SB 250: As if California didn't have enough stupid shit to deal with right now

No, this isn't an artist's interpretation of SB 250. This is every sane person's interpretation of SB 250.

I'll cut to the chase: this giant inflatable poo rotten little mess of a mandatory spay/neuter bill could be voted on in the California State Senate as early as Monday, and yes, that's Monday, June 1. This week. Like, right now.

Here's a link to the Save Our Dogs site. Visit the link and then call and fax as if your dogs' lives depended on it, because they might just. Save Our Dogs has all the contact info you'll need.

If you have the time, you can check out my posts on the Dead Dog Act, AB 1634. Yes, the same chuckleheads are behind SB 250.

The when and if of spay neuter should be decided by pet owners and veterinarians, not politicians and dog killers. As Christie says, please act now.

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. [Christie Keith]

Of cow parts and dog parts

Body part puzzler of the day: why is it cruel to dock cows' tails, but kind to cut out the reproductive organs of young puppies?

I'm talking about the mandatory surgical removal of a puppy's reproductive organs — and you better get it done by six months, sez California's SB 250, because the minute your pup is six months old the existence of his reproductive organs will transform your irresponsible self into a for-reals dog breeder who must pay the state higher licensing fees on account of all the unplanned-for and unwanted puppies you'll be dropping off at the pound, you heartless witch, you. [Apologies for posting the SB 250 link: it's mainly a mashup of AB 1634 materials brought to you, once again, by Judie "if you have an intact animal, you're part of the problem" Mancuso.]

I'm wondering about the irony of it all because I'm not convinced dairy cows need their tails more than a Rottie mix, say, needs his balls. Cows use their tails to swat flies, which is certainly important. A Rottie needs his [or her] reproductive organs until he [or she] is at least a year old, to ward off a greatly-increased risk of bone cancer. Very, very important. [Don't take my word for it: read the PubMed link.]

I'm wondering because over in enlightened Scandinavia, Norway's Welfare of Animals Act prohibits the spay/neuter of dogs "unless it is necessary from a medical point of view." Sweden's Animal Protection Act concurs: it's unethical to spay/neuter without medical cause.

So what's up with animal welfare in the US? How is it that being a "responsible" pet owner here in California might soon involve mandatory surgery on your pet rather than, you know, actual responsibility? What kind of state mandates removal of your dog's reproductive parts - then turns around and punishes people for cutting tails off cows?

"The ASPCA does not support local laws that mandate the sterilization of all cats and dogs."

I would love to ask State Senator Dean Florez about all this, since he opposes the docking of cow tails and is the author of SB 250 -- the "Pet Responsibility Act" -- but the senator is a very busy man. Seriously, a state senator has so many things on his plate that he needs aides and lobbyists to help him examine all of the issues in depth, or "in depth."

Jennifer Fearing, a lobbyist for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) [...] and her boss, HSUS president Wayne Pacelle, sat down with Florez in December to talk strategy.

"Twenty years of attempting to pass modest reforms on animal welfare have gotten us nowhere," Fearing said. "Does it really have to be this way? We posed that question to Senator Florez as someone who had really supported Prop. 2."

Senator Florez reads Michael Pollan and comes to his position as chair of the Senate Food and Ag Committee with a farmworker's perspective, and I think that's great. Such a perspective is badly needed.

But Senator Florez may not know that the HSUS leadership opposes animal agriculture. I suspect that when the ag industry reps worry about Florez, it's because they understand the HSUS goals and ideology better than he does.

And I'm not sure Senator Florez knows what it means to dog owners when HSUS CEO Pacelle tells author Ted Kerasote, "I don’t want to see another dog or cat born." When dog owners protest bills like Florez' SB 250, we are protesting, among other things, the involvement of lobbyists like Pacelle in decisions that should be left to individual dog owners and their veterinarians.

I'm opposed to the docking of cows' tails. I think it's terrific that Senator Florez has authored a bill to phase out the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics in animals meant for human consumption. I, too, read Michael Pollan. And as the granddaughter of Mexican migrant workers, I'm glad that Florez [who, like my dad, grew up picking crops] has a voice in California's ag policy.

I also love dogs. I adopt dogs and train dogs and read about dogs and spend lots of money on dog care. I wish there were some way I could sit down with Senator Florez and explain why the AVMA, the CVMA, the ASPCA, No-Kill leader Nathan Winograd [pdf link] and countless other groups and individuals - responsible, caring, educated groups and individuals - are so opposed to mandatory spay/neuter.

Because no matter what Judy Mancuso and Wayne Pacelle say, MSN doesn't work. It hasn't worked anywhere, and it doesn't help animals. All the spin in the world won't change that.


Oh, and did I ever tell you about the Aussie that I pulled from the pound up in Hanford? She was wormy and her coat was falling out and no one wanted her, but she was quite wonderful and now she lives a fine life with a nice man in San Diego and by the way, she'd been spayed before she wound up at the pound. Perhaps by the same "responsible" owners who never came looking for her, if such a thing can be believed.

Then again, I'm just a border collie & pit bull person who favors late spay/neuter and shudders at the thought of politicians telling me what medical procedures must be performed on my dogs, so what do I know.

Now living the life of Riley - thank you for your help, SoCal Aussie Rescue!

Link to AVMA position statement on dog and cat population control. Excerpt:

The AVMA does not support regulations or legislation mandating spay/neuter of privately owned, non-shelter dogs and cats. Although spaying and neutering helps control dog and cat populations, mandatory approaches may contribute to pet owners avoiding licensing, rabies vaccination and veterinary care for their pets, and may have other unintended consequences.

Link to ASPCA position statement on mandatory spay/neuter laws. Excerpt:

To the knowledge of the ASPCA, the only method of population control that has demonstrated long-term efficacy in significantly reducing the number of animals entering animal shelters is the voluntary sterilization of owned pets (Clancy & Rowan 2003; FIREPAW, 2004; Secovich, 2003). There is also evidence that sterilizing very specific, at-risk sub-populations of companion animals such as feral cats and animals in shelters can also contribute to reductions in overpopulation (Zawistowski et al., 1998; Clancy & Rowan 2003; Levy et al., 2003; Lord et al., 2006; Natoli et al., 2006). In contrast, the ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law.

CDOC sues L.A. over mandatory spay/neuter

Concerned Dog Owners of California is suing the City of Los Angeles in Superior Court. CDOC attorneys have asked that the city be enjoined from enforcing its spay/neuter law, which was brought to you by the same nitwits responsible for AB 1634. [The L.A. law is virtually identical to the first version of AB1634, in fact, though AB 1634 backers falsely claimed the assembly bill was "based on" Santa Cruz law.] The hearing will be on October 2.

On September 9th, attorneys acting for Concerned Dog Owners of California and funded through CDOC ACTION filed for a preliminary injunction against the City of Los Angeles asking that the City be enjoined from Enforcing any and all provisions of Los Angeles City Ordinance No. 179615; Enforcing any and all provisions of Los Angeles City Municipal Code Section 53.15.2(b); Mandating the spay/neuter of any and all owned dogs and cats within Los Angeles City.

CDOC is suing the City of Los Angeles in Superior Court. In its filing the brief points out that the City Controller's own numbers, which assumes a much lower rate of dog ownership than the national average, says there are 500,000 unlicensed dogs in Los Angeles which would be subject to immediate sterilization on 10/1/08. Animal Services own records show that in 2007 there were 580 adoptable dogs euthanized in the City of Los Angeles, a city of 3,800,000 people. While we are all working toward a time when no adoptable dogs are euthanized, that number hardly justifies the wholesale sterilization of the dogs in the City of Los Angeles.

CDOC will continue to work on programs to encourage voluntary spay and neuter of dogs when the time is appropriate as determined by owners and their veterinarians. [Source.]

From the link above:

The City Council was provided with health studies that detailed quite clearly the damage to dogs long-term physical and mental health with early spay and neuter. The City was not able to counter with any studies of their own.

The City was not able to counter with any studies of their own because the law was written by stupid people who don't know anything about dogs.

Good on ya, CDOC. To donate to the cause, visit this link -- and spread the word.

[H/T LA Animal Watch.]

Wheel of Karma catches up with AB 1634

How many dogs and cats would be alive today if the people supporting this legislation had chosen to devote all that effort, all that time and all that money to actually, you know, saving pets?

Huge thanks to Laura over at Save Our Dogs and to all the other dog and cat folks who wore out phones, fax machines and shoe leather to help defeat a rotten bill. Wayne "I don’t want to see another dog or cat born" Pacelle's dream of pet extinction and PETA's goal of a "No-Birth Nation" derailed in California, yay us.

It should be obvious to anyone with enough neurons to make a synapse that politicians and people who kill over 90% of the animals they collect have no business making decisions about my dogs' health. My vets and I will make those decisions, thanks. 27 votes against Ab 1634, and only 5 votes in favor...! Looks like a mandate for sanity to me.

Yet another post in opposition to AB 1634, the Dead Pet Act

Two things. First, it's arrogant and offensive beyond words to suggest that people who don't have a few spare twenties on the money tree to pay for a spay or neuter are somehow less deserving of a pet's companionship than someone who can afford to help put the vet's kids through college. The latest version of AB 1634 screws the poor.

Removing body parts as a punishment reminds one of cultures where they cut off the hands of thieves. I thought we don’t do those things in America. [Laura S.]

Second: what Laura said. In at least two Scandinavian countries it is against the law to spay or neuter a dog without medical cause, and no, those countries don't have overflowing shelters.

AB 1634, at this stage, is a last-gasp power play that has everything to do with political egos and nothing to do with pet health, pet populations or anything else that involves improving the lives and prospects of shelter animals. Nathan Winograd writes about the parties involved here. And once again, here is a repost of the definitive comment on AB 1634, from Christie Keith of Pet Connection:

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.

Midnight blogging frenzy, with an update on that giant inflatable poo

Remarkably, the giant poo story has nothing to do with California's AB 1634, the forced spay/neuter bill, but more about that shit later — first, the craptastic news from Washington. Just when you think they can't possibly screw things up much more than they already have:

The Bush administration is proposing to let federal agencies decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects might harm endangered animals and plants, according to a draft of planned rule changes obtained by The Associated Press.

The proposed regulations, which do not require the approval of Congress, would reduce the mandatory, independent reviews that government scientists have been performing for 35 years.

Big hat tip to the most excellent Birdchick — and as Sharon says, it's no time for apathy. This proposal goes beyond stupid and beyond greedy and is barreling towards evil at a speed exponentially greater than that of a giant inflatable turd. Call your people in Washington and raise hell.

Nathan Winograd has written about the stench in Los Angeles, where Ed Boks and Judy Mancuso first put their heads together and came up with the disastrous AB 1634. Back on August 5 the Unleashed blog reported on "Workshops to explore "no-kill" policy at L.A. animal shelters":

The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services on Wednesday evening is holding the first of 11 scheduled workshops to look at how the city shelters can achieve a "no kill" policy. All meetings are open to the public.

Every municipal animal shelter wants to arrive at a "no-kill" policy. Essentially, that means that no healthy animals -- like the young pooches pictured above in the city's South L.A. shelter in January -- will be euthanized for lack of space. Being able to do that is a challenge.

