California spay/neuter legislation
 4 months to spay/neuter
spay/neuter if not shown for 2 years
Click here to go to the California Legislature, and then call up bill AB 1634 |
|
|
| I received the legislative update this morning. This one is scary. We are in Connecticut, but I agree, this could happen to any of us.
As my club's Legislative Liaison, I get all the updates and to be honest, I can hardly keep up with them. We all have to watch and listen. Our area could be next. |
| What are you worried about with this bill? There are exceptions for licensed breeders, show dogs, agility dogs, service dogs, and dogs too sick or old to be fixed.
I can't think of a better way to address our current pet overpopulation problem! The only issue I see is the age requirement, but I don't know enough about the medical end to know what the best age to get an animal fixed is. Perhaps if they moved it up to 6 months there would be no argument. |
Lil Walty wrote: I can't think of a better way to address our current pet overpopulation problem! Neither can I but maybe some prefer their dogs intact? |
Ron wrote: Neither can I but maybe some prefer their dogs intact?
I'm sure they do, just as I am sure some would prefer not to vaccinate their animals. But thankfully there has been a paradigm shift in our legal system where animals are no longer seen as mere property that you can do as you please with. To me, this is an animal welfare issue in which legislatures are being extreme to solve an extreme problem- and I am completely ok with that. I also don't think breeding permits alone will fully solve the problem, but that is a different discussion I suppose. |
| There is more to this than meets the eye.
According to the email, that even includes show dogs and "parents" of some of our OES. I will be following this one closely. I believe in s/n of dogs not used in a "reputable" breeding program. Can you imagine if all dogs came from puppy mills. Makes me quiver. 
Ron, there is permission to crosspost and I'd do it here if that's OK. It not, oops, sorry. From the Orange County Register. For those you who have not read AB 1634 closely, its supporters are fond of saying it has exemptions provided for the show fancy. Today in the paper in SJ in an editorial it said the bill only allows those exemptions until January of 2009 then all dogs with or without valid exemption licences must comply with the s/n regulations. A friend of mine who is very up on this law checked it and says that is correct. The law clearly ends all exemptions as of Jan. 1, 2009. So there are no exemptions for show dogs, the ones that are going in are only temporary. Please crosspost OC Register |
| I had also heard that. Also I'm hearing there's a movement afoot in Calif to ban all dog shows and dog events by 2009. Rumor has it the Eukanuba Championships are already looking to leave the state. |
| Hmm... if that is the purpose of the bill that is extremely sneaky!
It makes no sense to say a permit is issued annually and then to say they are all irrelevant not even a year later.... It also says nothing about the permits being temporary in the purpose. I think this bill is written very poorly and If I was a betting girl I would say the January 1st provision will either be taken out or there will be a lot of court cases if it is enforced in the manner suggested. |
Lil Walty wrote: To me, this is an animal welfare issue in which legislatures are being extreme to solve an extreme problem- and I am completely ok with that. How can you use the words "being extreme" and "I am completely ok with that" in the same sentence?
Wouldn't the ultimate animal welfare really be to allow them to breed and force the public to pay for their offspring? Wouldn't that really be the ultimate in extreme legislation? So this really isn't about "animal welfare" this is about not feeling bad that animals are being put to sleep, isn't it? Maybe that's OK, but please don't couch this in "animal welfare" clothing. Isn't it better that an animal enjoyed a few years of life before being put down than never having lived at all? Some have proposed that only people who pass a course in parenting can have children.. isn't that a child welfare issue? Maybe they should only have healthy genes and no mis-shapen heads (and definitely no long backs or bad hips) if they want to breed children? I mean if we're going to codify anthropomorphizing animals, shouldn't we do the reverse and apply well intentioned "animal welfare" logic to humans?? |
| I haven't read the legislation, but I certainly hope that the local breed clubs were involved in the writing. But seeing as unregistered dogs cannot be shown if that would put an end to the BYB's and the folks breeding their mixed - breed "Missy" to the mixed breed "Trooper" down the road, isn't that a good thing?
Ron wrote: Wouldn't the ultimate animal welfare really be to allow them to breed and force the public to pay for their offspring? Wouldn't that really be the ultimate in extreme legislation? We already have that. They are called "Municpal Animal Controls" and the public pays for them. Ron wrote: Isn't it better that an animal enjoyed a few years of life before being put down than never having lived at all? Not if it is a life of misery...no. ....And I don't think the dogs at the shelter, waiting to be gassed, are happy they were born at all. I understand how many people will look at this as more government controls etc. If the public had taken care of the problem before it got to this point maybe it would not have had to be legislated. Personally, I think this is great for animals....less of them around makes less of them homeless. |
| Yikes - I will be watching this. . . |
Lil Walty wrote: What are you worried about with this bill? There are exceptions for licensed breeders, show dogs, agility dogs, service dogs, and dogs too sick or old to be fixed. .
