[Jac]

I don't know if this has been posted or not (I've been on vacation) but on April 24, the California Legislators passed a bill that REQUIRES ALL dogs to be spayed/neutered unless highly regulated...this severely limits our rights as responsible breeders and as consumers.
I urge you to read the bill's latest version (April 17) andn write to your representatives to oppose further passage of this bill.
Here is the bill as it was passed:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bil ... sm_v97.pdf
Here is a list of everyone you should contact to oppose and stop this outrageous legislation:

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814

Assemblyman Mike Eng, Chair

Fax 916-319-2149
[email protected]

Assemblyman Bill Emmerson, Vice Chair

Fax 916-319-2163
[email protected]
Assemblywoman Karen Bass

Fax 916-319-2147
[email protected]

Assemblywoman Wilmer Amina Carter

Fax 916-319-2162
[email protected]

Assemblywoman Mary Hayashi

Fax 916-319-2118
[email protected]

Assemblyman Edward P. Hernandez

Fax 916-319-2157
[email protected]

Assemblywoman Shirley Horton

Fax 916-319-2178
[email protected]

Assemblyman Bill Maze

Fax 916-319-2134
[email protected]

Assemblyman Curren D. Price Jr.

Fax 916-319-2151
[email protected]

Assemblyman Alberto Torrico

Fax 916-319-2120
[email protected]

 

[Ronnie]

Contact your Senators also and discuss the problems with the bill that was passed. If the senate doesn't pass, this can never become law.

 

[kari]

This will also negatively impact the breeding program at Guide Dogs of America, in Sylmar, CA; Guide Dogs for the Blind in San Raphael, Ca; and Guide Dogs of the Desert in Palm Springs, CA!! Here is information from the breeding dept to see the impact on service dogs, just for GDA!! Multiply this by the other schools and it's scary!!

The current bill DOESNOT make any provisions for our breeding stock. Aside from no provisions for our breeding stock there will be a $150.00 intact permit fee for all pups and dogs over four months old. Because Guide Dogs of America is the owner of these dogs we would be responsible for paying for these permits. Just for the breeding stock alone our yearly fees would be around $9,000, this does not include any of our unaltered pups . If an intact fee is not obtained there will be a $500.00 fine for each violation.



Because our breeding stock does not qualify for an intact permit this would put an end to our breeding program. At this time we have enough puppies in the program to hold the school over for about two years. After that good luck finding quality pups. Any of you that have been to the Animal Shelter recently I am sure have seen that Pit Bulls are the predominate breed available for adoption—not good Guide Dog material!



I wonder if the Americans with Disabilities Act would cover any of this at all?? Where are my attorney friends for an answer!!!???

 

[MaxandMe]

Jac even though i don't live in california...is there anything i can do to help? i got to thinking if THEY get away with this in CALIF it can give them a foothold to doing this in other states.

Ok not to be real political but I swear this is like socialism and communism sneaking into our once democratic society!!!!!

I am getting tired of others telling us what we can and can't do, what we should and shouldn't eat sometimes forcing us to change: ie: transfat oil, at one time using an Olio (spelling). i am using simple examples here folks to make a point.

What kind of impact does their ruling really do and what is the aftermath effects

So someone like me wants to help out...just tell me how i can Jac
thanks

 

[kim26]

This makes me so mad because the irresponsible people who the bill is really aimed towards, will still not get their dogs spayed and neutered and won't pay the fee either because they won't license them and no one will know they have the dog! After working at the Humane Society, it IS frustrating to see so many intact stray dogs coming in, alot of them already pregnant, that I wish their was something that COULD be done, but, I don't think this is the answer.

 

[Paintsmeblue]

I don't think so either. Sierra Vista had a petition being signed at their Doodle Romp. I signed it, but I don't know if I actually count because I'm not actually a California Resident. If there is something I can do, legally, while I'm here, please let me know. As a future owner of a labradoodle, I can't imagine not being able to breed them here. It's quite absurd. But, I honestly don't think there is anything people can do to stop unwanted pregancies. Because you're right, the people who are causing this problem aren't going to pay fines, aren't going to tell the state that they actually own a dog. The only way to catch it is to ask Vets to keep track, but then you're relying on them bringing their dog's unplanned puppies to the Vets, and you're also asking for Vets to do more.

But how many puppies per litter do most breeders keep as breeding puppies? Perhaps a law limiting the number of intact puppies per litter would be better? And specify, like purebreeds- since they have no problem with them breeding- have a higher number, and hybrids- like labradoodles and goldendoodles- have a slightly smaller number? I know that's not fair- but under hybrids you also can account for actual mixed breeds- unplanned preganacies. But again, this would require some sort of way to find out about these puppies. Also, perhaps give breeders some sort of legal power other than "this contract becomes null if you don't spay/ neuter your puppy by 8 months" Because, although I'm 100% planning on spay/ neutering, does this mean anything to some people? If they know they bought a good puppy, and its healthy, and they don't need the contract.... is there anything to stop them from NOT spay/ neutering, and using that dog to breed? Other than the obvious stigma from the dog community, and is that enough to stop people? Perhaps letting Breeders report the problem puppy to some sort of authority who can look into it, or do something about it? But if people aren't willing to spend money on spay/ neuter, what to say they're going to actually pay money to get puppy shots, and vet care....