The Humane L.A. Workshops will look at what is being done and what could be done better. "We want to get input from stakeholders in our community," says Animal Services general manager Ed Boks, who will attend the Wednesday workshop.

Depressing to think of the animals that might have been saved if Boks and Mancuso hadn't been so busy promoting the spectacularly divisive, impossible to enforce, medically risky and profoundly dishonest "Healthy Pets" Act. The rewritten version is nasty, brutish and short: there is no due process, no appeals process, anonymous complaints are accepted and there are no exemptions. No exemptions for working dogs. No exemptions for dogs whose health would be at risk. Three anonymous, unproven complaints and your dog is toast.

Gina and Christie at Pet Connection have done a yeoman's job fighting this awful legislation. Gina writes:

Forced spay-neuter kills more pets. That may seem counter-intuitive to many, but that’s the reality.

But much as I don’t want more pets to die as an unintended consequence of a piece of sound-bite legislation — and they have and will, everywhere these bills pass — I really don’t want what Lloyd Levine represents now to be what our government is all about.

Which is why as an an animal-lover and a citizen I’ll be calling and faxing today.

It's heartening to see that even the great Caveat up in Canada is spreading the word, as if she weren't busy enough fighting stupid Canadian politicians. All we can do is write the truth, and hope that enough people give veterinarians and other authentic experts more credence than they give a retired game-show host.

*************

In other news: it isn't everyday that you see a headline in the Telegraph with the words "giant inflatable turd," or a story that begins, "A house-sized dog poo has wreaked havoc after a storm picked it up," or a jibe about "American cultural imperialists busy spreading their crap culture" etc, etc. A really big hat tip to Moira at Dog Art Today for the scoop. ["Scoop"! OMG, I kill me.] Photo from Flickr.

AB 1634: bypassing the Appropriations Committee

And going straight to the full California State Senate for a floor vote. AB 1634: no dogs excepted for any reason, no Due Process, no Appeals Process, and owners can be cited for any complaint regardless of the truth of the complaint.

Here are all the California State Senators.

Find your Senator and Assembly Member here.

No Due Process.
No Appeals Process.
Anonymous complaints accepted.
No exemptions.

A Pet Connection reader posted this quote:

"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered."

AB 1634 is a train wreck, and it needs to be voted down as decisively as possible. To the barricades phones and fax machines, dog people...!

Return of the disaster that is AB 1634

This mess of a bill is scheduled to be heard on Monday, July 14. Contact the committee members, and please check out this terrific letter from Save Our Dogs — it's so terrific and so important, I'm reprinting the whole thing here:

RE: AB 1634 as amended June 18, 2008 — OPPOSE

Save Our Dogs opposes AB 1634 as amended June 18, 2008. We applaud the effort to narrow the bill to one that targets only irresponsible pet owners. Unfortunately, as written, this bill has several severe flaws that would leave millions of responsible dog and cat owners in California vulnerable to unsubstantiated complaints, would establish a system of penalties with no Due Process right to challenge them, and would establish into state law a false and counterproductive finding that spay/neuter is an appropriate remedy for a wide range of animal control infractions. Save Our Dogs is a grassroots coalition of over 120 organizations united to save California’s working dogs from AB 1634. Among our coalition are the two largest associations of K9 law enforcement officers in the nation, California’s largest K9 search-and-rescue organization, the world’s largest guide dog and assistance dog umbrella and advocacy organizations, as well as numerous stock dog and hunting dog organizations in California.

Save Our Dogs recommends the following modifications to AB 1634 to insure that it doesn’t have the unintended consequence of unfairly targeting responsible dog owners:

1. If a dog is picked up by Animal Control for being "at large", on the 1st or 2nd offence the owner who picks their dog up from impound would be ordered to pay a fine. The shelter may insert a microchip into the dog either in addition to the fine or in lieu of the fine, at the discretion of the local jurisdiction. The owner will be notified that he has the right to a hearing and appeals process to challenge the "at large" finding and fine. After the 3rd time an intact dog is picked up by Animal Control for being "at large", the owner who picks the dog up from impound will be ordered to either pay a fine or spay/neuter the dog, at the discretion of the local jurisdiction. The owner has a right to challenge the "at large" finding, fine, and sterilization order in a hearing and appeals process. A spay/neuter order would be voided with written notice from a California-licensed veterinarian that sterilization is medically ill-advised for the dog. Shelters may not hold dogs pending payment of the fine, pending proof of spay/neuter, or pending the hearing and appeals process.

2. Dogs would not be classified as "at large" if they are SAR dogs, hunting dogs, police dogs, detection dogs, herding dogs, or other working dogs who became loose while working or training for work. Dogs involved in competitive dog sports including but not limited to obedience, protection, agility, hunting, and flyball are not "at large" if they became loose while engaging in or training for those competitions in a setting where these events or training are allowed. Dogs are not "at large" if they became loose because of natural or man-made disasters, or the actions of someone other than the owner. Local governments may define other exemptions from "at large" status.

3. Save Our Dogs recommends that the impound fines not be increased from current law. While it appears logical that bigger fines will lead to better compliance, experience shows that bigger fines leads to fewer releases from impound because owners cannot afford to pay the fines. Bigger fines = more dogs euthanized in shelters.

4. The complaint-driven section of AB 1634 that refers to nearly all other animal control infractions should be deleted entirely. This section is without merit. It would not benefit society even if its very troubling due process deficiencies were corrected, and it establishes a false and dangerous precedent about the scope of the problems that spay/neuter can address.

5. The many references in AB 1634 to humane societies and SPCAs should be removed. They appear to grant sweeping animal control law enforcement powers to private organizations. It is already the case that some local governments contract animal control authority to their local humane society or SPCA. But this is done on a case-by-case basis, with prescribed limits, at the discretion of the local government. Removing references to humane societies and SPCAs from AB 1634 would maintain the status quo in this respect.

Save Our Dogs agrees that it is in the public's interest to sterilize the intact dog that is habitually "at large" due to owner negligence. The "at large" dog that is picked up and impounded 3 times by Animal Control has probably been "at large" not 3 times but dozens of times. “At large" intact male and intact female dogs are at risk of being a source of the unplanned litters that get relinquished to public animal shelters. The "at large" intact male dog is at risk of burdening responsible owners of intact females if these males roam until they find a female in estrus, jump a fence or through a window, and impregnate the female. It is in society's interest to prevent these outcomes of chronic irresponsible dog ownership. Sterilization will not stop dogs from being “at large” or make their owners responsible, but it will at least reduce the burden on society that these dogs impose.

Unlike the case of dogs that are "at large" due to owner negligence, there's no reason to believe that any other animal control infraction can be mitigated by sterilization. If an owner walks his dog on leash into areas where dogs aren't allowed, or doesn't clean up after his dog defecates, sterilization will not reduce the odds of this happening again. Owners cited because their dogs have expired rabies tags, are not wearing current rabies tags, or are unlicensed do not have any lower risk of repeating these infractions if their dogs are sterilized. In recent years a considerable body of conflicting evidence has been published in the scientific literature about the effects of sterilization on aggression in dogs. As such, no scientifically-defensible case can be made for the state to compel sterilization for aggressive dogs. Other remedies and punishments are appropriate in all of these cases, such as citations, fines, muzzling, confinement, etc. But sterilization is an inappropriate remedy for nearly all animal control infractions.

AB 1634 also contains no recognition of Californians’ Constitutional right to Due Process. In no circumstance may government fine or otherwise penalize its citizens without access to a process of administrative, civil, or criminal hearings to determine culpability and allow the accused to make their case. Yet AB 1634 establishes a system whereby unsubstantiated complaints, impoundments that had mitigating circumstances, and no system of Due Process would result in fines or government-ordered sterilization of dogs. This would amount to state-sanctioned vigilantism.

Save Our Dogs fully supports the section in AB 1634 that withholds state funding from local governments who fail to report their shelter statistics to the state. A first step to solving any problem is data. Complete and accurate shelter statistics are vital in efforts to identify the local programs that are enjoying success in reducing impounds and euthanasias. In recent years a large and increasing number of California jurisdictions have failed to report their shelter statistics to the state, as already mandated under state law. Apparently many local governments don’t perceive an incentive to obey this state law, since there is currently no penalty for violating it.

Save Our Dogs urges that AB 1634 either be defeated or amended as noted above. Thank you for your consideration.

Hat tip to Terrierman via the Pet Connection Blog. See y'all at the fax machine —

On the demise of a terrible bill

Thank you, thank you, thank you, State Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, for driving a stake through the rotten heart of AB 1634, the so-called "Healthy Pets" Act. The name is dead and the bill is, too:

A completely revised AB1634, now co-authored by Senator Negrete McLeod, Chairman of the Local Government Committee, can be found here.

Under this version, there is no mandatory spay and neuter, except as a remedy for dogs about whom complaints, which cannot be barking dog complaints, have been made to animal control. Presumably this would include loose and roaming dogs but would be more inclusive. At the third complaint for dogs, the owner would be required to have the dog altered at his expense. Further the fines for complaints are increased. Many of us would agree that a dog that is constantly roaming the neighborhood is probably not owned by responsible dog owners.

At a minimum, Senator Negrete McLeod has removed the dangerous health effects of early spay and neuter.

The question has also been raised about whether the bill can be turned back into its former language. The answer to that is that with Negrete McLeod as a principal co-author that will not happen. [Source]

Contact information for the Local Government Committee can also be found at the CDOC site. More coverage: Pet Connection, Save Our Dogs, Capitol Weekly, and of course an announcement from Judy Mancuso.

AB 1634 may not have been the most pathologically dishonest campaign in the history of legislation, but it was certainly up there. Here is a link to posts I wrote about the bill.

Nathan Winograd, in an article opposing AB 1634, wrote:

Better to kill a bad bill, than to kill the dogs and cats its proponents are willing to sacrifice at the altar of punitive legislation, diverting scarce resources away from lifesaving programs, diverting attention from their own failures, and reaching the national limelight.

AB 1634 richly deserved its demise.

What follows is a post I wrote a year ago, an open letter of sorts to bill supporter Patt Morrison of the L.A. Times:


Patt, I've been a fan forever. You are a smart, brave, big-hearted woman, and I love you for looking out for lost and unloved dogs. But your take on AB 1634 was a huge disappointment.

Reporters are supposed to be demons for research and crusaders for truth, and that may be a joke for many but I never thought it would be a joke for you. You haven't read the bill, Patt. You don't know enough about dogs to understand why people like me oppose it, and you couldn't take the trouble to find out.

Pity, because if AB 1634 passes, the shelter situation is going to get a lot worse.

You rail about "all those backyard puppy mills churning out defective Dalmatians or border collies or whatever purse-sized dog happens to be hot. My vet took in an abandoned puppy-mill Chihuahua — Scooter, born without front legs because of overbreeding."

AB 1634 sanctions all that. Puppy mills get a free pass. Any chucklehead willing to jump through the hoops will be able breed his dog, and it doesn't have to be a temperamentally sound dog or even a particularly healthy one. (We know there won't be any hip dysplasia screening.) Inbreeding? No problem! And California pet stores will go right on selling misery puppies born by the hundreds of thousands in Midwest puppy mills.

This store just opened not far from me. Are you cool with that? AB 1634 is.

