The Gazette Staff
November 22, 2008

The Humane Society of the United States, during a news conference Thursday in Washington D.C., said an eight-month investigation of Petland Inc. stores it conducted revealed the company supports puppy mill breeding facilities but tells customers the dogs come only from good breeders. Petland's initial response was the company does not support substandard breeding facilities and provides each store with guidelines on humane care of animals.

Both the initial accusations and the company response were reported in a story done Thursday by the Associated Press.

Friday, Petland went on the offensive against the Humane Society of the United States.

"Reports such as those posted on the HSUS Web site surface every year around the holiday season in conjunction with their annual fundraising efforts," said a company statement released Friday. "Unfortunately, we were not interviewed or consulted, nor were we a part of any of the editing process. This is sensationalism at its best.

"HSUS has a history of publicizing false information in an effort to raise money. They do not operate a single pet shelter or pet adoption facility anywhere in the U.S. To the contrary, over the last 10 years, Petland has adopted out more than 270,000 homeless puppies and kittens nationwide."

Elizabeth Kunzelman, director of marketing and communications for Petland Inc., told the Gazette Friday evening the company is strongly opposed to puppy mills.

"We don't support them, we never have supported them," she said. "We want to do anything we can to shut those down."

Kunzelman said if there ever was any documented type of an issue of any kind involving the chain's animals, it would be quickly addressed. But Petland franchisees, she said, are put through rigorous training sessions that emphasize humane treatment guidelines exceeding federal standards.

"Our No. 1 concern is the puppies," she said. "We're in this business because we love animals."

Kunzelman said Petland has contacted HSUS requesting details and specific instances in its report, but said there has been no response.

"It's very difficult to comment on the allegations when there's no specifics available," she said, adding that if HSUS had any proof of what it is alleging, proper protocol would have dictated that proof be turned over to the USDA rather than hinted at in a press conference.

The Petland corporate response goes even further, saying HSUS is "a wealthy animal-rights lobbying organization (the largest and richest) that agitates for the same goals as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and other radical groups." The company also claims a member of the HSUS senior management team is a "former spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front, a criminal group designated as 'terrorists' by the FBI" and that several other claims HSUS has made over the years are false.

HSUS started the dispute earlier this week when it said investigators visited 21 Petland stores and 35 breeders and brokers who allegedly sold puppies to Petland stores. The investigators, the group claims, also reviewed interstate import records of an additional 322 breeders, federal government reports and more than 17,000 puppies linked to Petland stores. As part of its report posted to its Web site, it includes the transcript of an interview with a woman claiming to be a former employee of an Illinois Petland.

Kunzelman said the only public response to the allegations that has come in to corporate offices so far has been a few e-mails from a form set up on the HSUS Web site.

Customers who frequent Petland stores, she said, know what the store chain is all about and have seen the care given to the animals.

For Immediate Release

August 22, 2008

Today the California State Senate overwhelmingly defeated AB 1634, authored by Assemblymember Lloyd Levine. The original bill called for mandatory sterilization of all pets in California. AB 1634 became the most controversial bill in the Legislature in 2007 and 2008.

PetPAC Chairman Bill Hemby who lobbied against the bill said, “The defeat of AB 1634 is a great victory for pet owners in California and across the country. Our grassroots internet campaign brought together tens of thousands of dedicated dog and cat lovers organized to protect helpless dogs and cats from being sent to shelters and killed at taxpayer’s expense.”

After 11 amendments to the bill, AB 1634 still mandated mandatory sterilization and microchipping. PetPAC contended the bill would result in more dogs and cats being sent to shelters and killed there and would cost taxpayers millions. The California Department of Finance agreed and issued an analysis which confirmed PetPAC’s claims.

The bill was defeated by a vote of 27 against and 5 in favor. The scope of the defeat was virtually unprecedented for a measure which had passed the Senate Local Government Committee and the Assembly by a large margin. Reconsideration of the bill was granted but any change in outcome is considered very unlikely.

“PetPAC will continue to speak out for pet owners in California and across this nation”, Hemby promised. “Our work is not completed.”

PetPAC is an organization of over 45,000 members in California and the country. More information can be found at www.petpac.net.

XXX

LOS ANGELES The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services is unprepared to promote and enforce a new city law that requires most dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered, according to an audit released today.

Ed Boks, the general manager of Animal Services, said he agrees with the audit conducted by City Controller Laura Chick and cited a lack of funds as part of the problem.

The ordinance, which was signed in February and will go into effect on Oct. 1, comes at a time when Animal Services cannot afford to open a newly constructed $14 million shelter in the San Fernando Valley and may have to lay off 27 animal care technicians, Boks said. "It could not have come at a worse time," he said. "The department supports the ordinance that the city passed, but it is clear that it amounts to an unfunded mandate. So the department -- as we are one to do in manysituations -- we'll do the best that we can."

Private animal organizations are working with the department to put outpublic service announcements, fliers and posters. "The department was provided no funding to enforce this ordinance or to advise the community about this ordinance, so everything is being provided pro-bono," Boks said.

The new city law requires most dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered by the time they are four months old. Owners who do not comply with the law will receive information on subsidized sterilization services. If their pets are not fixed within 60 days, owners could face a $100 fine or eight hours of community service. A third offense could result in a $500 fine or 40 hours of community service.

The ordinance exempts animals that have competed in shows or sportingcompetitions; dogs in the process of earning agility, carting, herding,protection, rally, hunting, working or other titles; guide, signal or servicedogs; canines that are used by law enforcement agencies; and animals for which there are valid breeding permits.

The city controller said funding for outreach efforts must be made apriority. "If you don't put something behind (the ordinance), then it's a feel-good gesture, and we don't want to be a city that does empty feel-goodgestures," Chick said. "I always think that legislators should research, not only the outcomes and impacts ... but should always research and ask questions about enforcement," she said. "Otherwise we, government, run the danger of enacting legislation that is not going to be enforced, which to me is the clearest of messages to our citizenry and our public -- go ahead and be a scofflaw, nothing's going to happen."

A fiscal audit released in May found the Animal Services Department hadlost millions of dollars in revenue by failing to license and renew thelicenses of hundreds of thousands of dogs.

No stray, no spay.

A California assemblyman Wednesday officially abandoned a yearlong push to require nearly every dog and cat statewide to be spayed or neutered, opting to target problem pets instead.