The "exceptions" are huge licensing fees - about $150+ per unaltered animal per address. It's bad enough that the age of most of the "ethical" sheepdog breeders that I meet are 50+ years old, I can almost guarantee that it will be impossible to buy a quality sheepdog if this legislation continues throughout the country. I am sure many of them will just throw in the towel. I am sure that anti-docking legislation will be introduced soon too and that will be the clincher for most of the OESCA people. The only people that will be willing to pay the licensing fees for unaltered animals will be the Huge commercial breeders like Hunte & Lambriar who don't give a crap about the breed so I don't know how this legislation will curtail puppy mills. I definitely think that something needs to be done to curtail animal overpopulation but this effects a lot more than you can think about. 4 months is way too young to alter. I would like to know where they pulled that age from? Every vet I've met doesn't recommend spay or neutering until 6 months. And the 2 years from "showing" is also equally stupid. Most breeders show their animal, and then it becomes breeding stock until the age of 6. So what they are suggesting will force breeders to continue to enter more shows, keep their dogs in coat, etc., which will also add to the price of a puppy. |
| @Bosley's mom; I think dogs in a shelter waiting to be euthanized are just as happy as dogs waiting in a most boarding kennels. They are happy, and don't know what is coming.
The fact that you'd think they are worried about their doom and want to keep living is the perfect argument for overpopulation. The dogs don't want to die, they prefer life, even in the shelter, even on the streets. What we see as a miserable existence is just their existence to them. @VerveUP; Where did they pull the number from? They are the government. They know best, for all breeds in all circumstances, in every town. I don't have the answers, but maybe it would be better to hold people who breed animals accountable for their actions rather than punish the majority in advance. |
| Ron: Animal welfare is extremely different than animal rights, so yes I stand by my statement that this is animal welfare legislation. It's illogical to compare humans' sexual rights to animals' sexual rights because animals don't yet have rights (within the legal context).
I also don't understand how this is anthropomorphizing animals? If anything I think it is doing the opposite- it's staking the claim that even if animals do have rights in regards to their bodies, our interests outweigh those rights. I also cringed at your statement that animals waiting to be euthanized are happy. First off I urge you to visit the "back room" at any city shelter and observe the number of animals that have gone crazy, turned aggressive due to fear, or have simply given up. This probably isn't because they know they will be euthanized, but because we simply cannot care for this mass quantity of homeless animals. Leaving them on the street is just as deplorable, if you've ever come across a feral cat colony I think you will agree. (Also I don't want to completely abandon the thought that animals might know that they are going to be euthanized, but that is different discussion) Verve- Is $150 per animal that much? I tend to think it's a pretty decent cost, especially when you keep in mind that the money is going straight into a fund that will help with the upkeep of this law. Your criticisms of the bill are all centered around the breeders, but I don't see any criticisms surrounding the goal of this act (to keep pet populations down!) What alternatives can we suggest? |
| Again I suggest that if you're serious about animal welfare that you would be much more interested in having luxurious accommodations for strays be paid for by the public rather than preventing dog owners from handling their animals to their own wishes. The reason the efforts aren't in that direction is because there are long term ulterior motives of government control and animal rights.
If you think that animals are better off never having lived than living for a short while (other than in dire agony) then I think we value life itself differently. I know about valuing life differently first hand. My mother drilled it into me that she never ever wanted to be kept alive by artificial means, while my dad equally fervently insists that the plug be welded into the wall socket; that every breath, every moment of life is precious. I think that this is all about one small animal rights/welfare/whatever-you-want-to-call-it minority imposing their beliefs and will upon the majority. Instead of coming at it head on and being intellectually honest and saying: "Animals have rights, and here what they should be" and outline the entire panoply, they are using a divide and conquer approach. Their approach is "Well, so few dog owners are breeders, so we'll go after the breeders" and "So few dog owners have cropped breeds, we'll go after cropping" and "So few dog owners have long bodies, so we'll go after long bodied dogs" and after a while there is a body of laws that make animal rights de facto de jure. Right? |
| I think it is wrong to assert that I value life differently than you do because I want to curtail population- how can you value something that does not exist? What about the people that are encouraging contraception and population control in poorer countries- do they not value life as much as someone who would want people to have as many babies as possible?
It is incredibly unrealistic to think we could provide luxurious accomodations for every animal if we were to allow people to breed their animals as they wish. While I do think more money should be funneled into state animal control systems, it would be futile to put more money in if populations were just going to increase as well. So really the only plausible solution would be to stop overpopulation before it begins. Which I don't think is anti-animal welfare at all. Also, I don't think anyone is "going after breeders". I think they are trying to protect animals and because breeders contribute to a large amount of the problem they are no doubt going to be effected. I actually do think that ethical breeders should be able to obtain permits and breed a certain amount of animals a year- but at this point I am more concerned with the animals sitting in the shelters. |
| Couple of things...
How will the mills be kept in business if they will have to show thier breeding stock? We all know that is NOT going to happen, and if they don't show they cannot keep their dogs intact. That would then prevent breeding...Am I missing something? Dogs in shelters are often very stressed and the quality of life it very low. They are frightened, and sick, and in many cases mentally shut down. There are worse things then death. I am not an advocate of no-kill shelters...Low-kill, yes...but no-kill is often just cruel. There is a BIG difference between ending a life and preventing one to begin with. Puppies and kittens do not ask to be born. People allow them to be created and then most folks do not take responsiblity for what becomes of them afterwards. The shelters are full, and dogs/cats are euthanised by the thousands every day. Stop the flow. I think it is great. If people could manage things themselves the government would not have to step in. |
| Nicole,
I did read through the legislation, and I'm still not sure I understand it either. What I did get is that showing your dog is not the only way to keep a dog intact, although I don't think I fully understand the requirements. I think if you are a registered kennel (with a breeding license?) then you will just be required to pay a fee for each intact dog. If you are not a registered kennel you may have an intact dog if it is intact because of your participation in showing, herding, obedience trials, etc. (they listed a whole bunch of activities). Requiring that all intact dogs be shown wouldn't work because of how many breeds are not AKC recognized breeds. Border Collie is the most familiar example of a breed that is not recognized by the AKC and therefore cannot be shown in conformation. Then there are all the hybrids - cockapoo, etc. whose breeding would be completely halted if showing were required for intact-ness. Would this drive up costs for a breeder to the point where they could no longer afford to keep up their breeding program? Will reputable breeders leave the state? How would this affect reputable breeders vs how will it affect puppy millers? Will the cost of puppies go up so consumers will buy their puppies from out-of-state? There are so many things to consider with regards to this legislation, and I wonder how well thought out this was before it was passed. 4 months is way too young to spay/neuter.  |
| Very interesting interaction doing on here.
The CT. Dog Federation had the AKC lobbyist at a meeting when they were discussing the PAWS legislation. He was asked how they were going to "police" breeding. We will make unannounced visits to AKC registered breeders. They are not the only ones to visit. What about puppy mills? They spot check my TT breeder every few years. They have not had any violations. Guess that makes it an easy visit. We asked about dogs flying from China and So. America. He said they can't watch every plane. Sorry, we have customs. That meeting really upset the members and ultimately PAWS fell by the wayside. I believe strongly in animal population control, but this law is not going to stop it. If the post I forwarded yesterday is correct. The show dog, etc. exemption is only until Jan. 1, 2009. What happens after that? If anyone has info on that, I'd love to learn more about it. |
| If you think that a life is "miserable" or "not worth living" because they are homeless or locked in a shelter then I think we have a different opinion on the value of life. You MUST believe that if you believe this to be an animal welfare issue.
If we are going to require that all dog owners have their dogs fixed to prevent overpopulation and call it an animal welfare issue, the only justification for calling it an animal welfare issue is because overpopulation is bad for animals. Then the question follows: Why is it bad for animals? The only answer to that is "Because the life that overpopulated animals lead is unworthy of living." leading to the conclusion of "Therefore we must prevent the births." or some variant thereof. If instead you wanted a law that required microchipping of all animals bred, and then breeder responsibility for their animal's and their animal's offspring's welfare, I might be more inclined to believe that to be an animal welfare bill. I might even support it. As it stands, it is an owner's rights abolishment and revenue enhancement bill. Or maybe I'm wrong.  |
Quote: If instead you wanted a law that required microchipping of all animals bred, and then breeder responsibility for their animal's and their animal's offspring's welfare, I might be more inclined to believe that to be an animal welfare bill. I might even support it.
That would work, too!
As long as the breeder's responsiblity was both financial and for the dog's wellbeing..... so they couldn't just pay to put them to sleep.... 
Now the allowance of "comercial breeders" to produce as they want, THAT is another story....This does start to sound a lot like PAWS...and that legislation I did follow for the longest time...That one scared me....... Nicole |
Ron wrote: As it stands, it is an owner's rights abolishment and revenue enhancement bill.
Ron, I tend to agree with you. Sorry to say it may be even more than that. It is "responsible" owner's right abolishment. |
Ron wrote: If instead you wanted a law that required microchipping of all animals bred, and then breeder responsibility for their animal's and their animal's offspring's welfare, I might be more inclined to believe that to be an animal welfare bill. I might even support it. I think there's something to that... When I'm a successful congresswoman I might let you take me out to lunch to persuade me further 
I do want to contest the idea that "the lives overpopulated animals lead is unworthy of living" is a necessary conclusion of "overpopulation is bad for animals". There are many other conclusions that comment on what a "better" life could be. And I stand by my previous claim that you cannot value/disvalue something that does not exist (potential life). So a completely logical conclusion of "overpopulation is bad for animals" is that "a comfortable, social, active, healthy life is better than a malnourished, lonely, depressed life". |
| I think they ought to rewrite this to apply to human breeding. One problem would probably take care of the other... |
| We all agree that overpopulation of pets is a serious problem. We can't think of this legislation in those terms though. We have to look at what it really means to all dog lovers.