You wrote,

I'm one of those who cleans up your messes. Every dog I've rescued and found a home for is one you flicked aside like an empty Arrowhead bottle [...] I'm tired of cleaning up after you. California is tired too; its cities and counties have no room or money to keep all the homeless kittens and puppies, all the old dogs and cats you allow to overbreed or leave out on the street like an old refrigerator. And so they have to kill them.

Patt. This bill won't stop a single Californian from relinquishing a dog because "we're moving" or "he barks" or "I'm having a baby." And the mouth-breathing dropout who chains his poor pit bull bitch in the garage and breeds her on every heat is not an L.A. Times reader.

That dropout doesn't know AB 1634 exists. He doesn't license or vacccinate his dogs now, and he won't get them neutered if this bill passes. The dogs he produces --- pit bulls and pit bull mixes --- make up 80% or more of the dogs in some California shelters and the great majority of dogs euthanized in the state. Last year in L.A., 39% of the dogs euthanized were pit bulls or pit mixes. (Those rescue organizations you support? Not a pit bull in sight.)

Bay Area and OC rescues make regular runs to the Central Valley in search of non-pits for people to adopt back home. Some people like to say that 25% of the dogs in our shelters are purebreds, but what they don't say is that most of those purebreds are pit bulls.

Patt, I know all this because unlike the great majority of people wringing their hands over the plight of shelter animals, I have a pit bull. In fact, I have two --- both adopted from the local pound. I've supported pit bull rescue for twenty years.

AB 1634 won't make a single Californian adopt a pit bull. (Have you adopted one? Thousands of wonderful pit bulls need good homes.) AB 1634 will encourage -- no, it will mandate -- careless breeding. It will not make dogs healthier. It will not save the state a cent.

What AB1634 will do is sanction "just one litter;" force many law-abiding Californians to neuter their dogs before it is best for the animal; allow puppy mills and pet shops to flourish; and create such a burden of veterinary paperwork, criminal background checks, home inspections and record-keeping that our already overworked and underpaid ACOs will have no time left to play testicle police.

You write: "The objections to Levine's bill run from the selfish to the ridiculous."

Not if you've read the bill, Patt. Not if you've read the bill.

This just in [Sunday edition]

Dolittler has a preview of a hugely important JAVMA article. "The histories of 1,243,681 dogs were analyzed to determine risk factors for cruciate ligament deficiency and hip dysplasia," writes Dr. Patty Khuly, and check this out:

“Castrated males were significantly more likely than other dogs to have hip dysplasia, and castrated male and spayed female dogs were significantly more likely to have cranial cruciate ligament deficiency.”

Goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: the JAVMA report is the million-thousand-hundredth reason mandatory spay/neuter legislation, with all its creepy, fascist, nanny-state overtones, is terrible for dogs, and a nightmare for dog owners.

Rottweilers, bone cancer and mandatory spay/neuter laws

Got a slew of posts to add, and I hate to start with such a sad one. It's important, though. I'll make the message as clear as I can:

Male and female Rottweilers spayed/neutered before 1 year of age have an approximate one in four lifetime risk for bone sarcoma and are significantly more likely to develop bone sarcoma than dogs that are sexually intact.

See this link for the abstract at PubMed. See this link for the complete study. From the abstract:

Endogenous gonadal hormone exposure and bone sarcoma risk.
Cooley DM, Beranek BC, Schlittler DL, Glickman NW, Glickman LT, Waters DJ.
Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907, USA.

Risk for bone sarcoma was significantly influenced by age at gonadectomy. 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 intact [RR +/-95% CI = 3.8 (1.5-9.2) for males; RR +/-95% CI = 3.1 (1.1-8.3) for females]. Chi(2) test for trend showed a highly significant inverse dose-response relationship between duration of lifetime gonadal exposure and incidence rate of bone sarcoma (P = 0.008 for males, P = 0.006 for females). This association was independent of adult height or body weight.

And no, it isn't just Rottweilers. From the essential report on spay/neuter health effects, by Laura Sanborn:

Osteosarcoma (Bone Cancer)

A multi-breed case-control study of the risk factors for osteosarcoma found that spay/neutered dogs (males or females) had twice the risk of developing osteosarcoma as did intact dogs[13].

This risk was further studied in Rottweilers, a breed with a relatively high risk of osteosarcoma. This retrospective cohort study broke the risk down by age at spay/neuter, and found that the elevated risk of osteosarcoma is associated with spay/neuter of young dogs[14]. Rottweilers spayed/neutered before one year of age were 3.8 (males) or 3.1 (females) times more likely to develop osteosarcoma than intact dogs. Indeed, the combination of breed risk and early spay/neuter meant that Rottweilers spayed/neutered before one year of age had a 28.4% (males) and 25.1% (females) risk of developing osteosarcoma. These results are consistent with the earlier multi-breed study[13] but have an advantage of assessing risk as a function of age at neuter. A logical conclusion derived from combining the findings of these two studies is that spay/neuter of dogs before 1 year of age is associated with a significantly increased risk of osteosarcoma.

The researchers suggest a cause-and-effect relationship, as sex hormones are known to influence the maintenance of skeletal structure and mass, and also because their findings showed an inverse relationship between time of exposure to sex hormones and risk of osteosarcoma.[14]

The risk of osteosarcoma increases with increasing breed size and especially height[13]. It is a common cause of death in medium/large, large, and giant breeds. Osteosarcoma is the third most common cause of death in Golden Retrievers[10] and is even more common in larger breeds[13].

Given the poor prognosis of osteosarcoma and its frequency in many breeds, spay/neuter of immature dogs in the medium/large, large, and giant breeds is apparently associated with a significant and elevated risk of death due to osteosarcoma.

