CA AB1634 Goes to Senate Committees July 9th

[ShoresDog]

Lee Wells, a well-regarded local dog trainer (WellsDogs), sent out an email giving everyone a heads-up that the spay/neuter bill was coming up to Senate committee soon. I asked her if I could cross-post her message, and she encouraged me to spread it around. Here is a tool for finding your California state legislators.

 

Here's Lee's message:

 

Absolutely!! Please tell your members to talk about both the loss of revenue for the state AND the increase in the number of puppy mill dogs imported, which will increase the number of unwanted dogs. PETA and the Humane Society of the United States (that's NOT the ASPCA) are behind this bill. They believe that it will stop the breeding of unwanted puppies and the staggering number of dogs relinquished to shelters. As I said in my message, it will not do this. It will actually increase the number and the suffering.

 

Thanks for fighting it! As I said, we do need a bill to stop pet shops from selling puppies. We will have a fight with AKC over that one.

 

June 22, 2007

 

California Assembly Bill 1634, known as the California Healthy Pets Act, has been assigned to the Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee and the Senate Local Government Committee. The bill seeks to require the mandatory spaying or neutering of dogs or cats over four months of age, unless the owner acquires an intact animal permit.

 

AB 1634 will first be heard by the Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee on Monday, July 9th. At this time, it is imperative that breeders and concerned dog owners focus their efforts on this committee. Contact your Senator and the committee members and express your opposition to the bill. Letters must be sent to the committee by 5 P.M., Monday, July, 2nd, to ensure that your opposition is noted for the official bill analysis.

 

Again, please focus your efforts on the Senate Business, Professions, and Economic Development Committee. In the event the bill passes this committee, we will then focus efforts on the Senate Local Government Committee.

 

Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee

ATTN: Bill Gage, Committee Chief Consultant

State Capitol, Room 2053

Sacramento, CA 95814

FAX: (916) 324-0917

 

Amber Thorne

Business and Professions

Senate Republican Caucus

1020 N Street, Room 234

Sacramento, CA 95814

FAX: (916) 445-3105

 

While the idea of spaying and neutering pet dogs and cats is a good one, which I support 100%, this bill is very badly written and must be defeated. Although legislators have re-written the bill several times, the re-writes are nothing more than the same bill couched in different language.

 

When you write to Gage and Thorn, please suggest that we DO need a bill in California. Not a spay/neuter bill. We need a bill that stops pet stores from selling dogs and cats entirely.

 

Pet stores do not sell puppies from legitimate breeders. They sell puppies from puppy mills. By simply stopping legitimate breeding in California, this bill will open the door WIDE for both in state and out of state puppy mills to send puppies to California pet stores. It will also open the door to Tijuana "breeders" who send children across the border with litters of tiny, sick puppies to sell on street corners. Puppy mill puppies and Mexican puppies, are very often sick. Many of them die en route. The shippers put ten in a crate that should hold one. These "breeders"/shippers do not care about the puppies as living beings. They are products for sale. The dogs spend days on the road, in cramped conditions, without food or water, lying in their own excrement, next to dead puppies. (I have personally witnessed the arrival of a shipment of puppies at a pet store. It was horrendous! ) Those who make it to their new homes very often die from Parvo or parasites. The heartbroken owner buys another pup and brings it into the infected home where the new, unvaccinated puppy is exposed to the virus and the cycle continues. Additionally, puppy mill puppies are often very difficult to train and the owners, who buy impulsively when they see a cute puppy in a pet store, throw away these dogs when, at six months of age, they tear up the ignorant owners' homes.

 

By requiring that all puppies and kittens be neutered/spayed, only the honest caring breeders will comply. Puppy mills are already underground in California and they will not obey this new law any more than they obey the laws already in force. By stopping pet stores from selling puppy mills puppies, and stopping puppies at the border, the market will be forced to go to legitimate breeders or shelters and the puppy mills will eventually dry up. It's much like the drug traffic trade. If there is no market for a product its production eventually stops.

