Though we often think of dogs today only as pets, in California tens of thousands of dogs are employed to do useful work. Despite it's name, AB 1634 "The California Healthy Pets Act" would affect working dogs as well.

Working dog breeding requires selection for the specific traits required to do a job, in every generation. Otherwise, working abilities will gradually diminish over successive generations until they fall below the level required to do the work.  

To produce useful working dogs, breeders must selectively breed from among the dogs with the best demonstrated working abilities.  "You need to breed to the extreme [workers] to produce good workers" is a commonly understood maxim of working dog breeding.

Working abilities in dogs are generally not apparent until dogs are about 1 - 2 years of age, and sometimes even older. Dogs need to mentally and physically mature into adults before their working abilities are established.  It's also necessary to wait until a dog is an adult to do many important genetic health screening tests for breeding purposes, including orthopedic tests of hip soundness.

Because of the need to selectively breed from among the best working dogs, and because there's no reliable way to select dogs for working dog breeding when they are puppies, it's mandatory to keep many more working dogs sexually intact into adulthood than end up being bred. These intact dogs are for the most part owned by working dog handlers, not breeders. This way, there is an adequate pool of intact working dogs from which to select the best breeding candidates. This time-proven process cannot work if only a tiny percentage of dog owners are allowed to keep intact dogs on account of mandatory spay/neuter laws and limited access to "intact permits".

Here's some examples of how AB 1634 would affect working dogs:

A police service dog works with his human partner to search for and apprehend criminal suspects. AB 1634 appears to have an exemption for working police dogs, allowing an intact permit to be issued if

This is totally inadequate to protect law enforcement in California:

• Most of the breeding dogs that create working police dogs are not themselves police dogs, but are bred and used in the protection dog sports where their working abilities are tested. These dogs are pet dogs under the law. Because they are not themselves police dogs, they would not be eligible for an intact permit under this exemption. Most would not be eligible under any exemption and so would have to be spayed or neutered.
• AB 1634 would only protect the current generation of working police dogs from mandatory spay/neuter. Future generations would have to qualify for an exemption by six months of age to avoid mandatory sterilization. But there is no such thing as a six month old puppy who is “being trained, or is documented as having been appropriately trained, and actively used by law enforcement”. A dog has to mature into early adulthood before meeting that criterion. So future generations of police dogs would be spay/neutered before they even became eligible for this exemption. Spay/neuter cannot be undone, so the exemption doesn't help police dogs at all.
• Nearly all working police dogs were once somebody's pet dog.  They were bought as a young pup, raised, but were rehomed as young adults. If they pass all the working and health tests, eventually they may end up with a police department. Few of these dogs come with registration papers. Because working police dogs spent their first year or two of life as somebody's pet dog, there's no way to create a bright line in the law between the future supply of police dogs and other pet dogs. Most of these future police dogs, perhaps nearly all, would be sterilized before even making it into police work, if AB 1634 passes.
• A few breeding dogs or potential future police dogs might qualify for an intact permit. The increased cost and bureaucratic hassle will cause many of these pet owners not to bother, further reducing the availability of these dogs. Remember, before a dog becomes a police dog, he's a pet.
• For police service work, nearly all of the dogs are intact males. There may be no other K9 work where testosterone plays such an important role in the development of the dog's working abilities. Because of the demonstrated benefit of testosterone in the working ability of Law Enforcement dogs, leaving even non-breeding males intact plays an important role in the success of these dogs. The lives of police officers and citizens may be put at risk by the reduced working ability resulting from early neuter. Neuter these dogs when they are six months old, and it will massively reduce their odds of growing up to be police service dogs. Few would make it.

It is already very difficult for law enforcement to find dogs who are suitable for police work. A very large majority of dogs who are evaluated fail to pass the screening tests. Dogs have to be imported from all over the world just to supply the need in California. AB 1634 would make an already difficult task many times more difficult. AB 1634 would increase costs to the taxpayers to purchase dogs from a shrinking supply of suitable dogs. Crime could increase as there would not be enough dogs to fill all the law enforcement jobs.

