Dogs White People Like

"Never be caught blogging in public spaces without your trophy dog!" Photo and caption from C-Notes. In, irony of ironies, Ohio.

Try to imagine what you would do if a law were passed in your state outlawing the friendly, well-behaved dog you live with and love — an eight or nine year old dog that has never harmed or threatened to harm anyone in all the years he's been with you. A law, say, like this:

Sec. 955.111. (A) Beginning ninety days after the effective date of this section, no person shall own, keep, or harbor a dog that belongs to a breed that is commonly known as a pit bull dog.

(B) Not later than ninety days after the effective date of this section, a person who owns, keeps, or harbors a pit bull dog on the effective date of this section shall surrender the dog to the dog warden. Not later than ten days after receiving the dog, the dog warden shall euthanize the dog.

(C)(1) Beginning ninety days after the effective date of this section, if an officer has probable cause to believe that a dog is a pit bull dog, the officer may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for a search warrant. The court shall issue a search warrant for the purposes requested if there is probable cause to believe that a dog is a pit bull dog.

(2) After obtaining a search warrant, an officer shall seize the pit bull dog and surrender the dog to the dog warden. Not later than ten days after receiving the dog, the dog warden shall euthanize the dog.

Don't waste time wondering how anyone, even a politician, could be so ignorant and unjust. Half-wits with ambition and a mean streak have been elected to office since forever. And don't waste time wondering which dogs will be labeled "pit bulls": a pit bull will be anything the dog warden says is a pit bull. You might ask yourself, though, how much longer we'll allow elected officials in the United States, in the 21st century, to display their contempt for law-abiding American citizens by writing legislation like Section 955.111.

"Look at the dogs that have been impounded, and the surnames of their owners... They aren't killing dogs from Cherry Creek. They pick on the easiest people to pick on."

Let's talk race and class for a minute. Because never, not in a million years, will the dog wardens and the police burst into homes in upper-middle-class/rich white neighborhoods and take good dogs from law-abiding families without all hell breaking loose.

And politicians know this.

Do they give a rat's patoot about dog bite prevention? Please. Politicians want to know one thing: what sort of people own pit bulls? Politicians know, or think they know, that pit bull owners are an unpopular element with little power and less money, and, for all the lip service politicians pay to public safety, money and influence are the things that matter. That, and news coverage.

So instead of addressing unemployment and poverty and crime and failing inner-city schools, politicians say to themselves, let's take the dogs away from those people. Because by God, if it saves just one child's life, as opposed to the lives we could save by addressing unemployment and poverty and crime and failing inner-city schools, not to mention banning swimming pools and handing out bicycle helmets, it's worth it, and why should we wait until those dogs turn on somebody? [Which they will — because they all have "bad days," a scientific term that means "Merritt Clifton doesn't know the first thing about dog behavior."]

Ignorance, prejudice and urban legend are bad grounds for legislation — and it turns out that pit bulls are an excellent litmus test. Legislators in favor of breed bans are incompetent, cruel and stupid.

And speaking of thugs, PETA has this to say about those of us who adopt pit bulls from the local pound:

But we must consider that nice families rarely come to a shelter to adopt pit bulls; almost without exception, those who want pit bulls are attracted to the "macho" image of the breed as a living weapon and seek to play up this image by putting the animals in heavy chains, taunting them into aggression, and leaving them outside in all weather extremes in order to "toughen" them. There is no denying that pit bulls are at a higher risk of suffering a horrible fate. [Jeff Haines - PETA Spokesman]

You see the weird thing that happened there? Jeff said "nice families," but it must have been some kind of glitch, because I'm positive he meant to say "white people." [As opposed to the thugs in that photo on the left. They're from Bad Rap.] Pit bull owners, as everyone knows, have names like Tupac McGangsta and Felony Illegalpants Martinez. They don't vote. They don't matter. We don't know them and we don't want to know them. They're not like us.

It's crazy that the pit bull's salvation may be riding on photos of happy middle-class white people with their pibbles, and crazy that I should fret, every time I send a letter to some idiot politician, that she'll glance at my name and shrug and say, "Mexican," and ignore everything I took the trouble to write: the facts, the science, all of it. Crazy that anyone, in 2008 for crissakes, should think that such horrifying laws do any good. It's just nuts.

