California Assembly bill 1634 has passed the California Assembly and in July of 2007, it went into the Senate Local Government Committee with further hearings to be set. 

The backers of the bill claim that AB 1634 offers a “humane, common sense and taxpayer friendly solution to the pet overpopulation in our state”.  The bill mandates that family pets that are not used specifically for breeding or law enforcement purposes be spayed or neutered.  Celebrities Ben Stein, Lionel Richie, Diane Keaton, Bob Barker and others point to the overpopulation burden of domestic animals forces animal control agencies in California alone to euthanize more than half a million dogs and cats each year at a cost to the state budget of $250 million. 

The bill provides approximately twenty exemptions for animal breeders, police dogs, working dogs, show dogs, law enforcement animals and pets too old or ill to be altered.  Pet owners may elect to allow their pet to have one litter of pups. 

The opponents of the bill argue that this legislation carries with it  some unintended and unacceptable consequences.  The opposition suggests that shelter euthanasia will increase for a few years as people give up their pets that they cannot afford to spay or neuter.  The argue that licensing rates and vaccinations will decrease as people conceal dogs to hide them from the legislation.  Small breeders can be expected to retreat from the open market to save their breeds from extinction in California.  Business can also suffer if dog and cat show events fade away, taking with them significant tourism revenue generated by these events.  The arguments also suggest that this action will not solve the state budget issue and may actually end up costing taxpayers more.

In the final analysis, control of unwanted animal populations should focus on owner responsibility.  I suppose an argument could be made that if an owner refuses to act responsibly, then the government should be empowered to step in to enforce responsibility.  I could also make the argument that government enforcement represents an unwanted intrusion into “personal matters”.  Education of pet owners could help to foster understanding and acceptance of responsibility before they are allowed to acquire a pet.  Some suggest that breeders should exercise more caution in screening buyers to ensure appropriate placement of animals.  Irresponsible breeding practices should be discouraged through veterinarians, breed club organizations, tax incentives and low cost spay and neuter clinics.

My two wiener dogs, Scooter and Meatball are purebred pups with AKC papers going back several generations.  They were both “fixed” at the advice of our veterinarian for health reasons.  It was a personal choice for our family and one that was made from a sense of responsibility and compassion.  But I can easily see how someone else may have made a different choice.

Personal responsibility is fine if individual pet owners are willing to accept that responsibility.  But if they fail to live up to their responsibility, society as a whole can be adversely impacted.  Minimizing the impact of irresponsible dog owners  is the sentiment behind the push for passage of AB 1634. 

Paulette Jones