 

Of course all states will have to pass such bills. California has always been on the forefront of innovative ideas. We need to do our part. So when you write to Gage and Thorn, please suggest a bill with this purpose. AB1634 will stop only legitimate breed enthusiasts from producing healthy litters, by charging for intact permits and other prohibitive fees and fines. AB1634 will not reduce the number of homeless dogs, it will increase it.

 

Please help

 

Thanks

 

Lee

[Black Watch Debatable]

Thanks for posting this, Jan!

 

 

In related news:

Maddie’s Fund has spent $54 million on innovative, successful projects that have saved the lives of shelter animals across the country. They have donated millions of dollars to programs in California.

 

If AB 1634 passes, California may not get another cent.

 

I double-checked. See this:

Maddie's Fund press release on AB 1634

 

And this:

Maddie’s Policy on Funding Government Programs and Mandates

 

Excerpt:

Maddie's Fund® does not provide funding for government programs, including state and local animal care and control mandates. This policy applies to mandatory spay/neuter laws, as well as to other requirements imposed by federal, state and local legislation. Reasons for this policy include:

 

* Maddie’s Fund is committed to supporting volunteerism and encouraging local philanthropy on behalf of animals.

 

* Maddie’s Fund believes in local solutions for local problems and supports the right of every community to determine its own path.

 

* Maddie’s Fund feels strongly that accountability is essential to saving more animal lives.

 

It's unbelievable that this stupid bill should endanger Maddie's Fund grants in California. (For the record, Maddie's president Richard Avanzino, as head of the SFSPCA, "brought euthanasia rates down to the lowest of any urban center in the nation. He also created adoption, animal behavior, feral cat, and spay/neuter programs that have become models for the nation." The chuckleheads behind AB 1634 can make no such claims.)

 

 

Spay/neuter perfectly safe for all dogs? Check out these abstracts on PubMed:

 

PubMed abstract #1

 

PubMed abstract #2

 

Does this mean you shouldn't neuter your dog? No. It means the decision should be up to you and your vet --- not politicians.

 

I've said it before [a few million times]: AB 1634 is a baseless, scary intrusion into the lives and privacy of law-abiding Californians and their companion animals. “No worse than seat-belt laws”? You don’t increase the risk of osteosarcoma or prostate cancer by buckling a seat belt. My oldest pit bull suffered from health conditions that prevented his being neutered until he was over two years of age. Do my vets and I need to justify our private decisions about my dog's health to local animal control?

 

In a pig’s eye.

 

My ACOs are against it. My vets are against it. AB 1634 is an offensive, badly-written bill that won’t do a thing to help shelter animals or save the state money. I hope the California Senate will have the sense to vote it down.

[Chesney's Girl]

Here is a list of all the California State Senators Email Addresses

[bcollie]

New amendments are out to this insane bill. Every time they amend it, they show just how wacky California is. And I have to admit to being from this state. Now, you can have an intact permit for one male and one female to have one litter but you can't sell any of the pups - you can only adopt them out. And you have to agree to 'consider' having the animals microchipped. They have taken away the language exempting dogs that are being raised, groomed, socialized, or otherwise prepared for duties as a legitimate working dog and replaced it with language specifying dogs being used for law enforcement, fire service and search and rescue. The people behind this bill wouldn't want livestock working dogs to sneak through on this provision as they are extremely anti livestock.

 

This is heard in committee on July 9th which means letters must be in by July 2nd. Letters or faxes are much more effective than emails. Please write today and help us stop this insanity in committee.

 

Thanks

Geri

State of Jefferson (No longer admitting to being from California)

[Eileen Stein]

The ABCA continues to oppose the bill, and has sent letters to the members of the BP&ED Committee. But really, the more this bill is amended in these ridiculous ways, the more I think it might do some good for it to be passed and turn into the resounding mess that would result. Maybe when people saw the results, that would put an end to initiatives like this for a long, long time.

 

It's hard to believe that AC folks could still be supporting it. The foreseeable costs of administering it and enforcing it are staggering. Each AC jurisdiction has to decide what breeds are legitimate, what registries are legitimate, what competition-giving organizations are legitimate, with all such decisions being a fertile ground for court challenge. Then they have to set up a means of issuing permits and keeping track of those with permits, and whether those people have had their one litter or not, or are really training their dogs for a title or not, etc., etc., and if they don't do this they are vulnerable to suit for arbitrary and capricious administrative decisions. And since the funding for all this has to come from the permit fees, the fee would have to be set at a level where virtually no one could afford to get one. And the fewer people applied for one, the higher the fee would have to go. The whole thing would be a bloody nightmare. I just can't believe ANY legislature could be so crazy as to bring it on themselves.

[ShoresDog]

Does AC mean American Kennel Club? The AKC opposes the bill and has a web page encouraging people to write and fax in opposition to it. Once in a while we agree!

 

AKC Anti-AB1634 Page

[Eileen Stein]

No, AC means Animal Control.

[Black Watch Debatable]

This is heard in committee on July 9th which means letters must be in by July 2nd. Letters or faxes are much more effective than emails. Please write today and help us stop this insanity in committee.

 

According to Save Our Dogs, comments must be received by this Friday at 5:00pm.

 

I'm going to err on the side of caution and get stuff there by Friday.

[Black Watch Debatable]

Aaaand a change of plans:

 

According to Save our Dogs [follow the link above]: "The bill will next be heard by the State Senate Local Government Committee on Wednesday, July 11." See the Save Our Dogs site for names and addresses. This should mean an extra day or two to get comments in (I hope).

[Eileen Stein]

As Luisa said, the bill has been pulled from the BP&ED Committee and referred instead to the Committee on Local Government. Here is the info on the new committee assignment. There are only five committee members + the Committee Staff Director. Senators Cox and Harman, the Republicans, are said to be firmly opposed, so contact should be concentrated on the Staff Director (who keeps the tally of supporters and opponents) and Senators Negrete McLeod (Chair), Machado, and Kehoe. Zamora and Yolo are in Sen. Machado's district (the 5th). We are told that July 2 (Monday) is still the deadline for comments.

 

Peter Detwiler, Staff Director

Senate Committee on Local Government

State Capitol, Room 5046

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 651-4115

FAX: (916) 322-0298

 

The Honorable Gloria Negrete McLeod

Chair, Senate Committee on Local Government

State Capitol, Room 2059

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 651-4032

FAX: (916) 445-0128

 

The Honorable Michael Machado

State Capitol, Room 5066

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 651-4005

FAX: (916) 323-2304

 

The Honorable Christine Kehoe

State Capitol, Room 4038

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 651-4039

FAX: (916) 327-2188

 

The Honorable Dave Cox

State Capitol, Room 2068

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: 916-651-4001

Fax: 916-324-2680

 

The Honorable Tom Harman

State Capitol, Room 2052

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: (916) 651-4035

FAX: (916) 445-9263

[Brandon M]

I will be e-mailing, writing, and or calling everyone I can. I'll encourage people I know to do the same. My mother is involved in politics around here and she for one has already contacted people in opposition of AB 1634.

[Black Watch Debatable]

Talk about guts and integrity: BAD RAP, the nation's leading pit bull rescue/advocacy group, has switched sides and now opposes AB 1634.

 

Here's their position statement, and it's a terrific analysis of a very bad bill.

 

CA Healthy Pet Act / AB 1634 – BAD RAP’s Position

 

BAD RAP is good people.

[bcollie]

So, I see they have once again amended this idiotic bill and this time they do include stock dogs, sort of. It now says you can qualify for an intact permit if:

 

(6) The dog is used for herding or guarding livestock, and the

dog’s owner resides on or is the owner of property designated for

agricultural use.

 

This at least lets us keep our ranch dogs intact but we still have to pay for an intact permit for each and every dog we own. And it will have to be on each and every one as who can tell which dogs are worthy of being bred until they are older. Of course it does nothing for the person who lives in town and works on a ranch. Guess everyone will have to buy a farm now to keep their working dogs intact.

 

Oh and by the way, Happy Independence Day. It is somehow fitting to be lamenting the further deterioration of our rights on the day we celebrate them in our country.

[C Crocker]

So, I see they have once again amended this idiotic bill and this time they do include stock dogs, sort of. It now says you can qualify for an intact permit if:

 

(6) The dog is used for herding or guarding livestock, and the

dog’s owner resides on or is the owner of property designated for

agricultural use.

