I just posted to another thread and mentioned the same bill -- what a coincidence! My reason for posting was that the 4-month age requirement would inhibit development of some breeds of dog, especially the bone structure of larger dogs.

Below is a link to an article I found. It says there would be exemptions for purebreds, licensed breeders and others, plus help for poor families to pay for neutering.

I imagine the originator of the bill had the intention of reducing the number of unwanted cats and dogs that are abandoned or euthanized in this state. He didn't, however, write it in such a way that it could be effectively or fairly enforced.

Munkos, I like your idea of a reward system better.

Here is a link that might be useful: Description of spay/neuter bill

I think their hearts were in the right place but their heads were up their buts. It is unenforcable, there are feral cats, you would be fined if you have cats living in the woods behind your house?? How are they going to find all these animals??
Our county has a rewards program the licence fee is $60.00 for unfixed dogs and $15.00 for spayed or nutered.
We give away over 60 cats and about 30 dogs a year at the feed store. These animals would have to be destroyed.
There is no money for poor children, there will no money for a spay/nuter program.

That sounds like the best plan I've heard yet acorn. Where is your county?

It's easily enforceable, because you are already required to get a rabies shot/license each year. Yeah, people who don't license their pets, won't be affected, but they're already violating the law anyway.

But most states require a vet to administer the rabies shot and then the vet issues and charges you for the license. So the vet easily notates whether the animal is fixed and charges accordingly.

I don't know about rural areas, but low cost neutering programs are readily available just about anywhere. Not being able to afford to neuter is more likely an excuse for laziness than anything.

I agree that all pets should be neutered, but I think it's a little "big brother" to try to pass a law requiring it. I feel the same way about seatbelt laws, though I always wear mine.

In some states it's legal for you to give the rabies vaccine. In others it has to be administered by a vet in order for it to be"recognized" as legally being vaccinated. And at least in our state the vet has to offer you the license but can't make you purchase it.

Lisa

This is short sighted. How can not for profit organizations like Canine Companions for Independance and The Seeing Eye (who breed and train service dogs) afford to pay for each breeder? It's crazy. Here is a letter from CCI's National Board Chair:

Canine Companions for Independence (CCI) strongly opposes Assembly Bill 1634, which would mandate the
surgical sterilization of dogs and cats over four months of age. This legislation would have a devastating impact
on the ability of CCI to continue operations and on the ability of Californians with disabilities to receive
assistance dogs. As Chairman of the Board of Canine Companions for Independence, on behalf of CCIs more
than 100 employees who are based in California and, especially, on behalf of the thousands of disabled
Californians who have benefited or will benefit from partnership with a highly trained assistance dog, I urge you
and your fellow Committee members to oppose this bill.
No exemptions for working dogs
While AB1634 states that an Âintact permit may be obtained if it is shown that a dog is being trained or is
working as an assistance dog (i.e., guide, service, or signal dog), this clause is nonsensical when applied to
puppies that are four months old. CCI, like every other assistance dog organization, does not begin training
dogs until they are over a year old. New breeders, those dogs selected to supply the next generation of
assistance dogs, are not selected until they are close to two years old, so that sufficient health and behavioral
data is available to ensure that the dogs selected represent the healthiest and soundest stock available. Surely,
this scrutiny does far more to advance the health and well-being of dogs than attempting to make the decision
regarding which dogs will breed and which will not when they are 16 week old puppies, which is what this bill
would mandate.
In addition, AB1634 mandates that this Âintact permit must be renewed annually in the ownerÂs local
jurisdiction. Even if local jurisdictions were to establish the mechanisms necessary for accomplishing this-
which at the present time do not exist- the annual fee for each intact puppy and breeding animal would impose
an undue, and possibly ruinous, burden on nonprofit agencies such as CCI.
Private breeders represent a valuable resource to working dog agencies
When CCI seeks to acquire outside dogs for our breeding program in order to prevent inbreeding and maintain
genetic diversity, it is to small, private breeders whom we turn. These Âhobby breeders produce healthy, sound
animals because most of them are passionate about their avocation and invest the necessary time and care to
breed the healthiest, highest quality dogs. Commercial, USDA licensed breeding operations, which can receive
Âintact permits under AB 1634, are much more likely to supply those dogs that are sold through pet stores and
for laboratory testing. AB 1634 therefore eliminates the source of the healthiest dogs available within
California.
Calling AB 1634 the ÂCalifornia Healthy Pets Act is a misnomer
Surgical sterilization of preadult dogs has been shown to increase the risk for several significant behavioral and
health problems. CCI did a study on the effects of prepubertal gonadectomy (i.e., sterilization) in 1990, and
found significant increases in failure rates due to both medical and behavioral reasons in those dogs that had
been sterilized early. This research has been repeated elsewhere with the same results. Increased incidence of
health problems such as urinary incontinence, osteosarcoma, hemangiosarcoma, obesity and orthopedic
problems as well as behavioral problems such as environmental fear and interdog aggression are strong
arguments against prepubertal sterilization for any dog, but especially those destined for a working role.
Canine Companions for Independence is a 501(c)3 nonprofit that works to bring greater independence to the
lives of disabled men, women and children by providing them with highly trained assistance dogs. Founded in
1975, CCI has its national headquarters, breeding program and largest training center in Santa Rosa. In addition
to our Santa Rosa campus, CCI has four other training centers nationwide, including one in Oceanside. Because
of our history and two locations within California, more Californians have benefited from partnerships with CCI
dogs than have the residents of any other state. Due to the extraordinary generosity of individuals throughout
California and the United States, CCI is able to provide these dogs at absolutely no charge to the recipients.
While there are certainly other excellent reasons for opposing this bill, chief among them being that it would not
achieve its stated goal of reducing the population in CaliforniaÂs animal shelters, my chief concern is the ruinous
effect this bill would have on the ability of Canine Companions for Independence and similar agencies to
provide assistance and other working dogs to those who could benefit from them. Therefore, I urge you to
oppose AB 1634 and look forward to your reply. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,

Ted Rogahn
Chairman of the Board of Directors

the whole bill is a terrible infringment on responsible pet owners. While they are taking yet another right away they are not telling you the truth about the thousands of homeless dogs epecially puppies that are imported all the time from other countries. The truth about HSUS is they are a bunch of liars. Don't kid yourself about the not for profit term...there is BIG money in shelters enough money they have politicians in their pockets. And it's disgusting how the public is being fooled. On top of which did you all know that several states are trying to put in effect an added 3% tax law on all pet dog/cat foods and supplies to help pay for these imported homeless animals? So they make a profit and than they tax us??? HELLO!!!!!!!!!!
Vote against anyone supporting this bill people. Let them know you are not as dumb as the politicians think we are.

Cindy, do you have any links about the importation of puppies? I'd like to read them. I knew that some parts of the country brought in pups from other areas because of the lack of puppies but I haven't seen anything about imports from other countries.

Lisa

The bill doesn't affect responsible pet owners one iota. They pay the lower license fee.

I don't think it is anyone's "right" to add to the overpopulation problem we have.

There is no such thing as total freedom to do as you please, if we had that we'd have anarchy, so we enact laws to prevent such things. I suppose you can decide it is your "right" to drive down the wrong side of the street, but when you cause a head on crash, your "right" probably turns into manslaughter.

Professional breeders will simply pass the additional cost to the buyer. If someone is already willing to fork out $500 or a lot more for a pure bred, a few dollars more isn't going to stop the purchase.

I don't think it is anyone's "right" to add to the overpopulation problem we have.