I copied this from this week's issue of Dog News: Attending California Shows As presently written, and should it pass, AB 1634 will preclude anyone from attending a California dog show from outside that state, unless they are willing to chance a $500 fine per dog. And that's just one aspect of this ill-conceived pet sterilization measure to consider. There are so many unnecessary and onerous conditions to this bill, it has been labeled by the SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE as a “dramatic overreach,” and further called by them a well-intentioned mess! The unanimous support of the Democrats on the Assembly Business and Professional Committee was disheartening, for sure. Pet overpopulation is an extremely complex issue. Decisions on how to deal with it must not be driven into partisanship. Similarly, outside supporters of the bill, headed, of course, by that anathema The American Humane Association—so closely linked to Pedigree—have dubious motives with which to begin. |
Lil Walty wrote: I think there's something to that... When I'm a successful congresswoman I might let you take me out to lunch to persuade me further DEAL!
The rest I could convince you on too, given time, inclination and a blunt instrument. |
Ron wrote: If instead you wanted a law that required microchipping of all animals bred, and then breeder responsibility for their animal's and their animal's offspring's welfare, I might be more inclined to believe that to be an animal welfare bill. I might even support it. This is almost as good as parents being punished for their children's misdeeds. I like it! Heather, yes I am sticking up for breeders, because ultimately we need them unless we no longer want to have OES around. As much as I do like pit bulls, I still would like to have my hairy goofball around. Re: the $150 per year per dog permit fee. My point was that this is just adding to the costs that go into being an ethical breeder in addition to all of the health tests, conformation, breeding costs, etc. I know so many dog show people so far that are in a frenzy about this legislation. If the government is going to make it so difficult to show their dogs wherever, that you have to purchase a permit before you set foot into a state with an unaltered dog, I can guarantee that people are not going to put up with all of the red tape. I know some dog fanciers that are afraid to set foot in some cities that have already passed this legislation because they fear that their dogs might accidentally get loose and an animal warden will neuter them before they can get the animal back. Once again, I feel this legislation is extreme and I really hope that it doesn't become law. The commercial breeders that don't follow any breed standards will spend the money for the licenses, because dogs are big business for them. There will still be plenty of dogs left in shelters. Sorry to be such a pessimist in thinking to the extremes with this legislation. Yes, I do think it will cut down on animal population which is needed, but at what cost? Lets think down the road to the next dog generations... Can't we just punish people who give up their dogs so easily, have tight control on commercial breeders and/or have some kind of better process for pre-screening puppy buyers? Sheepie Heaven wrote: Border Collie is the most familiar example of a breed that is not recognized by the AKC and therefore cannot be shown in conformation.
Border Collies are recognized by the AKC |
VerveUp wrote: Sheepie Heaven wrote: Border Collie is the most familiar example of a breed that is not recognized by the AKC and therefore cannot be shown in conformation. Border Collies are recognized by the AKC Oh my gosh, you're right, I just checked their website! They aren't listed under breed by name, but they are listed under the Herding group! Border Collies are not CKC recognized, but they are AKC recognized.
I think you made some excellent points VervUp. I could see this punishing the reputable breeders more than the commercial breeders. Commercial breeders will just add it into their operating costs, cut costs somewhere else or raise prices very slightly. |
| I have a question for those more up-to-date on this than I am. What would the rules be in this scenario (which would apply to all showing scenarios):
A puppy is born in a litter in CA and is purchased as a "show" puppy. When the new owners bring her to the vet, the vet informs them that he has to spay her by four months. The owners protest, explaining that she will be shown. The vet asks to see some documentation that she is being shown to protect his office. The owners cannot produce any documents because puppies aren't allowed to be shown until they are SIX months of age . . . I see this being another potential problem . . . |
| That is a very good question.
I wonder if a "show contract" with the breeder would be enough. Duhhh, I just realized my last vet moved to San Francisco. I will write him and try to get a answer to your scenario. |
| If it is like here, they would have to purchase a $150 intact fee permit for the pup to keep it from being spay/neuter. Doesn't matter if show or not, you can have up to four intact animals, but each one is $150 fee. So if they were to breed, there's $300 for the male/female and another $150 for the litter fee. $450 before a pup is whelped. |
| The GOVERNMENT has NO BUSINESS in dogs what so ever! This is how all the muckety muck started over in Europe and it is now gravitating here!
