Denise Wall Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Very sorry to report this bill passed committee this morning 6 for 2 against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaggieDog Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Was this the BSL related to s/n of dogs, esp pitties and other "dangerous" breeds? If so, I guess I won't be moving to CA anytime soon... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelpiegirl Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Is there another step before it becomes law? Julie Very sorry to report this bill passed committee this morning 6 for 2 against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdarling Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 ... double post ... sorry... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenajo Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Was this the BSL related to s/n of dogs, esp pitties and other "dangerous" breeds? If so, I guess I won't be moving to CA anytime soon... Don't worry, if it fully becomes law it will come to a state near you, then it will be you. That's how it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdarling Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 NEW: Mandatory pet spay, neuter bill advances By Steve Geissinger, MEDIANEWS SACRAMENTO BUREAU Article Launched: 04/24/2007 12:30:26 PM PDT SACRAMENTO -- After a delay to fix what lawmakers called serious flaws, a somewhat less ambitious statewide plan to force household pets to be spayed and neutered easily cleared its first, key legislative hurdle today. The measure by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, was approved by the Assembly Business and Professions Committee on a 7-2 vote, along party lines. Levine backed off pushing for a vote on AB1634 two weeks ago at the request of the 10-member committee's chairman, Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-Monterey Park. Levine vowed to accept amendments fixing mistakes, clarifying confusing provisions and addressing conflicting rules before an end-of-month deadline that would have killed the bill. Concerns included no provisions for out-of-state visitors with unaltered pets, contradictory language regarding exemption of show dogs, and unclear exemptions for police and guide dogs. Levine said the bill now "contains 20 common-sense exceptions" for a wide variety of pets, including even those that have won titles for contests ranging from obedience to herding. The measure would force pet owners to spay or neuter the majority of cats and dogs by the time they're 4 months old. Owners who fail to comply would be subject to a $500 fine if their pets are caught anywhere, ranging from the veterinarians' office, to a car, to the front yard. Breeders' associations are among those who have opposed the bill, saying it places an unreasonable burden on them, in particular, as it relates to obtaining costly permits. But representatives of the state Humane Association and similar groups support the bill, aimed at reducing euthanasia of what's been roughly estimated at a half-million feral and roaming animals annually in California. The taxpayer cost is estimated at $250 million annually. Levine said he looked at two programs run by Santa Cruz and Los Angeles in authoring his legislation. Contact Steve Geissinger at sgeissinger@angnewspapers.com or (916) 447-9302. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat's Dogs Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 bad bad bad for working dogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelpiegirl Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Innane, unenforcable, and just plain stupid. If it weren't so heinous, it would be laughable. I think you Californian's need some HOUSE cleaning. This is a wake up call to all of us elsewhere. Julie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borderlicious Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 Awful news. What's next? Is it actually going into effect or does it have to pass something else before becoming law? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcollie Posted April 24, 2007 Report Share Posted April 24, 2007 It now goes before a finance committee and then the full assembly. If it passes the full assembly then it starts the process over in the state senate. If it passes the senate then it goes to the governor for his signature. This was passed out of committee entirely on party lines and unfortunately there are way more D'd than there are R's in the state so it will probably pass. Our only hope is probably getting the governor to veto it. He has said that he won't sign the bill over the objections of Farm Bureau and Cattlemen's and has told the author that he needed to fix the stock dog and livestock guardian dog problem but the author thinks he has fixed it by 'allowing' dogs that are competing for 'titles' in herding to apply for an intact permit. It will be our job to educate both branches of the legislature and ultimately the governor that this is not a workable bill and will injure the working dogs of California and those who depend on them. California's legislature is out of control and with the gerrymandered districts (set by the legislators themselves) there is no solution to the problem. With the state’s structural budget deficit, crumbling infrastructure, declining public education, and public-pension funding crises, you would think they would have more important things to deal with than doggie birth control, types of light bulbs allowed and paper or plastic at the grocery store. Think I will go google secession papers and how to start the process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olivia Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 Here is my big question. If all dogs have to be spayed/neutered by 4 months of age...how are you supposed to have a title, etc so that you don't have to s/n by that age? No dog can achieve a satisfactory title by 4 months. Olivia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stockdogranch Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 No dog can achieve a satisfactory title by 4 months. Of course not. BUT, that doesn't EVEN take into consideration that the top trialling dogs in the US compete in USBCHA trials, and the USBCHA does not give "titles," OR the vast number of farm/ranch dogs that do serious work every day, but do not compete, Anna, who is embarrassed to live here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaisingRiver Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 I don't see how it can be enforced - and by who? Police officers? How many people don't register their dogs with their counties? How good is that enforced? Either way, it's still bad news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosanne Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 How, exactly, does the police officer tell if your bitch is spayed??? I can't tell unless they're in season or pregnant! I also don't think cops are really going to go around feeling the *ahem* crotch/groin region of all male dogs with too much hair to tell if they still have cajones or not! eta: I think a better law might be that any dog found wandering loose without an owner within earshot/sight that is found to be intact is automatically s/n and/or the owner is fined the $500 or whatever. And I have no problem with breeding permits - I just think that they shouldn't use excessive cost, but rather should have someone review them - and applicants should need a real reason to breed dogs, not just "Jimmy should see the wonders of birth, and Fluffy just got nominated to show him!