CA AB1634 PASSED

Rosanne · 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.

I'm not saying that big fees are good. I was just suggesting a different way of having breeding permits. I, personally, have no problem with breeding permits, as long as they keep the cost down (ALL costs rise over time, yes, I'm aware of that, but if it starts low that sets a precedent), and as long as they have reasonable guidelines in place for applying for it.

As far qualifiers, yes of course those are qualifiers I imposed! That was the whole point! You came back and said it wasn't possible to believe in things only with qualifiers in place, and I just think that's wrong, that's all I was disputing. There is no clear-cut right and wrong in the world and of course we all believe some things are right as long as certain conditions are in place.

I don't think this particular bill meets my own idea for a fair bill though. I'm very glad I don't live there. Of course Pennsylvania is not that backwards and may come to something like this soon, but we seem a little bit more inclined to keep individual rights in sight. Of course I don't want to spay/neuter my dogs by 4 months; I do agility and weekly sheepdog lessons. If/when I neuter it's usually around the age of 2.

Don't be mad at me for trying to suggest some ways to change things! I just honestly don't think TV/brochures/etc education will reach the ignorant pet-owning masses like a government mandated law will. They will still avoid it to some degree, but at least the knowledge will spread a little more easily if cops, etc are aware of it.

Pipedream Farm · April 26, 2007

I just honestly don't think TV/brochures/etc education will reach the ignorant pet-owning masses like a government mandated law will. They will still avoid it to some degree, but at least the knowledge will spread a little more easily if cops, etc are aware of it.

Which do you think had a greater impact :

"Keep America Beautiful" (Crying Indian):

http://www.retrojunk.com/details_commercial/499/

During the height of the campaign, Keep America Beautiful reported receiving more than 2,000 letters a month from people wanting to join their local team. By the end of the campaign, Keep America Beautiful local teams had helped to reduce litter by as much as 88% in 300 communities, 38 states, and several countries.

Source: Pollution: Keep America Beautiful - Iron Eyes Cody (1961-1983)

"Only You Can Prevent Forest Fires" (Think before you Strike):

http://www.smokeybear.com/vault/museum_broadcast_1970a.asp

Since its inception, Smokey's forest fire prevention campaign has reduced the number of acres lost annually from 22 million to 4 million.

Source: Forest Fire Prevention - Smokey Bear (1944-Present)

or the laws & fines that existed prior to and during these campaigns?

Mark

Rosanne · April 26, 2007

OK so now the dog community just has to fund such a campaign. . .

I was really referring more along the lines of such that the current dog communitites could afford to fund. Now, if, say, AKC with all their huge profits were to team up with, say, the HSUS, ASPCA, etc then it's probably possible to make a campaign that actually does something. But I figure the chances of that are slim to none. .

Pipedream Farm · April 26, 2007

No, I'm saying that instead of enacting more laws and laws that are difficult to enforce and costs money to enforce, spend government money on these campaigns.

Mark

Rosanne · April 26, 2007

I can agree with that!

Although I don't think it will stop the backyard breeders, really. People don't see the immediate 'danger' of breeding their own dogs or letting them roam in the same way they see the danger and damage caused by forest fires or littering. . .

Black Watch Debatable · May 11, 2007

BAD RAP has (something of) a change of heart, and will lobby legislators for these changes if agreement can't be reached with the bill's authors:

BAD RAP Currently Supports This Bill - WITH RESERVATIONS

While BAD RAP does support this bill in its intent, we would prefer if the bill provided for the ability to obtain intact permits for true working and competition dogs. AB 1634 is supposed to allow responsible owners to be eligible to obtain an intact permit and keep their pet intact if they can demonstrate certain criteria. This is a noble feat, and BAD RAP would prefer the language be changed to actually meet that intent.

We would like to see a provision allowing owners to obtain intact permits for true working and competition dogs. For example, we believe there are farmers and ranchers who depend on their intact dogs for their livelihood. These dogs likely are not going to be titled in any formal competition, but they still provide an important service to their owners.

In essence, we would prefer a full exemption for livestock/ranch dogs, and would suggest this language similar to that for law enforcement and service dogs:

The owner provides proof to the local jurisdiction or its authorized animal control agency that the dog is receiving age-appropriate training, or is documented as being appropriately trained, and actually being used for herding of other animals or as a livestock guardian dog.

These changes would ensure that the working and livestock dogs are not required to enter into any formal competition in order to continue their working lines while they are performing a job on a farm or ranch.