Assemblyman Lloyd Levine narrowly won approval by the Senate Local Government Committee, 3-2, of a vastly different approach designed not to affect pets that stay home and behave themselves.

"It doesn't make a criminal out of law-abiding citizens," Levine, D-Van Nuys, said of his recrafted Assembly Bill 1634.

"I guess I would sum it up as 'three strikes' for dogs and cats," Levine said of his new proposal, which would require spaying or neutering only after multiple complaints of misbehavior.

Opponents argued that the state should kill AB 1634 and let cities and counties decide what restrictions, if any, to impose.

"This is a punishment looking for a crime," said Bill Hemby, leader of the Pet PAC, a coalition of animal owners and breeders.

Levine said his ultimate goal is to reduce the 300,000 euthanizations at public animal shelters each year by pushing owners to spay or neuter their pets.

Under AB 1634, animal control officers investigating a complaint of a separate offense could cite a pet owner for failure to spay or neuter as well.

First offenses for failure to spay or neuter would be punishable by a $50 fine, which would be waived for pets that subsequently undergo the procedure.

Penalties for second offenses would differ depending upon whether the animal were canine or feline.

For cats, a second citation would require mandatory spaying or neutering.

For dogs, a $100 fine would be imposed for a second offense and mandatory spaying or neutering for a third citation.

AB 1634 specifies that excessive noise or barking is not adequate to trigger the fines or mandatory surgery.

Though animal control officers could not issue a citation for failure to spay or neuter unless there were a complaint of misbehavior, the complaint would not have to be proved true to trigger the spay or neuter sanction.

Opponents argued that Levine's bill could open the door to frivolous complaints seeking to hurt someone by targeting pet ownership rights.

"What difference does it make whether or not the animal is spayed or neutered if the complaint is not true?" asked Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, who voted against AB 1634.

"This bill just runs roughshod over the rights of pet owners," Hemby said.

Levine agreed Wednesday to amend his bill so that animal control officers would have discretion in issuing citations.

Levine disagreed that AB 1634 would be exploited by troublemakers but said those cited could appeal to local authorities as they do for nuisance, building code or other violations.

"It's not as if we're suddenly going to see a flood of complaints," he said.

AB 1634 now goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The Los Angeles City Council voted 10 to 1 today to approve mandatory sterilization of most pets at the age of 4 months or older - a decision greeted by cheers and applause from the crowded room at the Van Nuys City Hall - where the council meets the first Friday of every month.

The bill must get a second reading in a week, but it is expected to pass. A parade of supporters and opponents of the bill spoke passionately to the council, but in the end, the measure passed, with the sole dissenter being Councilman Bill Rosendahl. He told the council that he was an animal lover, but he professed outrage at the thought of animal control officers knocking on the doors of people's homes, calling it a "fascist-like" move.

The city has said enforcement of the measure, which affects dogs and cats, will be very low key.

"Compassion rules the day!" exclaimed Judy Mancuso, who runs the campaign to pass a similar law on the state level and was one of more than 100 people at today's meeting.

"I'm deeply disappointed," said Cathie Turner, the executive director of Concerned Dog Owners of California. "We have to think about what to do next. The mission of our organization is to protect the health of our dogs. The City Council has passed a bill that will force 95% of Angelinos to live with impaired dogs - not because they're spayed and neutered, but because they're spayed and neutered at the wrong age."

The organization believes the decision on when to spay or neuter, if at all, should be left to owners.

"Mandatory spay-neuter is a necessity," said former game show host Bob Barker, who has donated millions to subsidize the sterilization procedure. "For decades I closed every 'Price Is Right' urging viewers to have their pets spayed. . . . I'd like to think all of us working together would be enough. But it's not enough. We need legislation."

His remarks were greeted with applause and hoots of approval. The parade of speakers supporting the legislation included INXS band member Garry Beers, who told the council that his wife works with a rescue organization.

"I have seen the hopeless cause these people face trying to find homes for these animals," Beers said.

Other rescuers echoed his remarks, emphasizing the overwhelming nature of the task of finding homes for unwanted pets.

"I would like my guest house not to be a permanent foster facility," said Elizabeth Oreck, who works with a private rescue group. "I would like my taxes to be spent on something other than the housing and killing of animals."

On Friday, the Los Angeles City Council will considera common-sense, effectivespay/neuter ordinance - responsible pet owners need to be there and show support.

The scheduled 10:00 a.m. hearing this Friday, February 1, on the proposed Los Angeles city spay/neuter ordinance is critically important. Responsible pet owners and those who truly care about the welfare of animals must plan to attend - or make their views known to the council members BEFORE the hearing.

Opponents - including irresponsible, unlicensed and uncaring breeders - are already organizing to kill the new law. They plan to flood council offices with complaints about the proposal and pack the council chambers, shutting out the voices of responsible pet owners who support common-sense spay/neuter laws.

The proposed ordinance for Los Angeles - approved Monday by the council's Public Safety Committee - would require most dogs and cats in the city to be spayed or neutered by four months of age. The ordinance includes exemptions for show animals that have competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition; dogs working or other title; guide, signal or service dogs; dogs that are actively used by law enforcement agencies; and animals with valid breeding permits.

CBS News reports: "The proposed ordinance is intended to reduce the number of animals in the city's shelters and decrease the rate of euthanasia, which costs the city about $2 million a year."

"This ordinance gives us the tools to end the insanity and do something significantly different," said Ed Boks, general manager of the Department of Animal Services. "This law would help to end the cycle of frustration we all face and feel every day and allow us to eventually reallocate precious resources for increasing adoption, educating the public on humane issues and fighting animal cruelty."

If you are a Los Angeles resident, please call the offices of your council member on Wednesday or Thursday.

On Friday, plan on attending the council session at 10:00 a.m. - it appears there WILL be a public hearing and comment period where we can voice our support - either at the Van Nuys City Hall (14410 Sylvan St., Van Nuys, at Van Nuys Blvd.), or in the City Council Chambers at Los Angeles City Hall (200 North Spring St., Los Angeles).

No. Grafton, Mass. [02-06-03] At local animal shelters around the country, the dogs up for adoption may be a lot further from home than many people would imagine. With stray animals on the decline in many communities, but interest in adoption still high, a Tufts expert says many shelters are importing stray animals from around the world to meet the demand.