Just my 2 cents....

 

[seazr]

Sacramento city and couty are already in the process of adopting these measures . . .

 

[Jac]

Sorry I have not checked back lately...crazy schedule.
But, yes, I believe that this will pass and become law and as Kari has said the fee of $150 pre breeding dog (per year) will make it impossible for good breeders to continue.
But in addition to the $150 fee, each local agency is given full and complete discretion as to what to charge, how to monitor and who will or will not be allowed to get a license, even if they do pay a fee...and I would bet that mixed breeds will be denied most often.
I agree that there is a huge problem with unwanted dogs and dogs being "disposable" but there are so many reasons for that.
I believe that the answer is rather simple (so it will never fly, of course) and that is to make the breeder and owner responsible for their dog! How?
Every puppy should be microchipped and REGISTERED within a few weeks. The Breeder is always to be listed on the registration and when the breeder sells a pup or gives one away, the breeder adds that person's name to the registration. If the dog ends up in a shelter...the breeder is given the option of paying a fee for kenneling or (God forbid) euthinasia OR the breeder can pick the dog up and veryify to the animal control authorities that the dog has been re-homed...and register the new owner's name.
Okay, sure, there are so many dogs and cats that are not going to be registered...what then? Well, if a dog/cat comes in without registration it is automatically assumed to be a stray and can be immediately sold.
Part of the problem for shelters is that they MUST hold a dog for a period of time, generally 2 weeks, to see if the owner claims the animal BEFORE they can list it for adoption.
If you eliminate this waiting period, many dogs will find new homes right away.
It isn't a perfect solution, but it does require that breeders and owners take responsibility for their dogs...and perhaps will limit breeding to those who find only the best homes.
If certain breeders/individuals continue to be problematic, they could be charged with criminal charges, not just civil penalties. (This would eventually put really bad millers behind bars!)
The shelter problem is not from the $1800 Labradoodle...(In fact, as we know, shelters get MORE money for Labradoodles) it is from the $200 back yard breeder/puppy mill/puppy broker or pet store purchase.
People who pay for quality dogs usually also invest in training and they keep their dog...plus they have less health issues...the dogs in shelters come from families who give up on trying. It is too expensive, too much work, the dog got too big, it barks too much, we just changed our minds...so, hand it over to an agency to worry about.
Ownership responsibilty, breeder responsibility is the key.
THAT can be legislated.

 

[gracielou]

Jac you are so right.

 

[Paintsmeblue]

It honestly saddens me that this is going to happen. I can't imagine what its going to do to Labradoodle and other breeders in California.

 

[seazr]

Here is the language from the proposed Sacramento ordinance which obviously excludes mixed breeds. It has not been adopted yet and I will submit my protest to the board of directors.


1. Competition Dogs and Cats.
A. The owner registers each dog or cat with the American Kennel Club,
United Kennel Club, American Dog Breeders Association, International Cat Association,
the Cat Fanciers Association, or other valid registry approved by the Department;
B. The animal participates in at least one event sanctioned by a national
registry within the previous twelve (12) month period from the date of issuance of the license or a showing that the animal has achieved a title from a purebred dog or cat registry. In the event that an owner cannot show proof that the animal has been shown
in the previous twelve (12) month period, the Department shall have the discretion to determine whether this subsection has been met; and
C. The owner does not breed the dog or cat during the time the animal holds a
reduced unaltered license. This does not preclude the owner from obtaining an
unaltered license at the full rate for the year the owner intends to breed the animal.
Or
2. Working Ranch Dogs.
A. The dog is defined as a working ranch dog; and
B. The owner does not breed the dog or cat during the time the animal holds
a reduced unaltered license. This does not preclude the owner from obtaining an
unaltered license at the full rate for the year the owner intends to breed the animal.

 

[Jac]

Isn't it amazing, Diane??

The thing than angers me most is when I look at the list of supporters of the law and the list of those in opposition. Those in favor are almost exclusively rescues and vets!
Those opposed are a diverse mix of dog owners, breeders, clubs, organizations, trainers, service dog facilities, etc.

One that surprised me (a supporter) is Cesar Milan and his corporation! I know that he works with strays, and probably has deep feelings about caring for all dogs and limiting the overpopulation...but to support this bad law is amazing to me!

Even the AKC opposes it...so, stronger groups are in opposition than in favor, but the legislators ignored that reasoning!

 

[lieverdmom]

Jac, is there any way that California breeders can incorporate in Nevada or something?

Is that $500 fine per annum or per day?

Alright, so the bill's supporters include the shelters, who are being short sighted about the fact that many of their pit bull guests are back yard bred anyway and will remain under the radar screen. Then the vets, to whom the spay/neuter surgeries will be a nice cash cow. And Cesar Milan, said to be an illegal alien, who is suddenly very concerned about lawmaking in America, and may expect a marketing boost from acting on his great concern for animals. What a combination.

So who's funding the lobbying efforts? Follow the money......!

