over 500,000 healthy animals and the waste of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year must end. With both the state and local governments facing critical budget decisions, we need to look for savings wherever we can.”
The bill is not "largely modeled upon a successful mandatory spay and neuter ordinance that the County of Santa Cruz implemented in 1995." See for yourself. I don't think the AB 1634 crowd has ever taken more than a cursory glance at the Santa Cruz law.
"Taxpayer-friendly"? Sure, if you believe Levine/Mancuso's voodoo math. A former president of the CVMA called them on it. And speaking of veterinarians, six of them carried out a study that concerned neutering and [yikes] osteosarcoma. Here's a quote from the abstract:
Male and female dogs that underwent gonadectomy before 1 year of age had an approximate one in four lifetime risk for bone sarcoma and were significantly more likely to develop bone sarcoma than dogs that were sexually intactCan you name the breed in the study? The Levine/Mancuso crowd doesn't know, and they don't care. [Other large breeds are also believed to be at greater risk.] The people behind this bill are animal rights extremists who would love to see dogs, and all other domestic animals, disappear from the planet. (PETA helped run the bill's campaign -- but their name was erased from the AB 1634 website's list of supporters, apparently to make the bill more palatable. Nothing like the courage of your convictions [/irony].)
"The right legislation at the right time"? Spare me. Listen to Nathan Winograd, and read Redemption. Terrierman has a great post on this important book, and Gina and Christie of Pet Connection think Redemption is the book of the year. Listen to Richard Avanzino of Maddie's Fund -- and read this.
And you're more than welcome to check out the other posts I've written on this arrogant, dishonest, badly written bill. A big amen to Christie Keith for this summation:
The answer [to the problem of homeless cats and dogs] is not some bitterly divisive, hard to enforce, punitive legislation that doesn’t solve the problem in the first place and tramples on people’s dreams, goals, and relationship with their animals. The day I let a politician or animal control officer force me to perform a medical procedure on my dog or cat against my will be a cold day in hell. All my current pets are altered so it’s all hypothetical, but I would never, ever comply with this legislation. I find it profoundly offensive, and if you can find someone who loves animals more than I do, I have no idea who it is.