Oh, and Jeff? You can't kill them all, Jeff, no matter how hard you try.

That PETA quote just slays me. "Nice families rarely come to a shelter to adopt pit bulls;" hence, "almost without exception," people with pit bulls are not nice. And since they are not nice, apparently they deserve to be treated badly. Badly, as in, their dogs should be taken from them and killed.

Breed-banning is one of those odd ways we pretend to be a progressive, equitable, compassionate society. We fill law-abiding citizens with anguish, and kill their good dogs.


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

The pullquote is from Bill Johnson's column in the Rocky Mountain News, Pit-bull ban may reveal unwarranted prejudice. Link.

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.
.

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...

That'd be a great name for a blog...

"I think Lassie's trying to tell us something...what is it, girl?"

Lassie to the rescue! And an oddly familiar title over at the Pet Connection blog ;~)

In other news, is there any proof at all, anywhere, that mandatory spay/neuter legislation has lowered animal control budgets? Not in Santa Cruz, apparently.

Views from both sides [PetPAC, Bob Barker] here.

Barker:

We know that universal spay/neuter laws get results because they are working in other states across the country. In 2006, Rhode Island passed a spay/neuter law that has been hailed as a success in reducing the number of animals entering the state’s shelters. Also, Massachusetts has seen a drastic reduction in the number of homeless animals due to aggressive spay/neuter programs. In California, universal spay/neuter laws have been implemented in nine areas from Stanislaus to San Bernardino. Santa Cruz County cut its animal shelter population in half after it passed a universal spay/neuter law.

Rhode Island's law affects cats only. San Bernardino County's law is months old. The Stanislaus law is new as well. Mandatory spay/neuter has a very brief, spotty track record. And Santa Cruz? It may help to remember that their law bears no resemblance to AB 1634, and what works in Santa Cruz may not work in Kern County.

As USA Today points out, the nation's most successful spay/neuter programs are all voluntary.

Hey, kids! Check out the AB1634 Dysplasia Primer!

See Spot.

Spot is sad.

Spot can’t run or play.

Spot has elbow dysplasia.

Can you say “dysplasia”?

Spot is very sick.

Spot’s elbow bones hurt.

Can you feel the bones in your elbow?

Spot has elbow bones, too.

The bones in Spot’s elbow are falling apart. They are grinding together.

That really hurts!

Spot visits the doctor. The doctor says, “Spot needs an operation.”

Spot cries and cries.

Spot’s human mommy cries and cries.

How did Spot get dysplasia?

Spot got dysplasia from his parents.

When a mother dog has dysplasia, she should not have puppies.

When a father dog has dysplasia, he should not have puppies.

But Spot’s parents didn’t know until it was too late.

Poor Spot!

Poor Spot’s human mommy!

How can the doctor tell if a father dog has dysplasia?

How can the doctor tell if a mother dog has dysplasia?

The doctor takes x-rays.

He takes x-rays of the mother dog’s elbows.

He takes x-rays of the father dog’s elbows.

The doctor sends the x-rays to the OFA.

The OFA knows all about dysplasia.

People at the OFA look at the x-rays.

They look at many x-rays.

They say, “This dog has normal elbows! And this dog has normal elbows, too. But this dog has dysplasia. His elbows don’t look good. We hope he never has puppies!”

Spot has an operation.

His elbows still hurt.

Spot takes medicine. He feels a little better.

Spot’s human mommy says, “I love Spot! I hate dysplasia!”


Some people don’t have dogs.

They don’t know about dysplasia.

They wrote a bill. A bill is an idea for a law.

Some bills are good ideas.

Some bills are bad ideas.

Their bill is called the “Healthy Pets” Act.

The “Healthy Pets” Act is a very bad idea.

The “Healthy Pets” Act will not make dogs healthy.

The “Healthy Pets” Act says, “A father dog with dysplasia can have puppies!”

The “Healthy Pets” Act says, “A mother dog with dysplasia can have puppies!”

The “Healthy Pets” Act says, “A mother dog must be bred before she is two years old!”

The “Healthy Pets” Act says, “A father dog must be bred before he is two years old!”

The OFA says, “Like the hip certification, the OFA will not certify a normal elbow until the dog is 2 years of age.”


The “Healthy Pets” Act will not make pets healthy.