The bill in CA and what has happened in Lousiville KY are travesties. If you look at the voting it is right down party lines. Rep. voting against and Dem voting for. If this bill passes, you won't have to worry about having any dogs in the future as that is what the AR idiots are wanting, because there wont BE any puppies etc for you to have! Louisville Kentucky needs our help!! If OESCA OR YOUR LOCAL REGIONAL OES club hasn't donated already, please consider a donation for this effort. The Kentucky clubs are fighting for ALL of us who love dogs and want to continue to enjoy our dogs and our sport. Please cross post this everywhere! Respectfully forwarded with permission to cross post. Kathy Garcia, Louisville , KY Letter from The Louisville Kennel Club, Inc. Currently, we in the dog fancy are in a nationwide fight for our very survival. In city after city, state after state dog-unfriendly, anti breeding, anti-performance, anti-sportsman and breed specific laws are being passed every day. From California to New York , from Florida to New Mexico , every day brings news of another hot spot where the Animal Rights Movement has taken away our right to own, breed, show, perform with and just enjoy our dogs. As your may know, in Louisville, our own Metro Council passed what many regard as the worst anti-dog legislation in the entire country late last year. Worse yet, in a failed effort to force us to dismiss our Open Meetings lawsuit, they recently re-enacted the whole 90 page behemoth. Side by side with the Kentucky Veterinary Medical Association, the League of Kentucky Sportsmen, the performance community, boarding kennels, grooming shops, multiple cat clubs and many others, we worked diligently for over 14 months to educate the Metro Council. Our input was disregarded. At the end of the day, only the testimony of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and input from Dr. Gilles Meloche (the disgraced Director of Louisville Metro Animal Services) was considered. Unfortunately, the Metro Council believed that the HSUS was a legitimate organization and did not understand its true agenda. They also failed to understand the lack of expertise or experience of Dr. Gilles Meloche in the area of Animal Services. We can only wonder what was so enticing about these experts who were heeded when all others were ignored. The HSUS is a national Animal Rights organization with a stated goal of eliminating domestic pets, per it's president, Wayne Pacelle: We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding one generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding. (Quoted in Animal People, May, 1993). The other expert was an Animal Control Director disgraced in Canada for pleading guilty to multiple counts of selling anabolic steroids without prescriptions or documentation. Moreover, Dr. Meloche was fired after 10 months from his position as Director of Animal Services in Durham , N.C. and forced to resign after 18 months as Shelter Director in Leon County/Tallahassee, FL. We have currently filed two law suits to overturn this ordinance. The first suit was filed in conjunction with the League of Kentucky Sportsmen over violations of Kentucky 's Open Meetings Act, ignored by the Council Democrats when they chose to make substantial changes to the proposed law in secret, immediately before pushing the changed law through. The second suit, with a dozen plaintiffs, challenges the substance of the law. We are hopeful that we will prevail, thus setting a national precedent. We are fortunate to have Mr. Jon Fleischaker as our attorney and we are hopeful that these cases will set a constitutionally driven precedent. Mr. Fleischaker is a nationally recognized and multiple award winning constitutional and individual rights attorney. We are challenging the ordinance under the multiple violations of the United States and Kentucky Constitutions, the federal Civil Rights Act, as well as many conflicts with state laws. Both the ordinance and the lawsuit can be read at __http://www._ (http://www./) louisvillepetlov ers.com/_ (_http://www.louisvil _ (http://www.louisvil /) lepetlovers. com/) by clicking on the Download link. Pet owners in Louisville are suffering tremendously under this law, which grants unfettered discretion to animal control officers to seize any animal (particularly, any unaltered animal) for any reason. Worse, the fees and fines that our animal control personnel are empowered to charge for pet redemption amount to government sanctioned extortion. Most pet owners must come up with $500 to $600 to retrieve their pets - even if those pets wound up at the shelter as a result of theft (as did happen in at least one case). A second citation can result in the forfeiture of all animals and a prohibition against owning any animals for 2 years, as well as jail time up to 12 months. These severe penalties apply to the most minor of crimes, including walking an unaltered dog on a leash longer than 4 feet! It is interesting that the law touted as the panacea for public safety has not prevented any attacks by dangerous dogs. It is our firm belief that we owe a duty not just to the citizens of Louisville , but to the entire Dog Fancy nationwide to win these. Our success will set a precedent that will not only allow others to overturn bad laws in their cities, but will chill the efforts of other cities to pass similar bad laws. However, to win this fight, we need the dog fancy to help us. To date, our club has spent an exorbitant amount in legal fees. We have received generous donations from many breed and all-breed clubs from around the country. However, the loss in entries we suffered at our spring cluster has had a significant financial impact on our resources. We're asking your club to join with us and offer a donation to assist us in this effort which will benefit every club in the country and allow our sport to continue. Thank you for considering our request. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by phone (502-339-7062) or e-mail at donnaherzig@ hotmail.com. Please send all donations to: LKC Legislative Fund c/o Ellen Kapen, LKC Treasurer 8620 Bardstown Road Louisville , KY 40291 |
| Here is some info. about the california legislation.
Subject: AB 1634 OFF TO THE FLOOR As previously noted, AB 1634 made it out of the Appropriations Committee by a vote of 9-7 and this time it was not a party line vote. Two democrats expressed opposition and voted "no" along with the five republicans on the committee. If Fiona Ma or Anna Caballero represent you in the Assembly, please send them a card or letter of thank-you for seeing this bill for what it is-- "a hammer to a flea." Assemblymember Doug La Malfa came into the hearing with two stacks of letters-- the stack of letters in opposition was 3x higher than the stack in support. And we outnumbered the supporters in the room 3-to-1 as well as outside in the hallway with over 600 people in opposition present. Mr. La Malfa stated that this bill is overboard and truly borders on violating Californian's civil rights and property rights. Democrats Ted Lieu and Mike Davis both voted in favor but publicly stated that they reserve their floor vote to oppose the bill. Both felt that Levine has more work that needs to be done in order to fix some of the leaks of this bill. Ted Lieu specifically said that he wanted assurance that hobbyist breeders in his District would not be hurt. This is similar to the statement that Price Jr said in the Business and Professions Committee. Mike Davis wanted to be sure that the law enforcement aspect of K-9 units would not be negatively impacted. Usually Assembly members work from their home District offices on Friday. If you get the chance to go into your assembly members' office this Friday please do so especially Ted Lieu, Mike Davis, Fiona Ma, and Anna Caballero. Currin Price Jr and Alberto Torrico (and possibly Wilmer Carter) are also democrats who expressed some concerns. We need to focus on this group and help them understand what AB 1634 means to us as hobbyist breeders and what it means to Californians' choice for the welfare of their animals. If your assembly member is a republican, please make contact to let them know that you are counting on their opposition and also take some time to help them understand as well. Right now, personal contact is important. I visited every Appropriation Committee members' office on Tuesday. Southern California fanciers need to get into the District Offices. AKC has some excellent Talking Points (www.akc.org) as does PetPAC (www.petpac.net). We also want to focus on the fact that a "one size fits all" approach does not work. As both Ma and Caballero pointed out, what may work in one District will not work in another. Not to mention that in practically every district we have seen a DECREASE in the number of animals destroyed by euthanasia. The reason for this is two-fold-- 1) we, as hobbyist breeders, working closely with specific breed rescue groups and by educating and maintaining close relationships with our puppy buyers are dedicated to reducing the number of unwanted animals in our shelters and 2) people are altering their pets (according to the HSUS website, over 70% of the nation's dogs are already spayed/neutered). One last quick point before I collapse into a much needed nap-- we need to continue the letter writing campaign and expand it to family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. Since the supporters saw the stacks that La Malfa brought in, you can be sure that they will be increasing their efforts. New letters can and should be written stating that you OPPOSE AB 1634 AS AMENDED ON MAY 9, 2007. Each time the bill is amended opens up for us to write more letters to oppose that version. We need to stay up on that fact. Focus on the impact and use your personal stories-- you are writing to your own assembly persona and they need to know how this will personally affect the people in their District, the people who are the voters. We have a battle ahead of us, but it definitely one that can be won. We should continue the letter writing next week but do go see your assembly member or one of their staff workers on Friday. Please cross post. Laura Finco NORCAL GRC Legislative Liaison |
| Here are a couple of sites for more info.
http://saveourdogs.net/action.html http://petpac.net/ Barbara |
| Well, I am wondering specifically what braintrust concocted this legislation and IMHO this potential law merely serves as a great example of what happens when BIG government runs wild. I am certainly glad I do not reside in CA as it sounds as though it is turning into a police state.
I am more concerned with the why or what provoked the legislation.(insinuating that things are not always what they appear to be at face value) Pet overpopulation is suddely a huge burden on the state of CA, I am not convinced. Can anyone produce some figures for the operating cost of state run shelters in California? The reality of the situation is that there are going to be many people that will desire to keep their dogs intact at any cost. Consider the revenue that stands to be generated, cha ching. This does not appear to be an animal welfare issue to me, cut and dry this is simply a money issue. Politicians have not morphed into do-gooders. (If they have, pigs are going to fly next) |
| This isn't just going on in California, it is happening in Kentucky, Texas at this time.
Whose state is next? When it gets to expensive and complicated to breed dogs, who is going to do it? NO one. The Animal Rights people will then have their way. Zero population! What about years from now when those of you who are in your 20's and 30's, with small children. You children grow up and say, I want to get a sheepdog like we had growing up, "Oh wait a minute, we Can't" they took that right away from our parents/grandparents. Before statments are made, look some of this up, read the info that is out there, put yourself in the shoes of breeders, take a look at what we might be up against. Barbara |
| Barb it has also happened in Albuquerque New Mexico as well! EVERYONE where every you are is needed to be VERY VIGILANT in what is going on............. make sure your VET knows what is going on. This will affect HIM /HER as well!!
Please, Please Please keep on top of what is going on. Right now it is about Spay/neuter and getting your animals pick up from you;. Your rights being taken away. There are so many animals on the lists, that eventually will not be able to be bred! (Denmark is doing a real number here folks) We are trying to get permission to forward the article that was written. OES were on the hit list of no more breeding 15 years ago. The are starting with this nonsense now and will move to the stupid idiotic no docking stance next. FORTUNATELY we will be waiting for them....... as it is not the Governments business to get into OUR business of dogs! We are hiring lobbyist to help us. Docking HAS and I believe WILL be defeated again in our country. We (OESCA) just have to not be so namby pamby scared little nillies at the world SUE. Yes, it COSTS MONEY to hire a lobyinst and to sue, but then, you just raise more. |
| I got this email from an Aussie friend of mine. It has info about a rally at the CA state capital on June 4th.
My apologies if you are seeing this for the second, third, etc time. Just wanting to pass it along, so that people in the area may be able to get there. Please cross post to those who have connections or are able to attend themselves. I received it from the Aussie events group Here is some info from the AKC website as well. http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/C ... center.cfm Link to AKC Letter There is alot of helpful information on the canine legislation page as well. Thanks, Karen From: "Gail Karamalegos" Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 15:47:07 -0500 Subject: [australianshepherdevents] California AB 1634 Protest at the state capitol, June 4 Please crosspost to breed clubs, dog fanciers, pet owners, etc.!! And if you don't know what all the fuss is about, it's about MANDATORY spay/neuter of ALL dogs/cats by 4 months of age, with a few exemptions which are probably only temporary. Gail Karamalegos ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ADOA NEWS RALLY AGAINST AB 1634 CALIFORNIA IT IS VERY URGENT THAT WE HAVE A LARGE TURNOUT AT THIS ONE...PLEASE BE THERE IF YOU ARE IN CALIFORNIA!! June 4, 2007, 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. State Capitol Building North Steps and Lawn Area We prefer that most people show up without a dog, but we don't mind having a FEW (very few) extremely well behaved, easy-going dogs. Having too many dogs makes organization and clean up difficult and can lead to dog-dog spats, which we want to avoid. So I ask that most folks consider leaving their dogs at home for this one. We may have a couple of performance dogs, however, to liven things up... that remains to be seen. Please do bring: Signs protesting BSL (no profanity, etc.) Signs, if on sticks, must be on sticks that are 2 inches wide OR smaller. Please RSVP to dawn@chako.org We also need volunteers to help keep order and cleanup. Please crosspost. |
| After reading the posts about the Calf. and Ky. dog laws, I was just wondering...............
Has anyone ever thought about using the Bible as a defense? The Lord created the animals in pairs, one male and one female. He created man and woman, and TOLD them to reproduce. Has anyone ever ASKED these law makers what gives them the power to revoke His word? Put them on the defense! Who would really want to answer that question IN PUBLIC! In their confusion, you'll gain ground and control. What about discrimination? jmop |
mouthypf wrote: After reading the posts about the Calf. and Ky. dog laws, I was just wondering...............
Has anyone ever thought about using the Bible as a defense? The Lord created the animals in pairs, one male and one female. He created man and woman, and TOLD them to reproduce. Has anyone ever ASKED these law makers what gives them the power to revoke His word? Put them on the defense! Who would really want to answer that question IN PUBLIC! In their confusion, you'll gain ground and control. What about discrimination? jmop I think that would be like bringing a knife to a gun fight. |
mouthypf wrote: After reading the posts about the Calf. and Ky. dog laws, I was just wondering...............
Has anyone ever thought about using the Bible as a defense? The Lord created the animals in pairs, one male and one female. He created man and woman, and TOLD them to reproduce. Has anyone ever ASKED these law makers what gives them the power to revoke His word? Put them on the defense! Who would really want to answer that question IN PUBLIC! In their confusion, you'll gain ground and control. What about discrimination? jmop I think that would be a clear violation of the separation between church and state. And that would also be insinuating that the law makers were believers in God in the first place (which I'm not saying that they aren't). |
| If they haven't done so already, the folks in Calif. who are fighting this bill should also involve the hotel, restaurant, convention center, and other tourism/travel industries. Theses folks look to lose a lot of money if dog shows and other dog-events are going to be effected. |
| This was on one the list I belong to. This gal is in Ca. who sent this in.
Nancy sent this to me, I copied it and took it stright to my Vet. I wanted to know if they had heard of this group or were ther any plans to use it. They are not using this system or any other. They do have give the county information on Rabies, but they have to actually come and get it. At this time this county is not using PetData. Vet said they will be watchful. I was so happy to see everyone wearing buttons with NO AB 1634. URGENT ~ AB1634 & Databanking of Dog Info See their web site here: http://www.petdata.com/ VERY IMPORTANT READING . . . PERMISSION TO CROSS POST TO ANY & ALL "BREED LIST'S" + OBED, AGILITY, RALLY, ETC. This info came via an obedience club list, by way of an Australian Shepherd list, by way of a Great Dane list.. Hi All, Outsourcing Pet Owner Privacy for Profit Lloyd Levine's mandatory castration proposal could lead to record corporate profits -- pet owners are in the cross hairs. Has your personal information been databanked ? Read it and weep, California pet owners. Last week we did a little speculating on enforcement strategies for Lloyd Levine's radical proposal to surgically sterilize every single pet dog and cat in the entire state of California. But that was then, and this is now. The beat goes on. The Mother of All Databases is already a reality -- PetData Inc., a private corporation in Irving, Texas, already collects information on law-abiding citizens who happen to own pets. They say they have already databanked information on 2 million residents in more than 20 U. S. communities, and four entire counties. Matthews, North Carolina, just joined the ranks of municipalities contracts with PetData. Your personal privacy on the auction block. If you live in a community that out sourced animal licensing functions to PetData, you may not even realize it yet. When you vaccinate your cats and dogs for rabies, your vet forwards the details to PetData Inc. Your name, your address, your contact information. And your dog's, or cat's, veterinary information- -including reproductive status. It all goes into for-profit PetData Inc.'s privately-owned, privately-controlle d database. PetData proudly advertises its membership in the Humane Society of the United States. It has no corporate privacy policy. From rabies vaccination to Animal Control at the door --two shakes of a lamb's tail! These California communities already contract with PetData-- a.. Antioch b.. Dana Point c.. Fairfield d.. Oakland e.. Riverside f.. San Clemente g.. San Luis Obispo h.. Torrance i.. Vacaville j.. Vallejo k.. County of San Luis Obispo l.. County of Solano If you live in one of these California municipalities or counties, your local elected officials struck a deal with PetData. For a modest fee, PetData is doing the animal licensing enforcement for your community. If you vaccinate an unlicensed pet, you're going to hear from PetData. But it gets better. PetData can kick back and watch the profits roll in. Matthews, North Carolina, is paying them $3.75 for each one year license they collect on. That's just the beginning. Its the aftermarket sales that are going to be most valuable to PetData. Insurance companies, landlords, breed bigots, pet supply marketers. . .Gonad Nazis PetData is building itself one hell of a marketable databank. Not just for California, either. Check out the website. Albuquerque signed a five year contract with PetData. But in a world where greed is good. . . who cares? Its the American way. Plus, your dog or cat is already neutered. You're not breaking any laws. Life is good. Right? Wrong. The New York Times reports that its virtually impossible to find housing in Manhattan--where housing vacancy rates hover in the very low single digits--if your household includes a dog that weighs over 20 lbs. If you've got more than one dog or cat? Fudge about it. Gawd knows insurance companies are itching to drop dog owners. They just have to find 'em. But Gonad Nazis on a mission ? Oooh, baby! PetData is marketing the reports it can run from the data it collects. Need a list of households with intact dogs or cats in Riverside, California? Shazaam! Not paranoia. Not a conspiracy theory. They are coming for you. And certain sensitive parts of your pets. The Humane Society of the United States, the largest, wealthiest animal extremist organization in the country--one that is dedicated to eliminating pet ownership-- is already using PetData as a mouthpiece. Will municipalities increasingly outsource law enforcement responsibilities to profit-motivated private organizations? Ones with no public accountability? As a private corporation, PetData's employees are responsible to their own Board of Directors. We the People don't get to vote on what they do, or how they do it. Meanwhile, back at the Nanny-State nursery, poor, clueless Lloyd Levine -- the pro-choice Democrat, representing a pro-choice constituency in a pro-choice state --wants to deny pet owners any choices. Barbara __._,_.___ |
| I was given the information below. Please forward to anyone that would be interested.
This bill will probably make it to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (see info below) . Letters now need to be sent to him in droves asking him to VETO AB1634. Sometimes he listens to the protesting people. He's trying to pass the budget so it would be a good time to send him letters and email. Also, the Nurses followed him around and protested every where he went. Maybe someone can find out were he is going and set up protest. The State Capitol is not the only location to protest as he's not there very often. It is believed the Assembly is lost and possibly the Senate, as well. Both Lloyd Levine (Assembly) and Senator Don Perrata (President of the Senate) are co-authors of AB1632. Senator Perrata: http://dist09. casen.govoffice. com/) and email : Senator.Perata@ sen.ca.gov I assure you the Governor is the way to go at this time. Governor's Office Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-445-2841 Fax: 916-445-4633 email: http://www.govmail. ca.gov/ |
| just an update: the bill has been amended to require that animals are fixed at 6 months instead of 4 (which can be extended by a veterinarian up to 12 months)
there are a few other amendments in there too that the akc people might like better than the original bill. |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|