Responsible pet owners overwhelmingly support AB 1634, the California Healthy Pets Act.

Responsible pet owners across California widely support AB 1634. Like you, they know a bill that simply asks family pets to be spayed and neutered will save millions of animals lives, and save millions of taxpayer dollars. They know that common sense exemptions are provided for legal breeders, police dogs, working dogs, rescue dogs, and old or ill pets. They know that, if their owner desires, family pets are even allowed to have one litter under AB 1634 before being spayed or neutered.

But underground breeders and irresponsible pet owners are battling against AB 1634, frightened that the bill will bring them into the light.

Underground breeders are costing California millions of dollars in evaded taxes. It's true. Under current California law, anyone who sells more than two animals per year must have a seller's permit, pay sales tax on the sales and declare the income on their taxes. The unfortunate truth is that the vast majority of people breeding and selling animals today are doing so in an underground economy, breeding and selling their animals without the required permits and without paying taxes on the income.

In fact, a recent survey of breeders advertising dogs and cats in a large Southern California city found that, although hundreds of animals were for sale, almost none of the seller's had the required permits. Almost none.

No one thinks that people should not be able to breed and sell animals as a business. But doing so outside of current law, evading taxes, is just plain wrong. It's no wonder that so many underground breeders are fighting so hard to try to defeat AB 1634.

Irresponsible pet owners are those owners who let their animals run loose, breeding indiscriminately and often attacking other animals and people. Irresponsible owners often just don't want to go to the trouble of having their pets altered. And many of them just don't care how many healthy pets we kill in our shelters.

Pet seller responsibilities are reviewed in several recent press items:

Dear CA Healthy Pets:

A thousand Thank You's for getting this legislation on the table. It's about time such measures were taken.

I myself do not own any pets. Recently though, I started to look into the possibility of getting a dog. I started to do a bit of research on what breed I might want, and where did I want to get the dog. Should I get one from a breeder, or a rescue group. Maybe from a shelter, or through a classified ad. Little did I know I would feel like Alice through the looking glass the deeper I went in. What an education it has been.

At the same time I decided to research getting a dog, AB 1634 began appearing on the websites I was checking out. Once I found out what the bill was about, I thought it was a total no-brainer. Of course everyone would want to spay/neuter their pet! I thought it would fly through the legislature and become law in no time. I was shocked later when I found out it had passed the house by *one* vote. How? Why? I truly couldn't believe anyone would be against this becoming law.

During the short time I have spent online only researching dogs, I have been shocked, amazed and truly flabbergasted by how many animals are up for adoption. The numbers are staggering. The stories of unethical breeders and negligent owners have brought me to tears more than once. I am still in a daze on how long I lived in ignorance of the problem, and how vast it actually is. This issue is incredibly well hidden from the public at large. No wonder those backyard "breeders" fly under the radar so well. If only the public knew how they truly operate.

What I have learned so far is that 1) I will NOT buy a dog from a breeder. Yes, I have found several very ethical, above-board breeders online, but the idea of a "purebred" dog no longer impresses me. I am disgusted by the actions taken by the AKC. They have fallen greatly in my eyes. AB 1634 can only *help* them. Instead, the AKC would rather protect unethical breeders and promote overpopulation then do the right thing. 2) If the AKC chooses to remove their Eukanuba dog show from Long Beach, well, fine. I will personally choose not to buy Eukanuba products and will encourage my friends and family to do the same. 3) When I get a chance to finally get a dog, I will make sure to go to the most overcrowded shelter I can find and get one there. Preferably two dogs, and one will be all black. 4) The people who care and work for these unwanted animals are truly modern-day saints. I haven't even been able to bring myself to visit a shelter, let alone understand the total compassion they must have to carry out what it is they have to do. They take on the work that the rest of us either choose not to see, or don't have the courage to face. Thanks to you all who work in animal control and rescue.

Thank you so much for opening my eyes. No matter how painful it has been. In the end, I know that what I have learned will make me a better pet owner when I have the chance to get a pet.

