Best Friends' concerns are right on target : regarding the enforcement of this bill - as well as the fact that it would be absolutely necessary to provide cheap - or free - spay neuter services to accompany the bill. To be honest, while the bill sounds good in theory, and I am a strong supporter of spay/neuter ( I work with abandoned/feral cats and all my rescues are spayed/neutered) - experience tells me that making something illegal does not stop it from happening.- So I am skeptical as regarding the value of passing such a bill. I fear that if this bill - even with modifications - is passed, that more animals will end up being abandoned or taken to the shelter and euthanized due either to the fact that folks cannot afford even a reduced rate spay/neuter - OR worse - that enforcement of the law would result in un-neutered animals being rounded up and taken to local shelters, where a large percentage of them would end up being euthanized. Just wondering how much money would be expended passing and/or attempting to enforce this bill - and wondering if the money could be better spent providing cheap or free spay neuter and innoculations- in addition to the money that Best Friends has also indicated should be spent providing the neutering services?

---

Check: www.spokescow.org to see Bossies work in relation to S/N. This slogan should be part of any education of the public, "Only we can prevent pet overpopulation". Education, education, education will make passage of any bill easier.

---

Vehemently opposed to California (or any other state's) Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill.

There is a legitimate place for small breeders of pure bred dogs. If this law passes in CA, the small breeder will be wiped out while the puppy mills will remain untouched. The only ones affected by laws are those who obey them; puppy mills are run by those who have no moral compass, who obey neither man's nor God's laws. If the mandatory spy/neuter bills become law, such people will just go deeper underground. Legitimate small breeders who approach the local municipality to obtain a kennel license exemption will probably be either denied or extorted.
Low cost spay/neuter clinics are a great idea. Blanket publicity for spaying/neutering pets, again a great idea, but mandatory spay/neuter laws are intrusive and ultimately unenforceable. How well have attempts up to now worked? Poorly, if at all. Make criminals out of responsible breeders, and the only ones hurt will be they, their dogs, and their customers. What will happen to people who want a particular breed; where will they go? If there are no legitimate small breeders available because of the mandatory spay/neurer law, the puppies sold in pet shops will be the "only game in town," and where do we KNOW those puppies to come from? PUPPY MILLS! As I see it, the way to go is:
1. increased encouagement for voluntary
spaying/neutering of pets,
2. low cost spay/neuter facilities
3. closing pet shops that traffic in live animals
4. enforcing existing laws that target illegal mass breeding (puppy mills).

And before someone accuses me of being an indiscriminate breeder who breeds whilly-nilly and won't spay/neuter. I do not breed. I never have. I am a pet owner who has always had my females spayed and my males neutered at 6 mos. or earlier.

And if you are one of those who believes that there are so many stray animals that there should never be any breeding of pure breds at all, then to you I say, live your life and I'll lead mine and mine includes my little pure bred whom I adopted from my local shelter two years ago.

---

It always saddens me to see the number of animals that are destroyed every year but the problem with the bill that just died is that it is unenforceable.

First of all, Animal Control Departments all over the State are understaffed and under-budgeted.
Secondly, you are not going to solve the problems of unwanted litters by forcing mandatory spay and neuter. I live in a rural area and people don't even bother to get their dogs licensed and cats are never licensed. The only people that would comply to a mandatory law are those that are the responsible ones who would not allow their pets to roam free and have unwanted litters. You're not going to get to the ones who don't care...they will ignore the law and if you force the vets etc to report these people, they just won't get take their pets to the vet.!

Please help design a bill that will work. Make people want to spay their animals not force them. Government intrusion into people's lives is not something most citizens appreciate or care to see.

---

I suggest that Best Friends and California study the examples of the Humane Alliance of Ashville NC. They are doing a HUGE job with affordable spay/neuters, and, in communities that have embraced their philosophy (and mobile units!), conditions have changed dramatically. www.humanealliance.com

---

New Hampshire lowered their kill rate by providing affordable and low cost s/n statewide.

I work with a community shelter that is lowering it's county kill rate without manditory s/n and this is a growing community. We s/n feral cats, moms when kittens and puppies are dropped off and help anyone that needs assistance affording s/n.

Not sure what California is complaining about according to Animal People nation wide they already have a lower kill rate than most other states

This is an example of a perceived good idea gone bad.

I trust that Best Freinds will revisit the issues and talk to Nathan Weinograd about the correct course to follow. Leave the hobby breeders along, target the commercial industry and pet stores.

