John Burchard writes:
There are many valid reasons for opposing California AB 1634. Perhaps the most
important are these:
1) It won’t work. Mandatory s/n does not reduce shelter or euthanasia numbers.
On the contrary, it makes them worse. It has been tried in many jurisdictions,
always with the same effect: an *increase* in shelter intake and euthanasia
numbers, an *increase* (usually dramatic) in animal control costs, a *decrease*
in licensing compliance and revenues, and a *decrease* in rabies vaccination
compliance, leading to more cases of canine rabies.
2) S/n at or before the age of four months, as prescribed by AB 1634, has many
serious ill effects on the growth, development and health of dogs and cats.
3) the proposed eligibility criteria are illusory … the only people eligible
to obtain “intact permits” for their dogs would be business-licensed commercial
breeders. No dogs or cats can meet the stipulated criteria for competition
animals or police, service or working dogs at the age of four months. So get a
business license, no big deal? Not exactly. In most California jurisdictions
you cannot legally operate a retail-sale business out of your home; instead you
require a kennel license, which prohibits you from operating in a residential
zone and involves setback and other regulations impossible of fulfillment unless
you own significant acreage in a commercial or agricultural zone. That is only
the beginning of the chain of regulations in which you are then embroiled, and
which only a large scale commercial breeder can hope to navigate successfully.
AB 1634 as written prescribes the elimination of non-commercial breeding from
There’s lots more, but perhaps that will do for starters.