Ehhh, maybe I'll keep 'em in my sig.

sweet_ceana · May 11, 2007

How does this bill suggest what a ligitamate title is and is not? :rolleyes: Couldn't a "title" be bestowed upon any dog planning on being a ranch dog if the group who gave the title agreed to it. If this horrible bill is going to go through this could be a good loop hole. I know if this gets passed Arizona will be the next to jump on the band wagon. Good luck CA let me know if I can help

Black Watch Debatable · May 16, 2007

Now we know why there is no exemption for stockdogs.

Bill Fosher · May 16, 2007

California froot loops indeed!

bcollie · May 16, 2007

Have you read the most recent bill analysis? In the pro part of the analysis it lists everything as cut and dried fact. In the opposition part it says opponents 'claim' and 'believe' such and such. San Francisco Animal Control actually had a surprisingly decent amendment suggestion, that of letting the local jurisdictions tailor the bill to fit their specific local needs. The authors say that such an amendment would, to an unacceptable extent, preempt efforts for the more stringent statewide standards of AB 1634. In other words, we need bigger, more controlling government because we can't possibly know at the local level what is 'best' for ourselves.

Bill Fosher · May 16, 2007

Here in New England a law like what you're describing would be called "enabling legislation." It would essentially say that the cities and towns may do X if they elect to, and sometimes sets outer limits on what X can be. It's a little easier around here because everyplace is within either a city or town limits -- we have no essentially no unincorporated areas.

I think this would be a great idea. If the froot loops in Malibu want to ban breeding of anything, they can impose that restriction on themselves. If those of you in the state of Jefferson want to breed working dogs, all you need to do is persuade your neighbors to do nothing.

amc · May 29, 2007

Here's an excellent article from the San Francisco Chronicle. It lists many excellent talking points which you can share with your Assemblyfolk:

From the SF Chronicle

Chesney's Girl · May 29, 2007

Now we know why there is no exemption for stockdogs.

Makes me ashamed to say I live in Orange County!

Wonder where this lady lives... maybe I should stop by her house and give her a piece of my mind!

Eileen Stein · May 29, 2007

It was scheduled for a floor vote in the Assembly today, but the sponsor had it passed over -- almost certainly because he didn't think he had the votes lined up to pass it. But he could still present it for a vote any time between now and June 8. So any of you Californians who want to let your assemblymembers hear your views, now is the time.

Chesney's Girl · May 29, 2007

I already emailed my assembly member yesterday! We shall see what happens now! :rolleyes:

Eileen Stein · June 7, 2007

The bill just passed in the Assembly 41-38. Next it goes to the Senate.

If you live in CA and want to see how your assembly member voted, you can find it here.

Black Watch Debatable · June 7, 2007

Been following the whole thing. No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the cretins in our legislature. Hope the state senate will show more brains. Gah, the supporters of this thing make me shudder.

bcollie · June 7, 2007

Well, it passed the Assembly 41 to 38. Levine needed 41 votes and he did a lot of arm twisting to get those. We need to start targeting our State Senators early. For info on how your assemblyperson voted, go to http://petpac.net/news/releases/ab1634_passes_assembly/ . Welcome to California, where the legislature won't address the huge budget problem coming up, the infrastructure that's falling apart, the overcrowded prisons, and a looming water crisis but instead spend their time on birth control for our dogs and cats.

Chesney's Girl · June 8, 2007

The assembly member of the city that the lady who is big on pushing this through didn't even vote yes...

*Goes off to find a contact for the senators*

bcollie · June 8, 2007

Here is an easy place to find contacts for all the Senators.

http://www.dpca.org/Legisltv/bills/CA1634.htm

Sue R · June 23, 2007

The following State Senators have Constituents Surveys on their web sites regarding AB1634. Select "AB 1634 2008 California Healthy Pets Act" from the menu.

Be sure to click the Oppose button. The link to the survey page is listed

just below the name. Each Senator's district is listed below the links. If

you're a constituent in one of these districts, please fill out your survey

ASAP and Call to express your opposition. If you're not a constituent, CALL all these Senators and express your opposition now. I called Senator Patricia Wiggins' office this afternoon to inquire about her position on AB1634. The staff said the Senator has no position yet, and asked if I was calling to support or oppose the legislation. She then asked what city I was calling from, my name and my position re AB1634. It didn't seem to matter that I was not a

constituent. So, Everybody - start calling all these Senators.

*****PLEASE

CROSSPOST EVERYWHERE!!********

-----------------------

State Senator Sam Aanestad (Rep) Tel: 916-651-4004

http://legplcms01.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/Con...x?district=SD04

State Senator Dave Cogdill (Rep) Tel: 916-651-4014

http://legplcms01.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/Con...x?district=SD14

State Senator Dave Cox (Rep) Tel: 916-651-4001

http://legplcms01.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/Con...x?district=SD01

State Senator Jeff Denham (Rep) Tel: 916-651-4012

http://legplcms01.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/Con...x?district=SD12