“Animal shelters in the USA are casting a wide net – from Puerto Rico to as far as Taiwan – to fill kennels,” reported USA Today. “Critics say many shelters have solved the stray problem in their own area – but rather than shut down, they become de facto pet stores. Some charge more than $200 per adoption for imported dogs.”

According to Tufts’ Gary Patronek – the director of Tufts’ Center for Animals and Public Policy at the University’s School of Veterinary Medicine – U.S. shelters may be a victim of their own successes.

“The drive to have dogs spayed and neutered in the USA has cut down on unwanted litters. And adoption campaigns have helped empty dog pounds,” reported USA Today. “But [the Tufts expert says] people who want to adopt dogs increasingly find aged dogs or undesirable breeds like pit bulls at shelters.”

Imported animals are filling the demand.

“In the last seven years, one organization in Puerto Rico has shipped more than 14,000 strays to the states for adoption,” reported the newspaper. “Shipments from other countries also appear to be increasing. Most imports are small to medium-size dogs popular among adopters.”

In order to enter the U.S., the imported animals do not need to be quarantined – having certificates of good health and proof of rabies shots are sufficient.

“But Patronek said bringing dogs in from abroad runs a serious risk of importing a disease,” reported the Scottish newspaper The Scotsman.

According to the Tufts expert, “What makes it so scary is that you just don’t know what might emerge if you aren’t at least looking for it.”

And despite their similarities, shelters and pet stores have important distinctions from one another.

“[Patronek says] not-for-profit shelters may be chartered to insure animal welfare, but they are relatively unregulated,” reported USA Today. “Pet shops, on the other hand, generally operate under more stringent state and local regulations.”

But some pet owners don’t mind that the stray animals they’ve adopted are from other countries, not their local communities.

“I read a lot about how hard their lives are in Puerto Rico,” Marianna Massa – who adopted two imported stray dogs – told USA Today. “It just affected me so much. I had to do something. If I had a farm, I’d have more.”

Just last month the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared victory over canine rabies in the United States -- a fatal virus that kills 55,000 people a year globally.

That declaration may have been premature.

A growing demand for overseas dogs -- many from countries where the disease is endemic and the animals are too young to be vaccinated -- has put rabies back on the government's radar and caused the CDC to go to work on stricter rules aimed at imported dogs.

As many as 300,000 puppies a year are being imported, based on early estimates, according to G. Gale Galland, veternarian in the CDC's Division of Global Migration and Quarentine.

Driving the import trend is the demand for puppies, rather than older dogs that have behavioral or health issues.

The Border Puppy Task Force in California estimates that 10,000 puppies entered San Diego County from Mexico in just one year. Some only a few weeks old are sold for $1,000 each in shopping center parking lots on the street.

"Most people don't think about this deadly disease," said Dr. Nina Marano, director of the regulatory unit at the CDC. "People take for granted that their dogs are not at risk."

Puppy From India Infected

Just this spring, a puppy from India got a clean bill of health from officials at Seattle Tacoma International Airport. Days later, at its destination in Alaska, the dog was diagnosed with rabies, according to Washington's Veterinary Board of Governors, which is investigating the case.

In 2004, Los Angeles saw its first case of rabies in 30 years with a puppy imported from Mexico. In Massachusetts, a dog imported from Puerto Rico -- a U.S. territory where stray dogs are rampant -- was diagnosed with the disease.

In response to this trend, the CDC has pledged to strengthen regulations that were written long before the burgeoning pet resale market.

So far, no humans have been infected from rabid dogs, but health authorities say that without preventive action, it's only a matter of time.

According to the World Health Organization, rabies is still common in much of Latin America, Eastern Europe, India and other parts of Asia -- regions where puppies are raised for commercial resale in the United States.

Under current regulations, puppies under 12 weeks of age are allowed to enter the country as long as they are kept in isolation for 30 days and later vaccinated.

Rabies is typically transmitted to humans through the bite of an infected animal. In the United States, rabies in domestic animals has declined dramatically since the 1950s, though it still exists among raccoons, foxes and bats.

Rabies is easily preventable by a vaccine, but the virus is virtually impossible to treat once symptoms begin.

One Rabies Survivor

The only known survivor of the disease was a Wisconsin girl who was bitten by a bat and was put into an induced coma in 2004. All other recent attempts to treat three other victims in the United States and one in Canada failed, and all four died.

Since the 1950s, travel rules have relied on the responsibility of individual dog owners, not international traders, said the CDC's Marano. Enforcement has been lax and inconsistent from state to state.

"We've been considering changing the regulations for quite some time when we realized there had been a change in the way people bring their animals into the U.S.," she said.

There are a number of factors at work, according to both breeders and rescue operations. In the last decade animal rights groups have effectively convinced the public that breeders are politically incorrect. As a consequence, breeders are producing fewer litters.

At the same time, many parts of the country have done such a good job of animal population control that there are no adoptable puppies in shelters. Also, say CDC officials, unregulated Internet sales and smuggling of international pets is on the rise.

The majority of dogs - 33 percent - are acquired through a friend or adopted as strays, according to the American Pet Product Manufacturer's Association. Another 27 percent come from breeders and 10 percent from shelters.

Patti L. Strand, president of the National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIS), a consortium of pet owners, breeders and veterinarians, said it's the newer shelters and rescue groups who are most involved in "humane relocation."

Strand said that only two years ago, when NAIA began researching the issue, foreign imports on shelter Web sites varied in age. "Today, most of them are puppies," she said. "It's is easy to speculate that … enterprising rescuers and shelter directors could help developing countries become breeding grounds for stocking U.S. shelters."

A hobby breeder, Strand worries that the practice could "diminish the responsible breeding and placement of well-bred, healthy dogs and cats."

Other animal rights groups say adopting overseas makes no sense when 4 million unwanted dogs are put to death each year.

"We are obviously barely coping with our own overpopulation crisis," said Daphna Nachminovitch, director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), who said many animal shelters face little regulation, and budgets for animal control are strained.

"If a shelter is empty, it's not doing its job," said Nachminovitch. "I can take you anywhere in this country and on streets are homeless, unsprayed animals with litters. I talk to people in the trenches every day. Their doors are not wide open enough."

Puppy Shortage

Even though dog overpopulation is rampant in some states, particularly in the South, successful spaying and neutering programs in the Northwest, California and the Northeast have created a dearth of adoptable puppies, say local shelters.

