| It's Back! AB 1634 in 08' Federal, State & Local Legislation that Affects You!! Action Needed ASAP! California AB 1634 CFA Letter to California Veterinary Medical Association |
Valerie Fenstermaker
Executive Director
California Veterinary Medical Association
1400 River Park Drive, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95815-4505
RE: California Assembly Bill 1634 - "California Healthy Pets Act" - OPPOSE
Dear Ms. Fenstermaker;
I am writing on behalf of the Cat Fanciers' Association to urge the CVMA to reconsider its support of AB 1634. Please join our organization
and thousands of cat and dog fanciers, individual veterinarians, animal control agencies and others throughout the State who will work to soundly
defeat this ill conceived legislation. Now that this bill is in print we hope your Board of Governors will recognize the serious negative impacts. I
will mention only a few that are of real concern to cat fanciers.
CFA is opposed to laws that allow government entities to interfere with personal pet owner decisions related to veterinary care of their animals.
Mandatory spay/neuter for all animals over four months of age removes personal options to consider maturity, behavior or long term medical
issues when deciding whether or when to alter an owned cat or dog. This is an overriding principal that should not be eroded by the CVMA. As
you will recall, CFA was aligned with the CVMA in opposition to the California State bill that would ban declaw surgery of domestic cats. The
CVMA strongly upheld the concept that medical decisions, such as surgery, should be made by the owner in consultation with their veterinarian.
We totally agree and believe the same rationale applies to this bill.
AB 1634 is a pet elitist scheme that will backfire. The bill allows those whose cats or dogs are registered with an approved registry to obtain an
intact permit. But at what cost? There is no fee cap. Sacramento County is already proposing $150/year per animal for an intact permit.
Breeders of cats with small to moderate breeding programs will not be able to afford this excise tax. The bill will mean the loss of home-raised
well bred cats in this State along with the cat shows, contributions to health studies, disaster relief, breed rescue and public education that are
benefits provided by the cat fancy. Those who want pedigreed cats will have to import them from out of state. Puppies are already being
imported from Mexico and Romania to fill demand.
Surgical sterilization is not without risks. AB 1634 does allow for postponement of surgery with a veterinary letter stating age or illness. But there
may be other reasons for pet owners to keep an animal intact. Several scientific studies presented at the Alliance for Contraception in Cats and
Dogs (ACC-D) scientific conference held November 2006 indicated that, for dogs, there are some proven negative effects of surgical
sterilization. The Duffy/Serpell University of Pennsylvania study shows higher aggression toward strangers and owners by spayed female dogs.
Sterilization has clear advantages but also some limitations. Studies on early-age sterilization have never been done on pedigreed breeds of cats.
We ask you to review the "non-reproductive effects of spaying and neutering".
Further reduction of the numbers of cats/dogs in shelters is not achieved by a simple fix. Numerous studies show that owned cats are already
altered at a high rate. Unpublished data from a recent San Jose survey shows that the alter rate for owned cats has increased from 86% ten
years ago to 93% in 2005 and an additional 6% were too young for surgery. Few cat owners actually want a litter of kittens or the behavior
associated with intact cats. As more cats are kept indoors more are sterilized. Finding free or low cost surgery is the critical factor for those who
have not yet altered their cats, not mandates and penalties.
Mandatory spay/neuter will not reduce the unowned cat population. We recognize that there are many complex factors involved and the biggest
one for cats is the number of unowned/feral cats reproducing unchecked. AB 1634 will not impact this problem. The vast majority of cats killed
in shelters are feral or their unweaned kittens. The City of Los Angeles reports 46% of cats euthanized are unweaned kittens and 19% are feral
cats during the last 12 months. AB 1634 would do nothing to solve this problem and in fact could lead to further abandonment or relinquishment
of "loosely-owned" cats. The fear of a $500 fine for taking in a pregnant stray cat (with no "registration" papers) means more cats will be
ignored. With no free or low cost spay/neuter programs in many parts of the state those of low or even moderate income will be reluctant to
take in homeless cats. Even now only 5% of those feeding feral cats take the next step to trap and neuter the cats. Assistance, not punishment, is
needed.
