California Law - Or potential anyhow

[Nexx]

---

Members do not see this ad.

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/209429.html

What's the thoughts of you California folks in the vet field regarding this? On principle, I think I might agree--just don't know how I feel about the execution of the plan.

 

[kate_g]

"AB 1634 would require dog and cat owners to have their animals sterilized by the age of 4 months or risk a $500 fine."

I find this weird. Admittedly my intensive spay-and-neuter experience is almost 10 years old at this point, but in 1998 "pediatric" spays were kind of a big deal, and a lot of clinics (and most shelters) wouldn't/couldn't sterilize until 6 months. Maybe 4 months doesn't count as pediatric anymore, because the risks are lower with current standards in preop/monitoring/anesthesia/whatnot. But I think it would be a mistake to legislate a 4-month cutoff if there is in fact still a big difference in risk.

 

[AuburnPreVet]

From my experience, the pediatric spay/neuters tend spend less time in surgery, and have a much quicker recovery post-op. I think most (many) vet schools are teaching it now, and you'll find many younger vets have no problem with doing them as young as 8 weeks or 2 lbs.

http://www.columbusdogconnection.com/Documents/PedSNVetJournals%5B1].pdf

 

[StealthDog]

This topic comes up on VIN a lot, especially with data indicating that early spays/neuters delay closure of growth plates. Anecdotaly, a lot of large breed dog owners feel that pediatric spays/neuters cause the animal to have a more gangly appearance as adults, and prefer to wait until their dogs have had a chance to mature a little. In a shelter situation, I don't think there's any argument that fixing animals at 8 weeks is beneficial both in making pets more adoptable and in helping to curb the overpopulation problem.

Personally, I think manditory spaying and neutering is going to be hard to enforce and will affect only responsible pet owners anyway. If someone is running a puppy mill, they aren't going to be willing to pay an "intact pet fee", and will just stay under the radar. Responsible breeders don't make any money off their dogs in general, and having to pay an additional fee to be allowed to breed will certainly squeeze them financially. Most communities already charge breeders a higher fee to license their animals than they charge for a spayed/neutered animal... why do we need even more on top of that?

Someone on VIN also made the point that in communities where manditory sterilization has been enforced, it actually increases euthanasia rates and decreases the number of people licensing their pets because they don't want to have to spay/neuter. I think this is a case like breed-specific legislation... Sounds good to ban the breeds that have the highest bite rates, but is there any evidence that breed bans actually work?

 

[kate_g]

Actually, come to think of it... More importantly for passage, compliance, enforcement, and later challenge of the law is not whether there is *actually* greater risk with sterilization at 4 months or earlier, but whether there is widespread perception/belief of greater risk.

*If* the general public and many vets still think of 6 months as the youngest you can sterilize (which was implied by the I-need-to-convince-you tone of the author of that literature summary AuburnPreVet posted), you might wind up with an outcry over that one little detail, rather than a discussion of the merits and detriments of the law's larger implications. Whereas had 6 months been used as the cutoff, nobody would balk at the timing.

As a side issue, the shelter I worked at did not have any kind of gas anesthesia. Anything that needed to get done got done under ketamine. There was no pre-op bloodwork. And our "monitoring" consisted of a tech listening to heart/lungs whenever they got the chance. There just wasn't money for anything better. So the vets weren't comfortable putting really young animals under. I'm guessing that most actual clinics in the US have gas - all the clinics and some of the better-funded shelters in our middle-class suburban area had it ten years ago - but I wonder if there are still poor/rural shelters operating with injectables only. I'm guessing all those studies and surveys in the lit review were assuming gas anesthesia and fairly intensive monitoring as standards of care, which of course makes them the most expensive sterilization procedures available. The responsible rich people who can afford that kind of care are already sterilizing their pets. Enacting this legislation is primarily going to create demand for free/low-cost procedures which necessarily cut corners. So I kind of wonder what the age-to-outcome relationship is if you look at the *worst* care available rather than the best...

 

[ckgilabert]

i actually like it. i even met this one lady who's a vet assistant thats planning on breeding these 2lb chihuahuas because they're so cute. i just thinkthere's too much overpopulation right now. why cant everyone just stop breeding their dogs for a couple of years??

 

[pressmom]

At my vet it's 3 mo or 3lb for cats, four months for med-large dogs, and six months for the little guys. The only reason for the 6 months is that you can removed retained deciduous teeth without another surgery. My dog (a 10lb dachshund) had 7! retained teeth. Glad I waited.

 

[mtrl1]

I'm against it.

1. 4 months is too early...the jury is still not out on the growth plate info, as previously mentioned.

2. The legislature is based off of Santa Cruz...yeah, it decreased euths for Santa Cruz, but just because it works for Santa Cruz doesn't mean it will work for the whole state.

3. It will punish the responsible breeders, and the backyard breeders aren't going to bother liscensing their dogs anyway...

4. Who's going to pay for it? Yeah...low-cost spayneuters are going to be completely funded by the breeders who don't alter their animals? yeah right.

5. How are they going to enforce it? Like the law in Santa Clara County where you can't have more than 2 dogs if you live on xxx acres or less? "Excuse me, sir, I just need to clip your dog's belly to verify the presence of a spay scar."

6. It is my personal belief that the government should stay out of legislating medicial procedures... That includes declaws, mandatory spay/neuter, and human stuff (Terry Schiavo, anyone???)

Do I believe in spaying and neutering pets? Of course, but it shouldn't be legislated.