AB 1634

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is orphaned as few or no other articles link to it.
Please help introduce links in articles on related topics. (January 2008)


AB 1634 is a controversial bill[1](authored by Democrat Lloyd Levine) in the California State Legislature which would require that dogs and cats in California be spayed or neutered by 6 months of age. The bill provides limited availability for purchased "intact permits" and a small number of exemptions. The bill passed the California Assembly by the narrowest of margins on June 6, 2007[2], but was deferred by Assemblyman Levine on July 11, 2007 when it became apparent that it would not pass in the California Senate Local Government committee where it had been assigned.[3] Levine has stated his intention to reintroduce the bill in 2008.[4]

Bill supporters and bill opponents both claimed a large number of followers, and the 2007 hearings on the bill in Sacramento resulted in some of the largest and most passionate crowds of the year in the Capitol. The bill generated the most letters and calls of any California legislation in 2007.[5]

[edit] Support and opposition

AB 1634 is generally supported by animal shelter directors and workers[6][7], animal rights groups[8], animal rescue groups[9], SPCAs[10], humane societies[11][12][13], and the Los Angeles city government[14]. The bill has received an enormous amount of media attention.

The bill is generally opposed by pet owners[15][16], breed clubs [17][18][19], breeders of working dogs [20][21], search-and-rescue dog associations [22][23], K9 law enforcement associations [24][25][26][27], organizations that provide guide dogs for the blind and service dogs for the disabled [28][29][30][31], California's agriculture industry [32][33], animal rescue groups[34] [35] , leaders in the No Kill movement[36], and many veterinarians[37][38].

Supporters of the bill claim that legislative action is needed, due to the fact that about 400,000 animals are euthanized (killed) in California's shelters each year [39]. Supporters claim that animal shelter services cost California taxpayers $250 million a year[40]. Supporters claim that a dog born in California currently has nearly a 1 in 4 chance of being ultimately euthanized in a shelter[41]. Supporters claim that similar laws in individual communities in California have been successful, proving the validity of the mandatory spay/neuter concept[42]. Supporters claim that spay and neuter improve animal health[43].

Opponents of the bill claim that erroneous shelter statistics are being used to support the bill[44], and that the experiences where mandatory spay/neuter laws have been implemented show that they increase costs to the taxpayers[45], and increase shelter impound and euthanasia rates[46][47]. Opponents claim that non-punitive No Kill programs have proven to be more effective solutions[48][49][50][51], and that official state shelter statistics indicate that impound and euthanasia rates have been generally trending downward in California for more than 30 years [52]. Opponents claim that passage of the bill would harm breeding programs for pets, guide dogs and service dogs, search-and-rescue dogs, police dogs, hunting dogs, and working herding and livestock guardian dogs. Opponents claim that spay and neuter have adverse health impacts that need to be weighed against the benefits[53][54], therefore spay and neuter should be decisions made between the owner in consultation with their veterinarian based on the health needs and circumstances of each individual patient, rather than one that is dictated by the state [55][56][57][58]. Finally, opponents claim that a majority of veterinary medical associations in California oppose AB 1634.[59]

[edit] References

  1. ^ AB 1634, as amended July 3, 2007
  2. ^ AB 1634 bill history
  3. ^ AB 1634 report in Sacramento Bee newspaper
  4. ^ Report in Sacramento Bee
  5. ^ AB 1634 report in Ventura County Star newspaper
  6. ^ AB 1634 support letter from CACDA
  7. ^ AB 1634 support letter from Ed Boks
  8. ^ AB 1634 support page from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
  9. ^ AB 1634 support letter from Save a Bunny
  10. ^ AB 1634 support from Monterey County SPCA
  11. ^ AB 1634 support letter from Silicon Valley Humane Society
  12. ^ AB 1634 support page with listed animal rescue and humane society groups
  13. ^ AB 1634 support page of HSUS
  14. ^ Meeting minutes of Board of Animal Services Commissioners, City of Los Angeles, 5/14/2007
  15. ^ AB 1634 article from Los Angeles Times
  16. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter from American Dog Owners Association
  17. ^ American Kennel Club AB 1634 page
  18. ^ Cat Fanciers Association legislative alerts
  19. ^ Assembly policy committee Bill Analysis
  20. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter from United Schutzhund Clubs of America
  21. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter from LV/DVG America
  22. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter from California Rescue Dog Association
  23. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter from Canine Specialized Search Team
  24. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter from United States Police Canine Association
  25. ^ Press Release about AB 1634 from the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs
  26. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter from Western States Police Canine Association
  27. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter from North American Police Work Dog Association
  28. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter from Assistance Dogs International, Inc.
  29. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter from the International Association of Assistance Dog Partners
  30. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter from Canine Companions for Independence
  31. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter from Paws'itive Teams
  32. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter from the California Farm Bureau Federation, California Cattlemen's Association, and California Outdoor Heritage Alliance
  33. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter from American Working Farmcollie Association
  34. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter by National English Shepherd Rescue
  35. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter by Bay Area Rescue Keeshonden
  36. ^ AB 1634 opposition statement from Nathan Winograd
  37. ^ Petition list of California veterinarians opposed to AB 1634
  38. ^ California veterinarians against AB 1634
  39. ^ California Department of Health Services report for 2005 showing numbers for impounded and euthanized cats and dogs
  40. ^ AB 1634 report by San Diego Union-Tribune
  41. ^ AB 1634 support one in four analysis
  42. ^ AB 1634 supporters claim about Santa Cruz County
  43. ^ AB 1634 support claims about medical benefits
  44. ^ Impact of Santa Cruz mandatory spay/neuter ordinance
  45. ^ Santa Cruz Animal Services Budget before and after mandatory spay/neuter ordinance
  46. ^ Study of mandatory spay/neuter laws by Animal Law Coalition
  47. ^ AB 1634 report by Alley Cat Allies
  48. ^ The Dark Side of Mandatory Licensing and Neutering Laws by the No Kill Advocacy Center
  49. ^ No Kill by Nathan Winograd
  50. ^ the No Kill Equation
  51. ^ How San Francisco became No Kill
  52. ^ Long-term California shelter statistics for dogs
  53. ^ Long-term Health Risk and Benefits of Spay/Neuter in Dogs
  54. ^ Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete
  55. ^ AB 1634 opposition points
  56. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter by Dr. John Hamil, DVM, past president of the California Veterinary Medical Association
  57. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter by Dr. Sharon Vanderlip, DVM
  58. ^ AB 1634 opposition letter from American Dog Owners Association
  59. ^ AB 1634 article from DVM News

[edit] External links