# AB 1634 - CA mandatory spay/neuter at 4 months



## nathalie1977

This is a very, very scary law that has been proposed here in CA. I'm surprised no one is talking about it.

http://www.saveourdogs.net/index.html

AB 1634 mandates spay/neuter of all dogs (and cats) over four months of age with some exceptions. 

* Industrial breeders are exempt. If you aren't cranking out enough puppies to need a business license and Federal and State tax id numbers, you are done.

* No automatic exemption for AKC, UKC, or ADBA. Those of you who thought you got a pass are now in the boat with everyone else, dependent on the whims of your local animal control agency

* So you want to try to keep your puppy intact. To qualify for a permit he/she must have been shown within the past two years at a venue approved by your local animal control agency. It's a four month old puppy. Who shows baby puppies?!

* Police dogs and guide dogs would be exempt...once they are fully trained. The baby puppies that might grow up to be police dogs or guide dogs must be spayed or neutered. The young adults in training must be spayed or neutered also. What happens when they are "documented as having been trained"? Do their parts grow back somehow?

* Where do police dogs and guide dogs come from? Their parents must be spayed or neutered. Guess they come from the State approved puppy-mills.

* You jump through all the hoops and manage to keep your once-in-a-lifetime ideal bitch intact for a few years. You retire her from competition to let her be a mother. Two years later you must spay her because she hasn't competed in two years.

* Working stock dog? No exemptions. They are history.

USA has issued a letter of protest:

http://www.germanshepherddog.com/documents/070330-RoetemeyerAB1634Statement.pdf

Please visit the link above. This is a frightening piece of legislation that will eliminate responsible breeding in California.


----------



## KJandBravo

Outrageous. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/19_thumbdown.gif We all know there are too many pets, most bred carelessly, but the problem isn't going to get any better by letting the guv'ment decide who gets to breed! Imagine what the permits would cost: I bet it would be prohibitavely expensive for caring small-scale breeders and only feasable for furbaby factories.

And how in the world do they plan on enforcing this? I can see just using the law as leverage for animal control to fine people who let an intact dog run loose. But when you've got _your_ dogs on _your_ private property...


----------



## Branca's Mom

Why don't we just do a mandatory spay and neuter of all idiots of PETA? Makes a heck of a lot more sense to me!

If they continue down this road we WILL see what they are hoping for: *COMPLETE ELIMINATION of ALL HOUSEHOLD PETS!!*


----------



## Branca's Mom

The thought of this passing should scare the pants off of every pet lover in the country.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/10_eek.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/10_eek.gif
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/10_eek.gif


----------



## im4dogz

Who's behind this???? 

.... Idiots, are they seriously that stupid? They should at least LEARN about things like this before going for it. Who in the **** is going to train, certify, show, and breed their 4 MONTH OLD?!?!?!? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/09_mad.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/09_mad.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/09_mad.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/09_mad.gif


----------



## nathalie1977

Supporters say that they want to eliminate pet overpopulation, and feel that breeders contribute to the problem because people want purebreds out of vanity and nothing more. They don't believe that any breeder is "reputable" because they feel breeding is wrong.


----------



## Toffifay

This is absolutely ludicrous /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/19_thumbdown.gif
The way they wrote it makes no sense what so ever!
If they are trying to get more people to LEAVE California, they are headed in the right direction.


----------



## grasshopper1

The best course of action might be to get the larger national news agencies to cover this. I am a news hound junkie but I hadn't heard about this law until I read your post, so I bet that a lot of people don't yet know about this proposed restriction. 

I don't know if PETA is behind this but I've read that the organization does not believe that animals should be breed to be kept as pets. Could they be sponsoring this? The law almost sounds as if the state government is trying to phase out pets.


----------



## nathalie1977

It is sponsored in part by PETA.


----------



## Honeybee1999

Good luck getting the media to cover it. They might, but they'd give the wrong slant to the coverage...so they'd support the legislation. The media is way too politically correct, and, well, early spay/neuter is very PC. They'd think "Oooh, mandatory spay/neuter will cut down on animals dying in shelters! Good idea! Let's promote it!"

Can you tell I'm jaded by the media? And California in general? Freedom is an illusion.


----------



## grasshopper1

Perhaps Fox news then? I watch a variety of new channels because I like to hear all the slants that the different news channels put on stories. Fox is pretty conservative, so for this particular story they might be a good channel to start with.


----------



## im4dogz

I just heard a news preview about it, it sounded like they were pretty against it in that whole 10 seconds they talked about it.


----------



## nathalie1977

On what channel?


----------



## im4dogz

It may have been Fox.


----------



## LisaT

The issue will be taken up again on 4/24.

http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=26489


----------



## grasshopper1

I have no idea if this will have be helpful or not. Fox and Friends has a section asking for news tips. I'll post a link to their site. I copied and pasted part of the first post-which was worded much better then anything that I could have written- and emailed them. Maybe nothing will come of it but it is worth a shot.


----------



## grasshopper1

http://www.foxnews.com/foxfriends/

Here is the fox and friends website. On the left side of the page is a very small white box for someone to submit newstips. Maybe if enough people wrote about this one subject, they would substitute this story for one of the many they do on Anna Nicole.

I'll see if CNN has a site looking for newstips later tonight.


----------



## mspiker03

You can go to this site to submit a letter to your appropriate State Senators/Assemblypersons (and then click CA, I believe):
Website 

I actually wrote mine yesterday (before this thread started). I got several automatic responses back that the appropriate people received the email and that they would get back to me.


----------



## GSDextrodinaire

NH has a similar bill waiting to be voted on. It would require all commerical breeders (they have yet to define commercial) to attatch a 40$ altering fee to all puppy and cat sales. How will the trac this and enforce it? NH rgire that all puppies and kittens sold (By law can't be sold younger than 8 weeks)be sold with a health cert. The vet who does the health exam has to then report that exam to the State Vet, who will then contact you when the pup or kitten is 4 months old. If you have a certificate of altering from the purchaser, you have to refund their 40 dollars. If you do NOT have an alter certificate, the state wants the 40 dollar deposit you got from the purchaser. The money then goes into NH's Plan A spay/neuter fund. All pet stores, and shelters will also need to comply with this. 

Now the state will be able to track what you sell, to whom you sell, and know how many you sell. Then of course the IRS will be involved if you aren't already claiming this as income on your taxes. 

Depending on what the definition of commercial is, if you have a website listing you as a breeder, you may be considered a commerical business. It is unclear at this time whether this will affect those who consider themselves Hobby Breeders, and unlikely to affect those who are backyard breeders. The typical backyard breeder most likely does not even know they can't sell a kitten or puppy in NH before 8 weeks of age, or that they are required to sell it with a health certificate.


----------



## lhczth

mspiker03, you want to send a fax to your representative. Emails are rarely paid attention to. You can get the fax number HERE .


----------



## lhczth

Dee, AB 1643 wouldn't affect the commercial breeders. 

You can read the proposed bill and then some of the arguments for and against at:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_cfa_20070409_132343_asm_comm.html


----------



## mspiker03

I'll look into that tonight/tomorrow. I want to double check where my email went and such as well. Hubby needs to write one as well.


----------



## nathalie1977

I made phone calls to the offices of my assembly people and got friends/family to do the same. It only takes a minute, you just say that you're calling to register opposition to AB1634. Writing a letter gives you credibility if you are something other than just a pet owner (like a breeder, trainer, etc.).

If you can get friends and family to call and register their opposition, that's more helpful than e-mails /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/01_smile.gif


----------



## GSDextrodinaire

Lisa, at this time you are correct the bill AB 1643 doesn't directly affect commercial breeders. These "groups" look for small victories, and if this bill passes it is a small victory for them, which will eventually lead to others. 

Obviously, I don't agree with the bill, how could I? If this bill in CA passes, other states will follow suit. So many already are. Not to mention there are small bills like this waiting in every state, that most people don't even know about.


----------



## mspiker03

I found this website that has some info on it while surfin' the net today:
San Diego Dog Blog 
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/SurfSmiley.gif


----------



## nathalie1977

*AB 1634 postponed - WAKE UP Californians!!*

Good news for now. Bill has been defeated... will be rewritten and submitted again in 2 weeks.

In the meantime, we need Californians to get involved!!!!
Please call:

Lloyd Levine's office (the author of the Bill): 916-319-2040

Committee, Business & Professions: 916-319-3301

Also, you can *FAX* a letter to the following Committee Members:

Ms. Tracy Rhines - (her team is the who wrote up this analysis) 916-319-3306

Mr. Mike Eng - Chair, 49th District East LA County, 626-450-6117 & 916-319-2149

Mr. Bill Emerson - Vice Chair, 63rd District Rancho Cucamonga 909-466-9892, 916-319-2163

Ms. Karen Bass 47th District LA County, 323-937-3466, 916-319-2147

Ms. Wilmer Amina Carter, 62nd District Rialto, 909-820-5098, 916-319-2162

Ms. Mary Hayashi 18th District Hayward, 510-583-8800, 916-319-2118

Mr. Edward Hernandez, 57th District West Covina, 626-960-1310, 916-319-2157

Ms. Shirley Horton, 78th District, Lemon Grove, 619-462-0078, 916-319-2178

Mr. Bill Maze, 34th District, Fresno, 559-636-4484, 916-319-2134

Mr. Curren Price, 51st District Inglewood, 310-412-6354,916-319-2151

Mr. Alberto Torrico, 21st District, Fremont, 510-440-9035, 916-319-2120

And don't forget to call your own representatives as well!!!


----------



## nathalie1977

*AB 1634 postponed - WAKE UP Californians!!*

Here is a sample letter from Schutzhund USA:

# Any Street
Any City, CA Zip Code


The Honorable full name
State Capitol
Room number
Sacramento, CA Zip Code

Dear Assembly Member or Senator (use last name)

AB 1634 - California Healthy Pets Act

(Suggested Opening Paragraph – modify as appropriate)

I am a Constituent and a responsible dog owner (add breeder, trainer etc as appropriate) belonging to The United Schutzhund Clubs of America ("USA") and am writing to express my opposition to California Assembly Bill AB 1634 (“Bill”). Whilst the intent of the Bill “to reduce the number of cats and dogs in shelters” is indeed laudable; it will nonetheless be ineffective. It will only serve to penalize responsible dog owners and breeders. Furthermore, it will encourage puppy buyers to import from out of state or even from overseas from "puppy factories" and other commercial breeders. Also, it will encourage those who are irresponsible to not license their pets and remain "under the radar" so to speak. If enacted this Bill would impose undue financial hardships to “in state” German Shepherd Dog (and other Breed) owners, breeders and trainers.

(Suggested Paragraphs – choose/modify as appropriate)

As you are aware, German Shepherd Dogs have a time-honored tradition of protecting the innocent and vulnerable members of society. They protect and assist police officers and military personnel in fighting crime and terrorism. They serve worldwide as police dogs, military dogs, search-and-rescue dogs, guide dogs for the blind, therapy dogs, and assistance dogs. They also serve as loyal and faithful family pets.

Mandatory spay and neuter provisions, as envisaged by the Bill, would prevent the selection of breeding-quality working German Shepherds, and could effectively wipe out in one generation, what breeders have strived to safeguard and develop for a century. It is simply not practical for any breeder to identify dogs which have the inherent breeding potential at a young age as four months resulting in them being required to pay intact permit fees. The choice of spaying or neutering should be left to the dog owners as it otherwise infringes on their civil liberties as Citizens of a Free Country.

Although the Bill “exempts” certain dogs if they are registered with certain “approved” Registries and/or serve law enforcement or other such agencies; it still does not exempt these dogs from payment of “intact permit fees” on which there is no "cap" or "limit" in the amounts which can be levied by the local jurisdictions at will and without any justification. Dog owners will be required to subsidize any inefficiency in local animal control and management which will be continually passed across to them in the form of such fees.

This Bill also does not recognize that certain “Registries” such as the USA have strict controls and regulations in place to preclude indiscriminate and improper breeding. Dogs registered with the USA are bred under strict guidelines requiring a variety of certifications as to temperament, obedience, and other canine aspects of good behavior. There is also control imposed on line and in breeding. It is also a pre-requisite for all breeding females and stud dogs to have good health certifications in respect of Hip Dysplasia etc. There are also limits placed on the number of litters that can be registered by the Breeder and the litter (puppies) and the Dam are visited by a Regional Breed Warden to ensure that they are sound, in good health and their environment conforms to USA standards. In addition the puppies are all tattooed to provide effective identification.

The Bill if passed in any form will also impact the livelihood of a number of people in the California who manage either full time or part time to make ends meet by operating small and home based businesses dealing with training, breeding and production of canine related items for sale. In addition, the reduction of purebred dogs in the State will reduce the number of dog shows which are held annually. This and the reduction in sales of dog and cat related food and other items will cause an equivalent reduction in the amount of sales tax collected and also result in some level of unemployment or underemployment. As such, the Bill will cause a tremendous negative impact to the economy of the State.

(Suggested ending Paragraph – modify as appropriate)

The provisions of the Bill are clearly impractical, do not achieve the purpose for it was intended and makes the cure worse than the disease. If the Bill is passed all it will do is to encourage the importation of pups and dogs from out of state/overseas. This does not necessarily mean that these “imported” dogs will not end up in shelters. We strongly oppose this transgression of our rights as law abiding citizens of the State of California and urge you to take all steps as necessary to have the Bill withdrawn.

Yours Sincerely


----------



## cavediver

Actually under this legislation most of the responsible working dog breeders I know would not meet the standard. As the representative of the DVG said:

"Many, who have been breeding dogs in California,don't meet these criteria that are for USDA commercial dog breeders; i.e. those who sell to brokers and from there on to pet stores. Responsible breeders who carefully select homes for one or two litters a year don't have business licenses of this sort."

I shudder to think of the future; where are you Orwell.


----------



## Crabtree

If they are so concerned about the over population problem, then why don't they go after the idiots who are rampantly breeding these so called 'designer dogs'? What worthwhile purpose do they have except to make money for the idiot breeding it?
This is just too scary!


----------



## Honeybee1999

I've written out a letter to all the above listed assembly members, including my own representative. I'll be faxing them out tomorrow.

Any ideas on what else I can do to get the word out? Other than standing on the street corner, which I don't have time for.


----------



## lhczth

They need to be faxed today. This is the last day they are accepting faxes from what I have read.


----------



## lhczth

Another attempt to rewrite AB1634:

AB1634 rewrite 4-17-07


----------



## lhczth

Well AB1634 passed in committee, 6-2. As one person reported it was a total partyline vote with the democrats voting aye and the republicans voting no. If it continues along partylines this bill will pass and become law in CA. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/02_frown.gif

Look for similar bills being introduced in your state soon.


----------



## JakeN

The Honorable (name)
California State Assembly 
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 94249

Dear Assemblyman or Assemblywoman __________:

I am writing you today because I am concerned about Assembly Bill 1634, a measure that would require mandatory spaying/neutering of dogs and cats over four months of age unless the owner purchases an intact animal permit. I am a responsible dog owner (and or breeder) and I oppose this legislation. 

(Personalize here – tell about yourself as a dog owner, breeder and fancier. How many years have you been involved with dogs? What breeds have you owned or shown? Do you compete in any other activities with your dog – Obedience, Rally, Agility…Have any of your dogs achieved a Championship? Won a prestigious award? 

Breeders - Details the steps you take when preparing to breed/whelp a litter – applicable health testing, evaluation of breeding stock, training, etc…How do you work with puppy purchasers to ensure they will be responsible owners? Do you encourage CGC or obedience training? Do you remain in contact with the new owners?) 

Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue—irresponsible ownership. These laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. It will hurt responsible breeders like me who raise healthy, well cared-for dogs and work to ensure that these puppies are placed with responsible owners. 

Responsible owners who are already complying with local animal control laws will be unfairly punished by AB 1634, while irresponsible owners will continue to make problems for the community and local shelters. Concentrating animal control efforts on dogs whose behavior demonstrates that they are a problem for the community would be a much better use of taxpayer funds.

I respectfully ask that you support responsible owners and breeders by opposing AB 1634. 

Sincerely,


----------



## mspiker03

Any word on what the Gov is going to do? I need to look for his info and I'll have hubby call. Maybe he'll veto it.

Bill would take effect 4/1/2008.


----------



## mspiker03

Here is the Contact info for the Gov...taken from his website.
Governor's Office 

Contact the Governor

Governor's Office

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633

Email

To send an Email please visit:
http://www.govmail.ca.gov

To help us keep track of correspondence and to ensure that we are able to respond to California residents, please be sure to include your name and address when you communicate with the Governor's Office. We do not accept e-mail attachments.

District Offices

Fresno Office
2550 Mariposa Mall #3013
Fresno, CA 93721
Phone: 559-445-5295
Fax: 559-445-5328

Los Angeles Office
300 South Spring Street
Suite 16701
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: 213-897-0322
Fax: 213-897-0319

Riverside Office
3737 Main Street #201
Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: 951-680-6860
Fax: 951-680-6863

San Diego Office
1350 Front Street
Suite 6054
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-525-4641
Fax: 619-525-4640

San Francisco Office
455 Golden Gate Avenue
Suite 14000
San Francisco, CA 94102
Phone: 415-703-2218
Fax: 415-703-2803

Washington D.C. Office
134 Hall of the States
444 North Capitol Street NW
Washington D.C. 20001
Phone: 202-624-5270
Fax: 202-624-5280


----------



## lhczth

The bill next moves to the Committee on Appropriations. The earliest they can get to this bill is the 9th of May. Letters (faxed and snail mail) from organizations appear to have far more merit than those from individuals. Please get your club to send letters to the following committee members and, if possible, have all members sign the letters. Send letters to all of their fax numbers.

Committee on Appropriations 
Committee consultant : Chuck Nicol fax 916-319-2181 (he is their Tracy Rhine)

Chair: Mark Leno D- 13th (San Francisco) 916-319-2113, 415-557-3015
Vice Chair: Mimi Walters R-73rd (Laguna Hills) 916-319-2173, 949-457-7305
Ana Caballero D- 28th (Salinas) 916-319-2128, 831-7859-2961
Mike Davis D-48th (LA area) 916-319-2148, 213-744-2122
Mark DeSaulnier D-11th (Martinez) 916-319-2111, 925-372-0934
Bill Emerson R-63rd (he voted NO already) 916-319-2163
Jared Huffman D-6th (Marin County) 916-319-2106, 415-479-2123, 707-576-2735
Betty Karnette D-54th (Long Beach) 916-319-2154, 562-997-0799
Paul Krekorian D-43rd (Glendale) 916-319-2143, 818-240-4632
Doug La Malfa R-2nd (Redding/Yuba City) 916-319-2102, 530-223-6737, 530-751-8379
Ted W. Lieu D-53rd (El Segundo) 916-319-2153,310-615-3520
Fiona Ma D-12th (SF Area) 916-319-2112, 415-557-1178
Alan Nakanishi R-10th (lodi) 916-319-2110, 209-333-5333
Pedro Nava D-35th (Ventura) 916-319-2135, 805-483-8182
Sharon Runner R-36th (Lancaster) 916-319-2136, 760-843-8396, 661-723-6307
Jose Solorio D-69th (Anaheim) 916-319-2169, 714-939-8469


----------



## im4dogz

I know Gov. Arnold is pro-dog. Let's just hope he's smart about it. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/02_frown.gif This is terrible it passed committee. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/20_bawling.gif


----------



## Honeybee1999

There was a very short blurb about it on Eyewitness News last night (Los Angeles area). The coverage was very neutral...they gave proponents' reasons for the bill, and also gave opponents' objections to it, including the fact that it would decrease the availability of guide/service dogs and law enforcement dogs.

I guess some coverage is better than none.


----------



## mspiker03

Called local gov. office and the Gov. won't take a position on the bill until it winds its way through the legislature. I did voice my opinion to veto the bill if it came his way.


----------



## Romance

copy and paste as per request
I have permission to cross post this i hope its not over 1000 words but it is very important. and i don't know what parts to take out to make shorter. 

>-----Original Message----- 
>Sorry for the long email but a couple of hours ago I received a 
>private email that freaked me out. It suggested that "a group of 
>judges and influential fanciers" are trying to cut a special deal 
>with Levine to get some sort of exemption for show people. They 
>apparently believe that that AB 1634 can be "modified" in ways that 
>might make it acceptable to cat & dog fanciers. I hope you don't 
>believe that is a real possibility because it is simply not true. 
>Mandatory spay neuter, in any imaginable form, will be a disaster to 
>breeders and owners of purebred cats and dogs. For those of you who 
>are skeptical, let me try to explain: 
> 
>1. If you are a breeder and IF you could qualify for an exemption 
>you'd be home free, right? Not really… First, you will be subject to 
>the potential of massive government involvement and intervention into 
>your breeding policies, your facilities and your animal husbandry 
>practices. AB 1634 mandates continuing local animal control 
>oversight of "exempt breeders." Second, who would buy your 
>offspring? If you want your offspring to be shown you'll have to 
>keep them yourself or sell them out-of-state because none of us non- 
>breeders will be able to qualify for an exemption to keep a show 
>animal. If you only produce neutered pets, your bloodlines will 
>dwindle and you will put yourself out of business. Third, if you 
>think being a breeder is financially tough now, just wait for AB 
>1634. You will be subject to new mandatory licensing fees, probably 
>many "inspection" fees, will have to pay for a business license and 
>all the associated costs of being a licensed business and will have 
>to collect and bear the administrative costs of state sales tax. You 
>won't have the time or money to raise animals. 
> 
>2. You probably cannot get a breeder exemption anyway. If you don't 
>live in a rural area you will probably be prohibited from qualifying 
>for the mandatory breeder business license because of local zoning 
>laws. Home-based breeders will be extinct. 
> 
>3. You can buy a kitten or puppy from an out-of-state breeder and 
>just go on attending shows. I doubt it. Most competent out-of-state 
>breeders won't want their animals in California because of the risks 
>associated with this legislation. Even if you do that, sooner or 
>later you will be tripped up by the intricacies of AB 1634 and have 
>to sterilize your prize show animal. Besides, as difficult as it 
>will be to own an "exempt" show animal, most people will just give up 
>and find another hobby. With no exemption available (that's right 
>there is nothing in AB 1634 to exempt animals temporarily in the 
>state…) out-of-state owners won't risk bringing their animals to a 
>show in California. There won't be enough participants to hold a 
>serious show. 
> 
>4. Your days are numbered. Even if your special interest escapes 
>this time, you'll be next on the hit list anyway. The people behind 
>AB 1634 are Animal Rights activists whose sole goal is the total 
>elimination of the ownership of animals. If a splinter group breaks 
>ranks now and "gets by" this round of AR legislation, the AR people 
>will just target them the next time around. These people are 
>relentless, committed and very well funded. They would love it if 
>dog and cat owners splinter and can't get their act together to 
>produce a large, unified opposition to AB 1634. That just makes 
>their job that much easier. 
> 
>5. At least we can keep showing for awhile. If this law passes it 
>won't be for very long. The show animals you own on the day this law 
>goes into effect might qualify for an exemption. But remember your 
>local animal control agency gets to demand whatever proof they want 
>that your animal meets the requirements for exemption. And, you have 
>to prove that every year. And, if your animal does not earn his 
>title by his second birthday, he gets nipped. And, if your retired 
>brood bitch hasn't competed in 24 months, she gets spayed. Or, if 
>your breed is not recognized by whatever registry your animal control 
>agency chooses, your animals can never be exempt. If this law 
>passes, our party will be over very soon. 
> 
>6. You are at the mercy of local agencies. All the exemption 
>criteria in this law require local animal control agencies to set the 
>standards. If your animal control agency is draconian, they can 
>select some obscure registry that does not list your breed, or 
>require proof of some exemption criteria that you cannot provide. If 
>you move within California, the rules that apply to your animals are 
>likely to change. There is no requirement that one jurisdiction 
>accept another's exemption so you may have to avoid certain locales 
>in the state. Basically, you'll never really know if you are safe or 
>if the pet Gestapo is about to rewrite their rules and come after 
>your pet. 
> 
>7. Levine is on a role and doesn't have to give us anything. After 
>the partisan vote this week at the B&P committee Levine and his team 
>are going to believe they are in the driver's seat. If the bill 
>continues to receive partisan support (the Democrats control both 
>houses of our legislature) the bill cannot help but pass. Since the 
>first draft, and through all the rewrites, they have carefully chosen 
>the language in the bill so that they can shoot for the extinction of 
>pets in California. They didn't make "drafting errors." They knew 
>exactly what they were writing. If they can splinter off part of the 
>opposition, and keep them occupied thinking they are actually going 
>to give them anything, Levine's team will have successfully diverted 
>some of our energies away from trying to beat this thing. Time in on 
>his side not ours. We don't have much time and cannot afford to 
>waste what we have by arguing among ourselves. 
> 
>Please don't buy into any propaganda that fanciers can get around 
>this awful legislation and let the rest of the cat and dog people go 
>down the toilet. It just won't happen that way and, if any group 
>tries it, they will lose their most important allies in the very long 
>fight we are in against the AR freaks. This is just like the War on 
>Terrorism – we had better be ready to fight long and hard and employ 
>a new set of rules of engagement. Because even if we beat AB 1634, 
>these jerks will be back again next year. We need all the friends we 
>can get.


----------



## lhczth

They have rewritten the bill again trying to make it sound reasonable. 

AB 1634 

Tomorrow, May 11, is the last day to send in your opposition.


----------



## lhczth

From the AKC site about what happened today. 

"Today, the California Assembly Committee on Appropriations voted 9-to-7 in favor of Assembly Bill 1634. The bill will now be considered by the full Assembly. 

The American Kennel Club thanks the more than 600 people who attended today's hearing in opposition to AB 1634, and everyone who contacted their legislators and the Assembly Appropriations Committee members."


----------



## mspiker03

Here is a website that I found for No on AB1634


----------



## BlueDogs77

> Originally Posted By: EisisThis is absolutely ludicrous
> The way they wrote it makes no sense what so ever!
> If they are trying to get more people to LEAVE California, they are headed in the right direction.


<span style='font-family: Times New Roman'>_<span style='font-size: 14pt'>This is EXACTLY what I said. My bags are packed and waiting for the law to pass.....

Out of state puppy millers must be THRILLED.







</span>_</span>


----------



## Vandal

Cross posting requested to all ANTI AB 1634 lists or people. CALLS
NEEDED NOW !!!
Genny Wall

The CA State Assembly voted today on AB 1634 (the "Pet Extinction
Act" that requires castration and hysterectomies of all dogs & cats
in California by the age of 4 months, with rare exceptions). The
sponsor, Lloyd Levine, did not get enough votes to pass the bill on
the floor of the assembly, but it is still alive. He is "working"
the floor right now for more votes and he hopes to get them today.
IF YOU DON'T WANT AB 1634 TO PASS, TODAY IS THE DAY TO MAKE YOUR
PHONE CALLS TO THE FOLLOWING 8 ASSEMBLY MEMBERS AT THEIR SACRAMENTO
OFFICES. PLEASE DO IT NOW !!! Each call should take you less
than a minute.

The 8 legislators listed below abstained today from voting on AB 1634
on the assembly floor today. We need to make sure THAT IF THEY
WON'T VOTE NO THAT AT LEAST THEY CONTINUE TO ABSTAIN. If Levine
can't get them to vote yes AB 1634 he should not be able to get
enough votes to pass AB 1634.

Please call and fax ALL 8 of these legislators NOW. If you are a
constituent in their district, be sure to say so. Ask them to
PLEASE VOTE NO ON AB 1634 OR IF THEY WON'T VOTE NO, THEN CONTINUE TO
ABSTAIN.

After you make your call, you can also FAX them - just say PLEASE
VOTE NO ON AB 1634 OR CONTINUE TO ABSTAIN


ARAMBULA, JUAN (D 31) - Phone (916) 319 - 2031 Fax (916) 319 - 2131
District includes: Mendota, San Juaquin, Kerman

HOUSTON, GUY (R 15) - Phone: (916) 319-2015 Fax: (916) 319-2115
District includes: Livermore, Walnut Creek, San Ramon, Danville,
Oakley, Brentwood, Elk Grove, Galt, Stockton, Pleasanton, Isleton

GALGIAN, CATHLEEN (D 17) - Tel: (916) 319-2017 Fax: (916) 319-2117
District includes: Stockton, Tracy, Lathrop, Manteca, Livingston,
Atwater, Merced, Gustine, Newman, Los Banos

KARNETTE, BETTY (D 54) - Phone (916) 319-2054
District includes: Long Beach, Signal Hill, Palos Verdes, Rolling
Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, San Pedro

SALAS, MARY (D 79) - Tel: (916) 319-2079 Fax: (916) 319-2179
District includes: Coronado, National City, Imperial Beach

RICHARDSON, LAURA (D 55) - Tel: (916) 319-2055 Fax: (916) 319-2155
District includes: Carson, West Carson, Wilmington, part of Lakewood

SWANSON, SANDRE (D 16) - Tel: (916) 319-2016 Fax: (916) 319-2116
District includes: Alameda, Oakland, Piedmont

WALTERS, MIMI (R 73) - Phone: (916) 319-2073 Fax: (916) 319-2173
District includes: Laguna Niguel, Oceanside, San Clemente, Dana
Point, San Juan Capistrano, Laguna Hills, Aliso Viejo


----------



## Vandal

Assembly Bill 1634, the California bill that will require any dog or cat over the age of four months to be spayed or neutered unless the owner qualifies for and obtains an intact animal permit, has passed the California State Assembly on a vote of 41-38, the bare minimum needed for passage. 

It now moves to the Senate.


----------



## Vandal

Assembly Floor Vote 

AYES: Arambula, Bass, Beall, Berg, Brownley, Carter, Coto, Davis, DeLaTorre, DeLeon, DeSaulnier, Dymally, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fuentes, Galgiani, Hancock. Hayashi, Hernandez, Huffman, Jones, Karnette, Krekorian, Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Lieu, Mullin, Nava, Nunez, Portantino, Price, Richardson, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Solorio, Torrico, Wolk. 