So while it appears that AB 1634 has adequate protections for law enforcement work, it does not. There's really no way to create a mandatory spay/neuter law that would not do serious harm to law enforcement in the state of California.

Stock dogs are used to herd livestock or protect them from threats such as predators.  California has thousands of working stock dogs. The dogs are bred from lines that have been used and proven in demanding stock work for decades, sometimes centuries.

Almost none of the working stock dogs in California would qualify for a spay/neuter exemption under AB 1634. Most of these dogs are unregistered, and many are mixed breeds. Of those that are registered few working stock dogs are trained for or compete in trials. As a result almost none would qualify for an intact permit. AB 1634 would destroy working stock dog breeding in California.

A number of stock dog breeds would simply go extinct in California.  They would not be eligible for an intact permit at any price.  Ironically, this includes the McNab, a working stock dog developed in California over 100 years ago. This unique part of our state heritage, handed down from generation to generation for over a century, would disappear in just over a decade if AB 1634 becomes law.

In the July 3, 2007 amended version of AB 1634, the eighth version of this bill, a token attempt to cover stock dogs was finally added to AB 1634. This is totally inadequate to protect s $1.5 billion beef cattle industry or $54 million sheep industry. The language only covers a subset of the current generation of working stock dogs. Many others are not covered given the restriction on where the dog's owner must reside. For example, in much of California, public land is leased for beef cattle or sheep grazing. Stock dogs work these cattle or sheep, and the owners of these dogs don't necessarily own or reside on land designated for agricultural use. Many live in town, on land designated for residential use. Their dogs would be subject to mandatory sterilization under AB 1634.

In addition, there would be no future generations of California-bred stock dogs under AB 1634, because very few of them are "used for herding or guarding livestock" when they are puppies. Almost all of the future generation of working stock dogs would be subject to mandatory sterilization before they would be eligible for an intact permit. This destroys the breeding population. There is really no way to write an amendment to AB 1634 to adequately protect s livestock industry.

It might be tempting to try to carve out more exemptions in AB 1634 for working dogs to try to address the deficiencies in the current language of AB 1634. This approach cannot protect working dog breeding.

One reason is that there is no way to write a law that can distinguish working dog breeding programs from pet dog breeding. There is no bright line that can separate them, as we see most obviously in the example of police dogs (above).

Another reason is that there are so many types of working dogs, that it's impossible to list them all in a law. New roles for working dogs are being developed all the time, as we learn more about the amazing talents of man's best friend.  For example, cancer detection is a brand new working role for dogs.

Some of the many roles that working dogs are used for include those listed below. AB 1634 would harm all working dog breeding programs in California, and it would harm the citizens in California who depend on their working dogs.

• Tracking/trailing Search & Rescue dog
• Airscent Search & Rescue dog
• Urban Search & Rescue dog
• Water search dog (drowning victims)
• Water rescue dog (retrieve swimmers in distress)
• Avalanche dog
• Guide dog for the blind
• Signal dog for the deaf
• Mobility assistance dog
• Service dog for the disabled
• Police service dog
• Police trailing dog
• Dual purpose police dog
• Evidence dog
• Narcotics detection dog
• Explosives detection dog
• Guard dog
• Watch dog
• Accelerant (Arson) detection dog
• Military working dog
• Cadaver dog / Human remains detection dog
• Termite detection dog
• Mine detection dog
• Natural gas detection dog
• Lost pet search dog
• Sled dog
• Sighthound
• Wildlife detection dog
• Cancer detection dog
• Seizure alert dog
• Livestock herding dog
• Livestock guardian dog
• Multipurpose farm dog
• Agricultural produce detection dog
• Terrier
• Upland hunting dog - pointer
• Upland hunting dog - spaniel
• Hunting retriever