I am an employee at the Central California SPCA, we receive an average of about 50,000+ animals a year. We turn no animal away no mater what the health or temperament. When our shelter is full we must find a way to make room. Our shelter is always full, due to an unforgivable overpopulation problem here in our valley. We need help; this bill will be a huge step in the right direction.

Look in to the faces of our euthanasia technicians, after they have compassionately spent an entire day extinguishing the lives of many wonderful animals because there is no place on earth for them to go. We work hard to find homes for as many as we can, we send many to rescues that are also full. Those lives saved are the only salvation we have when your heart just can't take one more fun loving lab; little brown Chihuahua, sweet tabby cat or the beautiful, smiling, devoted Pitbull having to die because we are full. We see the remnants of breeders, backyard or otherwise in our shelter everyday. I wish we could know each animal's story; however I am sure if we did we would surely die of a broken heart.

Anyone who opposes this should sit for one day at our front desk, spend an hour in our euthanasia room, or one minute in our freezer. I am so grateful for this bill and for the hope that it gives me for our animals. Those in the media that speak poorly of it or try to minimize the need should be ashamed of themselves. Most know nothing about the problem of overpopulation that is apparent every time they speak.

Our animals deserve better!!!

Thank you so much; to all that support this bill you renew our optimism for a better tomorrow.

I volunteer for a Pit Bull Rescue. God Bless you for introducing a bill to spay and neuter. This is long over due. Too many wonderful animals are euthanized because there are not enough homes. Daily, we turn dogs away because we are overfull. We die a little inside every time this happens. It has to stop. With your help, maybe it will. Mr Levine, I thank you.

I have been the Executive Director of a full access animal shelter for more than 25 years. Our organization serves a greater part of the Inland Valley; Pomona, Claremont, La Verne San Dimas, Chino, Chino Hills, Ontario, Montclair, Diamond Bar and the unincorporated areas of western San Bernardino Co. Our organization cared for over 16,000 dogs and cats in 2006. We are in total support of AB 1634. Thank you for having the courage to take a stand on the most important animal issue in our state, Pet Overpopulation. If there is anything we can do to help make this Bill a reality, please let us know.

Just read a news article about the legislations and campaign, and am so thrilled and grateful.

Thank you for this groundbreaking effort!

I have sent a separate email, but wanted to ensure that MY SUPPORT was counted. I am a shelter veterinarian and will be cheering Assembly Member Levine all the way! THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR INTRODUCING THIS BILL!

Re: SF Chronicle Article

I would like to see you interview some of the rescue groups and put THEIR opinions in an article. I personally work with three rescue groups and am overloaded with fosters, because, through no fault of their own, they are sitting in shelters waiting to be KILLED. This article is slanted to the breeders, who are making a hell of a lot of money selling their 'pets' - upwards of $500, where we poor rescuers barely get our spay/neuter/test/vaccine expenses taken care of with the adoption fee. I'd like to see you print some pictures of the rows of cages with sad faces of these abandoned animals in your paper. Go to any shelter and there will be plenty!

I can even set you up with some rescue group leaders for an interview if you like.Someone has to speak for the tossed-out orphans who never asked to be born,

-SPCA volunteer

Re: SF Chronicle Article

Dear Matthew Yi -- coming from a city like Sacramento, that alone kills over 25,000 cats and dogs every year, your article in the Chronicle is particularly offensive... have you walked thru the overcrowded shelters in your own town???

I have a non-profit rescue organization here in Marin -- we take dozens of cats from the Sac City Shelter EVERY YEAR... and they just keep pouring in -- beautiful, sweet, loving cats -- KILLED!!!! Dogs as well... And that doesn't begin to address the County Shelter over there!

Why shouldn't breeders pay a tax -- it's a busines, isn't it? And they charge a boatload of money for these pets, with no screening as long as you thave the dollars to pay.

PLEASE, take a look at the dogs in the shelters, particularly the East Bay -- tons of pitbulls -- some, probably very lovely dogs... they will all be killed simply because the "backyard breeders" are out of control -- AB 1634 would at least give some way to monitor /penalize these folks...

