Jump to content
BC Boards

CA AB1634 Goes to Senate Committees July 9th


ShoresDog
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

a) Do we really want to be the ones handing out admittedly bogus titles?

:rolleyes: That's why I'm concerned about non-working people using such a program to legitimize their dogs to the unwitting.

 

I'm not completely against it. But there must be some way to ensure it's restricted to dogs that actually work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those of us that do have decent working dogs that are trialing, what's stopping us from entering a couple of the AKC trials and quickly putting a 'title' on our dogs? I mean if the dogs are running in non-AKC trials and doing well it shouldn't be that difficult... Plus, dogs that would be worthy of breeding and keeping in tact for that purpose should be able to do this at a fairly young age

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, registering with the AKC would not be an option for some because hell hasn't frozen over. But there have been a zillion amendments to the bill, and one of them allows intact permits if your "dog is used to show or compete and has competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition hosted by, or under the approval of, a recognized registry or association within the last two years," so assuming the USBCHA or a state/regional border collie association can get itself on the "recognized" list the question of titles shouldn't come up.

 

Then again, I'm hoping by the end of the day this will all be moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eileen

THanks for that first sentence- had a good chuckle, and oh so true!

Julie

 

Well, registering with the AKC would not be an option for some because hell hasn't frozen over. But there have been a zillion amendments to the bill, and one of them allows intact permits if your "dog is used to show or compete and has competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition hosted by, or under the approval of, a recognized registry or association within the last two years," so assuming the USBCHA or a state/regional border collie association can get itself on the "recognized" list the question of titles shouldn't come up.

 

Then again, I'm hoping by the end of the day this will all be moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's what happened. Under questioning by the committee, Levine said he would amend the bill so that having an intact dog or cat would be a secondary offense only -- IOW, an owner could be cited for it only if they had been cited for some other animal control violation, like cruelty or neglect, dog running at large, vicious dog, etc. I'm sure he wouldn't have promised that if he didn't already know that he didn't have the votes as is. He promised to do that if the committee would vote to send it forward, but Sen. Cox said he wasn't comfortable passing the bill without actually seeing the amendment (I should think so! One of the amazing things to me about the CA process is that committees seem willing to approve a bill on a promise that it will be fixed later. I think most legislative bodies would say to come back when you've got your bill in shape for us to look at it.), and the Chair said she felt the same way, which meant there would be three votes against the bill if it came to a vote, so Levine pulled it (after some petulant comments about how intransigent the opponents are) and will submit an amended version next January. So it's dead for this session.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes after reading it and talking to Anna this morning... I understand the problems with the AKC thing and kinda of realized it on the way down to herding... :D Brain doesnt work right at 5:30am... :rolleyes:

 

I was just looking for an easy way to try and help keeping dogs intact so just disregard my above post :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lloyd quotes o' the day:

 

"[T]he first thing opponents must do is to acknowledge that there's a problem and work with me to solve it."

 

"We have six months to educate the committee," said the bill's author Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys (Los Angeles County) after he decided not to bring the bill to a vote. "I want to reach out again to the opponents."

 

Today, we’re have a hearing, and once the testimony is presented, I’m going to be pulling the bill for the year. It doesn’t look like the bill is moving on.

 

Unfortunately, the tactics of my opponents have made it such that we can’t move on.

 

I don’t think it was too broad. I think the histrionics of my opponents made it sounds worse than it was. Their mentality was “kill the bill at all costs.” Now, I wish they had spent have as much energy on a solution instead of attacking me and the legislation.

 

If they were just willing to acknowledge there’s a problem, we could have worked on a solution. Instead, it became name-calling, and everything under the sun created too much noise and too much fear.

 

:rolleyes:

 

A heartbreaking 41% of dogs euthanized in L.A. during fiscal year 06/07 were pit bulls and pit mixes --- and this chucklehead thinks it will help to go after people with working stockdogs and LGDs. While exempting puppy mills and pet shops. Sigh. But the bill is dead for now, yay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. Celebrate our temporary victory, but the one thing the idiot Levine said that is true..is that we have to put our energy into a solution.

 

It's all about education; how can we, as the 'herding dog community', help to communicate these fundamental issues that we understand so well to Joe Q Public? I am not being rhetorical here; this IS the issue. We have to win the Hearts and Minds of the bleeding heart animal rightists and other animal lovers who think a bill such as Levine's will ameliorate the suffering of shelter animals and address the problem of unwanted pets.