One rescue group -- Save a Sato (Spanish slang for mixed breed) -- has brought an estimated 14,000 dogs from Puerto Rico to the United States since its founding in 1996, according to Massachusetts volunteer Twig Mowatt.

The island is home to thousands of abandoned and abused dogs in need of homes.

"It's a beautiful thing," said Mowatt, who herself adopted a terrier named Rico. "People are really desperate for an adoptable dog, and they don't want to go to pet stores or breeders. Otherwise there would be nothing."

In Massachusetts, where many of these dogs are adopted by shelters, puppies must be held for 48 hours before being released to homes to watch for signs of illness.

But protocol failed in 2004, when one puppy was diagnosed with rabies during quarantine at a shelter in Cape Ann, Mass. The puppy -- only several months old -- developed neurological problems consistent with rabies and was euthanized, according to Donna Rheaume, a spokesman for the state department of health.

A state lab confirmed the animal had rabies, she said, and all who had handled the dog were given preventive treatment.

Strict Protocols

Shelter Inc. of Sterling, Mass., accepts two or three Puerto Rican dogs a month for adoption. The shelter also takes local animal control surrenders and seeks out dogs who need homes from states like Tennessee and Virginia.

"We have much higher protocols than picking them off the street and throwing them on a plane," said director Leigh Grady, who even took in a puppy from Thailand after the 2004 tsunami.

"That dog had books of medical history," she said. "He had a better medical passport that I did."

The shelter charges $350 for puppies, a fee that covers the costs associated with transportation and medical care. The shelter also carefully screens its adoptive families.

"Everyone wants to help, especially if they can save an animal that was abused," said Grady. "They went the breeder and pet store route and they want to do the right thing."

Meanwhile, the CDC said it is not opposed to importing animals, rather it hopes stricter regulations -- now in review and expected to take effect next year -- will continue to do what it has hailed as one of the greatest public health successes of the last half century -- eliminating canine rabies.

"If animals are being imported responsibly, that's OK with us," said Marano.

Still, she said, about working with shelters and rescue operations, "Let the buyer beware."

"It is safe in the U.S. because we work very hard to keep rabies out," said Marano, a practicing veterinarian. "But you always have to be careful. Pick the brightest puppy in the bunch and not the runt -- the one that looks healthy and has a good disposition, and some sort of health certificate from the pound."

PETPAC LEADS FIGHT TO OPPOSE AB 1634, MANDATORY PET STERILIZATION BILL
Author Levine attempts to revive defeated bill.

Sacramento -- PetPAC, a grassroots organization of pet owners, today announced opposition to California Assembly Bill 1634 following an announcement by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine that he will once again attempt to pass the mandatory pet sterilization measure in 2008.

“AB 1634 failed because proponents deceived state legislators, mislead the public, and betrayed well-intentioned supporters through their use of misinformation, phony statistics and emotional manipulation,” said Bill Hemby, Chairman of PetPAC.

“AB 1634 will create a convoluted maze of government permits, hefty fees and punitive fines that will not save the state money or save animals’ lives. It will, however, take scarce funds from caring for animals to pay for an overreaching bureaucracy that will be expensive to administer, impossible to enforce, and is guaranteed to fail.”

Desperate to find a new hook to promote AB 1634, author Lloyd Levine has pounced on the State’s expected budget deficit to repeat financial statistics that were clearly proven false in the Senate committee hearing where the bill was defeated last July.

Testimony heard in the Senate Local Government Committee proved that after Santa Cruz County enacted a similar mandatory spay/neuter law in 1995, animal control expenses have more than doubled – up 109% – and shelter intakes have dropped less than the statewide average.

PetPAC believes that the decision to perform a serious surgical procedure on a family pet should be a choice made by pet owners in consultation with their veterinarians – not dictated by a one-size-fits-all statewide mandate overseen by a government bureaucracy. The California Veterinary Medical Association came to the same conclusion, and reversed their support for AB 1634 earlier this year.

###

Levine, Barker, California Healthy Pets Coalition, Kick off Year Two of Assembly Bill 1634 Effort

AB 1634 Saves Taxpayers Millions of Dollars, Cuts the Need to Euthanize Millions of Animals, and Relieves Overcrowded Animal Shelters

SACRAMENTO – Assemblymember Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) today was joined by legendary television star Bob Barker and many members of the California Healthy Pets Coalition in re-launching Assembly Bill 1634 – the California Healthy Pets Act – a measure that aims to prevent the needless killing of hundreds of thousands of animals a year, while simultaneously saving taxpayers millions of dollars.

The measure, which cleared two Assembly Committees and was ultimately passed on to the Senate by the full Assembly, is currently in the Senate Local Government Committee where it will be heard in early 2008.

“Since the end of the legislative session, our coalition has been working with stakeholders and other members to strengthen Assembly Bill 1634,” said Assemblymember Levine, who also serves as Chair of the Assembly Select Committee on Animal Welfare. “At the same time, we’ve continued to keep the door open to listen to the legitimate concerns of the bill’s detractors. I am confident that with the work we’ve put in, 2008 is going to be a successful year for our bill, which in turn means good things for our state’s budget and animal shelters.”

AB 1634 asks that most dogs and cats in the State of California be spayed or neutered. More than 20 common sense exemptions are provided in the bill, including for show and sporting dogs, law enforcement dogs, dogs used in search and rescue, pets that are too old or in poor health, and guide, service and signal animals.

The bill is largely modeled upon a successful mandatory spay and neuter ordinance that the County of Santa Cruz implemented in 1995. By 2005, although the county’s human population had grown by 15%, its shelter’s intake numbers had plummeted by well over 50%, the majority of which were already spayed or neutered. This clear success has inspired other jurisdictions, including the Counties of Lake, Los Angeles and Stanislaus, to adopt similar measures.

“The facts of this issue are really very simple. We have overcrowded shelters that are costing the taxpayers millions of dollars annually,” said Judie Mancuso, Sponsor/Campaign Director for the California Healthy Pets Coalition. “This is the right legislation at the right time – a common-sense, humane and taxpayer-friendly solution to a real and costly problem. The needless killing of over 500,000 healthy animals and the waste of hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars each year must end. With both the state and local governments facing critical budget decisions, we need to look for savings wherever we can.”

The California Healthy Pets Act is supported by elected officials, law enforcement agencies, city and county agencies, humane societies and SPCAs, veterinarians and veterinary hospitals, national animal welfare organizations, California rescue organizations, and thousands of individuals and organizations, with more joining the cause every day. For more information on the measure, please visit our Web site at www.cahealthypets.com.

###

Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) said he hopes to resurrect the idea in January.

Levine said he would consider amending the legislation, as suggested by a member of the Senate committee, to limit a proposed $500 fine to owners whose unaltered dogs and cats are picked up while running loose by animal control officers or are discovered at homes during investigations into other violations.

"I think we can get to a solution," Levine told the Senate Local Government Committee and an overflow crowd at a Capitol hearing room. "But the first thing opponents must do is to acknowledge that there is a problem and work with me to solve it."

Levine's legislation, AB 1634, had cleared the Assembly with no votes to spare June 6, but ran into opposition in the Senate after about 10,000 pet owners, breeders, guide-dog owners and police officers objected that it would infringe on their rights and use of animals.

A similar number of pet owners and animal control experts had lobbied for the bill, making it one of the most hotly contested pieces of state legislation this year.

About 20 people testified for or against the bill Wednesday.

Backers said the mandate for dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered at 6 months is justified because 454,000 unclaimed cats and dogs are put to death each year in California shelters at a cost of about $300 million.

Despite previous amendments to allow work dogs, show animals and breeder animals to obtain exemptions from being neutered, it became clear to Levine that the five-member committee was not prepared to vote it out to the full Senate.

Sen. Gloria Negrete-McLeod (D-Chino), the committee chairwoman, told Levine that her family has cared for stray dogs and cats for years and has always acted responsibly and had them spayed or neutered.

"I don't think I appreciate being charged with something that I already do naturally," she said.

Sen. Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach), another member of the panel, said his family has had hunting dogs for years, and that the proposal to require dogs to be spayed or neutered at 6 months would interfere with the breeding of hunting dogs that are often not selected until they are more than 18 months old.

"There needs to be something in the bill for those working dogs," he said.

Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) suggested the amendment that would limit the fine and the spay-and-neuter requirement to those animals picked up by shelter workers.

"One of the fear factors around this bill, and there are a lot of them, is that it's too broad, that responsible owners would be subject to having to take action on their pets, that it's not fair," Kehoe told Levine.

The assemblyman offered to accept the amendment if the committee would vote the bill out of committee, but there did not appear to be the votes.

"If you are talking about taking amendments this morning on the fly, that's not acceptable," said Sen. Dave Cox (R-Fair Oaks).

As a result, Levine asked that the bill be shelved until January.

"We'll take our time," Levine told reporters afterward. "We've got six months to work to educate the committee and work on the amendment.

"The amendment would have just said if you are in violation of other animal laws then you have to spay or neuter your animal. It would not have penalized otherwise law abiding citizens," Levine added.

The Capitol doors opened extra early, an overflow room was provided to accommodate spectators and extra security was on hand for an 8 a.m. committee hearing that would determine the fate of AB1684 — a bill supporters called the California Healthy Pets Act, and opponents labeled the Pet Extinction Act.

In the end, the bill was put on hold until next year. The bill's author, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, made the decision after it became apparent that members of the Senate Local Government Committee were prepared to vote it down.

The bill called for the mandatory spaying or neutering of all dogs and cats, with certain exceptions for breeders of purebreds, police dogs, guide dogs for people with disabilities and for everyday pet owners who simply wanted the family pet to produce just one litter before being sterilized.

The list of organizations supporting the bill ran 10 pages, from the Alpha Canine Society to Underdog Rescue. The list of opponents was nine pages long, from the Airedale Terrier Club of America to the Yorkshire Terrier Club of Los Angeles. Opponents also weighed in with petitions containing 10,000 signatures and enough faxes to break the committee chairwoman's fax machine.

In the two days leading to the hearing, the bill had brought TV celebrity Bob Barker to the Capitol to lobby on its behalf, followed by a protest appearance by a descendant of TV's Lassie and the actor who played Timmy, Jon Provost, the dog's faithful companion.

In the end, Lassie won the day.

William Hemby, lobbyist for a pet owners' group called PetPac, attributed the bill's defeat to a true grass-roots uprising the likes of which he's never seen in 30 years as a lobbyist.

"We put together thousands and thousands of pet owners," Hemby said. "It's never been done before in the history of the state."

He said they were motivated by the fear that such a law, if aggressively enforced, could have dried up the supply of puppies and kittens and ended pet ownership as it exists today.

"Our members were equating this to Prohibition," he said. "People just don't like to be told what to do with their dogs and cats."

Levine argued that, thanks to education and the proliferation of low-cost spay and neuter clinics, 70 percent of pets in California today are sterile.

He said only a mandate could reach the remaining 30 percent and thus relieve the financial and emotional burden of having to exterminate tens of thousands of unwanted cats and dogs each year.

Barker, who spoke at a Capitol news conference Monday to promote the bill, said a mandate will be needed if California is to end the suffering and slaughter.

"Our country, if it's to be civilized, must protect all living things," he said.

Hundreds of spectators turned out to witness the shelving of Assembly Bill 1634, which would have required millions of family pets to be sterilized in an attempt to reduce unwanted births.

Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, opted not to pursue a vote Wednesday when it became clear the Senate Local Government Committee would not support a last-minute amendment to save the bill.

Heath and other opponents left ecstatic after Levine announced he was shelving the legislation until January.

"We're very passionate about this," said Heath, a 75-year-old Pleasanton animal breeder. "We love our animals."

About 300 people attended Wednesday's hearing, but more than 20,000 signed letters or petitions to press their case, Capitol officials said.

"I've never seen this volume of mail," said Peter Detwiler, staff director for the five-member Senate panel. The committee's fax machine broke under the flood of missives, he said.

Lawmakers were lobbied feverishly.

When retired game show host Bob Barker held a news conference Monday applauding AB 1634, opponents countered with Jon Provost, who starred as Timmy in the "Lassie" television series.

Throughout Wednesday's 75-minute Senate hearing, a ninth-generation offspring of Lassie sat quietly on the committee floor.

Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod, a Chino Democrat who chaired the hearing, smiled at the collie's attention-grabbing presence.