Yes, Laura Sanborn is a leader in the fight against mandatory spay/neuter. Her review of the literature is evenhanded — quite the contrast with California's AB 1634 supporters, who are past masters at misinterpreting [I'm being kind, here] all types of data. And no, there is simply no way to spin the science and come up with anything that makes osteosarcoma appear less of a risk for medium size or larger dogs subjected to early spay/neuter.

If you support mandatory spay/neuter laws like AB 1634 or the recently passed spay/neuter law in the city of Los Angeles, you are apparently willing to condemn many dogs to an agonizing disease and a drastically shortened life on the entirely baseless speculation that this might somehow help reduce the number of dogs and cats in animal shelters.

God forbid individual citizens should make medical decisions based on what's best for individual animals — right, Lloyd Levine? Tell us again how your determination to mandate a dramatically increased risk of canine osteosarcoma is really no different from telling people to buckle their seat belts.


Related links:
Heartbreaking message posted in the Border Collie Boards In Memoriam section.
Dolittler post on amputation for dogs suffering from osteosarcoma. Nothing said about whether the Rottie was neutered — I'll ask.
Rottweiler Health Foundation.
.

AB 1634: same old same old, and it's still bad

Judy Mancuso and her amanuensis Assembly Member Lloyd Levine have announced the relaunch of AB 1634, the mandatory statewide neuter law. [The bill was last amended July 3, 2007, according to this site.] You can read the entire sack o' spin here. Excerpt:

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.

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.”

Where to begin [sigh]...

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 intact

Can 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.

Tribute Statue Must Appear "Neutered"

[Sacramento, CA] A marble monument to service dogs, originally set to be displayed in Sacramento, California, may be on its way out of the golden state. The reason? The statue's "manhood" is still intact.

Proponents of the recently-tabled state assembly bill AB-1634, the so-called "California Healthy Pets Act", which would require that most of the state's dogs and cats over the age of 6 months be sterilized, claim that placing the image of an intact male dog on public property is harmful and sends the wrong message to California pet owners.

Satire [snerk!] but spot-on. Read the rest here. [Original link doesn't always work, but you can give it a try.]

Shameless tie-in of the year

Link.

dog fighters across California are battling AB 1634

That made me laugh hysterically.

And what's up with the "tough new tools" business --- isn't dogfighting already a felony in California? I'm pretty sure state and federal laws against animal fighting are much tougher tools than a "fix it" ticket, but that's just me. And did I mention that all the ACOs I know oppose this bill? I did, didn't I --- once or twice ;~)

ETA: Christie Keith's commentary is priceless --- check it out.

Straight dope on pit bull rescue

Help meeee...!

Can't beat the SF Chronicle for pit bull hate. There probably is a special pit bull section in their style manual with terms like loaded gun and furry time bomb, and if the Chron has a code of ethics, I imagine there's an addendum: "except for articles about pit bulls." Prejudice is the Chronicle's stock in trade when it comes to these dogs, and breed-bashing is their default behavior.

But pit bulls are the victims, now, so everything has changed --- for the moment, at least. A front page report by sports columnist Gwen Knapp in Thursday's Chronicle covered the wave of sympathy for fighting dogs, the tsunami of revulsion towards dogfighters, and an organization that is making hay from the publicity.

Knapp writes that donations have swamped the Humane Society of the United States, a powerful lobbying group that runs no shelters or rescues and is not affiliated with your local humane society, yet appears, Zelig-like, in most major news stories about rescued animals.

The HSUS -- with net assets over 200 million dollars -- doesn't need your money. But they'll be happy to take it, and use it to lobby in favor of bills like AB 1634.

HSUS president and CEO Wayne Pacelle states that his frequently-cited "one generation and out" comment was taken out of context and never meant to refer to all domestic animals --- only to heritage livestock breeds. Yet in an interview for the book Bloodties: Nature, Culture, and the Hunt Pacelle told author Ted Kerasote, "I don’t want to see another dog or cat born."

The HSUS believes all pit bulls that have been fought are unsuitable for adoption. Experts who actually know pit bulls, and work with ex-fighters all the time, say this is nonsense. So: in this corner we have smart folks who know the breed better than anyone on earth, and in the "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out afterwards" corner, a group run by a man who has never kept a dog and thinks no one else should keep dogs, either.

The HSUS will have to manage without my donations.

Want more people to hear the truth about pit bulls from those who know the breed best? Want to cut through the ignorance, hysteria and urban legends? Want to help pit bulls (including ex-fighters) with great temperaments find wonderful homes --- and cool jobs?

Don't send money to the HSUS. Donate to an organization that actually saves dogs. BAD RAP and other groups save dogs from shelters, rescue them from the streets, foster them and train them and place them in great homes. The HSUS does none of this, and thinks no pit bull used for fighting should get a chance at a better life.

Knapp's Chronicle story failed to mention BAD RAP, the top pit bull advocacy group in the country. [Check out BAD RAP's annual conference, scheduled for September 22 - 23 this year.] And if you don't live in the Bay Area, here is a list of pit-friendly rescues across the nation. They could all use your donations and support. HugABull covers part of the Great White North --- you might contact them for information on pit bull rescues elsewhere in Canada.

These groups don't have $200 million in assets. They need your generous donations.

What a shame it would be if the Michael Vick/dogfighting coverage did nothing but help raise funds for the next AB 1634 campaign or an updated Guide to Vegetarian Eating. Want to help pit bulls? Donate to a pit-friendly rescue or a rescue/advocacy group like HugABull or BAD RAP. Donate to Pit Bull Rescue Central. And as always, please consider adopting a wonderful pit bull of your own. [Jon Stewart has two.]

AVMA: Dog Bite Prevention

I've added a link to A community approach to dog bite prevention, the AVMA's groundbreaking report, in the sidebar* under More Dog Links.