The “Healthy Pets” Act makes Spot cry.


[This educational service has been provided free of charge for reporters, bureaucrats, newspaper columnists and AB 1634 supporters everywhere.]

*“Spot” is my ten year old pit bull. He was adopted from the local pound after being dumped near a freeway offramp when he was about four months old. He developed mild dysplasia in one elbow, and had surgery for severe dysplasia in the other elbow. He has been treated with acupuncture, herbs, Adequan injections and prescription painkillers.

I'm amazed --- OK, not that amazed, but plenty angry --- that the “just one litter for all” provision of AB 1634 mandates that dogs be bred before they are old enough for OFA hip or elbow certification.

El corrido del AB 1634

The N.Y. Times once again examines “Mexican immigrant culture,” and in the interests of solidarity I have composed a corrido about AB 1634. Because it’s our way.

A corrido is a little bit like a twelve bar blues in that you can add syllables somewhat irrespective of meter and yes, that means I can squeeze in as many syllables as I like. ¡Es mi corrido!

But the best thing about a corrido is that you don’t need a good singing voice to sing one. In fact, it adds a certain cachet if you sing like a hinge.

In the immortal words of Chalino Sánchez, “No canto, ladro.” [I don’t sing, I bark.]

El corrido del AB 1634
[sung to the melody of some corrido or another ]

Voy a cantar un corrido
De un político sencillo,
Su ambición ha causado
Un enojo explosivo.

Como un Anti-Noé,
Él quería esterilizar
A cada animal doméstico,
“Por su propio bienestar.”

Pero, para sorpresa suya
Los animales se movilizaron
Y en masa los perros y gatos
Hasta Sacramento marcharon.

Y le dijeron en voz unida,
“Tu proyecto no es solución
No vas a ayudar a nadie
Sino causar nuestra perdición.

“Si quieres defender a los gatos
Y a los perros callejeros
Mejor adoptar a unos “pit bulls”
Antes que castrar a todos los perros.

“Mejor ofrecerte de voluntario
En la perrera – y en vez de legislar,
Seguir el ejemplo de Maddie’s Fund
Para lograr el No-Matar.

“No necesitamos leyes malas
Que sólo producen división.
Trabajar juntos, unidos
Es encontrar la solución.”

Senadores, ya me despido,
Ya se acaba mi canción.
Ojalá que ustedes me escuchen,
Que mi canto es oración.

¡No al AB 1634!

[I’m going to sing a corrido about a simple politician whose ambition caused outrage. Like an Anti-Noah, he wanted to sterilize all domestic animals “for their own good.” But to his surprise, the animals mobilized and marched on Sacramento. And they said in one voice, “Your bill isn’t a solution --- it won’t help anyone and will only cause our downfall. If you want to defend cats and homeless dogs, it would be better if you adopted some pit bulls before neutering everything. It would be better if you volunteered at a shelter – and instead of making laws, you should follow the example of Maddie’s Fund to reach your goal of No-Kill. We don’t need bad laws that only cause division. Working together, united, is the way to find a solution. Senators, I’ll say farewell now, my song is finished. I hope you’re listening to me, because this song is an entreaty.]

I'm keeping the day job.

This just in!

Dammit, I thought I had a scoop. Read all about it! I coulda been a contenda.

Yeah, the CVMA thing. Huge news of the day. Gina over at Pet Connection was first, and with a great post, too, dammit, dammit, dammit. I have to get one of those new fangled cell thingys so I can blog from anywhere.

Dammit.

I was in Senator Negrete McLeod's office when I got the news. I'd just finished talking to the senator's rep when a pleasant man walked in sporting a "No on AB 1634" button.

"I got word right after I pulled into the parking lot," he said.

High fives all around.

We chatted for a minute and then I jumped in my truck and headed home, roaring down the freeway and writing the post in my head: CVMA! Rescinds! Support! Lassie, Get Help scoops the world! And it was a hot day so I had to drive by the farm to check on the sheep, and by the time I got to a computer, well... as they say, it was all history.

The senator's rep was an intelligent, friendly, courteous person. Patient and helpful, too, even though we both knew I wasn't a constituent. The rep has three dogs, all adopted from a local shelter.

The rep had never heard of puppy mills.