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelpiegirl Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 Therein lies the rub Rosanne. You cannot say you are for something, with qualifiers, especially $$ qualifiers. The old adage about a person asking another if she would perform prostitution, and she replied NO, but, he said, what if I offered a million $$? She said well, maybe. Upshot is, she will be a prostitute, now they are just haggling over the price. In for a penny, in for a pound. Once you sign off on allowing permits, you best be ready to give up whatever the permit is for, because in our world, prices never go down, they just go up and up and up. Julie How, exactly, does the police officer tell if your bitch is spayed??? I can't tell unless they're in season or pregnant! I also don't think cops are really going to go around feeling the *ahem* crotch/groin region of all male dogs with too much hair to tell if they still have cajones or not! eta: I think a better law might be that any dog found wandering loose without an owner within earshot/sight that is found to be intact is automatically s/n and/or the owner is fined the $500 or whatever. And I have no problem with breeding permits - I just think that they shouldn't use excessive cost, but rather should have someone review them - and applicants should need a real reason to breed dogs, not just "Jimmy should see the wonders of birth, and Fluffy just got nominated to show him!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sea4th Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 We all know and have discussed what common sense alternatives would be to this assinine law, but we all know too, that it is preaching to the choir. The people backing these sort of laws don't care. Their own agenda is what matters. Granted, there are some, who, when they hear the opposing views, i.e., views from a common sense standpoint, might have an awakening of sorts, but it appears that in this case, common sense hasn't prevailed. My question is, what happens next? Lawsuits? How hard is it to get a law overturned? If there wasn't enough clout to stop it from being passed in the first place, is getting it overturned likely? We can talk coulda, woulda, shoulda, but coulda, woulda, and shoulda isn't going to change what happened. What happens now? What do we do now? (I say "we", because even though I don't live in CA, as someone said, none of us are safe. It's something that affects all of us. That'll become apparent when other states -- your state, my state - begin to look at CA's law as a model to implement in their own state. Like a cancer, it's spreading, but hopefully, can be squelched. Like a cancer, you also need to watch for recurrence of the disease. It's along these lines that I think we all should unite. So, what do we do now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyrasmom Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 I don't see how it can be enforced - and by who? Police officers?How many people don't register their dogs with their counties? How good is that enforced? Either way, it's still bad news. We already have this ordinance in force in our County and from what I can see, it's enforced on owned dogs that are picked up as strays. Which I don't disagree with, if you let your intact dog roam the neighborhood, you're irresponsible. Actually even if he's not intact but that's a whole other issue. Maria Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clara Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 My question is, what happens next? Lawsuits? How hard is it to get a law overturned? The state has to enforce the law against someone who has a good reason not to obey the law, like one of the ranchers who uses and breeds his working dogs but doesn't show or trial them, or some similar situation where enforcement of the law is a violation of a right of the individual. Then as a defense, their attorney makes the arguement that the statute is in general unconstitutional, overbroad, vague or an "as applied" argument, and the trial judge either agrees, in which case the case is dismissed and the effect on the law itself is minimal, but sets local precedence and the law stops getting enforced in that jurisdiction. Or the judge rules against the defendant's argument and the case is appealed. In that situation the court of appeals (or CSC if the case kept getting appealed) could decide the case either way and could issue a written opinion overturning the statute, or could uphold a conviction and say the statute is fine. Overturning a law that way is a LONG process, but it can be done. Do you have a ballot initiative process in CA? That's what we do with EVERYTHING in Oregon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcollie Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 Do you have a ballot initiative process in CA? That's what we do with EVERYTHING in Oregon. Yes, we do, a way overused one. I am not sure we could win given the mindset of California voters, predominantly from the LA area and the Bay Area. It seems to be a way emotional process with millions spent on ballot propositions. Those living along the coast (more urban) just think completely differrent than those of us living inland (more rural). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sluj Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 Yes, we do, a way overused one. I am not sure we could win given the mindset of California voters, predominantly from the LA area and the Bay Area. It seems to be a way emotional process with millions spent on ballot propositions. Those living along the coast (more urban) just think completely differrent than those of us living inland (more rural). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_2l6Y3nh5g Education is necessary. I doubt most people living in an urban setting have any clue about ranch dogs. I certainly didn't, before I came to the boards to learn about border collies. For someone who isn't interested in BCs, the information has to be put out there where they can see: op eds, or since many people don't read newspapers anymore, online forums. Craigslist in particular (at least the SFbay one) seems to be a popular place to campaign. All they have to go on now are the claims of the proponents of AB1624, and the rebuttals of AKC breeders. If you hear "this law will save thousands of lives, but cost breeders some money", and believe it to be that simple, why not vote for it? I can't count how many poorly-spelled, unpunctuated missives I've read, claiming anyone who opposes the law is a money-grubbing piece of excrement who deserves to spend the rest of their lives working in a shelter euthanasia room. I don't know if we can reach those people, but maybe we can reach the people who read them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenajo Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 a roamed = s/n law is scary too. How many neighbor disputes will that feed? What consitutes roaming? A do-gooder who pulls your LGD out of the flock? a neighbor who opens a gate? Roaming laws do better imo with a "3 strike" rule - that is progressive fines until final fine is huge plus spay/neuter. Oh, - how will the police know? Well #1 you have to have a dog license or you get a ticket. And you can't get the license without proof of spay/neuter. It's that simple. They don't have to look, as the burdon of proof is on you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoloRiver Posted April 25, 2007 Report Share Posted April 25, 2007 What a great way to make sure no one applies for dog licenses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosanne Posted April 26, 2007 Report Share Posted April 26, 2007 Therein lies the rub Rosanne. You cannot say you are for something, with qualifiers, especially $$ qualifiers. The old adage about a person asking another if she would perform prostitution, and she replied NO, but, he said, what if I offered a million $$? She said well, maybe. Upshot is, she will be a prostitute, now they are just haggling over the price. In for a penny, in for a pound. Once you sign off on allowing permits, you best be ready to give up whatever the permit is for, because in our world, prices never go down, they just go up and up and up.Julie That's not true at all. I'm for lots of things with qualifiers. (not for your example, though) I'm for training my dog, but not every day. I'm for driving fast, but not too fast. I'm for IMAX movies, but don't believe every movie should be on IMAX. The list goes on. Qualifiers are part of a belief system. I have seen reports where these laws HAVE cut down significantly on overpopulation and I cannot believe that is a bad thing. They just need to work out how to let the people who should be allowed to breed dogs, do it, while making it illegal for people who shouldn't. You can believe that's impossible all day long but at least these idiots (the irresponsible dog owners I mean) will pay more attention to a law (if nothing else cops might remind them), where they most likely will ignore regular education efforts by dog-friendly groups (such as videos, pamphlets). After all, it never applies to THEM, they know EXACTLY what they are doing. First, however, I'd like to see enforced puppy-mill laws. I live in PA where we have good old Lancaster County, a den of puppy mill breeders. Elminate those, and an awful lot of those shelter dogs will disappear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelpiegirl Posted April 26, 2007 Report Share Posted April 26, 2007 Those are qualifiers YOU impose. Once you sign off on legislation requiring citizens to fork over money, you have no control over how much you will pay. Just like taxes. We all have to pay taxes on our property, and EVERY year they go up- not down. People eventually just can't afford to pay those taxes. This will be a nice windfall for the state, and it will be considered part of the budget- do you honestly think that they will try and be "nice" and keep fees down? In my home town the fees have tripled to get your dog out of the shelter if picked up. So much so people don't retrieve their dogs from the shelter- no, I don't think that is right, but it happens. I know of one dog that was picked up from it's own front yard. I do believe that the fees should apply to loose dogs, and progressively rise if that same dog was picked up again for roaming. I do not believe that the gov't should be telling me what to do with my dog and when- as long as I abide the leash and humane laws. Julie That's not true at all. I'm for lots of things with qualifiers. (not for your example, though) I'm for training my dog, but not every day. I'm for driving fast, but not too fast. I'm for IMAX movies, but don't believe every movie should be on IMAX. The list goes on. Qualifiers are part of a belief system. I have seen reports where these laws HAVE cut down significantly on overpopulation and I cannot believe that is a bad thing. They just need to work out how to let the people who should be allowed to breed dogs, do it, while making it illegal for people who shouldn't. You can believe that's impossible all day long but at least these idiots (the irresponsible dog owners I mean) will pay more attention to a law (if nothing else cops might remind them), where they most likely will ignore regular education efforts by dog-friendly groups (such as videos, pamphlets). After all, it never applies to THEM, they know EXACTLY what they are doing. First, however, I'd like to see enforced puppy-mill laws. I live in PA where we have good old Lancaster County, a den of puppy mill breeders. Elminate those, and an awful lot of those shelter dogs will disappear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painted_ponies Posted April 26, 2007 Report Share Posted April 26, 2007 It will be our job to educate both branches of the legislature and ultimately the governor that this is not a workable bill and will injure the working dogs of California and those who depend on them. I agree. Our state House of Representatives recently passed a bill that wasn't dog-related at all but was one of those really extreme out-there kinds of things that we in South Carolina like to do occasionally just so the rest of the country stays scared of us. The representatives almost unanimously voted for this bill because they were lobbied by a very well-organized and financed fringe group. But, by the time the bill got to the Senate, the other side had mobilized and the worst parts of the bill were deleted. It also helped that our Attorney General issued an opinion letting the House know the bill would almost certainly not pass constitutional muster and if it became law they'd be buying a lawsuit. Definitely appeal to the other branches and agencies of government. And the media to get your message out there. Good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.