June 1, 2007

Sharon Vanderlip, D.V.M.
Lakeside, California  92040
California License #7846

To The Esteemed California Assemblymembers:

I am a veterinarian licensed to practice in California and I vehemently oppose AB1634 as amended May 31, 2007. California veterinarians overwhelmingly oppose AB1634. Unfortunately, the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) did not poll its membership or non-CVMA member veterinarians before deciding to sponsor AB1634.

For 28 years I have worked in reproductive medicine. I have worked extensively with responsible dog breeders and I have also worked in a very large California animal shelter. I have performed thousands of spays and neuters during my professional career, including early spays/neuters. I am convinced that AB1634 is a disastrous bill that will not solve a single problem, but will definitely create many more. This letter explains some reasons how and why AB1634 WILL SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE NUMBERS OF ANIMALS IMPOUNDED, ABANDONED, AND EUTHANIZED EVERY YEAR.

Veterinary medical decisions, including when/if to spay/neuter an animal, should be made by veterinarians and the pets’ owners, not by politicians.  I am a proponent of spay/neuter, but on a medical case by case basis, when the time is right for each individual animal patient.

For complex physiological reasons, young puppies and kittens cannot clear some drugs and medications from their bodies, or tolerate anesthesia and surgery, as well as adolescent or adult animals can. Puppies and kittens can develop hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) and have difficulty maintaining a normal body temperature during and after anesthesia. The three main causes of death in puppies and kittens are hypothermia, hypoglycemia, and dehydration—all of which can occur as a result of anesthesia and surgery and can progress to shock and death.  In short, puppies and kittens are high risk patients.

Words create images in our minds and direct our thoughts—and our decisions. “Neuter” and “spay” sound harmless and suggest these are simple procedures without consequences. These words don’t raise mental images of incisions, organs, blood—or risks. “Spay”, derived from the French word espeier, means “to cut with a sword”. Castration, from Latin, castratio, means “to cut”. Now, with these original words in our heads, our mental images change from something benign to something startling. For balance, we should call these procedures by their correct names that describe what they really are: gonadectomy, ovariohysterectomy, castration.  By doing so, we remain cognizant of the difficulties and risks associated with an invasive intra-abdominal surgical procedure (including those required for abdominally retained testicles), the removal of body parts, and their long-term effects. Gentle words like “spay” and “neuter” have lulled many non-veterinarians into a casual, worry-free attitude toward these surgical procedures.
 
Politicians and animal activists supporting AB1634 also take these surgical procedures and their profound medical consequences casually— so casually as to mandate the procedures for young pet companions with a broad brush stroke in a “one size fits all” approach. This is an excellent example of why politicians and animal activists must not be allowed to dictate how veterinarians practice their profession. It's dangerous and it's wrong.

AB1634 is seriously flawed on many counts, beginning with its deliberately deceptive misnomer. This bill is not a "healthy" pet act. It will not help animals or improve their health. It will not reduce the shelter animal population. It will not reduce the number of animal euthanasias. To the contrary, the number of animals in shelters and the number of euthanasias will increase as people who cannot afford to spay/neuter their pets, or cannot afford the fines associated with non-compliance, will abandon their animals, relinquish them to shelters, or have them euthanized. This is what has already happened in other municipalities that have attempted similar legislation.

AB1634 will open the floodgates for puppy smuggling from Mexican puppy mills and other areas. Several thousands of puppies are smuggled through San Diego annually. These puppies are invariably taken from their mothers too soon, are very sick, heavily parasitized, and near death when confiscated after traveling in the cruelest of conditions tucked away in the wheel wells or crevices of vehicles. These smuggled puppies contribute to the number of euthanasias that supporters of AB1634 decry. I know, because I’ve seen several hundreds of these animals. In addition, out of state puppy mills (commercial dog breeding farms that produce puppies for profit, without regard to health, quality, socialization, or temperament) will ship young puppies of inferior quality into California, while responsible dog breeders will be seriously restricted in their ability to raise their top quality dogs and protect their breeds’ valuable gene pool. The ever growing demand for puppies will be filled with animals from puppy mills. These puppies are often sick and many have genetic defects (such as abdominally retained testicles, hydrocephalus, epilepsy, luxated patellas). When pet owners cannot afford to treat the problems, many puppy mill puppies end up in the shelter and add to the euthanasia statistics. I have witnessed this countless times. These animals also pose a zoonotic (diseases contagious between humans and animals) threat to public health.