 

Folks, we need a coherent strategy. And we need it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinkin' maybe Eileen's comment about hell not having yet frozen might apply to ol' Bob Barker, too. He really thinks they ALL should be S/N.

 

There's an awful lot of people who have their hearts in the right place, aren't animal rights nuts, but have been convinced by the rhetoric that this sort of thing is the only viable solution.

 

Maybe a campaign that emphasizes responsible breeding - "Only wanted puppies" or something. OK that was really stupid, but something along those lines. With show/conservation, sport, working, and service making equal appearances to demonstrate what SHOULD be bred.

 

An image with all four (does that cover it?) types of purpose bred dogs would make it easier for Joe P. to remember that bills like these affect more than just back yard breeders. You could have some non-AKC breed stacked, a hunting dog, a herding dog (of course), and a guide dog.

 

Under the breed dog: Conservation of heritage

Under the hunting dog: [coming up blank]

Under the herding dog: Feeding and clothing the world

Under the guide dog: Service and public safety

 

The biggest thing I hear, and Mr. Levine made a huge deal of it today, is that it's breeders who are worried that they won't be able to pump out puppies willy nilly any more. Our main task, as I see it, is to convey a unified message that it's way, way more than that, and that enacting such measures will actually impact people who don't care about dogs per se.

 

Levine has his version of that angle: "Shelter dogs cost money." That seems to make a lot of sense to people. What they don't see is that if responsible breeders are punished and severely restricted, then WAY more dogs will end up in shelters, the product of commercial breeders who aren't affected or back yard breeders who fly under the radar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem is that the people most often presented as "reputable dog breeders" or "responsible dog breeders" are conformation types and let's face it, the average person thinks of the movie "Best in Show" when he or she thinks of these people. The average person is probably more sympathetic toward your average backyard breeder, because BYBs seem more like "real people."

 

The vast majority of responsibly-bred purebreds out there are bred for what are essentially frivolous reasons (i.e., looks). It is difficult to convince supporters of this bill that purebred dogs are worth preserving if the average person thinks of a purebred dog as a sort of living topiary. If every breed ring dog in the world disappeared tomorrow, the only people whose lives would be severely adversely affected are people the average person does not consider sympathetic. Who cares if a bunch of rich Poodle owners or crazy middle-aged dragon ladies in sequined dresses and sensible flat shoes, who like to prance around a ring on weekends and put hairspray on their dogs, can't breed dogs anymore? These people aren't real people. Unfortunately for us, they are the face of "responsible breeders" for the most part.

 

An education campaign about purpose-bred dogs -- not including conformation dogs of any kind -- might be worthwhile. Most people don't know anything about these dogs or how they help improve the lives of average people.

 

Something else that occurs to me is that when the average urban or suburban sort (i.e., the sort of person most likely to attach him or herself to a cause) thinks of stock dogs, he or she thinks of dogs that are treated like livestock, not pets, and certainly not valued working companions. I know that before I started working Border Collies, I thought of the average farm dog as dirty, neglected, running loose on rural roads and dodging cars, maybe being bred indiscriminately so its farmer owner can sell puppies and make a few bucks on the side a couple of times a year. There are a lot of rural dogs and owners who fit that mold. We have to present people who don't fit that mold to change public perceptions of working farm dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My intention in including non working heritage dogs was a) to be technically true to the inclusive term "purpose bred" and :rolleyes: because working people who also do conformation would be more on board (like Aussie people of which there are zillions in CA) and c) to make sure there's awareness of the danger to heritage breeds - not our problem, one might say, but they are in this pickle with us.

 

I was, in a word, trying to look for a way that would simultaneously identify and unify all the opponents of this type of legislation - because I'm afraid that's the only way we'll beat the wave that's coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's way past my bedtime, but a few ["a few" -- hah!] comments:

 

Bob Barker is PETA, from what I hear. (Bill Cosby, on the other hand, always has dogs at Westminster.)

 

We all make fun of the heavy-set woman with her hair-sprayed show dogs, but odds are she is breeding for good temperaments and good health, screening buyers carefully and only breeding a litter every three or four years, if at all. I know people who have been showing dogs in conformation for decades and have never bred a litter. That heavy-set woman may be feeding her dogs a carefully planned raw diet. She probably knows the best holistic vets for miles around. She may well be a terrific, knowledgeable owner who breeds great companion dogs. And she has, or should have, just as much right to do that as anyone should have to breed working dogs. It may make hardcore working dog people gag to say it, but we have far more in common with that overweight, fashion-victim of a dog show mom than we may like to think. If the AR types play the divide-and-conquer game successfully, we'll all be toast. I don't believe responsible, informed people who own and breed -- and love -- purebred companion dogs should be denigrated or sacrificed to appease the animal rights crazies. [Not that anyone here has suggested such a thing.]