The proponents of AB 1634 say the bill will bring in revenue for needed spay/neuter programs and save taxpayers' dollars with fewer animals in
shelters. Many agencies are now refuting this assumption. This is a mandate on local jurisdictions to rewrite ordinances, set up and implement a
complicated intact permit system with administrative costs, public education and new employees. Unless expensive and intrusive door-to-door
canvassing is used compliance will only be complaint driven and minimal. This will not raise revenue.
Animal control agencies have no expertise to determine what registries should be "approved". The authors did not even list the Cat Fanciers'
Association, established 100 years ago and the largest and most respected registry of cats in the world. Should the American Canine Hybrid
Club that registers 400 purebred-to-purebred dog crosses be approved? The AKC recognizes only 155 dog breeds by comparison. An
endless number of new "registries" for mixed breeds will crop up in California.
Enforcement would mean veterinarians forced to provide personal information for their clients with intact pets to animal agencies. This approach
has been recommended by jurisdictions and is included in the proposed Sacramento County ordinance. If an owner cannot pay the $500 fine for
not having a required intact permit will animal agencies impound their pet? We would hope veterinarians will reject being enforcers.
Cat fanciers, and many veterinarians, are incredulous that the CVMA Board of Governors would have joined the Coalition in support of this bill.
This is not about "healthy pets" and will not solve problems of homeless dogs and cats. The concept of "mandatory spay/neuter" has been
proposed before on the state level in 1998 and soundly defeated. Proponents say the bill is to be revised but the fundamental concept of
mandating or banning surgical procedures for owned cats and dogs is unwise. We ask that you join us and insist that this bill be withdrawn, not
revised.
Sincerely yours, Joan Miller CFA Legislative Coordinator To correspond with the CFA Legislative Committee, please send email to
legislation@cfa.org
Executive Director
California Veterinary Medical Association
1400 River Park Drive, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95815-4505
RE: California Assembly Bill 1634 - "California Healthy Pets Act" - OPPOSE
Dear Ms. Fenstermaker;
I am writing on behalf of the Cat Fanciers' Association to urge the CVMA to reconsider its support of AB 1634. Please join our organization
and thousands of cat and dog fanciers, individual veterinarians, animal control agencies and others throughout the State who will work to soundly
defeat this ill conceived legislation. Now that this bill is in print we hope your Board of Governors will recognize the serious negative impacts. I
will mention only a few that are of real concern to cat fanciers.
CFA is opposed to laws that allow government entities to interfere with personal pet owner decisions related to veterinary care of their animals.
Mandatory spay/neuter for all animals over four months of age removes personal options to consider maturity, behavior or long term medical
issues when deciding whether or when to alter an owned cat or dog. This is an overriding principal that should not be eroded by the CVMA. As
you will recall, CFA was aligned with the CVMA in opposition to the California State bill that would ban declaw surgery of domestic cats. The
CVMA strongly upheld the concept that medical decisions, such as surgery, should be made by the owner in consultation with their veterinarian.
We totally agree and believe the same rationale applies to this bill.
AB 1634 is a pet elitist scheme that will backfire. The bill allows those whose cats or dogs are registered with an approved registry to obtain an
intact permit. But at what cost? There is no fee cap. Sacramento County is already proposing $150/year per animal for an intact permit.
Breeders of cats with small to moderate breeding programs will not be able to afford this excise tax. The bill will mean the loss of home-raised
well bred cats in this State along with the cat shows, contributions to health studies, disaster relief, breed rescue and public education that are
benefits provided by the cat fancy. Those who want pedigreed cats will have to import them from out of state. Puppies are already being
imported from Mexico and Romania to fill demand.