Mini... in response to your above statement you have missed the point in my post and that is much of our over popluation problem in the USA is from puppy mills and importations of dogs from other countries done by shelter organizations themselves.
The shelters in the USA are not filled with puppies born here,in fact there is a puppy demand in shelters so the shelters import to keep up with the pet stores as far as puppies are concerened. Another fact is the US shelters are not filled with unwanted puppies born here as much as they are already fixed unwanted older dogs that people here owned and than either through divorce or just unrealistic views about pet ownership get rid of the dog. This bill is not going to change that nor how the puppy mills and importations are run. It is however going to have a direct effect on even responsible owners that do not believe in fixing their animals at such a young age is in the best interest of the dog medically speaking, and have been responsible enough to never have an accidental litter, nor ever contributed to the over population period.
Dobes...to find out more about importation of shelter dogs to the US just type this in your search engine and you'll be able to find all kinds of things. It's no secret, in fact it's a common practice.

"The shelters in the USA are not filled with puppies born here,in fact there is a puppy demand in shelters so the shelters import to keep up with the pet stores as far as puppies are concerened"

Wow, I am shocked by that statement. Once again, we shouldn't be generalizing, making it seem all shelters are doing this. I for one have never heard of it and can guarantee where I volunteer this isn't even a remote possibility.

cindyxeus,
I have no idea where you are getting your info, but spouting your misleading info for fact certainly doesn't help the situation. Furthermore, after importing mutt puppies; the health certificate, the plane fare, the quarantine - where is the huge sums of money to be made?

Government controlled or contracted shelters have no reason to import pets. In busy cities they can get 100 or more to walk through the door in any given day. Furthermore at $50-$75 an adoption, it is hardly a revenue generator, more like a revenue loser.

I would suggest you actually volunteer at your local government funded shelter BEFORE you continue to spout your view that ALL shelters are in it for the money.

cindyxeus,
I have no idea where you are getting your info, but spouting your misleading info for fact certainly doesn't help the situation

Mini... just because you are unaware of the facts does not mean I am simply spouting out incorrect information. I suggest you do your homework before you judge me or any opposition to this bill.
Importing is a fact, sorry if that upsets you.It upsets me too, very much. Especially when I live in a state in which long island north shore animal league is one of the biggest dog importers in the country. To correct you I did not say all shelters, in fact many shelters are oppossed to importing. I said many in which puppies are a shortage. To give you a little heads up this has been looked into by several news shows over the years and many shelters who opposed such actions, however the act of importing puppies is growing and therefore unfair to tax us and impose laws on pet owners when this is a big part of the overpopulation problem. If you want more information just type in (Again) animal shelters that import dogs, and opposition factors to this bill and there is a load of information supplied. And you can take it further learning about your own states dog laws legislation proposals.

Oh and I figured I would copy and paste this, this is just one of hundreds of links out there explaining importation and redistribution of pets....
footnotes also available to check this out at end of explanations.

The answer for some shelters with empty runs has not been to contact shelters in their own regions or in other areas of the continental US, but to institute programs of importation from other countries and territories. According to their own records, one foundation, the Save a Sato 2 program championed by PeTA, has already sent 14,000 dogs to the US. Satos (a slang term for mixed-breed street dogs in Puerto Rico) arrive in US cities practically every day. Dozens of shelters are involved. Some of the shelters NAIA is tracking bring in 100-200 dogs each month and are placing them for $200-$250 each.3

From Florida, Texas and Michigan to New England 4 and the Pacific Northwest, more and younger Puerto Rican dogs and puppies are finding their way into American shelters every month. Massachusetts in particular is a magnet and a distribution center 5 for relocated surplus pets and strays, but other states with empty shelter runs are picking up the cause as well. This is not a phenomenon that can be brushed off lightly as a passing phase. If you examine the evidence and connect the dots, the steady influx of foreign strays reveals an evolving plan.

New 501(c)3 charities devoted to rescuing dogs from distant lands are popping up in states across the US. They are not being formed to place only Puerto Rican dogs, but also to save dogs from as far away as Taiwan 6 and other Asian countries. Several shelters and rescue groups in the Northwest knowingly accept dogs from Taiwan, Puerto Rico or Mexico.

There is another disturbing pattern developing, a trend toward importing progressively younger dogs. Two years ago when NAIA first began researching the issue, the foreign imports depicted on shelter web sites were of varied ages. Today, most of them are puppies. It is easy to speculate that if no one is capturing and altering the illusive strays that produce these orphans, then enterprising rescuers and shelter directors could help developing countries become breeding grounds for stocking US shelters.

Long-term flooding of US cities with mixed-breed, foreign dogs has unavoidable implications for pet population dynamics in the US. The practice of importing dogs from developing countries not only prevents us from making further progress against 'pet overpopulation,' in time it could also diminish the responsible breeding and placement of well-bred, healthy dogs and cats.Many conscientious dog breeders are so concerned about 'pet overpopulation' they have already accepted the idea that a good breeder is one who seldom breeds. The problem with this conclusion is that it does not recognize the basic marketplace reality that demand drives supply. When responsible breeders quit breeding, it means only that in the future someone else will supply the public with the dogs or cats they want. In this specific case, it also means that the public will have fewer reliable sources for healthy, well bred and socialized purebred dogs.
In the two years since introducing the subject of stray importation, (see /articles/archives/redefining.htm) the practice has taken off, with the result that some animal shelters are clearly operating as pet stores today. Whether they acquire their inventory from distant states or foreign countries or territories, they operate like commercial businesses, not charities formed to serve the public good.

They acquire their stock at little or no cost 7, advertise their product using time-tested campaigns against 'pet overpopulation,' rotate inventory quickly, restock immediately and bring in staggering amounts of money. Projecting from figures on the web site of one active shelter, gross revenues from imports that include a constant supply of satos, will total more than $500,000 this year alone!

It is also disturbing to see the animal rights party line being used against breeders to justify importation. The following quote was taken from the web site of the Humane Society of Snohomish County, a Seattle-area importer of dogs from Taiwan.

"By saving Taiwan dogs, we do not feel this takes away from saving a dog at our own shelters. The majority of dogs from Taiwan are small and our own shelters do not have many small dogs. At this time we have over 38 people on our waiting list for small dogs. We feel it is better to bring small dogs in from another part of the world than to have these people going to a breeder. Many people, sadly, still do after they have been on our waiting list for an extended period."

The Buddy Dog Humane Society 8 in Massachusetts shares the anti-breeder sentiment and offers a similar rationale on their web site: "Many people ask why we are taking dogs from Puerto Rico. The answer for us is simple. Most of the dogs are small, usually under 30 pounds, thus enabling Buddy Dog to find many adopters looking for a smaller dog, a new companion, without going to a pet store or breeder. At the same time we are helping homeless dogs get off the streets and into a caring home."

A certain picture begins to emerge when reviewing Buddy Dog's statement of priorities: 1) to have the right product to fill consumer demands; 2) to prevent the public from getting a dog that was deliberately bred, whether from a pet store or a private breeder; and 3) to help a homeless dog.

When coupled with the stated goal of the animal rights agenda 9 to eliminate the purposeful breeding of dogs and cats, the anti-breeder mantra echoed throughout this enterprise should convince even the most skeptical of readers that stray importation is only part of a far more ambitious plan. The oft-repeated vision for pet ownership espoused by PeTA's founder, Ingrid Newkirk makes humane relocation a moral imperative. "If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets."

Eliot Katz, president of In Defense of Animals 10 and the foremost advocate of 'guardianship,' states a similar goal, "to convince people to rescue and adopt instead of buying or selling animals, to disavow the language and concept of animal ownership." IDA's leader says that it is essential for people to understand that, "an owner buys, a guardian adopts or rescues." Katz is currently leading the campaign to get Los Angeles to adopt 'guardian' in all of its municipal codes.
NAIA unequivocally opposes the importation of stray dogs (and more recently cats) into the US for adoption. Importing strays is a dangerous and irresponsible practice and should be outlawed immediately. The only reason that laws don't already exist to prevent such destructive rescue activities is that no reasonable person could have imagined a scenario in which anyone would be irrational enough to do it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Health matters
Even before considering the health issues, it is a reckless and indefensible practice to import stray animals into a country that pours hundreds of millions of public and private dollars annually, (and has for decades) into animal control and 'pet overpopulation' problems! Imports from other countries displace American shelter dogs that need homes, too. The importation of strays does not save lives, it sustains overpopulation and assures that adoptable dogs in US shelters will be euthanized.