I forget, sometimes, just how vast the gulf is between people who love dogs and people who are dog people. Dog people search PubMed for abstracts on immune mediated hemolytic anemia, know who belongs to the local raw food group, and can explain why dogs with excellent hips can produce a dysplastic pup. Dog people read up on epilepsy, vaccines and tick-borne diseases and know how old a dog has to be to get an OFA hip score.

Real dog people have opinions on OFA and PennHIP, vaccines vs. rattlesnake-proofing and AKC vs. working breeds.

Dog people know that you don't make a working dog work, you make him stop [and I wish I knew who to credit for that quote --- they say short-term memory is the first to go]. Dog people know that a responsible breeder will take back any dog she's bred, at any time, for any reason, and real dog people know that responsible breeders have been writing this promise into puppy contracts for decades.

Which brings me to 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.

Catch-1634

Whew! Made it through the Big Bang without too much unhappiness. Lots of local fireworks this year --- the pit bulls slept through it all and the collies made anxious ears and stuck close. (Do you have a sound-sensitive dog? Make a [free] contribution to science!) It's been quiet outside for over an hour now. One of the collies is asleep on my feet: the landshark. We'll all enjoy a restful night.

At the risk of my head exploding [TM Christie Keith] I can't help but puzzle over the requirements of the new AB 1634 revision.

On the one hand, there are seven single-spaced pages of Health and Safety Code Section 122045 - 122110 for John Q. "just one litter" Public to comply with, and a fair amount of that concerns "congenital or hereditary conditions." Example:

[I]f within one year after the purchaser has taken physical possession of the dog after the sale by a breeder, a veterinarian licensed in this state states in writing that the dog has a congenital or hereditary condition that adversely affects the health of the dog, or that requires, or is likely in the future to require, hospitalization or nonelective surgical procedures, the dog shall be considered unfit for sale, and the breeder shall provide the purchaser with any of the following remedies that the purchaser elects:
(1) Return the dog to the breeder for a refund of the purchase price, plus sales tax, and reimbursement for reasonable veterinary fees for diagnosis and treating the dog in an amount not to exceed the original purchase price of the dog, including sales tax.
(2) Exchange the dog for a dog of the purchaser's choice of equivalent value, providing a replacement dog is available, and receive reimbursement for reasonable veterinary fees for diagnosis and treating the dog in an amount not to exceed the original purchase price of the dog, plus sales tax on the original purchase price of the dog.
(3) Retain the dog, and receive reimbursement for reasonable veterinary fees for diagnosis and treating the dog in an amount not to exceed 150 percent of the original purchase price of the dog, plus sales tax.

Etcetera. This is fairly standard puppy-contract stuff.

On the other hand: AB 1634 requires JQP to breed his dog before she's old enough to get an official hip [or elbow] score from the OFA.

Unreal.

"Do NOT sell a pup that's going to develop hip dysplasia. Oh, and be sure to breed your dogs before they're old enough to get an OFA rating --- it's the law!"

Yes, that popping sound was my head.

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

Another thing that's making me crazy: dwelling on the number of terrific working dogs I know that belong to people who don't live on farms or ranches. (Classic case in point: everyone who knows anything about border collies is familiar with Kate Broadbent and her tremendous working dogs. Her border collies are legendary, and they've produced great workers.) Too bad the AB 1634 authors don't know anything about the nature of agricultural work --- or good stockdogs.

[* pop *]

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

I've just added the Michigan State University College of Law: Animal Legal & Historical Web Center to my list of links. This site has been a great resource for up-to-date, factual information on animal laws around the country. Great fun for info-wonks ;~) Enjoy.

Hail, Hail Freedonia! Hard at work on those revisions

We do the research so you can watch fireworks ;~)

The June 27 revision of AB 1634 introduced the "just one litter for the Average Joe" concept and required that all puppies from such litters be given away.

The latest [July 3] revision will allow puppies from every "just one litter" to be given away or sold. However,

[a]ny adoption or sale of the offspring of the unaltered dog shall comply with all of the requirements and duties of a breeder, as set forth in Article 1 (commencing with Section 122045) of Chapter 5.

They are referring to California Health and Safety Code Section 122045 - 122110, the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act, which currently applies to those who have "sold, transferred, or given away all or part of three or more litters or 20 or more dogs during the preceding 12 months that were bred and reared on the premises."