 

This at least lets us keep our ranch dogs intact but we still have to pay for an intact permit for each and every dog we own. And it will have to be on each and every one as who can tell which dogs are worthy of being bred until they are older. Of course it does nothing for the person who lives in town and works on a ranch. Guess everyone will have to buy a farm now to keep their working dogs intact.

 

Oh and by the way, Happy Independence Day. It is somehow fitting to be lamenting the further deterioration of our rights on the day we celebrate them in our country.

 

 

 

 

 

Geri,

 

Since it sounds as though the powers that be are determined to pass some sort of bill, I am curious how "they" will find "us" who have intact working stockdgs? Would it be through the dog's license record or do they expect the vets to police this? One does have to wonder what school of reason our politicians attended.

 

Carolyn

[justdogs]

Geri,

 

Since it sounds as though the powers that be are determined to pass some sort of bill, I am curious how "they" will find "us" who have intact working stockdgs? Would it be through the dog's license record or do they expect the vets to police this? One does have to wonder what school of reason our politicians attended.

 

Carolyn

 

 

I wonder the same thing as I was just asked to help find homes for an ‘opps’ litter of some not-really working BC x McNabs. Both parents are some sort of non-registered McNabxBC crosses for which the female ran out the back door and got herself bred. Who would ever have found these people and given them a $1000 fine for their dogs, oh wait they are ‘working cows’; they probably would be able to get the permit? The dogs only work to get the neighbors cows off their property. The female also has her head split open (no stitches) because she got kicked by a cow. The owner did not take her to the vet, said this would teach her a lesson not to mess with the cows. I doubt the pups will even get vaccinations, the owners thinking their dogs do not need training as they are born knowing how to work stock. Anyway, the point is that there are people (not me) who do not trust stockmen and are trying to keep Border Collies/other type farm dogs from being exempt. Stories like this are what have put them on to support the bill. (NOT ME!!!)

 

I addition, the powers that be are having a really hard time trying to meet everyone's wants and needs. They are going to pass some sort of bill. YIKES!!!

 

Everyone, from CA and anywhere in the USA needs to write a letter to all Senators to let them know that education of proper breeding and animal care/training and agriculture starting in Grade school is needed, not this bill!! I sent a letter talking about Genetics and how breeds are improved and how some people actually only keep stud dogs, or bitches.

 

Though I guess the people who Collect Semen will have a lot of work to do in CA if this passes?

 

FYI the local governments could still decide that you can't have a permit just because they do not believe your dog is worth breeding (or they do not like you). There is nothing in this that makes the decision of a permit anything, but the whim of the animal control agent who looks at the application.

 

I already know a gal (a friend) in CA who has stopped registering her dogs until she see where this bill goes.

 

I was also wondering if there is a way to sue CA for loss of income as the worth of a working dog goes from say $32,000 at the RED Bluff Bull Sale to say $1000 if he can not be bred. I am guessing at those numbers. But isn’t that part of this issue as well?

 

Is it better to focus on how this will cost the local tax payers more money or to focus on how it will ruin pet ownership.

I do not know what else to do, but write letters.

 

This MAKES ME SO MAD!!!

[justdogs]

"Guess everyone will have to buy a farm now to keep their working dogs intact."

 

You willing to sell me some land for dirty cheap?

 

does it work if the land is 200 miles away form my job?

 

Anyone for a co-op?

 

Who want a pup? I need to start breeding now so I don't lose my chance.

 

Oh did you see that they are putting in a 4 year "test" for the bill. If it doesn't work they will not renew it.

 

Time to get EVERYONE to stop registering, vaccinating, and taking their dogs to vets. Make those people see that we are willing to sacrifice are pets in order not to sacrifice our pets.

 

AHH, back to celebrating our grand country.

 

Too bad I have the day off, or work would have kept me from reading the bill and these posts again.

[Black Watch Debatable]

From the newly revised big box o' suckage bill:

 

(6) The dog is used for herding or guarding livestock, and the dog's owner resides on or is the owner of property designated for agricultural use.