Provide education, and s/n that anyone who wants or needs the service can afford.

---

I’m glad this bill didn’t pass in it’s original form, but I liked the amended version better. It allowed everyone to have one litter of puppies if they wanted it before having their dogs spayed/neutered, which I liked… But there was still no provision for dollar limits on fines for people who didn’t get their dogs fixed, and had no provision for low-cost or easy access to spay/neuter clinics for “poor” people (like most of Shasta County). It also didn’t address the “elitist” attitude of AKC breeders who want to corner the market on puppy sales… and thereby make the purchasing of puppies almost impossible for anyone who couldn’t afford to pay a $1500+ adoption fee. The bill also never stated how local Animal Control offices were supposed to uphold the regulations – when they can hardly cover the territories they have right now. I am impressed with the idea that Best Friends animal rescue group has stated they will assist in the re-drafting of the bill, and will try to find a way to subsidize the cost of the spay/neuter surgeries if the bill passes.

---

I was saddened to see all of the controversy regarding this bill. Much of the outcry locally was about not wanting the govenment to tell us what to do with our "pet-property"! There are so many homeless and unwanted animals roaming all over the U.S.. The euphansia statistics are heart -wrenching. I am so grateful Best Friends is on board to steer this bill in the right direction and to passage next year. You can count on my support!

---

Until any mandatory law can truly be enforced, what is the point? Our lawmakers are great at creating laws but not terribly talented at providing for enforcement. How is such a law to be enforced? I totally support spay/neuter and TNR, but is law enforcement going to round up every loose pet to see if they are spayed or neutered? Law enforcement has more important things to do and city budgets are already tight. . . how can this be done equitably and fairly -- to pet guardians and to the pet themselves? I hope this is done right or not done until this is thoroughly thought through from every angle..

---

Has anyone realized that rape and murder are against the law, too, and even so, crimes are still committed? However, if they perpetrators ARE caught, b/c there are laws on the books, there is a penalty.

Same parallelism for mandatory s/n. Some people will still not alter their pets, BUT AB1634 will not only provide a TOOL for animal control/animal welfare officials to get strays or any other pets that cross their paths s/n'd, but also make it easier for anyone to get their pet altered through SUBSIDIZED s/n programs.

And people are totally wrong when they say AB1634 will hurt responsible people/pet guardians. How could it possibly do that? Responsible ppl DO s/n their pets, WILL s/n their pets, and want everyone else to as well. It won't hurt the good ppl at all.

HELLO! Stop the madness and support the bill. The law needs to be on the books so s/n CAN be enforced!

---

So, as part of the bill, will animal control pick up and spay/neuter and return stray animals? Did I miss that somehow? If the animal control folks WOULD pick up and s/n and then return all stray animals that are not altered, gee, that would solve lots of problems. You could just put your pet outside and wait for animal control to pick it up, alter it and return it - free of charge. :) However, I believe the current laws in my state require that all animals have rabies shots, but the shelter does not automatically innoculte animals they pick up - since such a large percentage of the animals they receive are killed at the shelter brcause of lack of homes, they probably do not want to waste the money innoculating thm. So I am curious as to where the shelters in California will find the money to spay/neuter all the stray animals?? Also, where I live, our animal control division does not believe in trap/neuter/return for feral cats - some shelters in other counties recognize ear tips and do what they can to figure out if there is a caretaker - but my understanding in my county is that eartip or no, they will not release a feral cat if it is going to be put back with a colony.

---

wow.. considering that BR's own legislative specialist, Laura Allen, did a study demonstrating that mandatory s/n DOES NOT WORK, it's sad to see BR capitulating to the know-nothings. Not to mention the knee jerk "breeder" bashing.

And here I thought BF was trying to be fact-based. Guess it's more important for them to be in with the AR crowd

---

As a californian I am glad that you will help with the next edition as this one did not address some very important issues.
Dawn Beattie
United Hope for Animals

---

Thank you for YOUR leadership, Best Friends. good article. A state-wide spay-neuter fund is the most sensible thing I've heard yet. Please help Mr. Levine fix the bill. he needs your help and support because I don't think he is getting good advice. thank you for the great work you do.

---

I've been doing breed rescue for 20 years. The people I know opposed to AB 1634 were not the commercial breeders - they were the good, responsible breeders that make my job easier, the parent club that donates money to help us (funding rescue directly and taking out ads for puppy buyers to avoid puppy mills), AND our breed rescue groups.