The current scale of importation also poses significant public health risks. These animals, destined to be domestic pets, are from countries where the standards of veterinary medicine are not as high as they are in the US. Diseases and parasites that are not found here may be endemic in poor or tropical countries. If the fundraising materials accurately describe the rescued dogs, they are not pets from private homes but strays from the streets and therefore are among the most likely reservoirs for parasites and diseases. In addition, they are bringing them into communal shelters where they are most likely to pass on whatever diseases or parasites they have to other companion animals or to their caregivers.

Some diseases and parasites pose serious health risks for human health as well as for dogs and other species. Dogs are a leading vector for rabies 11 in many poor countries. Currently, the only thing required for a dog to enter the US is a health certificate and proof of a rabies shot. Given the incubation period for rabies, from five days to several years, with 20-60 days being the norm, unquarantined importation of street dogs from poor countries with low rates of vaccination for rabies, is a disaster waiting to happen. Exotic parasites, worms, protozoa and certain ticks pose significant risks as well.

Living in a country where it is difficult to get a banana through customs, (especially since 9-11) and where livestock importation is strictly regulated and animal protection groups seek ever-tighter regulation of dogs from breed enthusiasts along with commercial breeders, it is a sick and intolerable paradox that poorly bred, often diseased, foreign-bred dogs enter our country by the thousands with the barest of regulation - often on airlines that fly them to the US at no charge to help out the 'cause.' Seemingly, the only unregulated operators in the animal world today are the 'animal dealers' working in the animal protection groups that fundraise on overpopulation while importing dogs from overseas. Indeed, the only thing that puts the madness into perspective is the fact that importing groups and the national animal rights groups that support them are still fundraising on the issue of 'pet overpopulation!'

At NAIA we salute anyone working to improve the welfare of animals so long as they conduct themselves responsibly. If groups such as PeTA that support importation of strays want to help animals in poor and developing countries, though, we recommend that they take a fraction of their millions and fund spay and neuter clinics or launch public education campaigns. Those initiatives might actually help. Importing Satos or Taiwan strays, on the other hand, does little more than displace US shelter animals with ones that are more suitable for fundraising.

NAIA recognizes that most people working in animal shelters and rescue conduct themselves honorably while performing a difficult and often thankless job. This article is not intended to tar the whole sheltering community with the irresponsible actions of a few. Even so, if the good people who work in animal control and protection remain silent on the issue, they are culpable as well. For too long, extreme groups like PeTA have co-opted the animal movement and brought shame to the cause of animal protection. It's time for reasonable people in animal welfare to separate themselves from the corrupt and radical fringe and bring respect back to their cause. The public needs to know that being humane doesn't't have to mean being insane!

For more information on this and other issues affecting dog and cat owners and breeders, visit the NAIA web site at www.naiaonline.org NAIA and NAIA Trust will continue to work on the issue of stray imports. NAIA will pursue researching and reporting on the subject and NAIA Trust will set out an agenda for dealing with it legislatively and legally. If you have information on the subject, please contact naia@involved.com If you would like to work with NAIA Trust on this issue, contact naiatrust@involved.com.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes
http://www.petpopulation.org
http://www.saveasato.org
http://www.daws.org/sato.htm
http://www.northeastanimalshelter.org/special.html
http://www.sterlingshelter.org/services/puppyrescue.html
http://www.geocities.com/~t-aarf/main.html
http://www.humanityforanimals.org/howyoucanhelp.html
http://www.buddydoghs.com/html/satoInfo.html
/articles/archives/aragenda.htm
http://www.idausa.org
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/osh/info/rage_e.html
Note: The synopsis below was taken from the following link:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/osh/info/rage_e.html

"The World Health