Deb

 

[Jac]

Good point about funding...It would be interesting to find out because the idea is to help fund the rescue sites...so wouldn't the funding for the bill help that? I imagine that the cost for this bill is sky high!

If we incorporate in another state we still have to follow the laws of the states where we do business, so it wouldn't help in this instance. *sigh*, but I appreciate your creative thinking.

Dave, my husband, is preparing his letter for the Governor. I plan to do a letter to everyone...it would be really great if we (those in opposition) could unite, prepare a huge one-page ad for most of the major newspapers and inform the public what this bill will really do...and what alternatives are more reasonable to accomplish the goal.

It's just that there is no time! These things happen sort of quietly until the vote, then they go like gangbusters!

 

[lieverdmom]

If we establish residency out of state, and legitimately are out of California for six months plus one day each year (I'm told California will track you on this one), can they prohibit us from bring our entire pets along when we travel here to a second home?

At first I went along with the cost to the State of implementing this law, but since then have come to see it as a potential cash cow if breeders choose to stay and register their breeding stock, rather than leave the State. I don't believe it would be the revenue maker that they anticipate though, as I think there would be a substantial cutback on the numbers in any given kennel. I cringe to think what that does to genetic diversity in already line bred breeds.

Kari made such a good point about removing the gift of a guide dog from the blind. Are their breeding dogs not AKC? It seems So shortsighted to enact this law. If only there were some way to help them See the ramifications.

I attended a commission hearing on an item of interest recently and got a first hand look at how the members of the Board were really not familiar with the matter on which they voted, and clearly had not read the thing. Depressing to see how things get railroaded through without being carefully considered.

 

[Jac]

Good morning Deb,
You certainly see my perspective on this issue.
I am honestly in favor of finding a way to reduce the influx of unwanted dogs and would do my part in helping find a solution...it's just that this is so far from being a solution! I fear, and I believe, that what will happen is that good CA breeders will either 1) continue to thrive because they are so well established that they can get permits and they can AFFORD thme, 2) good breeders will move from CA 3) good breeders will stop breeding and (the worst) 4) CA residents will be forced to buy the cheaper puppies offered through other states which are unregulated and certainly don't comply with CA laws!
Makes no sense to me at all.
I thinkt that, the way this is written, you can go to another state and return with your intact, breeding animals and not have to be licensed! However, any puppies born or any animals purchased after you return will fall under this law. AND the local counties have full discretion as to what they will and will not allow/charge! Every county and every municipality in CA will be different. No one will know where to go to buy puppies in CA!
The only way that this can work is if it is stopped, and then they establish a commiteee to study the issue from every side (open-mindedly) and to factor in all of the potential problems (by talking to breeders, rescues, vets, owners, etc.) with every possible solution. It is a costly solution and for that reason, alone, I doubt that they will do anything except to pass the law.
About Kari's comment...yes, the Guide Dogs can still train and use dogs, AKC dogs, and even donated mixed breed dogs...so long as they are 1) being trained, 2) actively working 3) they are spayed/neutered....the exception for the GDA is that AKC dogs would be allowed to breed...but not mixed breed dogs.
So, really, the impact for GDA and others like them, is that they will be forced to pay high fees for the ability to have intact dogs.
You mentioned earlier a question about the $500 fee. It is my understanding that this fee is regulated by every individual county/municipality! So it can be all over the place...there are no regulations to limit either the fine nor the criminal penalties.
Very frightening law!

 

[lieverdmom]

I agree completely with you Jac, that a solution to the issue needs to be sought, and would certainly work with you on this (when I'm not up to my ears in puppies). There has Got to be a better way to do this without destroying everything good about the dog business in California. I can't help hoping, with the amount of effort he put into keeping business In California, and getting businesses to return here, when he was first elected, that the Governator would not be on board if he were actually to become aware of the issue.

You are so right that forcing legitimate breeders out of business will encourage out of state puppy mills to flourish, just the opposite of the desired effect. I do feel that some major breeders will leave the state. One I have in mind has been making noises about it anyway, and with 50-100 dogs present in his kennel on any given day (not all his, but boarders, grooming and and show clients, too) a departure wouldn't surprise me. The man is a respected breeder and handler, with 30 years in the breeding business. Not the sort we want to push out the door, but I'll bet he leaves.

I ran into a prime example of the type of operation the state should target in a lady behind me in line at CostCo last night. She waxed eloquent about her mixed breed dog of unknown heritage who was about to whelp, and she was not sure who the sire was, perhaps one of her intact male dogs. So what's she going to do with all the puppies? (Stand by for incoming at the Humane Society, Kim!) I promise you nothing was health tested, and she was completely nonchalant about it, as though it were appropriate. She was horrified to hear that AB1634 had passed, so seemed to be aware of it. Back yard puppy mill?

(You'll be glad to know of my great restraint in not giving her a twenty minute lecture right on the spot.) I couldn't believe my ears.

 

[Jac]

It is so hard not to educate these people when it comes up...but they won't listen. They are very committed to their conviction that it is okay, even natural, to do what she is doing. *sigh*

We have an uphill battle on so many fronts! But it's worth it!