These are people that I've known for years. They aren't "profit seeking" breeders - many aren't even breeders at all. They are the good guys. When you try to paint them as the bad guys, I have a choice of believing my own eyes or your assertions. It sure isn't helping your credibility.

Given that the puppy mill exemption was in the bill FROM THE START, and given that the main opposition to this bill was from parent clubs, working dog groups, and other reputable breeder groups, I think it's more than a little disingenuous to try to sell the line that AB 1634 went down b/c the commercial breeders were looking for a way to preserve their profits.

In fact, AB 1634 completely exempted commercial breeders. How is that good?

I am truly disappointed in you. I thought Best Friends was embracing a philosophy that would allow good breeders and good rescuers to work together. I had seen how well it works in my breed - to the benefit of the animals. We are in a situation where no adoptable dog of my breed has to be euthanized - if they come to our attention, they're safe - and we're there largely b/c we all work together.

Apparently you care more about political correctness than animal lives.

---

From your press release:

“We applaud Assemblyman Levine for having the vision to introduce such groundbreaking legislation, as well as his leadership in withdrawing the bill once he realized it had been rendered useless by intense lobbying from commercial breeders,” said Paul Berry, executive director of Best Friends Animal Society.

Mr. Berry, with all due respect, you may want to re-read the various amendments that Mr. Levine offered in his ever desperate attempts to legitimize AB 1634.

There was no lobbying from commercial breeders. There was no need for them to lobby because they have had a free pass since early on. In the 4-9-07 version of Levine's bill, commercial breeders were the only entities likely to possess a business license which was required in order to obtain an intact permit.

In the July 3rd version, Levine went even further to protect commercial breeders by adding "A person in possession of a cat or dog to be used for any of
the purposes permitted by the federal Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. Sec. 2131 et seq.) shall be
exempt from the provisions of this chapter, provided the person is licensed by or
registered with the United States Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act."

Again, the only breeders that this applies to are commercial breeders who are regulated by the USDA.

Now the questions is why Levine did not choose to regulate commercial breeders who are generally considered to be a significant source of homeless dog and cats due to the impulsive nature of pet shop purchasers and the willingness of the commercial breeders to sell to anyone who hands them cash or a credit card.

The speculation as that Levine did not want to deal with what would undoubtedly be a well coordinated and well financed response from the pet supply industry.

AB 1634 was bad legislation to begin with, and only got worse as Levine sold out in his efforts to get it passed through the assembly and senate.

It's clear that he does not understand the issues involved in either sheltering or breeding.

Please reconsider your support. By aligning with Levine and the other bill supporters you will only confuse people who will wonder what your agenda might be, given the unsupportable statement in your press release.

---

I am saddened to hear that Best Friends is willing to work with Lloyd Levine to salvage what was initally and I'm sure will continue to be a very bad, very misguided bill.
In addition to the fact that the bill gives a total pass to puppy mill and commercial breeders, who are the vast majority of contributors of purebred dogs and cats to shelter numbers, it has been PROVEN again and again that mandatory spay/neuter laws have unintended consequences, and that once in place, these laws only serve to increase the number of shelter dropoffs and euthanasias.
No one wants to see any adoptable animal euthanized...that goes without saying. But we must work to find out why animals are dropped off and then use THAT information to come up with sane laws that will really work. And please...intelligent remedies must be pursued, not remedies based on emotion as they very often miss the mark.
As soon as laws are in place to curb sales of animals in pet shops and via the internet, it is amazing how fast numbers of shelter drop offs of purebreds will decline. No animal should be purchased on a whim...puppies and kittens are always cute, but as soon as they start growing and need constant care and training, many people decide they're not up to it and off to the shelter they go. Worse, if penalties are instituted for intact pets, many people will simply drop off the pup or kitten in the countryside to die a slow and painful death.
Remember unintended consequences?? This is one of them.
Please reconsider your future support of L Levine. He has shown himself to twist the truth to suit his latest need. Education of the pet buying public and expanding services for low/no cost s/n is what has been succeeding in California, and that's what we should concentrate on and strive to expand.

---

A portion of the statewide funding for this program can come from a DONATION CHECK-OFF box on the California State Tax Form. If people are willing to support Alzheimer's Research, they will also support a CA Spay/Neuter Program. How can we go about getting a Spay/Neuter donation box added to the state tax form? Anyone know?

---