Senator Padilla, the floor handler of AB 1634, stood at 11:43am today and said, "I would like to place AB 1634 on the inactive file with the agreement of the author and Senator Dutton’s dog." It is positively, absolutely, undeniably, and reliably dead.

Many groups worked together to defeat this bad bill. Several groups hired professional lobbyists and their experience and contacts were invaluable. Many more people visited the Capitol regularly and worked hard to educate the legislators and staff about the impact of mandatory spay/neuter. But we have heard over and over that what really made the difference was the overwhelming opposition from constituents, from you. Your letters, phone calls, and visits are what saved our dogs from forced sterilization. That’ll do.

If your Senator voted against the bill or did not vote, please call to thank him or her. Do not fax. Their fax machines need a rest. This is important for two reasons. First, common courtesy. We asked our Senators to do something for us and most of them came through. It is only polite to thank them. And second, to let them know that we are still watching and still care about the bill in case it is brought up again on reconsideration. Again, do call to thank your Senator.

Voted NO	Phone
Ellen Corbett (Dem)	916-651-4010
Louis Correa (Dem)	916-651-4034
Denise Moreno Ducheny (Dem)	916-651-4040
Dean Florez (Dem)	916-651-4016
Alan Lowenthal (Dem)	916-651-4027
Carole Migden (Dem)	916-651-4003
Jenny Oropeza (Dem)	916-651-4028
Don Perata (Dem)	916-651-4009
Mark Ridley-Thomas (Dem)	916-651-4026
Gloria Romero (Dem)	916-651-4024
Jack Scott (Dem)	916-651-4021
Joe Simitian (Dem)	916-651-4011
Leland Yee (Dem)	916-651-4008
Sam Aanestad (Rep)	916-651-4004
Dick Ackerman (Rep)	916-651-4033
Roy Ashburn (Rep)	916-651-4018
Dave Cogdill (Rep)	916-651-4014
Dave Cox (Rep)	916-651-4001
Jeff Denham (Rep)	916-651-4012
Bob Dutton (Rep)	916-651-4031
Tom Harman (Rep)	916-651-4035
Dennis Hollingsworth (Rep)	916-651-4036
Abel Maldonado (Rep)	916-651-4015
Bob Margett (Rep)	916-651-4029
Tom McClintock (Rep)	916-651-4019
George Runner (Rep)	916-651-4017
Mark Wyland (Rep)	916-651-4038

In the California Legislature not voting has the same effect as voting NO. The following Senators did not vote on the bill (and some of them were on the Senate floor at the time) which was as good as a NO vote for us. Please thank them.

Abstained	Phone
Ron Calderon (Dem)	916-651-4030
Christine Kehoe (Dem)	916-651-4039
Sheila Kuehl (Dem)	916-651-4023
Darrell Steinberg (Dem)	916-651-4006
Patricia Wiggins (Dem)	916-651-4002
James Battin (Rep)	916-651-4037
Gilbert Cedillo (Dem)	916-651-4022
Edward Vincent (Dem)	916-651-4025

Here are the five Senators who voted YES on AB 1634 and for mandatory spay/neuter: Elaine Alquist (Dem), Mike Machado (Dem), Gloria Negrete McLeod (Dem), Alex Padilla (Dem), Tom Torlakson (Dem).

The California State Senate overwhelingly rejected mandatory spay/neuter today. The final vote was 5 YES, 27 NO, 8 not voting. The supporters have asked for reconsideration which means it can be brought up again next week, so it's not over yet, but this was a huge victory. According to the Legislature's rules all bills must be passed by both houses by August 31. We will keep you informed, so please check back daily. We may have to remind our Senators how important this bill is to us.

There are lots of people in this fight and we can't name them all. Thanks to our Friends listed to the left and to all of you who called, faxed, visted, and emailed your senator. Good dog.

The bill was not brought to a vote on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. That means they don't have the votes to pass it. We are hearing that your phone calls and faxes are making a difference. But you must keep up the pressure. We were in much the same situation last year in the Assembly when last minute arm twisting by the Democratic leadership turned around several of our votes. Only you can keep that from happening again. Some of the NO votes are soft. Your voice will make a difference. Call your Senator and let him or her know how important this bill is to you. Make sure he knows that AKC now opposes the bill. Don't let up. Get your organization to fax a letter to all 40 Senators. Assembly Member Levine is working hard to get this bill passed. We must all work harder to defeat it. Keep up the good fight.

In a hard hitting alert on their web site, AKC today announced that they have changed their position back to OPPOSE.

We welcome AKC back to the fold and applaud their strong stance.

Alley Cat Allies, a long time opponent of AB 1634, issued a new action alert. We haven't said much about cats (because we don't know much about cats.) but we found this message to be compelling. Way to go Alley Cat Allies!

Last week the bill was amended, yet again. While it addresses some of our concerns, it falls far short of being acceptable. We continue to oppose this bill. Even if you have already called your Senator, you should do so again. Some Senators seem to believe that the most recent amendments addressed all objections. They did not and you must make sure the Senators understand that. Please call again. And we aren't the only ones. Over 800 organizations continue to oppose this pointless legislation including no-kill advocate Nathan Winograd and Pet Connection.

Rational legislation aimed at addressing complex issues comes from studying the issue and then seeking well-reasoned, fact-based solutions that address it. Yet AB 1634 has never been approached this way, which is why the experts have rejected every version. It remains a misguided attempt to target intact dogs and cats in some manner that can pass the legislature. AB 1634 is about a punishment seeking an offense to which it can be attached.

At one time, AB 1634 asserted it was about "healthy pets" and "pet overpopulation". Then it was about "tax payer savings". In fact AB 1634 wasn't about any of those things, which is why last year's versions of the bill all died. Rising from the ashes, AB 1634 morphed into a bill that created a "secondary offense" (according to Mr. Levine) which would have made it illegal for any dog or cat to be intact, in order to address vague "complaints". Now it has shape changed once again, into a so-called "responsible pet owner act" that seeks to impose on local jurisdictions a measure to increase dog licensing compliance via an unprecedented means that is very likely to backfire. AB 1634 has lost any pretense of trying to address pet shelter population issues.

The most recent version AB 1634 would establish an extraordinary precedent in state law that mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) is an appropriate penalty for offenses that have no connection to the intact status of the dog or cat. These are offenses for which sterilization cannot be justified as a legitimate state interest such as public safety or public health, but would instead impose a surgical procedure purely as a punishment, like some sort of enhanced fine. If AB 1634 becomes state law then we will be fighting the "MSN as punishment for AC offenses" precedent that it would establish on numerous fronts for years to come.

The latest AB 1634 doesn't focus on "responsible pet ownership" as claimed, but instead establishes MSN as a punishment for a broad range of animal control infractions that in many cases have nothing to do with owner negligence. Dogs or cats can be "at large" or be impounded for a wide range of reasons besides owner negligence. No mitigating circumstances are recognized in AB 1634, and in the case of impoundments, no mitigating circumstances are even allowed to be considered by local governments (see use of "shall" in the bill text).

AB 1634 establishes MSN as a "tool" to try to create a higher degree of licensing compliance. But in many California jurisdictions, our dog licensing system is broken. Attempting to force increased compliance through penalties is premature where pet limit laws often preclude full compliance, or where the fees for intact dog licensing and intact permits are effectively out of reach. We need to fix California's broken dog licensing system before contemplating additional penalties to increase compliance: eliminate pet limit laws, cap intact and kennel licensing fees, and eliminate local MSN ordinances and their intact permit fees. But pet sterilization should not be applied as a penalty, because the burden an unlicensed dog places on society is in no way reduced if he is sterilized.

As a "tool" to try to increase licensing compliance, AB 1634 undermines the ability of programs that actually have been effective in accomplishing just that. Calgary, Canada has 90% dog licensing compliance, compared to 20% which is average, and 40% which is considered high in California. Calgary accomplished this primarily by building a bond of trust between animal control and the citizens, one based on education and an understanding that animal control provides useful services, and is fair and reasonable in its treatment of the public. Measures like AB 1634 shatter that trust, and as Bill Bruce (director of Calgary animal control) said, once trust is broken with the public due to misguided pet laws it is very hard to regain.

AB 1634 has been amended 11 times. Had the current version been proposed months ago, well before the policy committee hearings, it's possible that we might have been able to work to make it acceptable. Instead we are out of time. There is no time left for the public or legal experts to fully consider the ramifications of the latest AB 1634. Likewise, there is insufficient time for adequate review by the legislature that is embroiled in a budget crisis and is juggling hundreds of other bills.

To unveil major changes at the last minute to the most controversial bill the California legislature has dealt with in years is an abuse of the legislative process and the public's right to be engaged in that process. The broken process that formed AB 1634 is one where people with limited knowledge about dogs or cats attempted to write regulations while excluding from the process (and often vilifying) nearly all of the subject matter experts. For these reasons alone Save Our Dogs opposes AB 1634.

The bill could perhaps be voted on late tomorrow morning. You must contact your State Senator again immediately. If you do not then there is a good chance this bill will pass. You must visit, fax a letter, or telephone but do it now. Your dogs are depending on you to do this for them. Even if you have already contacted your Senator, you should do so again to confirm your continued opposition to the bill. Your silence is taken as support for the bill.

Equally important, tell your friends, co-workers, fellow club members, breed ethusiasts, and family members to contact their Senators, too. Send them to saveourdogs.net. The only thing that will stop this bill is your voice and that of thousands more like you telling the Legislature, "Keep your laws off my dog."

If you don't know who your State Senator is or how to contact him or her, enter your street address below and click "Submit". This will open a new window with the name and contact information of your State Senator and Assembly Member.

Visit or call your Senator today. Tell them that you oppose AB 1634.

Major media outlets conducted reader polls earlier this year on AB 1634 and mandatory spay/neuter laws. In all cases a large majority of respondents opposed mandatory spay/neuter laws.

• CNN—86% against
• Contra Costa Times—90% against
• KTLA TV 5—57.3% against
• Los Angeles Times—83.5% against
• San Jose Mercury News—72% against
• MSNBC—64% against
• NBC TV 11—94% against
• Orange County Register—72% against

And in the ultimate irony and clear demonstration of the widespread and vigorous opposition to unworkable and counterproductive mandatory spay/neuter laws, Assembly Member Levine's own web site conducted a poll for a few days and mandatory/spay neuter was resoundingly opposed, 68.87% against.

The above images are screen shots of the respective web sites. They have not been edited, touched up or changed in any way. In all cases we show the last screen shot we captured before the poll disappeared from the web site.

A new American Veterinary Medical Association report disputes claims by AB 1634 supporters that pets should be spayed or neutered for population control reasons, or that spay and neuter is always healthy for pets. The report finds adverse effects from spay and neuter include increased risks of prostate cancer, bone cancer, bladder cancer, hemangiosarcoma, obesity, diabetes, aggression, ligament rupture, and complications from surgery.

After reviewing the risks and benefits associated with spay and neuter of cats and dogs, the report concludes:

That's the latest word from America's leading association of veterinarians. The best interests of the individual patient are what should determine when or whether a pet should be spayed or neutered. This is a medical decision, to be decided by a pet owner in consultation with their veterinarian. One size does not fit all, and should not be mandated by the state.

Kustritz MV. Determining the optimal age for gonadectomy of dogs and cats. J American Veterinary Medical Association. 2007 December 1;231(11):1665-75.

No matter whether you oppose AB 1634 or support it, if you love animals, you owe it to them, and to yourself, to read this book by Nathan J. Winograd.

You can get it from Amazon, Barnes&Noble and most other on-line and local book sellers.

Facing a certain defeat in the Senate Local Government Committee, Assembly Member Levine asked that AB 1634 be held over to the next legislative session. He has promised amendments to address the substantial concerns raised by the members of the committee. The bill will remain in the Local Government Committee until January when it may be reconsidered. While we haven't yet won the war, we did win a major victory today.

Many groups and individuals have contributed to today's victory. We cannot begin to name them all, so we're not going to try. But to each and every one of you we send our sincerest thanks. All of you played a part in this battle and without each and every one you the outcome would not have been the same.

We are going to be resting and recovering for a bit, so updates to the site might not be as frequent as they should be. The war is not yet over, so please check back every week or two. We will provide updates on occasion and we will be on the front line when the battle resumes in January.

Please support NAIA Trust.

These are all Wenatchee dogs, actually all kids and grandkids of Wenatchee's Golden Bianka, "Anka". The picture was taken on her 10th birthday. Included are police K9's from Placer, El Dorado, Amador counties, San Francisco PD, and West Sacramento PD; WOOF, CARDA, FEMA dogs; Guide Dogs for the Blind brood bitches/stud dogs; certified hospital therapy dogs; and AKC titled obedience/tracking/agility dogs.

Anka is the poster child for opposing this bill. I'm sad to admit that she was never titled or shown anyplace, nor trained to a particular job. She would never have qualified to stay intact under AB 1634, but none-the-less produced dogs that served the community and who in turn have their own progeny who continue today to serve as K9's, SAR, and Guides. The latest being her intact great grand daughter, Wenatchee's Quarry, who is now a type 2 Disaster dog for the state of California.
– Julie Barnes, Placerville, CA

My name is Ron Goodpaster. I am a K9 handler with a northern California Law Enforcement Agency. My K9 partner Drago is a locally bred 3 year old German Shepherd. We trained together locally and completed an intensive 6 week academy to certify as a K9 team. We have been a working K9 team for about 6 months now. Drago has already proved himself an asset to our agency and local surrounding agencies. Together we have found and captured burglars on three occasions that would not have been found without use of the K9. We have also assisted in the arrest of many other criminal suspects in high risk traffic stops, searches and patrol contacts. In most cases where Drago was used, the suspects were somewhat non compliant with Officers until they saw Drago. Drago helped prevent flight or attack by these suspects and prevented risk of injury to the Officers trying to arrest them.

K9 patrol dogs require a high drive and intensity to do their jobs. Forcing breeders to sterilize these animals would diminish their drive and effectiveness as a Law Enforcement tool. Additionally, limiting or completely removing local breeder's ability to breed these dogs would limit Law Enforcement agencies choices for patrol animals. Most likely, agencies would have to shop out of state or out of the country to find good candidates. This would add to taxpayers costs in purchasing patrol dogs. We do not need more government regulation or control over dog breeding. We need responsible pet owners. In my opinion, AB1634 is a bad idea and should not become law.
—Ron Goodpaster, Roseville, CA

This is Jake TDI.

Jake worked for the first eight years of his life in a variety of physical and mental rehabilitation facilities assisting medical staff as needed. Sometimes, Jake would roll a ball with his nose toward a patient recovering from a stroke and the patient would attempt to kick it back. Other times, Jake would quietly lie next to a man in a coma while staff placed the man's hand on Jake's very soft fur and machines measured brain activity and cognitive responses. He visited in nursing homes and sang along with residents, producing some of his best vocals nearly in tune with “You are my sunshine” and he was a companion to an autistic boy for a while.

Neither of Jake's parents are registered with AKC or any other registry. Under California AB1634 his parents would have been sterilized at six months of age and Jake would never have been born. His incredible gift of providing physical and emotional therapy to patients in need of that specific treatment would have been lost, and that would have been a tragedy.
— Anka Andrews

I received my service dog in February 2007 from Canine Companions for Independence. I am disabled following a hit and run accident. The nine back surgeries that have followed over the years has left me living in constant pain and with many physical limitations. This dog has opened up a new world for me. He can pick up things off the floor, open heavy doors, get the phone, empty my dryer, etc, etc. He knows over 50 commands that are extremely useful to me. I cannot imagine living without my dog, Lantis, my companion.

These dogs are companions and become extensions of us. They increase our independence in many ways, depending on our needs. Instead of having to call for help, my dog is here with me, ready to help when I need him. I cannot imagine life without him.
— Sue Davidian and Lantis

I am a avid Duck hunter who raises a litter of labs every 8 to ten years to keep the family intact and to have a hunting partner with me at all times. I do this because I am a handicapped person who can't go retrieve birds after the hunt and my Labs do this for me. I believe that there is no sound reason to pass a bill to stop the breeding of dogs in California. If a owner wants to spay his dog that should be up to the owner. Many people need dogs in their everyday life as working dogs and if a bill like this was passed people would have to go out of State to purchase their dogs. There would be no seeing eye dogs,no hunting or working sheep dogs available locally. Proud owner of a fine yellow lab.
— Raymond Prothero, Vacaville California

A police service dog works with his human partner to search for and apprehend criminal suspects. AB 1634 allows an intact permit for a dog trained and actively used by law enforcement. This only exempts the current generation of police dogs. Young dogs would still have to be spayed/neutered at six months. The breeding stock that produces the next generation of police dogs would also have to be spayed/neutered meaning no more police dogs. Under any mandatory spay/neuter law, future California police dogs would have to be imported fully trained at great expense. This would reduce the number of police dogs, reduce the money available for other purposes, or both. Certainly it would hurt California law enforcement.
[more]

I don't have a large ranch with hundreds of sheep or cattle. I only have ten head of painted Desert Sheep. I have a Border Collie/kelpie cross that is spayed and a kelpie.

I use my dogs to move my sheep from pen to pasture everyday. Without my dogs there would be no way for me to move them around without them taking off running down the road or getting in the horse pens.

I just started trialing my little kelpie and in a few years I might want to breed her. I haven't decided. But if this law passes I won't get to decide. I won't have a choice; it will be made for me. So when I am ready to get another dog I would have to look outside California. Either that or move out of California to be able to keep my dogs.
— Eddy Aldridge, Bakersfield, CA

My Ruby, Saddlehill HH First Edition CD, has never been in less than the top five scoring dogs in competition. Ruby also runs AKC hunt tests. At home, she helps carry in the groceries, sort the laundry, and carry the trash bags out to the can. She is a sound, intelligent, driven working dog of proper Labrador temperament. As a dog trainer, I am thrilled to have a dog of Ruby's caliber as my partner in all that I do.

She was bred by Susan Eberhardt of Saddlehill Labradors in Riverside, California.

It saddens me to think that California is continuing to pass legislation that effectively chokes off responsible breeders of quality dogs such as Ms. Eberhardt. Had this law been in force when Ruby's dam was bred, I might well not have had a chance to own her because she might not ever have been whelped. It saddens me further to think that someday my children or grandchildren might not have a chance to know the joy of working dogs as I do because our generation passed laws that took away their opportunity.
– Eleanor Herrick, Holmen, WI

Rio is one of the most loving dogs that has ever owned me, yes I said he owns me, all 6 of my dogs own me. They all get more exercise than I do, go to the doctor for regular check-ups, and eat a more balanced and nutritious diet than my entire family. I live for my dogs, if I can't take them where I am going, I don't go. Back to Rio, he is not registered with AKC, only ASCA, he is not a police dog, rescue dog, service dog, and he is never sick. He meets none of the requirements set forth by the proposed bill, but life here without Rio or his potential offspring would be devastating to my kennel, farm, and life. He can take down any size ewe I ask him to, without hurting the ewe. He is my right hand when I go out to inoculate animals and can hold anything in a pen I ask him to. He has the drive and determination of two dogs, and not being able to breed for that in the future would be unconscionable.
— Tracy Cloyd, Pure Stock Aussies, Northern CA

Working dogs are a vital part of ranching, especially since not many young people are coming into the field. The young people that are will need all the help they can get to do the job. Stock dogs make a huge difference. Many pure bred herding breed dogs are losing their herding ability because the dogs that are being bred are not actually working ranch dogs, but rather dogs that only look the part. This seriously jeopardizes the utility of real herding dogs.

When we moved to California from New Zealand, we brought our working dogs with us. The New Zealand Huntaway is a very intelligent herding dog that is not limited to one type of stock. This versatile dog works all kinds of stock in various situations. The New Zealand Heading Dog uses eye to work stock like the Border Collie. They are able to quietly and gently work stock, but can put the pressure on stock when needed. They are gentle dogs and are very loyal to their owners. Heading Dogs and Huntaways work well together.

My husband Jeremy and his dogs are a team. If AB 1634 becomes law we will be forced to leave California since we would not be allowed to have the dogs we love and depend upon.
– Pam Morrison, Kiwi Kennels, Millville, CA

The selection of a puppy for a working or sport career is an ongoing evaluation process. Characteristics which are evident at seven to eight weeks ( the usual age for placing a puppy in its new home) are of interest and such things as gripping style, general conformation, color, coat type, and drive level in general begin to show themselves here, but are by no means set in stone.

Every sport or occupation emphasizes different desired traits and it is simply not possible to evaluate a dog completely by the age of six months. The obvious stumbling block is the orthopedic soundness of the animal which cannot be adequately evaluated at six months, and even then in some large breeds, growth plates are not closed until closer to 14 months. The Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA), the most widely used evaluating body in the US, refuses to give an opinion on the hip or elbow conformation of a dog younger than six months.

Complete dentition is not evident until after 6 months, and again, sometimes as late as eight months. The adult size of the dog is influenced by its pedigree, but it cannot be accurately determined until the major growth phases have taken place, and the frame size is not set until 14 months in most large working dogs. Studies suggest early spay/neuter adversely influences the size and growth rate of the dog, producing leggy awkward animals generally unsuited to advanced work.

Many dogs which would have been culled at six months could have turned out to be outstanding contributors, but this would never be seen if they were neutered early. By the same token, dogs which appear to be superior as puppies often simply fail to turn out or develop problems which render them unsuitable for breeding.

As a longtime breeder of successful working and sport dogs ( Police, SAR, Guide, and competitive obedience, tracking and schutzhund sport) I would never make up my mind about a puppy's ultimate suitability for addition to a breeding program prior to a year of age. In fact, I would more often wait at least two years so that its appearance, physical condition and working ability could be more fully evaluated. Asking a breeder to make this sort of decision at the age of six months is ludicrous and belies an appalling lack of understanding of the genetics and development of the dog. – Julia Priest, von Sontausen German Shepherd Dogs

Pip is a English shepherd. She's an operational search and rescue dog and a beloved family companion. Of her ten English Shepherd pups in the photo (yes, there are TEN there), two went into training as SAR dogs, two went on to homes where they compete in dog sports with their owners, one became the beloved pet of a veterinary practice manager, and five became working farm/ranch dogs. Under AB 16345, Pip would have been forcibly spayed at six months of age, ineligible for an "intact permit" at any price because she met NONE of the intact permit or exemption criteria.
– Heather Houlahan