"OK," she quipped to the bill's opponents. "But if Lassie's going to speak, it's going to count against your time."

Heath and dozens of other spectators began lining up for Wednesday's hearing before 6 a.m., as the sun rose, nearly two hours before the session was scheduled to begin.

"I found out that the best way not to oversleep is to not go to sleep," said Heath, smiling. "I didn't sleep all night."

"I knew that we had to be here early (to beat the crowd)," said Margaret Thompson, 54, of Pope Valley. "So if you're going to be here early, why not just be here the earliest?"

Supporters of AB 1634 also waited patiently long before the Capitol's doors swung open at 7 a.m.

"Passion verging on lunacy," Ed Buck said of emotion on both sides.

Buck, who applauds AB 1634, recalled attending a Los Angeles hearing on the bill at which a woman "grabbed my shirt, shook it and began to rant."

"If you just calm down and remove the passion, we all agree that there's a pet overpopulation problem," Buck said. "We need to do something about it. And spay or neuter is the solution."

Buck, a 52-year-old West Hollywood resident, said he spent about $400 on plane, hotel, taxi and food expenses to attend Wednesday's hearing.

The Senate's tiny, first-floor hearing room could not hold the crowd, so most spectators watched a broadcast of the proceedings from a separate room and two Capitol cafeterias.

Levine, after shelving AB 1634, accused opponents of twisting facts.

"The best way to kill a bill is to create fear and confusion," he said. "And they've done a good job of that."

Kelley Moran, campaign director for PetPac, a coalition of AB 1634 opponents, dismissed Levine's allegation as unfair and untrue.

"Assembly member Levine wants to say that everybody who opposed his bill doesn't know what they're talking about," Moran said. "But the fact of the matter is, every time he made an amendment, it just made a bad bill worse."

AB 1634, which narrowly passed the Assembly last month, 41-38, was touted by Levine as a way to reduce the strain on animal shelters, which spend $300 million annually to house, feed, euthanize and dispose of 400,000 unwanted dogs and cats.

AB 1634 would have required kittens and puppies to be sterilized before they are 6 months old.

Violators would have received the equivalent of a "fix-it ticket," requiring them to comply within 30 days or be fined $500.

The bill would have allowed permits to be purchased for breeding purebred dogs that participate in shows or athletic competitions. It provided exemptions for animals too old or sick to be sterilized, and for dogs used for police, signal, guide or herding purposes.

Levine's measure was aimed primarily at mongrels, but last month he accepted an amendment to allow local officials to permit one litter of mixed-breed dogs per household.

Opponents claimed that AB 1634 would infringe upon the rights of pet owners, be largely unenforceable, punish responsible families for others' irresponsible acts, be ignored by many of the worst offenders, and could put many hobbyist breeders out of business.

Levine, in a last-ditch effort Wednesday to keep AB 1634 alive, said he would be willing to narrow its scope to require sterilization only after a dog or cat were found roaming the streets or a separate animal-control law were violated.

Members of the Senate committee made it clear they would not accept the last-minute amendment, which was not submitted in writing and was aimed at beating a Friday deadline for Assembly bills to clear Senate policy committees.

Levine ultimately shelved AB 1634 without accepting the amendment.

Assembly Bill 1634 by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) sets up a convoluted system ofpet permits, fees and fines that will affect millions of Californians and have a devastating financialimpact on cash-strapped animal control agencies across the state, said PetPAC Chairman Bill Hembyat a Capitol press conference today where PetPAC unveiled their TV commercials opposing the bill.

“This measure will take money from programs proven to reduce the unwanted animal populationand instead spend the funds to implement a bureaucracy that is expensive to administer andimpossible to enforce,” said Hemby. “Animal control expenses in Santa Cruz County have skyrocketedup 109% since a similar law took effect,” he said.

Representatives from the disabled community also spoke on their opposition to the measure.“Our independence, safety, mobility and an improved quality of life are interwoven with our traineddog’s ability to mitigate some of the effects of our disabilities,” said Beth Shea, representing theInternational Association of Assistance Dog Partners. “Passage of this bill would threaten our abilityto safely travel, work, and enjoy other aspects of daily life,” said Shea, who was accompanied by herservice dog, Remy.

Noting that more than 90% of owned cats are already spayed or neutered, Joan Miller, representingthe Cat Fanciers Association, said that feral cats are the real problem facing animal control agencies– an issue not addressed by AB 1634. “There are thousands of unowned cats on the streets,” saidMiller. “Their numbers will only increase if this bill becomes law.”

Also scheduled to speak were:
• Dr. Kathleen Kenyon from Sanger Veterinary Hospital, a veterinarian for 25 years.
• Sacramento County Deputy Sheriff Steve LeCouve and his K-9, Dantes.

AB 1634 will be heard in the California State Senate Local Government Committee at 8:00 am onWednesday, July 11.

Following the hearing, a PetPAC rally will be held on the West steps of the State Capitol.

The latest pearl of wisdom to flow from the Sacramento legislative bathhouse is a bill that would require dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered by the time they are 4 months old. Purebreds who can prove they are pure would be spared the blade. According to the proposed law, you could get fined $500 if your dog or cat hasn't been neutered or spayed by 4 months.

Proponents of the measure (AB 1634) that passed the Assembly 41-38 earlier this month argue that mandatory spaying and neutering will save taxpayers a pile of money from the handling of unwanted pets and would significantly reduce the number of dogs and cats that are put to death in shelters.

For evidence, they site Santa Cruz County, where an ordinance served as a blueprint for the measure. The bill's author, Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), says his proposal will save taxpayers $200 million or more per year. Never mind that the animal control costs in Santa Cruz County have skyrocketed since its ordinance took effect, rising from $635,296 in 1995 to more than $1.1 million in 2005, according to a group opposing the measure.

What a shocker. It seems every time government passes a law designed to save us money, a new regulatory agency is created that costs us more to manage than the original problem. I can imagine having thousands of special state agents working to ensure that all the dogs and cats have been properly fixed.

"Lift your leg, please."

"You, with red collar. Those had better be bells hanging beneath that tail of yours."

And before any of you start to wonder why I'm against spaying and neutering ... I'm not. My dogs and cats have always been spayed and neutered, and I wish my wife would let me spay and neuter our rabbits, birds (can you neuter a bird?) and the 300 deer that sleep on my porch.