I hope you will consider writing a story on the other side of the issue -- and instead of the happy, smiling faces of the breeders and their dogs -- show some of the faces of the poor shelter animals dying every day... we do not need to be adding more pets to this epidemic...

Thank you.

I want to congratulate you on working this bill. I volunteer with the San Diego Feral Cat Coalition. Most of the cats we trap and neuter were, once, someone's pet. We end up aborting a lot of kittens and it hurts us all, I'd much rather the cat didn't get pregnant to start with. Again, I support your efforts, may they bear fruit (or in this case, be sterile).

After listening to both sides - I am ABSOLUTELY in support of thisinitiative to require all dogs and cats being spayed and neutered! BY law in the state of California.

Please continue. A half of a million dead cats and dogs is reprehensible! Morally unacceptable.

Thank you for working to protect the lives of animals from human ignorance!

Re: Sacramento Bee Article

Dear Mr. Sanders,

Thank you for the informative article on bill 1634.

I am a volunteer for the Sacramento County Animal Shelter and have been involved in animal welfare and rescue for over 20 years in San Diego, New Mexico and now Sacramento. Bill 1634 is long overdue. If anyone can honestly say it's easy to walk through an animal shelter and look at the faces of these innocent creatures wagging their tails in hope of freedom or rubbing against the cage bars asking for love, they must have something wrong with them. Until you have walked in our volunteer shoes and dealt with these wonderful animals (and the ignorant members of the public), you can not say there is NOT a pet overpopulation problem.

Shelter animals are being needlessly put to death because there are not enough homes for the animals that come through the doors every day. At our shelter in Sacramento, a whopping 400 cats per week will enter the shelter in the spring and summer months because it's kitten season. The majority of those cats and kittens will leave out the back door in barrels-DEAD. Cats can get pregnant at 4 months of age and can produce 4 litters a year (and can get pregnant while nursing a litter). If people would simply spay and neuter their cats and dogs, the litters born will cease and the number of animals that enter shelter will drop dramatically.

I'm not saying we won't have animals in shelters because people will always find excuses to give up their beloved pets. Moving, behavior, no time, kids are allergic, having a baby, landlord won't allow pets etc. These are excuses I can't understand. I've moved from state to state with my 4 large dogs, 7 cats, and new born twins, in the back of an Expedition. I have 3 kids, I own a business, volunteer FT for the shelter, and have always found housing that allows pets. I would never consider moving somewhere if they didn't allow pets. I think one of the saddest things about seeing shelter animals is that most of them have been someone's pet. They were loved and part of a family. They trusted people and were loyal to people and then people betrayed them out of convenience. Animals give an unconditional love that people will never be able to give. We owe them. We need to speak up for them.

With the support of this bill, we will decrease the number of animals born which will directly impact our shelters.
I hope and pray Bill 1634 is passed and implemented immediately so that when my children grow up, they won't have to spend their spare time trying to find homes for unwanted animals because every animal will have a home.

Thank you.
- Sacramento County Animal Care and Regulation Volunteer

In response to Dianne Hardisty's comments concerning the mandatory spay/neuter law and why it won't curb pet overpopulation, I must ask why a newspaper columnist thinks she's an expert on the subject and how can she possibly know it won't be effective?

No one, not even Assemblymember Levine claims that this bill will solve the problem overnight. However, given the fact that we've been killing surplus dogs and cats as a means to eliminate the excess for as long as we can remember, and no other solutions have been offered in all these years, isn't it time to employ drastic measures?

How about let's stop talking about why AB 1634 won't work and start talking about the advances that will be made because of it.

As a taxpayer, I find it completely unacceptable to fund the killing of innocent animals because people are too stupid to stop breeding them!

March 14, 2007

Editor
Sacramento Bee

Subject: Assembly Bill 1634– Mandatory Spay and Neuter

I read Jim Sander’s 3/9 article about the new Bill 1634 under consideration for the mandatory spaying and neutering of cats and dogs.

