Comments so far on this story:

1. La Playa Heritage wrote on July 15, 2007 5:22 PM:
"link link We are glad the proposed law AB 1634 is on indefinate hold. Video of the meeting. link"

2. Diane Amble wrote on July 17, 2007 4:07 AM:
"I have participated in many cat fancy events/shows in Del Mar. Del Mar businesses benefit financially from my attendance. Would the council wish that to go away? Owning pets and making our own health decision for our furry family membes is OUR RIGHT as citizens. It is beyond the realm of a city council member to try to take those rights away from its citizens. San Diego has a NO KILL policy. Can someone tell me why these proponents are not busy implementing that or a similar policy in their communities? Community involvement can solve these issues if we all work together and look at the solutions already shown to work and not usurp citizens rights. This is America - Land of the Free, right?"

3. Monique wrote on July 17, 2007 4:32 AM:
"Perhaps that Del Mar should realize that a couple of the biggest cat shows held in CA have been held in Del Mar, CA. If AB1634, these shows will stop as there will be no cats to show !!! Simple as that, Del Mar would be faced with exactly the same situation as the City of Long Beach, no show no income because of that show comes into that area !!!"

4. Bring Lassie next time wrote on July 17, 2007 4:52 AM:
"Next time bring Lassie . She kick Levines back side .. When the Senate Local Government Committee took up the bill on Wednesday, Lassie, the canine film star, was sitting on the floor in the front row."

5. Kay Henderson wrote on July 17, 2007 2:58 PM:
"I watched the video and did not see the ugliness described. As mentioned Del Mar is home to the CFA shows but it is also the home of Del Sur Kennel Club's shows, Silver Bay Kennel Club's shows, and Cabrillo Kennel Club's shows. These dog shows generate $10 million in tourist revenue, so Del Mar Council was wise not to bite the hand that feeds them. It is clear that Ms. Steinau hoped to persuade an uninformed Council to take her position, action not taken by San Diego City or County Government. The San Diego Veterinary Association has actively opposed this bill. Two Veterinarians who spoke practice in Del Mar and thus represented local business concerns. A clarification on AB1634 - while police and helper dogs qualify for exemptions, these animals are not bred. Their siblings and parents, might be bred but would not be exempt."

6. Sacramento.Mom wrote on July 17, 2007 3:25 PM:
"I didn't attend this meeting, but I've spent money in Del Mar before and surely will again. AB1634 is abysmal because it promises a 'fix' that *does not work* - and that's proven by San Diego's own record! 1. Mandatory spay/castration laws always INCREASE the number of animals in shelters and Animal Control facilities. 2. Mandatory spay/castration laws always INCREASE the costs associated with animal control. 3. Mandatory spay/castration laws always INCREASE the number of euthanized animals in shelters and Animal Control facilities. Want more death? Vote MSN. Simple. What's not so simple is deciding - as did San Diego, San Francisco, and a few other spots around the country - to flat-out stop euthanizing treatable, adoptable animals. Shelter mismanagement, as exemplified by Los Angeles and Sacramento Animal Control, is the primary reason for excessive shelter euthanasia, IMO. Period."

7. Kay Henderson wrote on July 17, 2007 3:25 PM:
"AB 1634 is bad legislation because mandatory spay and neuter does not work. The problem is not that there are too many puppies produced by responsible breeders. The 10,000 puppies smuggled into San Diego yearly and Helen Woodward importing puppies from Romania, Mexico, and Mississippi prove a puppy shortage, not a surplus. Without legislation, the number of animals euthanized has declined dramatically. The problems that need to be addressed are 1. feral cats and 2. unwanted adult dogs. Feral cats are best managed by trap-neuter-and return programs. Fear of $500 fines would make feral cat feeders abandon the cats, creating more problems. Dogs that are not properly socialized and trained end up in shelters. We need programs that encourage people to train their dogs. Dog owners are taxed when they pay 2 to 5 times more for an intact dog license."

8. Barbara Haukenberry wrote on July 17, 2007 4:43 PM:
"So many people are working against AB 1634 and even going to state and local government meetings far away from their homes because MSN is an extremely serious question. Do we want the right to have a healthy, well socialized, affordable pet, or any pet at all, taken away from us? Do we want to give up more of our civil rights? Do we want the Animal Rights Movement, which, in my opinion, is a dangerous cult, gain money, influence, and power over our lives and government? In my opinion, the answer is a resounding NO!"

9. Carol McRee wrote on July 17, 2007 8:16 PM:
"Why is the City of DelMar and the state of California refusing implement proven solutions to the feral cat and dog overpopulation in shelters ? Breeders of pedigreed cats and dogs are NOT responsible for the many aniamls euthanasized in shelters. Unowned cats and dogs as well as irresponsible pet owners who can't or won't alter their animals ARE. If AB 1634 becomes law, there won't be any more pedigreed animals in CA as breeders would find it impossible to responsibly breed their animals with such draconian regulation as AB 1634.Unfortunately it is much easier to *blame* a group than address the problem realistically."

10. Maude wrote on July 21, 2007 1:42 PM:
"At Last, they are finally getting serious about a problem that has existed far to long. AB 1634 is a great idea and hopefully will address the over population of animals. It seems these days people have more pets then they have time for and many don't give them the proper care they so desperately need. They put them in pens and then go off to work leaving the dogs alone and unattended. Talk about animal cruelty. The poor animals are so unhappy they just whine and bark all day. I say pass more laws that restrict the number of pets you can own and have periodic inspections to make sure the animals are properly cared for. Thank goodness for the animal shelters that are doing their best to provide good homes for many of the unfortunately critters that are left on the streets just trying to survive."

11. jsc wrote on August 10, 2007 8:21 AM:
"what would determine the maximum number of pets allowed? I had 2 dogs in my Mira Mesa home. They had a dog door but spent most of their time inside by choice. I took them to Fiesta Island every week, other parks on leash daily. My dogs never barked or whined and were very happy. The same would apply if I had 4 dogs. Other people have just 1 dog, but it is left outside all the time, never walked, never played with, just fed and watered (5 minutes attention in a day). These dogs bark, bite, escape, etc. It's not the number of dogs, it's the quality and devotion of the owner that matters, not the zoning, lot size, etc."