AB1634 does nothing to address the biggest, shelter population and euthanasia problem: feral cats. These are wild, untamed cats without owners. These cats are largely the offspring of other feral cats, not of client owned cats. More than 85 percent of cat owners neuter their cats. Feral cats spread zoonotic diseases, kill songbirds, and struggle to survive. Eventually they are hit by cars; eaten by predators; or die of starvation, disease, or fight wounds. The rest end up in animal shelters. The large majority of feral cats in animal shelters are seriously ill, injured, pregnant, fractious and non-adoptable.  It has been estimated that feral cats account for 70 percent of shelter euthanasias. AB1634 does not address and will not solve the feral cat problem.

AB1634 unfairly penalizes responsible pet owners and breeders. Dog breeders are an asset to their community. They educate pet owners, provide quality companions and service dogs, hold events that bring revenue to California estimated at more than one hundred million dollars annually, and, through their numerous breed clubs, they rescue several thousand animals every year, preventing these animals from ending up in shelters.

Supporters of AB1634 quote total shelter euthanasia numbers when they argue in favor of their bill. This might lead the uninformed to assume that all those animals euthanized in shelters were adoptable. The truth is, a large number of animals housed and euthanized in shelters are non-adoptable feral cats (approximately 70 percent). Another large part of the animal euthanasia total includes smuggled animals that are near death; animals that are not adoptable for behavioral reasons (such as vicious fighting dogs, numerous and common in California); animals with serious health conditions (such as advanced cancer) that cannot be treated; and animals that are very old and suffering from severe or terminal illnesses. California’s responsible dog breeders and responsible pet owners are not responsible for these euthanasias. Yet, they are the people who would be unfairly penalized by AB1634. Note: There is a shortage of puppies available for adoption in many areas of California. Some shelters import puppies from other areas to adopt out to meet their communities’ demand for puppies.

Rabies is a serious, fatal, zoonotic disease that is present in California. Puppies and kittens should be vaccinated against rabies at 16 weeks of age. A very serious potential public health endangerment that would result from AB1634 is that people who cannot afford to spay/neuter their pets, or who refuse to comply with AB1634, will not bring their pets to their veterinarians for rabies vaccination because of fear of being cited and fined for non-compliance. As a result, we can anticipate an increase in rabies cases. We can also expect more animal health problems and subsequent relinquishments at shelters as owners whose pets need health care may not take them to their veterinarians because they are worried they will be fined for not having their pets neutered. AB1634 states that veterinarians are not part of the “enforcement team”, but it is inevitable that we will be expected to be, and this will seriously damage our relationships with our clients.

Educating the public (starting with children at an early age) about responsible pet ownership and encouraging spay/neuter when appropriate (things veterinarians and responsible breeders do very well every day), working with outreach and rescue groups, addressing the major sources of the problems (such as feral cats, fighting pit bulls, smuggled animals) and securing our borders, would be some logical areas to focus efforts to reduce the number of animals in shelters and reduce the number of euthanasias. AB1634 does none of these things. Responsibility cannot be legislated. Responsibility must be taught and learned.

Veterinarians have spent thousands of collective hours opposing AB1634 and trying to educate members of the legislature and the CVMA, who have been either misinformed or misled by the bill’s advocates. Pet owners and breeders have spent considerable time and effort opposing AB1634, trying to defend their pets and protect their property rights in our free country. And supporters of AB1634 strain credulity as they spend thousands of dollars fighting to mandate the removal of every pet's gonads. Those wasted dollars could have been spent on a good cause for animals, rather than on efforts to interfere with the medical care of privately owned pets and violating the veterinarian/patient/client relationship.

AB1634 is an outrageous bill. It will not solve any problems and it will create many more.

Thank you for opposing AB1634.

Sharon Vanderlip, D.V.M.
California License #7846