BRAVO to Assemblyman Levine and Ms. Mancuso for putting forth the humane way of treating our “best friends”. Trusting that pet owners and breeders to do the “right thing” obviously hasn’t worked. Our so called system has put to literally put to death millions of innocent animals due to our negligence and indifference as a society.

If you choose to have a pet, it is a commitment and there are rules and regulations to follow. That’s pretty simple and good common sense. If you buy a car, you pay additional fees just for the right to drive it. If you don’t have the good judgment to wear a seatbelt, then you could be fined. If you have children, there are more laws that are in place to protect them (yes, even from the parents). It just makes good sense to treat our pets in the same way, as they are not things, they are live beings!

The “rights” of pet owners are behind the times. Do they think that negligence and indifference is their “right”? No one wants to be told what to do, even when they are doing harm to other beings. I find that amazingly selfish and cold. Of course there are ALWAYS good people who do the right thing, but clearly there a too many who don’t. It’s really time to change. If there really are people out there who would refuse to follow the law and not take the time to find low cost or free services that would actually dump their animal, then they are pathetic human beings. There will always be free and low cost clinics to help out so that argument holds no water.

In response to Vickie Cleary who wrote “it’s just one step closer to bureaucracy and government controlling our “human rights”. No Vickie, what they want to do is protect the rights of animals, not take away yours. Since you clearly only worry about yourself, let the Bill 1634 take care of the animals.

Respectfully Yours,

C.C.

Dear Editor,

Oh my Lord! Yet another incredibly ignorant opinion from the folks in Bakersfield about spay and neuter! It seems that no matter how many animals your community kills per day, the majority there is steeped in ignorance and prefers it that way.

For Diane's information, there is an injection for male dogs, and it is being used around the country. It can only be used on very young healthy dogs. It's been responsible for burns, paralysis, etc.

For female dogs and cats, I don't see that anything short of a birth control pill will work. Do you see Kern owners willing to purchase these and give them to their pets daily? I sure don't.

The entire point of this movement nation-wide is to move towards a culture that doesn't kill millions of unwanted animals. The funding raised from the licensing fees would help to finance subsidized spay and neuter in communities. It would also pay for education and more animal control officers. It's working in other communities.

Your county animal control, as well as the local government is incredibly dysfunctional. Kern functions as a "good old boy network" and somehow manages to get away with it in this day and age. It's shameful. Diane is correct about the politicians not having motivation to do anything about the problem. Shame on them.

The last time I looked, the Bakersfield Californian had 122 classified ads for dogs for sale from backyard breeders. Aside from the pet overpopulation problem, these people do not pay sales tax, have a business license, or an ag license. There is one breeder that turns out three litters a year from each female. Nobody regulates these people. Her breed is very common in the shelter.

It's been proven to your government officials that the citizens of the community DO want subsidized spay and neuter. There were thousands of calls within hours of announcing the first free spay and neuter for dogs in Kern last summer. We had ZERO cancellations, and the participants walked away happy. There are plenty of people in Kern that would appreciate and use this service.

The county has the money to support a program. They choose to buy mobile vet clinics that aren't used, put a vet in the shelter that is not allowed to help (evidence this week's parvo outbreak), and not be in compliance with the ruling on Lock vs. KCAC.

YOUR system in Kern is broken. It doesn't take a huge amount of money to fix it, but government doesn't care. Please don't assume that the residents don't.

Lisa Tipton
AngelDogs Rescue
Newhall, CA

Regarding Dianne Hardesty’s opinion on AB 1634, the CA Healthy Pets Act…why is she so negative? She boasts that she’s a responsible pet owner, but that the CA Healthy Pets Act can’t be enforced! That’s like saying, “people will never change.” Legislation that seeks to put an end to the needless destroying of thousands of animals and spotlight our serious pet over population problem should be applauded. I’d think a field trip for every middle school student to their local shelter should be part of the curriculum. Students would learn what happens to all the shelter animals ~ not just the ones that are adopted. Children growing up with AB 1634 just might learn to be responsible pet owners…and shouldn’t we aim for that?

