'California Healthy Pets Act' Assures Unintended Consequences: Elimination of California's Healthy Pets!

The anti-petmovement has found a sponsor in the California legislature for a bill thatstrips pet owners of their traditional rights and, in the process, sharplyreduces both the quantity and quality of purpose-bred dogs and cats --including those bred for assistance to the disabled, and for search &rescue operations. AB 1634 is backed by the extremist group People for the EthicalTreatment of Animals (PETA) and sponsored by Assembly Member Lloyd Levine(D-Van Nuys). If it passes, most California pet owners will have tosterilize their pets. "This bill comes with a noble-sounding name but AB 1634, the so-calledCalifornia Healthy Pets Act, will not improve the health of Californiapets," says Patti Strand, National Director of the National AnimalInterests Alliance, one of the nation's most respected animal welfaregroups. The bill is fraught with unintended consequences. Among them: apredictable flood of unregulated -- and typically unhealthy -- dogs fromMexico, already the proven source of up to 10,000 illegal dogs sent toCalifornia each year according to US Customs and Border Protection:(http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2006/jun_jul/other/puppies.xml). "In a globalmarketplace," according to Strand, "over-regulating the AKC and CFA hobbybreeders who are the best source of healthy, well-socialized, home-raisedpuppies and kittens, creates a vacuum, effectively 'outsourcing' petproduction to other countries that don't come close to reaching USstandards of animal health, care or quality." The increasing demand forpuppies has also led to the importation of strays rescued from foreigncountries that are being marketed through non-profit organizations like TheAnimal Place (http://www.animalplace.org) and Compassion Without Borders(http://www.cwob.org). This influx harms California consumers and poses asignificant public health threat. Despite the claims of the bill's supporters, many respected Californiaveterinarians oppose AB 1634, including one the state's most distinguishedvets. Dr. John Hamil is past president of the California Veterinary MedicalAssociation, founder of the California Council of Companion AnimalAdvocates that sponsored biannual Pet Overpopulation Symposia (now theAnimal Care Conference), member of the American Veterinary MedicalAssociation's Animal Welfare Committee and the National Council on PetPopulation Study and Policy and author of the CVMA and AVMA positions onearly spay/neuter. Dr. Hamil, a leader in spay/neuter programs, terms AB 1634 "divisivelegislation [that] will not help and may aggravate the situation." Notingthat young puppies and kittens are not biologically mature enough forspaying and neutering in many cases, Dr. Hamil states: "It is inappropriateto mandate a controversial and possibly life-threatening surgicalprocedure." Also strongly opposed to AB 1634 is Sharon Vanderlip, DVM, formershelter animal veterinary clinician and surgeon, a longtime advocate ofvoluntary spaying and neutering. "This bill is not a 'healthy' pet act,"said Dr. Vanderlip. "It will not help animals or improve their health. Itwill not reduce the shelter animal population. It will not reduce thenumber of animal euthanasias. To the contrary, the number of animals inshelters and the number of euthanasias will increase as people who cannotafford to alter their pets, or pay fines associated with non-compliance,will abandon their animals, relinquish them to shelters, or have themeuthanized. This has already happened in municipalities that attemptedsimilar legislation." Christian Osmond, DVM, board-certified veterinary surgeon, opposes thebill on similar grounds. Dr. Osmond says he cannot reconcile hisprofessional oath to "above all else ... do no harm" with programs thatplace political agendas above sound veterinary practice, a priority thatcould put pets at risk. Canine Companions for Independence, an organization supportingassistance dogs for the disabled, opposes AB 1634 because even withexemptions for today's carefully supervised dogs, the bill's long-termeffects would greatly reduce genetic diversity and threaten the existenceof their breeding program. Law enforcement groups -- representing tens of thousands of uniformedofficers -- oppose AB 1634 because it will drastically reduce the futuresupply of dogs suitable for apprehending criminal suspects and performingvital Homeland Security tasks. (http://www.saveourdogs.net/letters.html). The U.S.Congress has recognized the critical need to breed more dogs for HomelandSecurity work with pending legislation HR 659. AB 1634 would send thisimportant bipartisan effort into a tailspin. "AB 1634 would shrink the pool of dogs that are suitable for search andrescue, undermining our ability to do this life-saving work," says LauraSanborn, California K9 search and rescue volunteer. The Mixed Breed Dog Clubs of America supports spay and neuter programsand in fact requires compliance for all MBDCA registered dogs. Butpresident Cindy Leung said that AB 1634 will not solve the problem itclaims to address. Instead, she said, the bill "punishes organizations,animal shelters, businesses and responsible breeders that have been amongthe few sources of education in regard to responsible pet ownership andbreeding. Over 87% of animals relinquished to shelters are there due tobehavioral problems; if California truly wants to solve the petoverpopulation problem it should promote training and behavior educationrather than mandatory spay and neuter." Animal shelter studies demonstrate that pet owners are well on theirway to solving the pet population problems of yesterday. Today,California's largest animal problem is feral cats (cats without owners);but AB 1634 establishes no programs for these cats. Worse yet, it imposespenalties on cat breeders who breed and place their kittens with care. NAIA director Strand notes that AB 1634's chief advocates claim theyhave "no relationship to animal extremists." However, PETA operatives playkey roles in Social Compassion, a sister group to the bill's publicsupporter, CA Healthy Pets Coalition. "Beyond AB 1634 itself, the issue at stake is responsible politicalprocess," NAIA's Strand concludes. "Will the California Assembly rely onthe expertise of the state's animal professionals - including leadingveterinarians, experts in law enforcement and service dog breedingprograms, dedicated breed enthusiasts, animal welfare groups, the leadingorganizations for cats and dogs like Cat Fanciers Association (CFA) and theAmerican Kennel Club (AKC), county Boards of Supervisors, and otherrespected individuals and organizations - or will they listen to groupsthat oppose all pets, healthy or not?" "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by menof zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis

source:http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin