AB 1634 Is Dead...
Woo, hoo the witch is dead… Those were the first words that came into my head when the California Senate voted 27-5 to defeat AB 1634 on August 22, 2008. After 18 months of fighting this many-headed Hydra, we finally killed her for good. AB 1634 had taken many forms, all bad for pet owners, as it was amended and revised eleven times by its authors in a futile attempt to pass the Draconian legislation.
You are all to be congratulated for your efforts to defeat this proposal. We showed the well funded Animal Rights freaks, their celebrity-blind supporters and a lot of professional politicians what a group of committed pet owners could accomplish with a poorly funded but enthusiastically fought grassroots campaign. We didn’t have much money, we had almost no media exposure and we never got a single politician to actively and aggressively fight for our side, but we beat the bums anyway. And, in the process, we succeeded in ending Lloyd Levine’s California political career by helping a challenger overwhelmingly defeat him is his run for a State Senate seat. Many politicians took note of that and will be mighty fearful to cross swords with us again lest they, too, risk their political careers.
We also learned a lot from this fight. The most important lesson is that we can never compromise with the animal rights nuts. They have nothing to lose so anything we give them in compromise is a loss for us. And, they are relentless and without scruples so even if we thought we struck a “deal” with them they would be back for another piece of our hide very soon. We must always try to stop them in their tracks and totally defeat whatever illegal and illogical proposals they put forth.
We also learned the power of the Internet and email when used effectively in a political fight. Early in the fight, the opponents of AB 1634 created numerous opposition web sites, Internet discussion groups and informal email circulation lists. We were able to quickly find like-minded people dedicated to defeating this legislation. We came from many different sets of experience, with the most striking contrast being the joining of forces of dog and cat fanciers. As a result, we were able to share information, pool our experience, present our arguments succinctly and have virtually instantaneous communication when timeliness was important. We could also provide numerous fighting tools to our colleagues such as pre-drafted letter of opposition, politicians’ contact information, scripts with discussion points for use in face-to-face communications with politicians, etc.
We learned a lot about what organizations can do in a fight such as this. The proponents of AB 1634 came well prepared. In addition to several elected representatives who co-sponsored AB 1634, they had two large, well-funded national organizations behind their cause: the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Both are animal rights organizations with huge war chests and an established cadre of troops ready to fight their battles.
Initially, we individual opponents of AB 1634 had no allies other than each other and our local club members. We desperately needed an organization to focus and coordinate our opposition efforts. Several small organizations quickly formed but none had much initial funding, any established fund raising capability or an experienced staff ready to come out fighting (PetPac, CFODC, CDOC, NAIA). We backed them all but really needed much more. One of our most effective allies was the Cat Fanciers Association (CFA). CFA was in the fight from the beginning, contributing funding, the expertise of a small but very talented legislative action group and the efforts of a very involved membership. Also, many national and local dog breed clubs fought along with us the entire time.
Well-established national organizations who should have had a large stake in our fight were a mixed blessing. The National Rifle Association (NRA) took awhile to realize the importance of defeating AB 1634 but once they did, they never waivered in their opposition. Corporate enterprises that should have realized the risk to their future business (pet food companies, pet supply companies, etc.) never really found the spine to get into the fight. Veterinary organizations were all over the map: some supported the legislation, others opposed it, none seemed to be very active on either side of the fight.
Perhaps my biggest disappointment was the American Kennel Club (AKC). At times AKC was great ally and a vigorous fighter against AB 1634. They encouraged members to fight the legislation and hired lobbyists to win votes of opposition. However, AKC always seemed to have its own agenda which often departed from the interests of totally defeating this legislation. When the two elected Assemblymembers from Long Beach voted with the majority to pass AB 1634 in the state Assembly, AKC resisted using the economic leverage of the National Eukanuba dog show to show their displeasure. Instead it was left to individual dog owners to send Long Beach a message by pulling their top dogs from the show last December. My hat goes off to all those owners, many of whom passed up the chance of a lifetime to show their dogs at the National invitational show. When AB 1634 returned in the 2008 Senate session AKC initially opposed the bill. However, unknown to any of us, AKC was secretly “negotiating” with the authors to come up with compromise language that was suitable to AKC. When they thought they had done that, AKC withdrew its opposition to AB 1634 at a most inopportune time, immediately before the long awaited vote by the entire Senate. Only after we raised a massive email protest to the AKC Board did AKC relent and, at the final moment, renew their opposition to the bill. AKC appears to care more about its image as a gentile, “politically correct” organization than about the interests of its constituency. Its Board is incredibly arrogant and elitist and, in my opinion, not to be trusted with matters as important as the fight against anti-dog owner legislation. In the end they hurt us at least as much as they helped.
We really learned to be careful who we choose as allies. As with AKC, several of the other opposition organizations often appeared to have their own agenda, often not including the total defeat of AB 1634. They showed a willingness to negotiate with the proponents and to throw away the rights of some animal owners when they felt their own personal needs were met. Sadly, every one of these willing-to-compromise groups eventually learned that the AR extremists cannot be trusted.
We can rejoice in our big win over AB 1634. However, we must remain vigilant because the AR extremists have vowed to keep fighting to destroy our rights to own our animals and to make our own decisions regarding those animals’ destiny. It’s only a matter of when we will have to renew this fight. In the interim I hope that we animal owners can find (or create) an organization whose sole mission is the preservation of the rights of all animal owners. We really need an NRA for Animal Owners Rights.
Thank you to everybody who wrote a letter, made a telephone call, sent a FAX or met with a legislator to oppose AB 1634. It may not have seemed like it at the time but every one of those individual efforts added up to a tsunami of opposition that the politicians finally could not resist. Keep on fighting for your rights.
All the verbiage below relates to earlier, futile attempts by Lloyd Levine and his Animal Rights cohorts to deceive the citizens of California. Read it for historical purposes if you must, but remember that the citizens of California saw through the offensive nature of these proposals and rallied to convince lawmakers to discard them.
What's Happening With AB 1634?
Key Points Against the New AB 1634
- 1. It will be very expensive because more animals will be surrendered to shelters, rabies vaccination compliance will fall and the cost of “legitimate, licensed” pet ownership will skyrocket because of the multiple layers of both state and local fines and fees that this bill requires.
- 2. The bill does nothing at the State level that is not now being done better at the local level. It is a totally unnecessary state mandate, interjecting state controls on what should be a local matter.
- 3. It is still “Mandatory Spay/Neuter” because the penalty of forced sterilization will be imposed on dogs and cats whose owners are cited for any reason including such unrelated matters as barking, pooping on a neighbor’s lawn, being left in the car unattended, etc.
- 4. It will do nothing to solve any perceived animal problem such as “pet overpopulation”, “aggressive animals” or “unwanted pets.” Instead it will exacerbate such situations by forcing poor people and the uncaring pet owner to abandon their animals rather than incur costly fines and penalties.
- 5. As with prior versions of this legislation, the “exemptions” are too simple to deal with the complex real-world problems this legislation will cause. For example, out-of-state “owners” are exempted while their pets are in California for legitimate purposes but those same pets are subject to the penalties if they enter the state with anyone other than their “owners.”
- 6. This has been described as a “foot in the door bill” that will provide Animal Rights activists with an inroad to pursue their anti-pet owner agenda by trying to increase the fines and penalties under this bill. They really do want to end the ownership of pets. This just provides them another avenue to pursue that goal.
- 7. For breeders and other who have a valid reason to keep their dogs and cats intact, this legislation provided a state-sanctioned way for local jurisdictions to “price you out of the market” by increasing intact fees to the point that you cannot afford to keep an intact animal.
Levine's Real Agenda
At the recent Senate Local Government committee hearing on June 25, 2008, where the first "new AB 1634" was unveiled, Senator Cox asked Ed Boks, the Los Angeles Director of Animal Control (who was a co-presenter to the committee along with the author, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine): "Mr. Boks, this bill doesn't even pretend to be about saving animals, does it?" Mr. Boks responded: "No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats. It's about whether they are neutered." In response to a Senator's question about what happens if a "complaint" was determined to be unfounded, Mr. Levine responded: "...even if the owner is not cited for the original complaint, he will still be cited for having an unneutered animal." That committee hearing made it very clear what the proponents and authors think AB 1634 is about. Please see below if you doubt any of this.
Don't take my word for any of this, click here to watch the video of Boks and Levine explaining the proposal to the Senate Local Government Committee. Then reach your own conclusion about what they are trying to accomplish.
Levine obviously discovered that his June attempt to make all unsterilized dogs and cats illegal was doomed to fail. Rather than acknowledge that his whole futile attempt at imposing the Animal Rights Agenda on the citizens of California was a bust he has again, at the last minute, proposed a totally new and unnecessary piece of legislation, masquerading as the old bill. This latest version does nothing substantive for California, potentially will cost the state millions of dollars and is a monumental waste of legislators' time. Levine's already been given the boot by his constituents. It's high time that his Legislative peers do the same and resoundingly defeat this latest joke of a piece of legislation and send Levine back where he can't do any more damage.
On June 25, 2008 a completely re-drafted AB 1634 was presented to the Senate Local Government committee in Sacramento. On its face, the new language seems to say that dog and cat owners may now be subject to complaints from any source which, if they result in action by Animal Control, can lead to a citation and fine. The fines increase with each citation of the same animal and upon the third (second for cats) citation the animal in question will be sterilized by the authorities at the owner's expense. However, the bill's author, Lloyd Levine, carefully spelled out for the committee (numerous times so he could not be misunderstood) that even if the underlying complaint was found to be unsupportable, or even false, the responding officer must still cite the owner for any animal that is intact. In other words, his bill makes it illegal for any dog or cat to be intact and therefore creates a new violation of California law, "an intact dog or cat." The committee voted 3 to 2 (a straight party-line vote: 3 Democrats "for", 2 Republicans "against") to pass this bill on to the full Senate. The bill was supposed to go to the Senate Appropriations committee but the Democratic chairman of that committee decided, unilaterally, that the bill would cost the state nothing so he passed it along to the full Senate without a hearing. If it passes the Senate it will return to the Assembly for a final vote and then to the Governor before becoming law. With the California legislature nearing the end of its current term, this could all happen very fast, as early as August 4, 2008.
What Can You Do To Stop AB 1634?
What's Wrong With AB 1634?
What Can You Do To Stop AB 1634?
Contact Lawmakers - Oppose AB 1634
We believe the bill is vulnerable because no rational person would argue there is any value to the State of California to eliminate all intact dogs and cats in the state. In reading the text of the bill and hearing the Senate Local Government Committee commentary on the legislation, none of the voting Senators (pro or con) stated any support for total abolition of intact animals. We believe that the Senators and their staff thought the bill uses sterilization as a punishment for repeat offenders of animal control laws. We think the author simply "pulled a fast one" and wrote the language so that the apparent intent was subrogated to his Animal Rights agenda of total elimination of pets in California.
This makes the bill vulnerable in a couple of ways. First, this time around the proponents have not made specific arguments demonstrating the need for this legislation. There is no apparent purpose for such a law. It will accomplish no goal that is the business of state government. And, it may put the state's citizens at greater health risk if people "go underground" and stop licensing their animals and, therefore, stop obtaining rabies protection for them. Therefore, the legislators should simply vote it down and move on to other things.
Second, there are many reasons why total, state-mandated sterilization of our dog and cat population is a bad idea. It is bad animal health policy, it is an infringement of our fundamental property rights, it will result in substantial fiscal costs to the state if all dog and cat shows are terminated, no more animals are bred locally and police and other emergency services can no longer obtain locally bred animals.
Finally, if legislators are intent on "doing something" and if they believe that forced sterilization is an appropriate punishment for miscreants, then they should be asked to clarify the language of the bill. First, it should be made clear the normal "due process" applies to this law and that if a complaint is deterimined to be false or unsupported, then the matter is simply dropped and the subject of the complaint suffers no consequences. Second, it should be made clear that "forced sterilization" is a punishment for repeat violation of animal control laws, not a violation of its own.
Call, visit and send written letters of opposition to each member of the Senate, to your own Senators and to the Governor. We have posted on this web site a Sample Letter with suggestions of what to say. Letters should be mailed, FAXed or dropped off personally.
It is very important that you also call the Senators' offices and either talk to the Senator or to a senior staff member who is knowledgeable about this legislation. They should be asked if it is really their intent that "merely being unsterilized" should be illegal in California. If they do not support the new crime of "being intact" you should encourage them to either oppose the legislation entirely or to at least push for revise language in the bill that clarifies their real intent.
Printable Sample Letter to a Senator
Sample Letter to a Senator-MS Word format
2008 Senators - Telephone & FAX Numbers
2008 Senators - Addresses, etc.
State Senators - Alphabetical (online)
Complete List of 2008 Assembly Members - FAX Numbers
Assembly Members - Alphabetical (online)
Find Your Senator or Assembly Member
Senate Appropriations Committee
Visit or Call Your State Assembly Member or Senator
Your are a voter and what you want is important to politicians who seek your future votes. Call or visit the local office of your Assembly Member or Senator and voice your opposition to this bill. You can find your representative Here.