Dear Editor:

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for publishing "Healthy Pets Act a life saver" By GARY TISCORNIA.

I am a Creative Director living and working in Los Angeles and I pay a significant sum each year in California State Taxes. I am also a Labrador Retriever Rescuer and I cannot tell you how many beautiful, purebred Labradors are killed in our California Shelters regularly. My group and several other Labrador and Golden Retriever Rescues do our best to save as many of these wonderful, devoted companions as we can, but we simply cannot save them all.

This Bill is of vast importance. There is a holocaust occurring in our California animal shelters and the public is mostly unaware of the problem. I have personally participated in the killing of some of these faithful, gentle dogs and cats and it has left me forever scarred. A wonderful wagging life is reduced to a pile of trash laid on the floor dog after dog until enough room can be made for the new dogs who come in. In some shelters a dog is given only a few days to be adopted and then it is killed simply because there was no one there to adopt it. What's more disturbing is that our tax dollars are used to kill these animals because we have no other recourse... until now.

We simply MUST support the CA Healthy Pets Act because it is the right, ethical, moral and fiscally reponsible thing to do. There is no down side to this bill although many associations including the American Kennel Club would like us to think otherwise. It is healthier for our companion animals to be spayed or neutered and it essentially solves the over population problem. There is zero sacrifice to those reputable breeders of purebred dogs in our state who can obtain permits to humanely breed their purebred dogs to achieve the conformation and health we all look for in our puppies. And the cost of the permit to breed responsibly will not be cost-prohibitive.

This is a win-win proposal that saves lives and tax dollars.

Thank you again.

Dear Mr. Sanders,

Thank you for the informative article on bill 1634.

I am a volunteer for the Sacramento County Animal Shelter and have been involved in animal welfare and rescue for over 20 years in San Diego, New Mexico and now Sacramento. Bill 1634 is long overdue. If anyone can honestly say it's easy to walk through an animal shelter and look at the faces of these innocent creatures wagging their tails in hope of freedom or rubbing against the cage bars asking for love, they must have something wrong with them. Until you have walked in our volunteer shoes and dealt with these wonderful animals (and the ignorant members of the public), you can not say there is NOT a pet overpopulation problem.

Shelter animals are being needlessly put to death because there are not enough homes for the animals that come through the doors every day. At our shelter in Sacramento, a whopping 400 cats per week will enter the shelter in the spring and summer months because it's kitten season. The majority of those cats and kittens will leave out the back door in barrels-DEAD. Cats can get pregnant at 4 months of age and can produce 4 litters a year (and can get pregnant while nursing a litter). If people would simply spay and neuter their cats and dogs, the litters born will cease and the number of animals that enter shelter will drop dramatically.

I'm not saying we won't have animals in shelters because people will always find excuses to give up their beloved pets. Moving, behavior, no time, kids are allergic, having a baby, landlord won't allow pets etc. These are excuses I can't understand. I've moved from state to state with my 4 large dogs, 7 cats, and new born twins, in the back of an Expedition. I have 3 kids, I own a business, volunteer FT for the shelter, and have always found housing that allows pets. I would never consider moving somewhere if they didn't allow pets. I think one of the saddest things about seeing shelter animals is that most of them have been someone's pet. They were loved and part of a family. They trusted people and were loyal to people and then people betrayed them out of convenience. Animals give an unconditional love that people will never be able to give. We owe them. We need to speak up for them.

With the support of this bill, we will decrease the number of animals born which will directly impact our shelters.
I hope and pray Bill 1634 is passed and implemented immediately so that when my children grow up, they won't have to spend their spare time trying to find homes for unwanted animals because every animal will have a home.

Thank you.

Sacramento County Animal Care and Regulation Volunteer

Assembly Member Lloyd Levine
State Capitol

Dear Mr. Levine,

I am writing to you in support of AB1634, California Healthy Pets Act.

If we can get this through, it will be a godsend to all of us who rescue, foster, and try to find homes for animals! Irresponsible pet owners and uncaring backyard breeders leave their mess for those of us who do care.

I have personally fostered and adopted out over 100 cats and kittens through Southern California Siamese Rescue and Angel Wings Cat Rescue. You can see some of those faces on my website at www.nolasells.net.

And for every one that I take home there are 20 who don’t make it out of the shelter. The numbers are overwhelming. It is sickening. I know other foster moms who refuse to go into the shelters; it makes them physically ill. So I go to the shelter and pull, and they foster whatever I bring to them.

I’ve fostered cats from shelters are far south as Bonita all the way up to Rancho Cucamonga. Include in that all the Los Angeles shelters, Orange County, San Bernadino and Morena Valley. Then add in the ones that have been dumped at the local feral cat colony or dumped on the roadside. The numbers are mind-boggling!

I have two dogs, the shepherd is from South Central Los Angeles shelter and the lab was found at 4 months running in the street dodging cars here in Escondido.

We foster moms would love to be put out of business! I sell houses, do technical writing, garden in my yard, have 3 grandchildren, plus my own pets to take care of: I’ve got more than enough to keep me busy.

Let’s put the backyard breeders and irresponsible pet owners who don’t spay/neuter pay the cost of all this heartbreak.

Re: "Purebred bill is a step in the right direction", Dr. Allan Drusys

As a Boxer rescue group I applaud your support of this bill. Watching Boxers become reduced to a breed that is being listed on home insurance policies as a dangerous breed because of over breeding is very discouraging.

Those ads I see on a daily basis for the AKC Boxer puppies will become few and far between. I especially like your comment on the law of supply and demand. It gives me some fodder to throw at those people who I talk to about breeding and the pitfalls. Thank you for coming forward with an opinion.

According to published statistics, only one out of six hundred fifty pitbulls and pit mixes in animal shelters gets adopted. Pitbulls aside, more dogs are killed at shelters than by cars or cancer, the other two leading causes of death. To claim there is no pet overpopulation is to ignore the legitimate statistics produced by shelters annually.

A responsible breeder will be able to incorporate the proposed breeding permit fee into the cost of his puppies. If this is not possible, than clearly the supply is greater than the demand. Additionally, it is only fair for those who breed to pay more than those who spay and neuter for licensing or breeder's permits to offset the $401.00 cost per pet (according to the L.A. Animal Control) it costs us taxpayers for every animal housed at our public shelters.

Although one out of four animals at shelters is a purebred, most of the problem stems from people simply allowing their dogs and cats to have mixed breed litters out of ignorance and negligence. Even breeders don't feel like shelling out hundreds of their tax dollars to subsidize this reckless and thoughtless practice.

Lastly, no one who loves animals can condone killing them as a form of population control. With estimates running between 7 and 15 million annually in the U.S., it is time for a bill like AB 1634 and others throughout the country like it.

A moral society cannot condone slaughter of loving pets as a means of population control. AB 1634 encourages responsible breeding. Using the breeding permit fees to discourage irresponsible breeding should also allow breeders to charge higher fees, because there will be less backyard competition.

This bill is a win/win for everyone.

I've long criticized affiliated dog breeders or 'the dog fancy' -as they prefer to be known, for placing unaltered pet quality puppies (with AKC/UKC papers) in the hands of backyard breeders, or families who 'just wanted a litter', whom they then point to as 'causing' all the unwanted dogs. People selling dogs intact ENCOURAGE, endorse, PROMOTE people outside the dog fancy to breed, too.

I participated in AKC events for many years, gaining acquaintances in every area of competition, and don't know a single person in California currently breeding dogs 'responsibly', that is, does ALL these things: 1. fully treat pups with vaccines & worming 2. only breeds healthy, well tempered parents 3. screens buyers (yard checks, references) 4. microchips 5. alters EVERY pup (or co-owns to retain AKC registration privilege) 6. contracts to take ALL progeny back... including 'grand kids' These are things I've espoused for 20 years, and except for 'breeding', all these things ARE done by rescuers. Why the disparity in 'responsibility'? Answer: profit.