Surgical sterilization is not without risks. AB 1634 does allow for postponement of surgery with a veterinary letter stating age or illness. But there
may be other reasons for pet owners to keep an animal intact. Several scientific studies presented at the Alliance for Contraception in Cats and
Dogs (ACC-D) scientific conference held November 2006 indicated that, for dogs, there are some proven negative effects of surgical
sterilization. The Duffy/Serpell University of Pennsylvania study shows higher aggression toward strangers and owners by spayed female dogs.
Sterilization has clear advantages but also some limitations. Studies on early-age sterilization have never been done on pedigreed breeds of cats.
We ask you to review the "non-reproductive effects of spaying and neutering".
Further reduction of the numbers of cats/dogs in shelters is not achieved by a simple fix. Numerous studies show that owned cats are already
altered at a high rate. Unpublished data from a recent San Jose survey shows that the alter rate for owned cats has increased from 86% ten
years ago to 93% in 2005 and an additional 6% were too young for surgery. Few cat owners actually want a litter of kittens or the behavior
associated with intact cats. As more cats are kept indoors more are sterilized. Finding free or low cost surgery is the critical factor for those who
have not yet altered their cats, not mandates and penalties.
Mandatory spay/neuter will not reduce the unowned cat population. We recognize that there are many complex factors involved and the biggest
one for cats is the number of unowned/feral cats reproducing unchecked. AB 1634 will not impact this problem. The vast majority of cats killed
in shelters are feral or their unweaned kittens. The City of Los Angeles reports 46% of cats euthanized are unweaned kittens and 19% are feral
cats during the last 12 months. AB 1634 would do nothing to solve this problem and in fact could lead to further abandonment or relinquishment
of "loosely-owned" cats. The fear of a $500 fine for taking in a pregnant stray cat (with no "registration" papers) means more cats will be
ignored. With no free or low cost spay/neuter programs in many parts of the state those of low or even moderate income will be reluctant to
take in homeless cats. Even now only 5% of those feeding feral cats take the next step to trap and neuter the cats. Assistance, not punishment, is
needed.
The proponents of AB 1634 say the bill will bring in revenue for needed spay/neuter programs and save taxpayers' dollars with fewer animals in
shelters. Many agencies are now refuting this assumption. This is a mandate on local jurisdictions to rewrite ordinances, set up and implement a
complicated intact permit system with administrative costs, public education and new employees. Unless expensive and intrusive door-to-door
canvassing is used compliance will only be complaint driven and minimal. This will not raise revenue.
Animal control agencies have no expertise to determine what registries should be "approved". The authors did not even list the Cat Fanciers'
Association, established 100 years ago and the largest and most respected registry of cats in the world. Should the American Canine Hybrid
Club that registers 400 purebred-to-purebred dog crosses be approved? The AKC recognizes only 155 dog breeds by comparison. An
endless number of new "registries" for mixed breeds will crop up in California.
Enforcement would mean veterinarians forced to provide personal information for their clients with intact pets to animal agencies. This approach
has been recommended by jurisdictions and is included in the proposed Sacramento County ordinance. If an owner cannot pay the $500 fine for
not having a required intact permit will animal agencies impound their pet? We would hope veterinarians will reject being enforcers.
Cat fanciers, and many veterinarians, are incredulous that the CVMA Board of Governors would have joined the Coalition in support of this bill.
This is not about "healthy pets" and will not solve problems of homeless dogs and cats. The concept of "mandatory spay/neuter" has been
proposed before on the state level in 1998 and soundly defeated. Proponents say the bill is to be revised but the fundamental concept of
mandating or banning surgical procedures for owned cats and dogs is unwise. We ask that you join us and insist that this bill be withdrawn, not
revised.
Sincerely yours, Joan Miller CFA Legislative Coordinator To correspond with the CFA Legislative Committee, please send email to
legislation@cfa.org
 |
 |
 |
| CFA Legislative Alerts |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |
| © Wild At Heart: The International Journal of the Pixie-Bob. All Rights Reserved |