SACRAMENTO, CALIF. — A controversial bill pushing the nation's first statewide mandate to sterilize dogs and cats pits California shelter leaders
against breeders and spurs bitter debate among veterinarians.
The mere topic of pet overpopulation draws strong opinions, yet the California Healthy Pets Act has earned an explosively
divisive reputation. Backed by the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA), the measure takes unprecedented action
to reduce shelter animals in a state that spent a reported $2.75 billion to house unwanted dogs and cats from 1995 to 2005.
Of the nearly 9 million animals that entered California's shelter system during that time, 5.2 million were euthanized. Nearly
half a million were destroyed last year, the California Department of Health Services reports.
AB 1634, set for hearing April 10 in the California State Assembly Committee on Business and Professions, is designed to cut
those numbers. Yet despite CVMA's support, it attracts heavy criticism from those who deem it radical, including breeders
and a faction of the veterinary profession.
Controversy stems from legislative language that bans state residents from owning an intact dog or cat more than 4 months
old without a permit. An exemption would be offered to confirmed breeders. Local municipalities will be charged with setting
permit fees and enforcement. Violators face up to $500 in fines, and only a veterinarian-authored letter relating to an animal's
age, poor health condition or illness would allow a 75-day exception. Proceeds would fund low-cost sterilization programs
for indigent pet owners. "I think this is wrong; it's incredibly prescriptive," says Dr. John Hamil, former CVMA president and a longtime member of
the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy (NCPPSP).
"This is an emotional issue, not a rational issue. I think the veterinary association's job is to provide that solid middle
ground based on facts. It's a terrible mistake."
Valerie Fenstermaker
|
While Hamil argues that the initiative punishes breeders, CVMA Executive Director Valerie Fenstermaker counters that the bill,
rather than catering to owners, is aimed at protecting animals.
"We've tried in California so many solutions to fix the pet overpopulation problem and nothing's worked," she says. "Our
board discussed this thoroughly, and we all believe animal ownership is a privilege. I understand that breeders don't want
to pay for permits, but at some point someone has to step up to the plate and speak for these animals."
Trendy initiative
Critics may claim mandatory sterilization is rash, but it's far from novel. Some communities, such as Santa Cruz and Lake
County, already have enacted such laws and, at press time, a similar statewide bill died in the New Mexico legislature. In
January, Virginia lawmakers tabled legislation that sought to require mandatory sterilization of dog and cats purchased from
dealers or adopted from releasing agencies. Despite fee-based exemptions for breeders, American Kennel Club (AKC) leaders
and their lobbyists bucked the measure, citing "undue government interference."
"This bill sets up the idea that breeders who have intact animals should somehow fund animal control," says Sarah Sprouse,
manager of AKC's Canine Legislation Department. "We feel that is very unfair."
The debate
Dr. Ron Faoro
|
CVMA President Dr. Ron Faoro fields up to 30 e-mails on the topic daily and counters detractors' claims.
Yet the Santa Barbara practitioner recognizes there is room to tweak some of the measure's language as it moves through the
legislature. While in committee, the bill remains in the negotiation stages, ripe for amendments.
Featuring Information from:
