, thanks for the effort, and thanks for sharing the response. It says a lot.
I don't think the AKC had anything to do with the "one litter per pet" revision. I think the CVMA
may have had more to do with that. Not that all vets support the bill --- I'm convinced most don't. This is an incomplete list of vets in opposition
--- none of my vets are on the list, and they're all opposed.
What's just unreal are the new intact permit requirements. There are just two [overworked, underpaid] ACOs in my town--- who will enforce this stuff?
122336.21. (a) The local jurisdiction or its authorized local
animal control agency may allow for issuance of an intact permit, and
imposition of an intact permit fee, for one male and one female dog
per household in order to allow the dogs to produce a single litter
of offspring. In no event shall the intact permits issued for this
purpose have a duration in excess of one year. In addition, the
following conditions shall be met for purposes of obtaining and
retaining the permit:
(1) The animal has been examined by a licensed veterinarian and is
following the preventative health care program recommended by the
(2) The owner has not been convicted of one or more violations of
the following offenses:
(A) Section 121705 of the Health and Safety Code.
(B) Section 286.5 of the Penal Code.
(C) Section 596 of the Penal Code.
(D) Section 597 of the Penal Code.
(E) Section 597.5 of the Penal Code.
(F) Section 599aa of the Penal Code.
(G) Section 487e of the Penal Code.
(H) Section 487f of the Penal Code.
(I) Section 487g of the Penal Code.
(3) The owner has not been convicted of two or more violations of
any local ordinance involving the dog for whom the unaltered animal
certification is sought.
(4) The owner has not received an order from the local
jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency involving
the dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought.
(5) The dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought
has not been determined by local jurisdiction or its authorized local
animal control agency to be a "vicious animal."
(6) The animal is properly housed and cared for as follows:
(A) The animal is provided sufficient quantity of good and
wholesome food and water.
(B) The animal is provided shelter that will allow the animal to
stand up, turn around, and lie down without lying in its feces, and
the area where the animal is kept is properly cleaned and
(C) The animal is fully contained on the owner's property and
provided appropriate exercise.
(D) The animal owner otherwise complies with any applicable state
law concerning the care and housing of animals.
(7) The owner furnishes the director of animal control services
with a signed statement agreeing to the following conditions:
(A) Offspring of the unaltered animal may not be sold and may be
adopted without a fee only after they reach eight weeks of age.
(B) Records will be kept documenting how many offspring were
produced and who adopted them.
( 8 ) The dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought
is currently licensed pursuant to local requirements.
(9) The owner has considered having the animal microchipped for
purposes of identification.
(b) The owner shall maintain records documenting how many
offspring were produced or adopted, or both, and shall provide proof
that the dog has been spayed or neutered after a single litter. This
information shall be made available to an animal control agency upon
(c) The amount of the fee for an intact permit issued under this
section shall be determined by the local jurisdiction and shall not
exceed the cost of administering this section.
Personally, I'm still in the camp that firmly believes something must be done to address this issue.
believes something must be done. I've adopted three dogs from the local pound. I give hundreds of bucks each year to the local shelter. I volunteer. I teach after-school classes on dog care and safety. This debate isn't between people who truly care about shelter animals and people who don't give a damn.
(The folks who really
don't give a damn aren't even aware this debate is taking place.) It's between people who think that the solution is legislation, and those who believe that spay/neuter legislation points government in a dangerous direction, has a poor track record at best, won't save money and won't help shelter animals. Here's what Maddie's Fund has to say
about government programs, and why they don't fund them:
Maddie's Fund® does not provide funding for government programs, including state and local animal care and control mandates. This policy applies to mandatory spay/neuter laws, as well as to other requirements imposed by federal, state and local legislation. Reasons for this policy include:
¨ Maddie’s Fund is committed to supporting volunteerism and encouraging local philanthropy on behalf of animals.
¨ Maddie’s Fund believes in local solutions for local problems and supports the right of every community to determine its own path.
¨ Maddie’s Fund feels strongly that accountability is essential to saving more animal lives.
Sounds utopian, but Richard Avanzino, the SFSPCA and Maddie's Fund DO
have a track record of saving lives, and it's a very impressive one. Lodi reduced euthanasia rates by over 40% in two years with help from Maddie's Fund.
Have you seen the Maddie's Fund AB 1634 statement
? A SFSPCA spokesperson told me it would be a "tragedy" [her word] for California to lose Maddie's Fund grants by passing this bill.
And, as always, commercial breeders, puppy mills and pet shops are unaffected by AB 1634. A new BarkWorks pet store
is opening near me --- check out all the different breeds available! Thanks, Lloyd! Thanks, Judie!