 

The real author of this bill, according to all I've heard, is Judie Mancuso.

 

Did I post this already? From the pit bull forums --- a bill supporter wrote the coalition asking about stockdogs and was told

that Judie is a little hard to influence in this area due to her east coast urban outlook.

 

It wasn't until BAD RAP bailed that the author(s) felt enough pressure to add their stockdog "exemption." Mancuso is a vegan animal-rights activist, and from the very start AB 1634 has been her baby. The problem is that she doesn't know anything about dogs, and has portrayed the AB1634 fight as a struggle between those who truly care about shelter animals, and all the nasty breeders who are only in it for the profit motive and crank out lots of litters each year without declaring the income on their taxes and it's all about money to them, dammit! "They're all one in the same!" to quote Judie. They're robbing the state and filling the shelters!

 

After reporter Judith Lewis wrote this article for LA Weekly --- and she was in favor of the bill when she wrote it --- she got an earful from the crazies. Check it out: Link. These folks are nuts, or really stupid, or both. They don't care that voluntary spay/neuter has been far more successful than the mandatory approach. They want to legislate a No-Birth Nation. Breeders bad! Breeders hate dogs!

 

Educating the public is super important --- and while we're doing that I think we need to get incredibly proactive as far as creating legislation to protect our rights [and they should be defined as rights] as dog owners. The right to own a dog or multiple dogs; the right to homeowners insurance regardless of the breed of dog you own [some states have already done this]; the right to make decisions about your dog's health, including reproductive status; the right to have your dog's veterinary records safe from scrutiny by government or big business: these things all need to be carved in stone, and the sooner we get to work on them the better, if you ask me.

 

These goals might be more easily reached if new legislation also cracks down harder than ever on irresponsible owners. Illinois prevents felons from owning certain types of dogs [not based on breed, IIRC, but by size and whether the dogs have been involved in attacks --- oy, don't quote me on this, since I need to double-check], and in Texas a recent law will make some dog owners guilty of a felony and at risk of prison if their dog bites someone.

 

Throughout all the AB 1634 weirdness I was hoping there would be a full exemption for stockdogs --- and at the same time I was thinking how wrong it would be to get the exemption and then say to myself, "Well, I'm safe --- pull up the drawbridge, and the hell with you Airedale breeders." Sorry to risk Godwinning the thread, but I don't ever want to find myself saying, "First they came for the AKC breeders, and I didn't speak up..."

 

I haven't slept in 24 hours and I'm a ramblin' zombie. Sorry if none of this has made any sense. More semi-coherent "No on AB 1634" ranting on my blog.

 

Keep up the brainstorming!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like Rebecca's ideas. Presenting ideas within themes is such a good way to help people organize their thoughts. And goodness knows that the various dogs are photogenic enough. (Like that border collie in the Ford truck commercial in another thread. That commercial could have been made by someone on this forum!)

 

The idea that purpose-bred dogs are cool fits well with another change we need, which is that we need a bill that stops pet stores from selling dogs and cats entirely. The point here is that pet stores do not sell puppies from legitimate breeders. They sell puppies from puppy mills. By simply stopping legitimate breeding in California, CA AB1624 as written would just open the door WIDE for both California and out-of-state puppy mills to send puppies to California pet stores.

 

I don't know about the rest of the state, but here in San Diego we also need to do way more to prevent illegal transport of puppies up from Mexico. Tijuana “breeders” send children across the border with litters of tiny, sick puppies to sell on street corners. Everyone agrees this is bad, but it doesn't seem to stop. Both puppy mill puppies and illegally imported Mexican puppies are very often sick and are subjected to grossly inhumane conditions during rearing and transport.

 

And what about cats? It is so sad how many homeless cats are euthanized. Fewer shelter cats find homes than dogs even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jan, the LA Weekly story mentions the difficulty -- the impossibility, is more like it -- of passing [statewide] laws against puppy mills and pet shops --- they have a huge, ginormously powerful lobby. County by county, though, it could be done.