I also carry a list of humans who should be spayed or neutered and find it ironic that the Legislature blanches at the mere notion of sterilization for sex offenders (what do you suppose they cost taxpayers?) but has no problem at all applying the knife to four-legged critters who are just looking for some love.

And I always worry when lawmakers start nosing around between my dog's legs. Don't they have freeways to fix?

The other problem I have is that the bill discriminates against mutts. I happen to love mutts, and if this bill is signed into law mutts will eventually be wiped from the planet because it will be illegal for them to breed. I just saw a science fiction movie with a similar plot.

Take my dog, Ben, for example (please ... someone ... anyone). Ben is 6 months old and is part black lab and Australian shepherd. I've been trying to make an appointment to have Ben neutered in Auburn but it's almost impossible to get an appointment, which means most of us don't need government to tell us what to do. We just need someone to answer the phone in Auburn.

Ben needs to get neutered because he sticks his nose in places it doesn't belong and fancies himself as a regular Man About Town. My old dog Zack (who died at 14 last year) was neutered, and it settled him right down. The same thing happened to my friend Frank after he got his vasectomy. He stays home almost every night now, crying through reruns of "Sleepless in Seattle."

In typical fashion, the bill fails to look at the big picture. Opponents argue that working dogs will not enjoy the same exemptions as the purebreds. "AB 1634 will require all potential service dogs to be sterilized at four months unless they have begun training - an impossible criteria to meet since training doesn't start until the dog has reached maturity," read one opposition letter.

Also in typical fashion, the state bill does not come with state money, which means it will be yet another unfunded state mandate. I've seen the local government budgets, and there isn't a lot of money left over to ensure that Fido and Kitty aren't running around with live ammunition. Again, I'd prefer to have our city councils working on traffic and housing issues and not spending their time chasing Ben to make sure his bark has a high pitch to it.

What to do? For starters, send a note to our own state senator, Sam Aanestad (470-1846), and to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (you might find him through www.gov mail.ca.gov or at the gym). Let them know that this proposal is nuts - I mean crazy - and that we'd like to see our lawmakers spend more time worrying about water and crime and energy prices and illegal immigration and most anything other than your animals' nether regions.

Let them also know (for me) that if any neutering is to be done, it needs to start inside the state Capitol building.

ooo

Some 300 distraught pet owners packed Palo Alto City Hall, where they gave the Democrat from Palo Alto an earful for more than five hours. They were howling mad about the legislation and wanted Simitian -- who, perhaps wisely, has not said whether he supports the bill -- to know it.

"I was born and raised here, but I will move if this law passes," said Kathryn Blink of San Carlos, whose Dalmatian was deemed the best in the nation in 2004. "I don't want to be a law-breaker. And I'm tired of being told what I can do with my property."

AB1634 would require all dogs and cats older than 4 months to be spayed or neutered unless the owner obtains a permit. Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has said he drafted the legislation in an effort to reduce the number of unwanted animals euthanized at shelters.

Among breeders, Levine, a Democrat from Van Nuys, is as popular as fleas at a dog show.

A long line of passionate owners of purebred dogs, dog breeders, dog trainers, dog agility experts, dog show judges, and little old ladies with dog hair on their sweaters told Simitian the law would muzzle the highly refined world of dog breeding.

A few cat people where there to oppose the bill, too.

Breeders argued that the law would make it harder to breed dogs and lead to an increase in shady breeding operations.

"This will put us back in the days of drowning puppies and kittens in buckets of water," said Carol Schumacher, owner of the Mid-Peninsula Animal Hospital in Menlo Park.

They also said spaying or neutering a dog before it's an adult can trigger health and behavioral problems and politicians have no business playing veterinarians.

"This is a medical decision that should be made between a veterinarian and a client, not a political decision," said veterinarian Miles Rogers of Campbell. "It puts vets in an enforcement position."

The law would be a disaster for show dogs that might see their careers as studs or bitches needlessly cut short, said Rick Sklarin, president of the San Francisco West Highland White Terrier Club.

"We don't know until at least a year if we have a champion show dog or not," he said. "Four months is too soon to make that decision."

Carol McHugh of San Carlos, a member of the Borzoi Club of Northern California, took that argument one step further, predicting -- with all seriousness -- that the law would spell the end of California dog shows entirely.

Animal Shelter Costs Double Following Mandatory Spay/Neuter Law Claims that a law to force the sterilization of dogs and cats in California “will save millions of taxpayer dollars” are being discounted after government documents show that animal control expenses have nearly doubled in the county that serves as the model for the proposed statewide measure.

In arguably the most contentious bill before the California Legislature this year, AB 1634 by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) will require nearly all pet owners to spay or neuter their animals or face a $500 fine.

Claiming taxpayer savings as the basis for the bill, proponents point to a 1995 mandatory spay/neuter law in Santa Cruz County that serves as the blueprint for AB 1634. In a recent radio interview, Assemblyman Levine said that based on the Santa Cruz ordinance, he assumes that California taxpayers can expect to “save $200 million or more a year.”

But records obtained by PetPAC from the California State Controller’s Office paint a very different picture: Animal control expenses in Santa Cruz County have skyrocketed since the law took effect, from $635,296 in 1995 to more than $1.1 million in 2005 – an increase of 93%.

In contrast, animal control expenses statewide decreased more than 10% during the same 10-year period, according to government figures supplied by Judie Mancuso, the bill’s own sponsor.

Ignoring clear evidence to the contrary, proponents of AB 1634 contend that local governments will save money despite being saddled with a new law that is expensive to implement, a burden to administer, and impossible to enforce.

“I am no longer surprised by the stunning erroneous claims that supporters of AB 1634 are making,” said Bill Hemby, Chairman of PetPAC, an organization dedicated to the rights of pets and their owners. “What concerns me is that backers of the bill have no problem giving state lawmakers flat-out false information on which to base their vote. That takes a lot of nerve, I’ll give them that.”

AB 1634 will be heard in the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on July 9. If passed, it will be heard next in the Senate Local Government Committee on July 11.

For more information on No on AB 1634 go to PetPAC.net.

This bill, which the state Assembly narrowly passed last week, would require all dog and cat owners to spay or neuter their pets, with $500 fines for violations. The legislation includes exceptions for breeders and service and police dogs, but owners would need to pay for a county "intact permit" -- a license to leave the critter alone.