 

This won't help my dogs --- my sheep live on a twenty-acre farm ten minutes from my home, and I don't own the farm. It wouldn't help the commercial sheepman I got my first ewes from --- he ran his thousands of ewes on government land.

 

Shoot, I'm not sure this language would exempt Bill Fosher's dogs ... and he runs the web's top sheep forum, for Pete's sake. Good thing he lives in NH.

 

Sigh.

 

Read it all here:

Link.

[Black Watch Debatable]

The CVMA has pulled its support from the bill. (You never should have supported it in the first place, chuckleheads!)

 

[Eileen Stein]

YES !!!

 

Is that Levine in your photo? Fifth row, second from the left?

[Black Watch Debatable]

Is that Levine in your photo? Fifth row, second from the left?

The only one not clapping? Good eye

 

Actually, Assembly Member Levine is young, tall, skinny and looks as if he's never spent a day outdoors. Says he can't keep a dog "because he travels too much." Tried last year to get himself appointed California Animal Welfare Czar. Seems quite dorkish, and according to the scuttlebutt, AB 1634 "campaign manager," vegan activist and all-round animal rights nut Judie Mancuso is running the show. All of which may help explain why this is such a terrible bill. Ad hominem! Ad hominem! Yes, I know. I am desperately sorry.

 

Favorite Judie quote o' the day:

[Mancuso] explains that the bill evolved out of an earlier attempt to force pet stores to spay and neuter pets for sale, “but the pet-store industry is a huge lobby with huge money. Getting this spay-neuter bill through is like moving the Earth — but [the earlier bill] was impossible.” She has repeatedly insisted, “There’s no such thing as a ‘hobby breeder,’ ” and when asked about them, she laughs out loud. “Don’t let them fool you,” she says. “They’re all one in the same.” Link.

[Eileen Stein]

According to the bill analysis by Senate committee staff, NO letters from state or local border collie or herding associations in opposition to the bill have been received. The only opponents listed are national orgs (e.g., ABCA, ASCA, AHBA). California groups, where are you? If you did write a letter and you're not included in the list of opponents, send an email to bshea313@yahoo.com stating that a letter was sent and the organization's name. Then either fax a copy of the letter to PetPac at 916 485-5594 or email a copy to barry@petpac.net indicating it had been sent to the committee. If your org hasn't written a letter, it's not too late, but it's almost too late. The Committee hearing is Wednesday.

[Bill Fosher]

(6) The dog is used for herding or guarding livestock, and the

dog’s owner resides on or is the owner of property designated for

agricultural use.

 

FWIW, I believe my dogs would be exempt under this clause. This language is so badly constructed as to be meaningless. I own (and reside on) 2.5 acres of land in Westmoreland, New Hamsphire. Since agricultural uses are allowed by right in all zones in this town, I would qualify, even though neither of my livestock guardian dogs has ever set foot on this particular parcel. The law doesn't say the dog has to reside on the land that is owned by his owner. For that matter it doesn't even say that the land has to be in California. Farmland is pretty cheap in upstate New York right now, and there's still some interested in leasing it -- you could at least cover the cash costs of ownship in many cases.

 

It's good to know that even if this law passes, I could still bring my intact Border collies out to California and let you guys kick my ass into next week if I ever get bored with having it kicked into next week by my Northeastern friends since I own land that is designated for agricultural use on the other side of the country.

[Eileen Stein]

This language is so badly constructed as to be meaningless.

 

Unless you've read the rest of the bill, you don't know the half of it.

[Deacon Dog]

I've sent several letters on behalf of the Carolinas Border Collie Association, but maybe it's not listed because it isn't a national or California organization.

 

Kind of surprised the USBCHA isn't on the opposed list either.

 

If this thing passes, a California working dog "title" should be created so breeders can get intact permits.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

If this thing passes, a California working dog "title" should be created so breeders can get intact permits.

 

I thought about that too, but such a thing could turn into a real disaster. Title programs encourage mediocrity rather than excellence.

 

What about ranchers who don't have time to work on whatever baseline requirements are enforced? And how would we prevent such a program from becoming a "good enough" rubber stamp for novice and sportie handlers to claim without making it too hard for ranch dogs to attain?