 

Santa Cruz County banned pet shop sales of dogs and cats. And that approach might be better than trying to define and legislate against puppy mills [which we all hate] --- there are people on these boards who have multiple dogs, many of them intact, who might be affected by poorly-drafted legislation. I know first-hand, now, how important it is to remember that the people writing bills generally don't know a damn thing about dogs. They think they do, though, which makes them even scarier.

 

What to do about Internet sales and magazine ads? They're a nightmare. (At the same time, lots of perfectly responsible people list well-bred puppies on the Internet and run ads in The Working Border Collie, and their dogs aren't contributing to the shelter overpopulation problem...)

 

We really, really need PSAs, consistent, annual, K-12 school programs, TV coverage, the whole thing. "A dog is for life!" I'd love to see a tax on pet food and other pet items to help cover the cost of spay/neuter programs, school programs, etc. Many people I've talked with recently (OK, a few Orange County relatives :rolleyes: ) say they would happily buy the leash or dog food that gives a percentage of the price to help shelter animals. MY OC cuz says to tax non-essentials: the doggy sweaters and expensive food dishes and such. Write in a sunset clause: the tax on pet food ends when fewer than, say, 5% of adoptable dogs have to be euthanized. That's the "official"definition of No-Kill [i think], and it can be done. Look at San Franciso --- and Lodi.

 

A person I know who lived in Santa Cruz and worked in the shelter says that in the East Bay, where she now works, it's unusual to see an intact male dog. She says it's unusual in Santa Cruz to see a dog that isn't intact. Shelter euth numbers are down in both areas. Intact animals aren't the problem. Irresponsible people are the problem. Rather than pushing spay/neuter as the solution to behavior issues, dog bites, escaping from the yard, etc., emphasize RESPONSIBILITY. Responsible owners keep dogs out of shelters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

East coast urban outlook? Huh? East coast urban people would say something like "What the heck are you guys worrying about dogs and cats when there are starving children out there? Get your priorities straight."

 

The whole vegan AR crusading type outlook is way more San Francisco than it is east coast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

East coast urban outlook? Huh? East coast urban people would say something like "What the heck are you guys worrying about dogs and cats when there are starving children out there? Get your priorities straight."

 

The whole vegan AR crusading type outlook is way more San Francisco than it is east coast.

 

Mancuso is from St. Louis. Wish she'd go back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

East coast urban outlook? Huh? East coast urban people would say something like "What the heck are you guys worrying about dogs and cats when there are starving children out there? Get your priorities straight."

 

The whole vegan AR crusading type outlook is way more San Francisco than it is east coast.

 

Thanks for pointing this out. From an East coast rural guy.

 

Here in New England the AR folks are much more likely to attempt to get things done on the municipal level. In our towns we have a curious institution called Town Meeting. In many cases, all registered voters convene and serve as the legislative branch of government. The executive branch, known as the Selectmen, propose most of the measures on the warrant, but proposals can also be brought forward by citizens via petition.

 

A couple of years ago, just a few miles from my town, there was a measure placed on the town meeting warrant in Swanzey, NH, that would have banned the exhibition of animals. Swanzey happens to be the location of the county fairgrounds, and as such is home not only to the annual Cheshire County Fair, but also to numerous horse shows, draft animal competitions, etc. during the course of the year. All of these things would have been made illegal by the proposed local ordinance. The woman behind it made no secret of the fact that she was getting funding from PETA to promote it; it's very unusual for any outside group to fund anything at town meeting.

 

Rather than face certain defeat, she withdrew the petition on the town meeting floor and hasn't been heard from since.

 

Similarly, in Amherst, Mass., (also known as the People's Republic of Amherst, or the East Coast Division of the People's Republic of San Francisco) a PETA-funded attempt at a local ordinance is entered and defeated nearly every year. While I was there the efforts were to prevent the tying out of dogs for more than two hours, and to prevent dogs from being left outside in fenced yards for more than two hours. One measure that passed changed the title of the town Animal Control Officer to Animal Welfare Officer, along with some tinkering with the job description to make it clear that the first responsibility was to "welfare" of animals rather than the "control" of animals.

 

I see these efforts as trial balloons. Let's see what the reaction is to a proposal to ban exhibition of animals. Then we can decide whether to go for a statewide ban. Let's see what the reaction is to a proposal to ban outside dogs, etc., etc. They are very low-budget efforts, easy to do, and you get a pretty good look at the opposition's cards and a pretty good reading on public attitudes. You also draw out the vocal opponents like me -- who write letters of opposition explaining why a ban on outside dogs is a death sentence for my sheep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...