Please join us in supporting the ALAA and asking California to stop bill AB702!

Below is a sample email you can send to Assembly Member Santiago and a message you can leave for any other CA representatives and policy makers.

Dear Mr. Santiago,

I request you immediately withdraw the most anti-dog and cat legislature the United States has ever encountered – AB 702.  AB 702 is terrible law because it:

• Targets and forces law-abiding, good breeders out of business or to move out of California.
• Increases the demand for pups produced by illegally run kennels, backyard breeders. and shipment of puppies from locations with little or no regulation.
• Forces unhealthy and harmful breeding practices.

AB 702 forces good breeders out of business in California. California already has many state and local laws governing breeding dogs and cats. The supposed purpose of this bill is to prevent puppy mills. The breeders who run puppy mills are already in violation of existing laws. Implementing AB 702 will change nothing for these folks – they will continue to operate despite the new rules – they can’t follow the less restrictive existing laws.  You will, however, lose the good breeders, and small business taxpayers of California by creating a situation that makes it too difficult and expensive to operate.  If AB 702 goes into effect you will be forcing our family, as well as many others to move our business to another state.

 

Losing California’s good breeders is a big deal!  This will further drive up the price of dogs, as well as create more incentive and more business for those operating illegal kennels, backyard breeders, and out-of-state and country shipments.  You have eliminated the ethical local breeder option. Keep in mind there already is a shortage of dogs in the US and California (by almost 2 million per year).  We are already seeing the negative side effects of this shortage.  We are shipping in over a million dogs each year from out of the country, many bringing in diseases like rabies and brucellosis, we see sham rescues and illegal puppy smuggling, and we are seeing many cases of dog theft. This week alone, I have seen two dog nappings by force reported, in one of these instances a man was even shot.  What I haven’t seen – California puppy mill busts.

 

To add insult to injury, AB 702 actually promotes unhealthy breeding practices. First, AB 702 restrictions prohibit the use of guardian homes.  The Guardian home system places breeding dogs with families. The guardian dog visits the breeder’s home during breeding events and when they have puppies. The guardian home system drastically reduces the number of dogs on the breeder’s property, which is better for disease control and the dog gets the normal family environment which is better for the dog’s mental well-being. This system allows breeders to eliminate the use of kennels while providing breeding dogs with a normal loving family environment. This is better for the dog’s physical and mental well-being. AB702 makes this system an impossibility.

Secondly, to comply with the 1 breeding/year maximum requirement, breeders would be forced to skip cycle(s) (ie. not breed back-to-back cycles).  It is undisputed by top reproductive vets that back-to-back breeding of healthy dogs and cats is best.  In fact, a common saying by reproductive vets is, “a happy uterus is a pregnant uterus.”  When a cycle is skipped, the dog or cat can develop an infection of the uterus called pyometra or have a false pregnancy (also bad for health).  This can only occur if the cycle is skipped.  Back-to-back breeding is what nature intended is the best breeding practice for healthy dogs.

As with any mammal, advanced maternal age is another health risk, and as the animal gets older health issues to increase. Skipping cycles and forcing breeders to wait until age two, results in higher breeding ages and invites disaster.  Having whelped many litters, I can attest to the fact younger dogs have much easier pregnancies and deliveries.  It is no surprise that science supports my personal experience. One reason, cartilage joins together the two sides of a female dog’s pelvis. As they reach physical maturity they become ossified into hard bone. It is best to initiate the pelvic canal to the birthing process while it still has a little “give” and the birth can establish a wider pathway.  In nature, a dog would become pregnant every cycle (even the first) and the pelvic canal would have experienced its first birth while still flexible. What makes 24 months the magic number?  If she cycles at 22 months AB forces a skip. Most dogs only cycle twice a year. It is not uncommon for dogs not to conceive their first breeding. This means dogs are going to be having their first litters and over age 3. I won’t do this. I think it is risky for their health and a tough delivery. Due to health testing considerations (reliability of hip scores), breeding under two years of age can be debated. As with most decisions, there are pros and cons in favor of both sides, and it isn’t always clear cut, but these are breeding decisions that the dog breeders should make in conjunction with their veterinarians on a case-by-case basis – not politicians.

Sincerely,

Message to Policy Makers