Save Our Dogs, a grassroots effort to save working dogs from CA AB 1634, mandatory spay/neuter
Visit Save Our Dogs
~ Please vote! Dog & Cat Owners Say No to AB 1634 ~
Love your Pets? Read my files on Label Animal_Control.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

AB 1634 Lobbying Efforts

Lobbying efforts to fight this draconian bill have been exhausting but the efforts have been very positive. People are learning that there is a need to spay and neuter! People are also learning that the pet world is very complex and profiling is dangerous here, as it can be in other areas of concern.

Mancuso herself for one, has LAUGHED, and said that extermination of mixed breed pets is not possible. Because there will be more, they keep on coming.
TOUCHE! YES, Judie, we all agree this bill will not accomplish the proposed “INTENT” of the bill. You are too proud to admit it.

It is had EIGHT rewrites with line after line, conflicting its own text. (see the lines in the bill regarding vets for one)

1. This bill ENDORSES commercial producers with the broadest and complete exemptions. Commercial breeders are for profit, they do not waste time and money on health testing. They do not follow up on their placements which may well be brokered just about anywhere.

2. Since 27 June, this bill actually mandates the breeding of immature and untested dogs because their one year ticket cannot be renewed til the dogs are old enough to have any kind of offical health test.

3. The bill does not grandfather in many owners who will NOT be able to dole out the cash. Elderly, disabled, young couples, singles, poor folk of every kind, hundreds of rescuers who are working out of their pockets and homes. Where are these animals going to go? Will pets will be torn from their settled homes and euthanized if the owner doesn’t have the means?

4. Every different jurisdiction can have a different way to define many of the rules. It is a Tower of Babel with local jurisdictions being given total control.

5. NO FIT. The bill heavily profiles all owners and all breeders alike and therefore has numerous NO FIT and illogical assumptions. The majority of problems in the bill are right here.

Do you know what ‘no fit’ means? Example:
Someone is put in charge of all vehicle regulation, mandates that all vehicles with NO exceptions, must have four tires in good condition plus a spare (sounds good so far maybe?), and be parked in a garage next to the owner’s residence - or each will be fined $500. Unleash this on the constituents and THEN watch out for the bicycle, the boat, the plane, the semi, the tractor owners. What about people living in condos or apartments? What if car owners have four vehicles, is it time to hire a contractor, what if there is no room on the property that will allow them to get a permit? They have all been profiled into a law that didn’t take them into consideration. They are gonna get awfully upset. Now some of the nicest people are law breakers. Righteous people who live in a house with a garage and have a car with the requirements will of course, say, “It’s all about money!”. They are going to say to those selfish tractor drivers, “if you weren’t so selfish, you would get your act together and you too could be exempt.”

This bill is horrendously guilty of profiling and no fit. It will increase the numbers of animals killed.
It does NOTHING to promote ethical breeding nor healthy pets. The principle designers of this bill do not even own pets.

NO on AB 1634


No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception

Labels: ,


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 7/11/2007 07:52:00 AM | Permanent link | (0) Comments  

Monday, July 02, 2007

Voting on AB 1634

Hey everyone.
The bill has been rewritten as of 27 June 2007.
Please read the bill. Supporters and opposition both.

Well bred dogs are normally tested when they are two or three years old and older to attain certifications that show they are free of such things as hip dysplasia and health defects BEFORE being bred.

Previously I believed that no one who truly loves pets wants to intentionally support the breeding of defective dogs. Certainly not advocates of Healthy Pets. Of course not.

Smell the coffee. Things HAVE changed!
As of 27 June, however, ALL Supporters of AB1634 -- every single one of them, are now truly advocates for breeding immature and untested dogs. This is because the bill as now written, specifies that intact PERMITS cannot be renewed after one year. The wording on this is more than clear. There is no renewal and there's allowance to allow someone to test for qualifications before the animal is bred. Advocates have been told for MONTHS now that the quality of an animal cannot be ascertained at 4 months or 6 months, which is the current mandated decision deadline - and this pretty much seals the deal.

Many breeds are not considered mature until two years and older. Vets and other people who REALLY are concerned about pets realize that official health tests cannot be done on breeding animals before maturity.

What has not changed... AB 1634 advocates endorse puppy mills which have been exempt since day one of this bill. Advocates have endorsed this for MONTHS now so this isn't news.

And now, they can be proud that not only do they endorse sexual mutilation of immature dogs and cats but they also wholeheartedly endorse the breeding of immature, untested pets without using the tests required for ethical breeding of mature animals.

What's more that hasn't changed. Areas where MSN are in effect do not show better stats for euths and animals processed than areas that don't have MSN. In fact where people have free choice to do the right thing, the numbers are better.

The solution is to kill this bill. To not profile every pet owner nor treat every single dog and cat as identical objects or things that the state can control.

The real solutions have been shown to the supporters but they do not care about Healthy Pets.

Have you see the MSN poll? Marvel at the people that endorse the above things.

Remember, when you vote for something, you're not just voting for what you think it means, but you're implying approval for what it can become.


No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception


Labels: ,


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 7/02/2007 10:30:00 PM | Permanent link | (0) Comments