Read Sections 122045 - 122110 here.

Who will enforce all this stuff? No, let me rephrase that:

Who?! will?! enforce?! all?! this?! stuff??!!!!

No wonder my local ACOs think this bill is insane.

[And yes, I know the photo is from A Night at the Opera and the quote is from Duck Soup. "Land of the brave, and free...!"]

AB 1634 to stockdogs: "Drop dead." (Part II)

Pearse Ward and his great dog Riel in the double lift final of the 2005 USBCHA National Sheepdog Championship. The latest revision of AB 1634 will not protect stockdogs like Riel whose owners do not keep livestock on their own property. [Photo by Denise Wall, used with permission.]

The train wreck that is AB 1634 just gets worse and worse. The latest revision is up, and stockdogs are finally -- badly -- addressed. It's painfully obvious that the authors of this bill 1) know next to nothing about dogs and 2) know absolutely nothing about agriculture. Under "Article 3. Permits":

(6) The dog is used for herding or guarding livestock, and the dog's owner resides on or is the owner of property designated for agricultural use.

This new language won't protect my working border collies: my sheep are kept on a twenty-acre farm ten minutes from my home, and I don't own the farm.

It wouldn't protect the good dogs owned by the commercial sheepman who gave me my first ewes --- he ran his thousands of ewes on government land. God forbid his dogs should foul the gene pool.

It won't protect the flockmaster's dogs at ag schools like Cal Poly: the flockmaster oversees cattle, sheep and hogs, and the last time I checked, her job description required her to bring two stockdogs to work each day. (If the flockmaster lives in an apartment, does that mean her good border collies don't deserve to be bred?)

I'm not sure AB 1634 would exempt Bill Fosher's dogs ... and he runs the best sheep forum on the web. Good thing Bill lives in New Hampshire.

As always, puppy mills and pet shops get a free pass.

Have a safe and happy Fourth! And Californians, you are now free to keep your great stockdogs and LGDs intact --- all you have to do is buy a ranch.

BAD RAP on the 'Why Bother' bill

From the BAD RAP blog:

This has become the 'Why Bother' bill and it's a heartbreaker. We've changed our original position of support and have submitted our official letter of opposition to legislators.

Here's their letter of opposition. It's clear, intelligent, concise and utterly damning. I won't pull excerpts to post --- better you should read the whole thing:

CA Healthy Pet Act / AB 1634 – BAD RAP’s Position.

BAD RAP's crew is right --- the dogs and cats [and people] of California deserve better than this mess of a bill.

Well played, BAD RAP

The move took guts and it took integrity: BAD RAP, an early supporter of AB 1634, now opposes the bill.

On Friday, June 28, the directors of BAD RAP faxed legislators to announce that they no longer support AB 1634 and will oppose the bill rather than adopt a neutral position. They asked the author campaign manager to remove the BAD RAP logo from the bill's official website. And I actually cried when I got the news, because BAD RAP and the dogs they love are so worthy, and deserve so much better than this useless, punitive legislation.

I can't say enough about BAD RAP --- they've been the #1 pit bull link in my sidebar since this blog began. They are known and respected across the country for their innovative programs, their informed defense of a maligned breed and their tireless efforts on behalf of shelter dogs. Did it kill me that they supported a bill I hated?

I was plenty steamed --- but BAD RAP stayed in the sidebar.

Pit bulls and pit bull mixes make up the vast majority of dogs euthanized in California shelters. I know this, because unlike most of the AB 1634 supporters wringing their hands over the fate of shelter animals, I actually have two pit bulls, both adopted from the local pound.

Here's heartbreaking for you: day after day, BAD RAP members look into the faces of shelter pit bulls with glorious temperaments --- and turn away in tears because there aren't enough foster homes, there aren't enough adopters, and scads of irresponsible, unscrupulous jerks continue to breed their pit bulls non-stop, litter after unwanted, homeless, impounded litter.

If anybody could have been excused for supporting AB 1634, it was BAD RAP.

And for sheer integrity, consider that BAD RAP cared enough about other dogs to lobby publicly for a stockdog exemption, and urge the inclusion of sensible language supporting the ethical standards of responsible breeders. The common-sense revisions suggested by BAD RAP would have eliminated the backyard breeder who is breeding for profit, barred puppy mills, and protected working stockdogs which, in some cases, are neither registered nor trialed.