Statements from this comprehensive report were taken out of context, distorted and misinterpreted by supporters of the California mandatory spay/neuter bill, AB 1634. [More information on that here.]

What the report does say:

Which dogs bite?
An often-asked question is what breed or breeds of dogs are most “dangerous”? This inquiry can be prompted by a serious attack by a specific dog, or it may be the result of media-driven portrayals of a specific breed as “dangerous.” Although this is a common concern, singling out 1 or 2 breeds for control can result in a false sense of accomplishment. Doing so ignores the true scope of the problem and will not result in a responsible approach to protecting a community’s citizens.

Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite.

[A] dog’s tendency to bite depends on at least 5 interacting factors: heredity, early experience, later socialization and training, health (medical and behavioral), and victim behavior.

Note that the Task Force report does not recommend breed specific legislation, nor does it recommend mandatory spay/neuter.

I hope everyone will give it a read, but particularly reporters, editors, and municipal groups concerned with public safety and responsible dog care.

[*AKA the "gutter column," as Terrierman renamed it for all time.]

Bryant: "Mark my words, Ontario will be safer"

Ignorance, hysteria and urban legend are terrible grounds for legislation. Want proof? Take a look at AB 1634 Attorney General Michael Bryant of Ontario, Canada. Bryant yields to no one when it comes to ignorance and hysteria. He wanted a pit bull ban for the province, and he got one: Ontario banned the ownership of pit bulls in 2005.

CBC News reported:

The legislation prevents people from acquiring a number of breeds of dogs classified as pit bulls, and requires those who already own the dogs to neuter and muzzle their animals.

There had been a number of highly-publicized attacks, but never any pit bull-related fatalities in the province of Ontario.

Banning the breed might give people a false sense of security, worried Sheila McDonald, director of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. "There are other breeds that have been involved in dog incidents [...] [One] huge thing that is extremely lacking in Canada is a database of dog bite incidents. And that has been recommended at several inquests into fatal dog attacks and has never been followed up on."

Nonsense, said Bryant. "Mark my words, Ontario will be safer."

Anyone who knows anything about dogs could have predicted what would happen next:

toronto.ctv.ca July 2, 2007

A 17-month-old girl is dead after being mauled by her grandparents' dog near Ottawa on Canada Day.

Police say the Korie-Lyn Edwards was visiting her grandparents in Montague Township when their 10-year-old Rottweiler-German shepherd mix attacked her.

"Basically the girl had just wandered where the dog was tied up. The dog had no history of biting, socialized with adults and children, so this is obviously just a tragic circumstance," said Const. Paige Whiting of the Ontario Provincial Police on Monday.

Edwards suffered severe head injuries. The girl's parents rushed her to the local hospital and she was later airlifted to the children's hospital in Ottawa, where she died.

The dog has been turned over to Lanark County animal control officials and is expected to be euthanized at the family's request.

"It's just a wake up call for most dog owners that even pets, we have to be vigilant especially around small children, they can be very unpredictable," Whiting said.

An autopsy will be performed in the next few days. Police don't expect to lay charges.

Michael Bryant bears a measure of responsibility for this child's death. When someone in a position of authority insists that there are "safe" breeds and "dangerous" breeds, and encourages people to believe that their responsibility for preventing dog bites begins and ends with the selection of a "safe" breed, he is lying to the public, and he is putting children, in particular, at risk of serious injury.

For more about Bryant, pit bulls, generalizations and stereotypes, see Malcolm Gladwell's article Troublemakers: what pit bulls can teach us about profiling. Link in the sidebar --- it's a classic.

Got a comment?

Now with new commentary goodness. "Jane, you ignorant slut!" "Wow, I love your blog! ¡Besitos!" Moderated, so thanks in advance for your patience.

*************

I've added a link to the Save Our Dogs site in the sidebar. They oppose the currently-malingering AB 1634, and I believe they've made a real effort to present factual info without distortions and hysteria.

************

Know a great shelter pit bull that could use a home? Of course you do --- they make up the majority of dogs in California shelters. 41% of the dogs euthanized last year in L.A. were pit bulls or pit mixes, according to Ed Boks. Most of you are familiar with Petfinder, and PetHarbor is another good search tool if you're looking to adopt a shelter pit bull.

My advice: if you're new to the breed, get your first pit bull from a good, established rescue like BAD RAP or from a shelter where the animal control officers are pit-friendly and pit-experienced. Ask if the ACOs have pit bulls of their own [many do] and how they evaluate temperaments.

At one municipal shelter near me the "temperament test" [don't mention Sue Sternberg to these folks] involves giving a dog free run of the office for a few days. That means dealing with resident cats, a resident alpha dog, phones ringing constantly, chew toys on the floor, treats on the counter and a constant stream of people. It's the best, most reliable temperament test I know.

I have a strong bias in favor of shelter pit bulls, myself. Dogs in rescue are safe. Shelter pit bulls are dead dogs walking. 41% of all dogs killed in L.A. are pits. 20,000 of them are killed each year in Bay Area shelters. Care about shelter dogs? Adopt a pit bull.

AB 1634 "dead for this year"

Mercury News:

State Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, withdrew the measure this morning, before a key Senate committee vote that he was certain to lose.

Levine says he will press ahead with the bill in 2008, but perhaps in a vastly scaled back form. Responding to critics who said the bill was too broad and would punish responsible pet owners, Levine suggested amending the bill so it would apply only to people cited for other pet-related offenses, such as letting their dogs run loose or illegally housing too many pets.

"While I'm disappointed," Levine said after the hearing before the Senate Local Government Committee, "I'm optimistic in the medium term we're going to be able to solve the problem." He said that lawmakers at least are acknowledging that too many pets are being euthanized in California - several hundred thousand each year - even if they disagree with his solution.