For both the animals' sakes and our own, it's certainly worth working to reduce the number of freely breeding animals that all too often go feral or end up crowding the pounds until they're put down. But is the solution more fees, permits and paperwork for law-abiding pet owners?

Responsible people already either spay or neuter their animals or keep them under close watch. The troubles largely come from their thoughtless neighbors who let dogs run wild until they breed whole packs.

But those irresponsible owners are already, likely as not, ignoring requirements to license and control their animals. Is there any reason to think they'll be more diligent about spaying and neutering?

In Santa Cruz County, which made fixing mandatory in the mid-1990s, the number of animals arriving in shelters has fallen by more than half since the law took effect. How do you argue with success?

Well, the numbers have also dropped in Shasta County -- not as much, but about 20 percent in five years, says shelter manager Mayra Morris. She credits education and vouchers for discount neutering. With a little more money devoted to the job, there could be even fewer unwanted animals.

What's more, attitudes and conditions vary enormously around the state. What might make sense to residents of liberal Santa Cruz or crowded Los Angeles (where the county passed a spay-and-neuter ordinance for dogs last year) can look senselessly intrusive in the north state. Why not let cities and counties decide the plainly local issue of animal regulation for themselves?

If the state wants to encourage altering dogs and cats, great. But a plan based on incentives -- more liver treat, less rolled-up newspaper -- is likely to be just as effective and provoke far less growling by the public.

LONG BEACH - State Sen. Jenny Oropeza broke ranks with many Democrats on Wednesday, and voiced her opposition to a bill that would require dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered.

Oropeza's public opposition comes as the bill awaits hearing in the Senate.

"I oppose (Assembly Bill) 1634," the Long Beach Democrat said in a written statement. "It is too severe a solution to a noble objective. Further, I am concerned about the economic consequences for the city of Long Beach's convention business. It will hurt public safety and other vital city services."

The fallout from a last-minute switch by a pair of local Assembly members earlier this month to support legislation to require cats and dogs to be spayed or neutered by four months of age had apparently placed Long Beach's upcoming AKC/Eukanuba National Championship show in danger of cancellation.

Following an Assembly vote in which Assembly members Betty Karnette and Laura Richardson supported the bill after promising local lobbyists and tourism officials to abstain, dog show participants began to lash out at the city and the pair of Democratic legislators.

The votes by Richardson and Karnette helped Assemblyman Lloyd Levine's AB 1634, called the California Healthy Pets Act, pass 41-38.

Both assemblywomen said they voted for the bill in exchange for the author's promise he would make it more friendly to breeders when it returns for a vote in the Assembly.

Still, their vote had dog breeders howling mad.

Many voiced plans to boycott the show in e-mails and phone calls to the city, tourism officials and the Press-Telegram.

The AKC/Eukanuba National Championship's board of directors eventually decided against canceling its December show here.

The show is estimated to bring in 30,000 participants and have a $65 million impact on the city's economy and $850,000 in hotel bed taxes through 2014, the year through which show organizers have tentatively scheduled dates.

Breeders argued the bill creates another tax. The bill's author said the bill is intended to save thousands of animals from being euthanized each year.

As it is worded now, the bill would require most cats and dogs four months old and up to be spayed or neutered. Failure to do so could result in a $500 fine for owners.

Levine said the bill was needed to curb a huge population of unwanted pets that is costing state and local governments $300 million a year.

The bill includes several exceptions, including show animals, police dogs and guide dogs and animals that are too old or ill to be spayed or neutered.

"We think it's great that a state elected official is taking a position on a bill that has lots of questions but definitely has a very negative impact on our city," said Steve Goodling, president and CEO of the Long Beach Convention and Visitors Bureau.

Even hard-line Republicans had praise for Oropeza.

Long Beach Chamber President & CEO Randy Gordon said Oropeza came "to the rescue of Long Beach workers."

"At a price-tag of $65 million to small business, in my 25 years in the Chamber industry, I have never seen a bill that would be so damaging to a local economy pass with the blessing of our local legislators," he said.

The bill must pass the Senate, then head back to the Assembly.

A representative for Sen. Alan Lowenthal said the Democrat from Long Beach has not yet taken a position on the bill.

It was unclear how or if Oropeza's opposition to the bill will affect her bid for the vacant Congressional seat.

Parke Skelton, Oropeza's campaign consultant, said the senator's stance on the bill is not related to her campaign for the 37th Congressional District seat, which Richardson is also seeking.

"It's not been a concern of the campaign at all," he said.

SACRAMENTO, CA (June 6, 2007) – “Unbelievable” was the reaction from PetPAC today after Members of the California State Assembly voted 41-38 to outlaw the existence of mixed-breed dogs and cats in the Golden State.

Assembly Bill 1634, authored by Los Angeles Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, will allow only select purebred dogs and cats to breed. Pet owners who don’t sterilize their mixed breed pets by four months of age will face a $500 fine and possible criminal penalties.

“This crazy measure will end up costing families heartache and taxpayers billions,” said Bill Hemby, Chairman of PetPAC, an organization dedicated to the rights of pets and owners. “California will be the poster child for an invasive and overreaching government mandate that is impossible to fund, administer or enforce.”

AB 1634 will blanket all 58 counties in California with an expensive forced spay/neuter law that not all shelters want – or need. According to the State of California, dog impounds have fallen 86% over last 30 years. Puppies and kittens are already being transferred between counties to alleviate a shortage of adoptable pets: San Francisco and Marin Counties need to bring pets in from other areas to be adopted locally. In San Diego County – which has no mandatory spay/neuter law – only one adoptable animal was euthanized in 2004-05.

Not only family pets, but police dogs, search and rescue dogs, service dogs for the blind and disabled, and working stock dogs serving California’s $6 billion livestock industry will be decimated under AB 1634.

“The methods proposed by AB 1634 will lead to unintended consequences that will have a serious negative effect on animal health, the public, and the economy,” wrote 125 licensed veterinarians in opposition to the measure. “AB 1634 may actually lead to an increase in the number of animals impounded and euthanized.”

Experience has shown that local jurisdictions cannot recoup the costs to administer and enforce mandated sterilization laws from penalties and fees alone. As a result, funds will need to be taken from vital city and county services, including law enforcement and public safety.

The bill now moves on to the State Senate.

How YOUR Assemblymember Voted:

Voting YES

Voting NO

Absent