Many people are uncertain what to say when calling or visiting a legislator's office. The most important message you can leave is that you are a concerned voter and that you oppose AB 1634. However, you should try to be prepared to talk about what is wrong with the legislation and why you oppose it. We understand that every conversation will take a bit dofferent course. We prepared a "Script" for our own use when calling Senators and found the process very useful. We've now fleshed it out a bit and have made it available here for any of you to view and use to help you in your conversations with legislators and their staff. Please feel free to send us any suggestions on what we can change or improve.
Script for Calling a Legislator
Contact the Press
The popular press, television and radio have been nearly silent about the revised version of AB 1634. We need them to start talking about it and exposing the truth about the proposal to the general public. Please call, write and email to the editors of newspapers, to television and radio program directors and talk show hosts and ask them to look into what this legislation really does. Write "letters to the editor" and opionion pieces of your own and ask that they be published. Here is a link to an Op/Ed piece we wrote and have circulated to a number of media sources. Feel free to use it or modify it in any way to help our cause.
The proponents of AB 1634 have a well-funded, professional PR machine. They are running a powerful media campaign to get this legislation passed. We don't have the PR machine, so we must rely on individuals to help get a balanced review in the press. Whenever you see an unbalanced, pro-AB 1634 article or news story, please write a response immediately. These typically become "Letters to the Editor" and, if printed at all, get buried way back in the paper. So you should also make a request that the publication allow you to submit a full opinion article to provide a balanced presentation of the "other side" of the issue. We can arrange to have a complete article authored by one of the experienced professionals who is helping us oppose AB 1634. If you are a local resident you have a slightly better chance that your opinion will be published or that the paper will accept an article. If you would like assistance in responding please contact us and we will do our best to help.
Contact Your Veterinarian
As amended, AB 1634 requires mandatory sterilization of all dogs and cats in California. Besides all the other objections to such a law, it is bad health policy to sterlize many dogs and cats, especially when they are too young. Most veterinarians want the choices of when and whether to sterilize an animal to be made as a medical decision, not as a legislative one. Please ask your vet to write opposition letters to lawmakers. If your vet favors AB 1634, consider changing vets.
Get Your Club to Oppose AB 1634
If you are a member of a cat or dog club get your club to write letters of opposition, on club letterhead, expressing the club's opposition to AB 1634. We have the information you need Here.
What's Wrong With AB 1634?
AB 1634 Doesn't Solve a Real Problem
The proponents have their facts wrong. They claim that California has a growing problem with abandoned pets resulting in over 1,000,000 animals being surrendered to shelters and 500,000 euthanized annually at a cost to California taxpayers of $250 million. In fact, that is simply not true. The number of incoming dogs and cats at California shelters has been decreasing for many years, as has the number of animals euthanized. Most animals surrendered to shelters are either feral cats or other dogs & cats who are too old, too sick or who have behavioral problems that make them unsuitable for adoption. Thus, they have to be euthanized. In fact, California many shelters have such a shortage of adoptable dogs that they either import dogs from other shelters or from out-of-state to fill the demand. The proponents' arguments for this bill don't stand up to a test of the facts. Shelters will not save money from the passage of AB 1634 because the numbers and types of animals they receive and euthanize will not be affected by such a law. And, more animals will be dumped in shelters by owners who cannot afford the fines and cost of sterilation imposed by AB 1634. This proposal is a smokescreen to eliminate the breeding and ownership of quality pets in California.
Mandatory Spay Neuter Doesn't Work
Where it has been tried, MSN has been a failure. MSN has resulted in reduced licensing compliance and, therefore, reduced revenue for shelters. You'd have to be crazy to license an intact pet and risk self-incrimination under this law. Reduced licensing compliance has resulted in fewer rabies vaccinations (a primary purpose of pet licensing is to assure that mandatory rabies vaccinations take place) thereby endangering the public's health. Public fear of the penalties associated with MSN have led to increased dumping of unwanted pets and reduced adoption of unowned, stray animals. Most jurisdictions have rescinded their MSN laws.
back to top
AB 1634 is Bad Health Policy for Animals
The proposal requires spay/neuter of all dogs and cats. Sterilizing too early is dangerous for many animals and is extremely poor health policy for most. The decision whether to neuter a pet, or when, should be made on a case-by-case basis, not arbitrarily because an animal reaches a certain, very young age. Such decisions should be made by responsible owners with the advice of their veterinarians, not by politicians.
