THE CITY OF ANGELS POMERANIAN CLUB OPPOSES CA AB 1634
- MANDATORY SPAY-NEUTER IS UNNECESSARY
- MANDATORY SPAY-NEUTER LAWS HAVE
ALWAYS BEEN INEFFECTIVE
- REVENUES TO CITIES AND COUNTIES
WILL SUFFER
- AN INCREASE IN POORLY BRED DOGS
"IMPORTED" FROM OTHER STATES AND COUNTRIES
- NEUTERING AT AN EARLY AGE IS DETRIMENTAL
TO HEALTH OF THE DOG
- STUDIES SHOW NEUTERING ACTUALLY
INCREASES FEARFULNESS AND AGGRESSION
- MANDATORY SPAY-NEUTER IS AN UNREASONABLE
INFRINGEMENT ON ETHICAL DOG BREEDERS
- IT IS UNDESIRABLE TO LIMIT OUR
GENE POOLS
- IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS ABANDON DOGS, NOT BREEDERS
- MANDATORY SPAY-NEUTER IS UNNECESSARY
Mandatory spay-neuter is a misguided attempt to reduce
shelter populations. Shelter statistics on euthanasia are used to support the need for this type of legislation, yet euthanasia
statistics are not accurate as they reflect dogs put down due to illness and injury, as well as vicious and end-of-life
dogs which are brought to the shelter strictly for necessary humane euthanasia. Numbers usually include dogs, cats, any
wildlife or other feral animals. Feral cats, who produce the majority of the overpopulation problem, will not be
controlled through this bill.
In Los Angeles County, with
1,095,592 residents in 2005, the county's figure for that year was 18,800 animals (not solely dogs) who were euthanized. This
figure, while most likely inflated, is an extremely low percentage, and can be considered effectively no-kill.
Numbers of euthanized animals have actually DROPPED by
83% over the past 30 years in Los Angeles county, despite a surging population (using the county's own
figures). This great success has been achieved through public education campaigns, and low-cost spay-neuter clinics.
We believe in and support EDUCATION....NOT legislation.
Pet owners must be educated to the responsibililties involved with owning a pet BEFORE they take on pet ownership.
In the remainder of this article we will present the facts
which indicate that mandatory spay-neuter is ineffective in reducing shelter euthanasia rates, in addition to being unnecessary.
- MANDATORY SPAY-NEUTER LAWS HAVE
ALWAYS BEEN INEFFECTIVE
Where mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) laws have
been introduced, they have failed to reduce euthanasia rates, have increased enforcement costs, and have decreased compliance
with legally-mandated licensing and rabies vaccination compliance:
- San Mateo County California: dog euthanasia
rates increased by 126%, dog licenses declined by 35%
- Los Angeles City, California: enforcement costs rose 269%, from $6.7 million
to $18 million; and compliance to mandatory dog licensing declined
- Fort Worth, TX -- ended its mandatory spay/neuter program. Rabies vaccination
and licensing compliance declined after passage of the ordinance. This led to an increase in rabies in the city
- Montgomery County, MD: repealed its mandatory spay/neuter law. Euthanasia
rates declined more slowly than they had been prior to the mandatory spay/neuter law; licensing compliance declined by 50%
- King County, WA -- euthanasia rates fell at a slower rate after mandatory
spay/neuter. License compliance has decreased. Animal control expenses have increased 56.8% and revenues only 43.2%
- Camden County, NJ -- mandatory spay/neuter ordinance hasn't stopped it from being called "consistently one of the leading,
if not the leading killers of animals in the state of New Jersey" (ref: PAWS NJ)
- Aurora, CO: euthanasia
and shelter intake rates increased. Licensing compliance dropped dramatically, compliance costs have increased 75% with revenue
increasing only 13%
- REVENUES TO CITIES AND COUNTIES
WILL SUFFER
The effect of stringent limits on breeding will be to
drive the very best breeders to stop breeding or leave the area. Mandated neutering and increased fees will only serve to
increase noncompliance and will actually result in a drop in revenues. Licensing will decline as dog breeders are forced underground
by these oppressive restrictions. Compliance with rabies vaccination requirements will drop, threatening public health. These
effects are well-documented.
There are no exemptions for dogs visiting from out of
state for competitions and shows. Entries and revenues from dog events will plummet. This will result in a loss in the millions
of dollars of revenues for the cities of Los Angeles County each year. For example, the Eukanuba
Classic brings in yearly revenues estimated at $21 million to the City of Long Beach.
This bill would influence exhibitors to leave California,
and show in states which are more dog-friendly.
- AN INCREASE IN POORLY BRED DOGS
"IMPORTED" FROM OTHER STATES AND SMUGGLED IN FROM OTHER COUNTRIES
Hobby breeders will necessarily become more discreet
in their activities to avoid being targeted for noncompliance with the law. As a result of fewer dogs available locally, pet
store sales and "underground" sales of imported dogs from other states will increase. We will see an increase in sick puppies
smuggled here from Mexico. These dogs are from unscrupulous breeders who do no health testing or socialization
of their dogs. They are bred solely for profit, as a commercial business. The price for these inferior animals will be very
high indeed, due to reduced supply and steady demand.
Stifling hobby breeders and promoting poorly bred, poorly-socialized
pet-store dogs, will result in an INCREASE in abandonment of dogs at shelters. Pets obtained from out of the local area will
be the ones who end up at shelters due to health or temperament issues. The breeders supplying these dogs will not be
willing or available to take them back when the new owner can no longer care for them, as a reputable hobby breeders would.
This further perpetuates the cycle of abandonment at the local animal shelter.