Instead we got the AB 1634 revisions made public on June 27: designed to eliminate the most responsible owners and breeders in the state. Designed to protect puppy mills and pet stores. Designed to be an evasive, confusing mess.

AB 1634 won’t cause a single pit bull to be adopted from a California shelter. It won't stop unscrupulous breeders from producing more litters of unwanted pit bulls. It won’t stop owners from relinquishing their dogs due to a move, a new baby, or too much barking. It won’t make dogs healthier, and it won’t save money. It is a frightening, deeply offensive government intrusion into the lives of responsible, law-abiding citizens and their companion animals.

And now BAD RAP has joined the opposition. Want to show your appreciation? Hint: they take PayPal. [And no, I am not affiliated with BAD RAP in any way.]

AB 1634: the Puppy Mill Protection Act

The latest revision of Lloyd and Judie's box o' crazy that mandatory spay/neuter bill is up, and I'd laugh if it weren't so completely insane.

Needless to say, there is no hint of protection, let alone an exemption, for the state's working stockdogs and livestock guardian dogs. One well-meaning soul on a breed rescue forum wrote to the AB 1634 "Coalition" to express her concern about the newly revised bill [she'd been collecting signatures in support] and was told that "Judie is a little hard to influence in this area due to her east coast urban outlook."

East coast urban outlook is my new favorite euphemism for "animal-rights craziness." It's painfully clear by now that the bill's author campaign coordinator is 1) determined to hurt people who raise livestock, and 2) happy to eliminate several of the world's greatest breeds of working dogs in the process. No-Birth nation, indeed.

But this revision lets anyone breed a litter, right?

Sort of.

If you are a rancher with a promising but unregistered border collie, say, AB 1634 will now allow you to obtain an intact permit and breed your dog. Once. Before she is two years old. Forget minor details like OFA ratings [the OFA won't certify hips or elbows until a dog is at least two], and forget being able to determine whether your young dog is actually, you know, worthy of being bred. (Border collies generally don't run in USBCHA Open classes until they are three or four.)

Your beleaguered animal control officers, already overworked and underpaid, will need to run a criminal background check on you before your dog can qualify for an intact permit. The ACOs will also need to get paperwork from your vet and inspect your home to make sure your animals are well cared for. You must give away, not sell, the puppies. After one litter, your dog must be spayed.

And here's the kicker: while AB 1634 is busy compelling law-abiding, responsible dog owners to jump through these byzantine hoops under threat of fines or worse, pet stores and puppy mills will be unaffected.

A new pet store just opened near me. "For a list of breeds available, click here."

You know where pet stores get their puppies, right?

AB 1634 won't touch puppy millers. Large-volume commercial breeders have their business licenses and their state and federal tax numbers, just as AB 1634 specifies. Puppy millers don't worry about sound temperaments, good hips, congenital deafness, allergies or heart defects. Their dogs receive no health checks. The golden retriever bitches and dachshund bitches and all the others live in cages barely big enough for them to turn around in, and they are bred on every heat until their bodies give out.

From a NY Times article:

The dim, 4,300-square-foot building housed about 400 dogs, most of them puppies, in 120 elevated cages. It is one of three whelping houses at the Puppy Haven Kennel, the 1,600-dog compound that Havens has built up over the last 30 years in the outlands north of Madison, Wis. Nearby, an affable elderly couple hosed feces from slats below the cages [...] Recent U.S.D.A. inspection reports show many incidences of dogs kept with inadequate bedding in near-freezing temperatures at Puppy Haven or with excessively matted hair or insufficient veterinary care. Havens retired 75 adult dogs, no longer useful to him as sires or dams, to the Wisconsin Humane Society over the last year. According to the humane society, many of the dogs had to be treated for debilitating fears of noise or people before they could be adopted.

AB 1634 says you can open as many pet stores as you like, and sell as many misery puppies as you like and charge whatever you want for them. No carefully-screened waiting lists for these pups --- they're sold, at ridiculously high prices, to anyone with a credit card.

Well done, Lloyd Levine and Judie Mancuso! Thanks to AB 1634, pet shops and puppy millers will be laughing all the way to the bank.