To Whom It May Concern:

I am a board certified veterinary surgeon in Southern California who is strongly opposed to  AB 1634.  I have carefully read the bill as well as the May 31st amendment.

I am deeply passionate about the problem of unwanted pets being euthanized at animal shelters.  Unfortunately, this legislation is not the solution.  It is my professional opinion that this bill will not make any appreciable difference in the number of animals killed in shelters, and could, in fact, make the problem much worse.

There are MANY reasons why some owners may want to elect to leave a pet intact despite no obvious contraindication to surgery.  A few are listed below:

Salmeri KR, Bloomberg MS, Scruggs SL, Shille V.  Gonadectomy in immature dogs: effects on skeletal, physical, and behavioral development. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1991 Apr 1;198(7):1193-203

Whitehair JG , Vasseur PB , Willits NH,  Epidemiology of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs.  J Am Vet Med Assoc, 203(7): 1016-9   1993

Stocklin-Gautschi, N.M., M. Hassig, I.M. Reichler, S. Arnold and M. Hubler (2001).  The relationship of urinary incontinence to early spaying in bitches.  Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 57(Suppl.): 233-236. ISSN: 0449 3087.

Early neutering causes growth plates in animals to remain open for much longer than intact animals.  This can act as a "weak point" and predispose them to fractures through this cartilage.  Other medical reasons include cruciate ligament rupture, obesity, urinary incontinence, and behavioral problems.  I'm not implying that early neutering is necessarily a bad thing, but what I am saying is that this is a complex issue which should be a decision based on extensive discussions between a veterinarian and a pet's owner.

It is unfortunate that the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) did not consult California veterinarians before determining to back this legislation.  It was only after veterinarians discovered their support and began making objections that they opened up discussion with their members.  This bill has HUGE implications and should not be something that is rushed through the state legislature without more veterinarian and public input.  It is always better to conduct research first and then pass beneficial legislation than to pass yet another law which is meaningless at best and incredibly harmful at worst.

Unfortunately, these points are only a very few of the reasons why this is bad legislation.  Others would include broader economic impact to the state of California, the demise of less organized yet responsible breeders, and proliferation of illegal and potentially dangerous animals from Mexico which could harbor infectious disease.  In the interest of brevity, I will leave further discussion of these concerns to others.

As a professional who took an oath to "above all else...do no harm", I strongly ask that you join me in opposing AB 1634.  Please feel free to contact me at any time to discuss these matters in greater detail.

Sincerely,
Dr. Christian Osmond, DVM
Diplomate, American College of Veterinary Surgeons

CA License No:  14514

10435 Sorrento Valley Rd.  Suite 100
San Diego, CA  92121
christian.osmond@vshsd.com
858-875-7500