- STUDIES SHOW NEUTERING ACTUALLY
INCREASES FEARFULNESS AND AGGRESSION
A recent report of the American Kennel Club Canine
Health Foundation Reported significantly more behavioral problems in spayed and neutered bitches and dogs. The most commonly
observed behavioral problem in spayed females was fearful behavior and the most common problem
in males was aggression.
Enforcement of the current leash laws are all that is
needed to prevent dog bites (>60% of dog bites occur in the home). Neutering has been proven in veterinary
studies to actually increase behavior problems in dogs, including fearfulness and aggression.
- NEUTERING AT AN EARLY AGE IS DETRIMENTAL
TO HEALTH OF THE DOG
Neutering at an early age is detrimental to the health
of the dog. There are studies which prove significant health risks associated with early neutering. The most problematic is
a delayed closure of the growth plates, resulting in abnormal skeletal development and promoting the development of hip dysplasia
and patellar luxation. Working dogs, if neutered at too early an age, can not develop normally to perform the job they were
bred to do.
Other adverse health effects of early neutering include
increased risk of bone cancer, hemangiosarcoma, urinary incontinence, hypothyroidism, cognitive dysfunction in older
dogs, and behavior problems such as noise phobias, fearfulness and aggression. Dogs neutered at an early age have an increased
susceptibility to infectious disease, and also a higher incidence of adverse reactions to vaccines. It is recommended
that no dog be neutered before maturity.
Please see DVM-authored article, reference below, "Early
Neutering, Considerations For The Canine Athlete"
- MANDATORY SPAY-NEUTER IS AN UNREASONABLE
INFRINGEMENT ON ETHICAL DOG BREEDERS
Aside from the health risks of neutering at an early age,
mandatory spay-neuter is an unreasonable infringement on the rights of ethical dog breeders. It punishes ethical breeders
by excessively restricting them. Breeders should decide which dogs be bred, not the government. Dog breeders are the ones
familiar with canine genetics, not politicians. Further, not every dog is destined for the show ring, and should not be required
to be a show dog to be part of a breeding program. Breed clubs cannot and should not act as wardens to their members, mandating
breeding parameters.
The goal of animal rights activists is to eventually ban
ALL BREEDING. These extremists do not believe in purposeful breeding of pets, and most of them believe that humans do not
have the right to own a pet. This is evident by their pushing the term "guardian" instead of "owner". Mandatory spay-neuter
is their first step in their extremist agenda of eliminating all pet ownership.
- IT IS UNDESIRABLE TO LIMIT OUR
GENE POOLS
It is undesirable to limit our gene pools through severe
culling of breeding stock. Geneticists have advised us that a resultant decline in health and fitness would occur from this
severe culling of breeding stock which would result from mandatory spay-neuter and increased bureaucracy. We are already
severely restricted in most areas of Los Angeles County with a limit of 3 dogs per household.
Breeders
of toy dogs, such as our own beloved Pomeranians, will be hardest hit by these new regulations. Our breed cannot physically
survive such restrictive legislation. We are limited to ONE litter per year, and usually have just one or two puppies in a
litter. Our litters are very small, and the fees per dog are resultantly very high...there is currently a fee of $125 just
to get the county's permission to breed a litter.
- IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS ABANDON DOGS, NOT BREEDERS
Most important to note, it is irresponsible OWNERS who
remand their dogs to shelters, not BREEDERS. Mandatory spay-neuter will not prevent OWNERS from remanding their dogs to shelters.
Common reasons for relinquishing pets to shelters include moving, family crises, financial problems, allergy to the pet, dog
with a behavioral problem, etc. Mandatory spay-neuter will do nothing to solve these problems.
AB 1634 is being sold as the solution to a pet overpopulation problem. Yet more spay/neuter cannot
put a significant dent in that problem, because the problem is largely one of adult dogs being relinquished to shelters, not
an excess of unwanted/unplanned litters that spay/neuter addresses. The real problem at California animal
shelters is not due to an excess of irresponsible dog breeding. It is an undersupply of responsible dog ownership.
Ethical breeders utilize contracts which state that the
dog may be returned for any reason, at any time. Pet store and casually bred dogs don't have that sort of contract.
Public education and low-cost microchip and neuter clinics are the answer, not mandating stringent restrictions on breeding.
Increased restrictions on pet ownership will actually
promote abandonment. Only affluent citizens will be able to afford higher license fees. Mandating "speuter" will drive
up the cost of the procedure, further promoting abandonment by the less-affluent citizens.
There will always be a societal need for local animal
shelters. This bill cannot and will not mitigate that need. The operating costs of shelters will not be reduced. Basic
costs for buildings, staff, utilities etc are fixed in nature.
There are, however, alternatives to euthanasia of
adoptable dogs at shelters. Many people do not want to set foot inside a "kill" shelter, to volunteer or adopt. It is necessary
to outreach to place the adoptable pets. Showcase these pets and make them available at retail pet outlets. Be proactive in
contacting rescue groups and shelters in urban areas where demand for pets exceeds supply. Advertise them in the newspapers.
Export to areas with shortages (in some areas of the country, shelters actually import small pets from other areas...sometimes
even from other countries!)
Mandatory spay-neuter is detrimental to the health of
dogs. It will limit the number of healthy, well-bred pets available at a reasonable price. There will be decreased compliance
and drops in revenues from license fees and sanctioned events. There will be an increased risk to public health from noncompliance
with licensing and rabies vaccinations. It will not reduce dog bite statistics. Mandatory spay-neuter will
only serve to punish and limit the very best breeders, and severely restrict our gene pools. And finally, mandatory spay-neuter
will not serve the avowed purpose of reducing shelter populations or controlling costs.
WE URGE THAT YOU VOTE NO ON CA AB 1634,
and on MSN legislation in any form.
Sincerely,
Geneva Coats
Vice President, City of Angels Pomeranian
Club