The 'fancy' is self laudatory regarding their 'support for spaying and education'. However, these efforts are primarily lip movements and rarely amount to meaningful participation. I don't know any breeders who volunteer at shelters or spay clinics. And while they universally proclaim their 'responsibility', only a tiny fraction meet the requisite legal requirements of kennel licenses, paying sales taxes, or declaring income on litter sales. Those who DO are some of the most prolific in breeding without conscience, knowingly selling stud service to those backyard breeders.

One might say, if the scofflaws paid their fair share or carried out their 'love for dogs' with action, we'd not be in the predicament of killing OVER a million animals annually. Yep, it IS, in fact, OVER a million dogs when EVERY "unadoptable" dog kill is counted!

Since AKC acknowledges 'only 26% of pound dogs are purebred', it means "ONLY" 250,000 purebred dogs are being destroyed annually ...in this state. That's quite a bit of culpability for purebred 'fanciers' who've turned their collective backs on dogs they profess to 'promote'. It also means all these conscientious breeders believe a quarter million purebreds is an acceptable sacrifice. Next time a fancier declares 'overpopulation isn't that severe', ask them: How would you feel if we took the total entries of the **20** largest California AKC dog shows into a field and slaughtered them all? ---That is the *magnitude* of the problem they keep building. Seen thusly, having a hobby doesn't amount to a 'right' as much as it confers a duty.

However, the breeders coalitions are in attack mode. They overstate the effect and minimize impact of AB 1634, except as it affects THEM. How about how it will increase sales prices for registered breeders when supply of purebreds diminish over the next five years? Or the effect of reducing suffering, improving overall health and longevity of owned dogs? Let's also consider the increased quality of shelters and staff with the reallocation of funds. And don't forget MORALE! Improvement in programs for owners who ARE responsible and reduction of stray dogs in plagued communities will undoubtedly follow.

Without question, AB 1634 is the second best thing to come along for dogs, right behind the microchip. The real stumper is this: How can anyone caring about animals 'responsibly' argue against it?

I just have to tell you guys what we have been experiencing the past few weeks. I have been answering calls to help catch/trap several dogs lately. The calls usually send us to lower income neighborhoods and every time we discover unfixed animal after unfixed animal. The thing that is most interesting is that nearly every one of the owners has paid the $100 to be able to keep their animal intact! These are households making less then $40,000 a year but they pay the $100 because they like their animals to be intact and they want to be able to have puppies/kittens.

It is my understanding that one big group is wanting a guarantee of more low cost spay /neuter and they also want a fee on sold animals claiming that the professional breeders and puppy mills are the main contributors to the overpopulation issue. I disagree. 90% of the people we met will pay the $100 before they will consider getting their animals sterilized for free. I KNOW these same people would finally sterilize their animals if they were faced with a $500 fine though. Today we asked people about this and every person who spoke English told us that if there was a fine they would get their animals fixed. Every single one of them! To me this proves that it is not just about education and having the availability of low cost spay/ neuter. Yes that is important but Alli and I are constantly dealing with people who don't care if it is free...they just want to let their animal have babies.

This bill could make a difference. If the bill was a law today alone could have made arrangements for 3 pitbulls, 5 terriers mixes, 1Chihuahua, 5 Chihuahua mixes, 2 pit mixes, 2 Shepherd mixes to be spayed/neutered. Instead we had to walk away with plans to only fix 4 of the terrier mixes. All the other owners are satisfied paying the $100 licensing fee.

P.S. - In my own neighborhood I have five neighborhoods who breed litter after litter with no repercussions. All they do is pay the $100 licensing fee. If this bill was a law I could have prevented the birth of over 62 animals I have saved in my neighborhood the past 5 years. And when I say my neighborhood I am only referring to a 2 block radius.

- Animal Control Officer