There are many reasons not to sterilize an animal too early including: orthopedic risks, increased risk of cancer, adverse behavioral consequences, incomplete development and other health risks. There has been much research of this subject and many in the veterinary community are concerned about too early sterilization. See this article for additional information and for many scientific references. Here are some other articles explaining the health issues of early spay/neuter:
Long Term Effects of Spay/Neuter
Risks of Early Spay Neuter
back to top
California Breeders Will Disappear
AB 1634 had no exceptions. Californians will no longer be able to breed dogs or cats for any purpose. There will be no more show dogs or cats, no hunting or working dogs bred, no service dogs bred, nothing. Sterile animals cannot reproduce. Californians will have to depend on breeders from outside the state raising the cost of acquiring dogs and cats and increasing the risks since their can be much less oversight of long-distance breeders.
AB 1634 Will Cost Californians a Fortune
Shelter populations, rather than decreasing, will increase as owners dump intact animals when they cannot afford to pay for AB 1634's fines or mandatory sterilization. This will result in significant increases in costs for animal shelters throughout the state. In order to assure compliance with AB 1634 every local jurisdiction in California will have to increase its enforcement staff. Enforcement costs alone could add $50-100 million to already overburdened local govenments. Public health costs will increase as rabies vaccination compliance drops and as ever poorer quality pets are imported from out-of-state (see what U.S. Customs has to say).
AB 1634 provides no exemption for non-residents visiting the state. Many out-of-state residents will not risk fines or confiscation of their intact animal. As a result tourism will suffer and dog and cat shows will cease to exist in California. Currently there are thousands of cat and dog shows held in California every year. $100-200 million re spent annually at these events for entry fees, hotels, meals and supplies. Vendors who sell millions of dollars worth of goods at these shows will lose their livelihood and the state will lose the sales tax.
back to top
Reputable California Breeders Are Not the Problem
Hobbyist breeders of dogs and cats will become extinct with AB 1634. Such breeders of purebred animals have limited resources and only breed occasionally. They stay involved in their offspring forever. Disreputable breeders don't care about laws and will continue in spite of AB 1634. Only the good guys will be hurt and the bad guys will produce just as many "throwaway pets" as ever. Reputable breeders adhere to a Code of Ethics that requires that their “pet” offspring be neutered as a condition of sale and that their “show” offspring be actively shown or neutered. These same breeders remain responsible for ANY offspring they sell should the purchaser no longer want an animal or if an animal is not being properly raised. Their puppies and kittens DO NOT become part of the abandoned animal population. Such breeders will be forced our of business or will have to leave California. This is supported by actual shelter statistics from San Jose where purebred dogs make up 46% of the dog population but only 25% of the shelter intakes. Since 100% of healthy purebred dogs are adopted from shelters, they actual become a profit center for many shelters. If AB 1634 passes, most purebred dogs and cats will come from out-of-state and such out-of-state breeders will have limited contact with and, therefore, limited ability to "rescue" their offspring. That entire task will fall to our shelters increasing their burden, not lessening it.
back to top
Current Laws Are Adequate
A new state law is not necessary. Nearly every local jurisdiction in California currently has a dog licensing requirement. Shelters are required by existing state laws to charge a larger licensing fee for intact animals than for neutered animals. And, they are required to sterilize every animal before it can be adopted from their shelters. This system works very well to monitor the reproductive status of the registered dog population. The problem is compliance. Law abiding citizens already comply with existing laws, including licensing their pets. Scofflaws do not comply with existing laws and will not comply with this new proposal. Enforcement of existing laws would largely eliminate any perceived problems with pet overpopulation and would totally eliminate the need for AB 1634.
Watch the Local Government Committee Hearing
You can watch the entire Senate Local Government Committee hearing on the new AB 1634 by going to the Calchannel.com web site and viewing it on your computer. To do that you first click the link to go to the calchannel.com search page and then select the correct hearing video. On the bottom part of that web page, using the "Browse By Month" drop-down dialog, select "June 2008." When the next page comes up, scroll down the page to the line that says "062508 Senate Committee Local Government" and touch the "WATCH" button. A video of the entire commmittee session will start downloading to your computer, your audio/video viewer program should automatically come up and the video will start to play. AB 1634 is the first agenda item so it will be the first thing you get to view. The interesting stuff starts when the Senators start asking Boks and Levine questions.
