Writing Diagnostic California Pet Neuter Bill - Assignment Example

Memorandum MEMORANDUM California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger October 10, 2013 SUBJECT: Recommendation to support AB 1634- California Healthy Pets Act Executive Summary I recommend that you support Assembly Bill, AB 1634, which enforces mandatory neuter or spray for dogs and cats in California. Spraying and neutering of animals is a proven-effective, necessary, and reasonable way of reducing the practice of euthanasia by reducing the number of unwanted animals. Neutering or spraying is imperative in improving the health of the animals, as well as community’s safety. Issue Statement Backyard breeding trends and pet overpopulation is becoming more rampant in California with the number of stray dogs increasing rapidly. This is what the advocates of California Healthy Pets Act also referred to as AB1634 seeks to address. Pioneered by Lloyd E. Levine, California Assembly Member, the bill aims at addressing the issue of burdens on the animal shelters due to overwhelming number of stray or homeless pets (Zimmett, 2007). Animal Services in California rescues over 800,000 homeless and lost cats and dogs each year of which 50% end up through mass euthanasia meant to control over breeding (Zimmett, 2007). However, this method of preventing over breeding among the pets is not a humanly accepted means of controlling population. This is where mandatory neuter and spray proposed by the bill comes in to control population at grassroots without letting it get out of hand first, and then dealing with the problem. Other stakeholders supporting this bill include the California Veterinary Medical Association and L.A. Animal Services (California Legislature, 2007). Issue Background Analysis Existing ordinances on care and maintenance of pets promotes privacy of the pet owners by not interfering with the breeding or caring exercise. The ordinances, which may differ slightly in content from one region to another primarily contains information on the responsibilities expected of animal ownership. These responsibilities include humane care, disturbing the peace, dog licensing and rabies vaccination, public protection from dogs, sanitation, reporting bites, and restraint of dogs (Animal Canter, 2007). Hence, dog owners have enjoyed privacy or lack of government interference in taking care of their dogs. The only thing imposed on them is the regulations to promote public and animal health, safety, as well as welfare. For instance, San Diego County Code SDCC Section 62 outlines some of the provisions of the regulatory laws describing pet ownership responsibilities (County of San Diego, 2007). However, lack of tight regulation creates a vacuum for irresponsibility that eventually translates to overpopulation of dogs. AB 1634 requires dog owners have their dogs or cats neutered or sprayed, with an exemption of 20 common sense situations such as health issues (SICL, 2007). As such anybody who owns a dog or cut that is more that 4 months and is unaltered is liable to a fine due to violations of the AB 1634 provisions. Benefits of Neutering or Spraying Save taxpayers money. Proponents o the bill argue that the state would reap financial benefits from enforcing it since about $250 of taxpayers money goes to house, care and euthanize of unwanted dogs and cats annually. Additional money goes to building shelters to house the ever-growing number of stray cats and dogs. Hence, imposing the California Healthy Pets Act would save taxpayers $18 for every dollar spent on spraying and neutering (California Taxpayers, 2007). Improves, health and safety. Too many stray animals may be a safety risk to the community, and in addition, it would be hard to maintain their good. As a result, proponents believe that the mandatory neuter and spray aims at controlling breeding and overpopulation, as well as reducing rates of euthanasia. Evidently, Santa Cruz applied this in 1995 and by 2005, shelter intake of animals reduced from 14,000 to 5,000, most of which were already sprayed or neutered, meaning reduction in euthanasia rates (Mancuso, 2007). Humanitarian. No doubt, euthanasia is a controversial act because it entails killing healthy, innocent, and adoptable animals. This goes against principles of some groups such as Boxer Rescue who advocates for not killing the pets. Therefore, by applying neutering and spraying, the number of stray dogs would reduce, and so is the rate of euthanasia (LANC Neighborhood Council, 2007). Hence, the bill promotes a more humanitarian way of dealing with overpopulation and over breeding. Concerns about Neutering or Spraying Assault on animal owners’ rights. Opponents of the bill argues that it forces dog owners to perform mandatory neutering or spraying on their dogs, removes the fundamental property rights of dog owners (Cadrmndanes, 2007). Maybe unhealthy and harmful. Opponents suggest that the surgery procedure performed on the animals may pose health risk to puppies and kittens. They claim that early sterilization has proved dangerous in the long-term development and health of the kittens and puppies. Government control and unreasonable fines. Opponents further argue that this is a way of the government opting to control dog and cat owners through compliance (NAIA, 2007). In addition, it is a means of imposing unreasonable fines for violators of the bill. This may arouse a political debate as the conservatives may use it in their favor. SUMMARY OF RECOMENDATION Support should be given to AB 1634 because spraying and neutering: Has the potential to improve community safety and animal health Has the capacity to prevent over breeding and prevent overpopulation Have the capacity to reduce rates of euthanasia References Animal Canter. (2007). California. Retrieved October 10, 2013, from Animal legal & Historical Center: http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stuscacalfoodagcode30501_31683.htm Cadrmndanes. (2007, June 11). This is not a Good Healthy Bill. Retrieved October 10, 2013, from Assembly Bill 1634 : http://www.city-data.com/forum/california/96187-assembly-bill-1634-california-healthy-pets.html California Legislature. (2007). Assembly Bill: Introduced by Assembly Member Levine. California Taxpayers. (2007). What the California Healthy Pets Act Would Do. Retrieved October 10, 2013, from California Taxpayers for safe and healthy Pets: http://www.cahealthypets.com/pdf/2008%20AB%201634%20Overview.pdf County of San Diego. (2007). Laws You Should Know. Retrieved October 10, 2013, from County of San Diego Animal Services: http://www.sddac.com/laws.asp LANC Neighborhood Council. (2007). AB 1634 (The Healthy Pets Act). Retrieved October 10, 2013, from The Citywide Issues Group: http://www.lancissues.org/2007-LANC/060207-AB1634-TheHealthyPetsAct.html Mancuso, J. (2007, May 14). California Healthy Pets Act Passes Assembly Committee . AnimalNews . NAIA. (2007, June 4). California Healthy Pets act Assures Unintended Consequences: Elim. CA Healthy Pets . Retrieved October 10, 2013, from National Animal Interest Alliance: http://www.naiaonline.org/naia_newsletter_alerts/page/california-healthy-pets-act-assures-unintended-consequences-elimination-of SICL. (2007, May). California Healthy pets act: AB 1634. Retrieved October 10, 2013, from Social Compasion in Legislation: http://cahealthypets.com/ca-healthy-pets-ab-1634-home.php Zimmett, N. (2007, May 17). California Healthy Pet Act: Mandatory Fix Has Fur Flying With Opponents. FoxNews . Read More