At the same time Levine expressed frustration with opponents, whom he said have shown little willingness to bend. "Every time we put an exemption in the bill, they tell me it's not good enough," he said.

Sacramento Bee:

"I think we can get to a solution," Levine said. "But the first thing opponents must do is to acknowledge that there's a problem and work with me to solve it."

SF Gate:

"We have six months to educate the committee," said the bill's author Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys (Los Angeles County) after he decided not to bring the bill to a vote. "I want to reach out again to the opponents."

Yeesh. Levine's ignorance, his arrogance and his dishonesty just defy belief. Get back to me, Lloyd, when you care enough about shelter animals to adopt a couple pit bulls. [Pits and pit mixes made up a heartbreaking 41% of all dogs euthed in L.A. during fiscal year 06/07. And as I've said a few million times, I have two pit bulls, both adopted from the local pound. Did I mention that every animal control officer I know opposed this bill?]

There have been heaps of suggestions in editorials and elsewhere outlining better approaches than mandatory spay/neuter. USA Today's article pointed out that the most successful spay/neuter programs in the country are voluntary [but we knew that].

Research in Utah showed that about 85% of pet owners were already sterilizing their animals. "A big overpopulation problem was traceable to just 15% of animals," says Gregory Castle, who heads the No More Homeless Pets Utah program launched in 2000 by Best Friends Animal Society.

At the city or county level, California needs to do the basic research necessary in order to identify owners responsible for the shelter problem --- and target them, rather than opt for the Judie Mancuso, "if you have an intact dog, you're part of the problem" carpet-bomb approach. It's beyond insane, and beyond offensive, to insist that a stockdog trainer/handler like Suzy Applegate is no different from the cretin breeding his dysplastic, human-aggressive pit bull on every heat or the idiot dumping a litter of pups in an orange grove. That's PETA ideology no matter what you do to disguise the smell. No-Birth Nation? No thanks. I don't want to live in a world without border collies and bully breeds and hunting hounds.

As always, more news and great analysis from Gina and Christie at the Pet Connection blog. And a big thanks to all who helped kick this bill to the curb.

AB 1634: Middle of the night blogging flurry

The [very] early morning scuttlebutt is that... is that... aw, dammit, I'm too superstitious to post the headline [and SacBee.com won't let me maintain a live link. Go to Google News, search for AB 1634 and click on "Spay-neuter bill in big trouble"]. Reporter Jim Sanders did some footwork and got comments from all but one of the senators on the Local Government Committee.

Fave quote:

"Once people get a chance to see my supporters and the opponents side by side, it's clear which side has logic and reason and fact on their side," [Levine] said.

I couldn't agree more.

[Member of the Senate Local Government Committee, Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego] said AB 1634 would impose an entirely new program on San Diego County, which she represents, because local government there does not currently license cats.

"The bill does appear to be in trouble," Kehoe said. "I'm going to listen to testimony. I never promise my vote ahead of time. But I do think that there's a lot of concern about whether the bill should continue to move."

This surprised me a bit, since I'd formed the impression Kehoe would be the most likely committee member to vote in favor. (My local animal control supervisor told me months ago that AB 1634 would require cats to be licensed. Dude, you were right!)

The San Jose Murky Mercury News has an editorial in opposition:

[A] simple, small tax on cat or dog food - as an alternative to Levine's law - would help raise enough money to build more low- or no-cost spay and neutering clinics and accomplish Levine's goal of sharply reducing the number dogs and cats put to death throughout the state.

Only then would the Legislature be barking up the right tree.

And may I add that I first suggested a pet food tax back in early April, on the Pit Bull Forum?

If the target for 2008 is to reduce shelter deaths to 200,000 and we reduce shelter deaths to 160,000 that year, the tax goes down an extra bit in 2009. Rebates at the end of the year if you adopted a shelter animal, if your dog earned a CGC, TT or show title, or if you had a dog or cat of your own neutered during the year.

The taxes collected would be used to fund educational programs, public service announcements, shelter improvements, etc. And when the final, state-wide target of no-kill/no homeless pets is reached, the tax ends.

You're welcome.

From a PetPAC press release, Lassie to Save California from the Perilous Adventures of AB 1634:

If the bill passes, there will be no 10th generation Lassie. Never registered with the AKC, Lassie does not fall within AB 1634’s convoluted labyrinth of rules that would allow for a government-issued “intact permit.”

Lassie’s entourage includes owner and trainer, Bob Weatherwax, and Jon Provost, who from 1957-64 audiences grew to love as “Timmy” and who now serves on the Board of Governors for Canine Companions for Independence.

Very cool that Jon Provost serves on the CCI Board. And good boy, er, girl, Lassie!

Finally, a tip of the hat to reporter Mike Zapler of the Mercury News for bringing us up to date about AB 1634's lobbying group and the increasingly shrill Judie Mancuso:

The proponents have hired Nielsen Merksamer, one of the state's top lobbying and political law firms, to press their case with legislators. This week they held a news conference with Bob Barker, the longtime host of "The Price is Right" and spay-and-neuter advocate. Their leader, Judie Mancuso of Laguna Beach, labels some of her foes "Petpac monsters" (a reference to the political action committee opponents created) and "liars" who are "all about making a buck."

Opponents, many of them pet breeders, are playing their own political hardball. One leader, a longtime lobbyist and dog breeder named Bill Hemby, accuses adversaries of engaging in "character assassination" and suggests that spay-neuter leaders are serving as proxies for animal rights extremists.

"We're convinced their ultimate goal is the elimination of all animals," he said in an interview, before clarifying that, on the whole, he believes proponents are well meaning.

Wish I could be in Sacramento tomorrow...! [Er, later this morning.] Off to set the alarm for 6:00...