NOES: Adams, Aghazarian, Anderson, Benoit, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Caballero, Calderon, Cook, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson, Fuller, Gaines, Garcia, Garrick, Horton, Houston, Huff, Jefferies, Keene, LaMalfa, Ma, Maze, Mendoza, Nakanishi, Niello, Parra, Plescia, Runner, Silva, Smyth, Spitzer, Strickland, Swanson, Tran, Villines, Walters. 

Just in case you would like to know how YOUR Assembly member voted.


----------



## Vandal

By the way, I hope no one who is opposed to this bill forgets who authored it :

Author: Levine 
Principal coauthor: Senator Padilla
Coauthors: Nava and Solorio

Levine plans to run for a higher office and all will face voters in the future. If you are in their district and vote, please remember their names.

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/clerk/MEMBERINFORMATION/memberdir_1.asp

Here is a list of the Assembly members in case you'd like to thank those who voted no.


----------



## mspiker03

Still no position from the Governor...he won't take a position until it reaches his desk. Wouldn't hurt to call/write and start voicing our opinions to him directly.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

If the AKC really wants to get this stopped they should pull out of the Long Beach Convention Center now (for their AKC/Eukanuba National Championship show in December 07). Even if they can't find someplace else to go and have to cancel - it sends a SERIOUS message. And the type of message that matters to the people in charge - a me$$age.


----------



## im4dogz

> Originally Posted By: Lauri & The GangIf the AKC really wants to get this stopped they should pull out of the Long Beach Convention Center now (for their AKC/Eukanuba National Championship show in December 07). Even if they can't find someplace else to go and have to cancel - it sends a SERIOUS message. And the type of message that matters to the people in charge - a me$$age.


I heard they were, Lauri. God I hope this gets through to them.


----------



## Vandal

Kelley Moran from PetPAC will be on talk radio KNX
1070 beginning at 9:00am Friday, June 8, to discuss AB1634. The
call-in number is (866) 569-1070.

Lloyd Levine and Ed Boks from LA Animal Services will be on also, so
let's get our people to call in to say "NO! on AB 1634". Please
review the website at http://www.petpac.net for "talking points".

You can listen via the web at http://www.knx1070. com


----------



## Vandal

Looks like the Paris Hilton "prison break" bumped the show about AB 1634 right into next week. It will be on Monday at 10:00 am.


----------



## Vandal

Vote 'em Out!


http://www.presstelegram.com/news/news/ci_6088981


----------



## djpohn

From another list I'm on. What an awesome idea!


Cross posted with permission

To go along with the faxes and letters everyone is encouraged to send to
State Senate members and even to Arnold, we've come up with an idea to
garner some attention.

Biscuits Against AB1634

Just this week, the fans of the TV show "Jericho" were able to save
their show by showing just how popular it really is... They banded
together, each
donating a small amount of their own money, to send 20 TONS of peanuts
to the CBS headquarters to voice their opposition to the cancellation of
this
show. CBS listened, and just yesterday announced they will renew the
series for the fall (and politely asked them to stop sending the peanuts
- LOL!).

Why couldn't the pet loving public do something similar to get the
attention of the Senate?

So... Biscuits Against AB1634 was born.

Dog biscuits... Ever a popular symbol of this country's obsession with
our dogs. How about sending some to California State Senators with a tag
attached simply saying "Vote NO on AB1634". Think of the boxes and boxes
we could pester them with? The space we could take up? The annoyance of
receiving pounds and pounds of dog biscuits at your office.

There are a number of ways to do this... Send your own biscuits with
tags attached. (Provided for print out on the website) Links to each
State
Senator's website and address are available there also.

Or give a buck to Biscuits Against AB1634. We'll wrap them up all nice
and pretty with the tag, your name, and any comments you'd like
included, then
box them in bulk and start sending!

Each dollar should cover the cost of one large biscuit, materials and
postage.

To further ... Poke fun at ... This absurd bill, we'll be sending
California Natural Health Bars... We've asked for support from Natura,
but haven't
gotten a response yet. Regardless, we've got plenty of biscuits and are
ready to start shipping on Monday!

http://www.k9snatur ally.com/ stopab1634. htm This is the link if you
want to send the biscuits.


----------



## djpohn

the link was posted incorrectly - this one works:

http://www.k9snaturally.com/stopab1634.htm


----------



## Lauri & The Gang

*Biscuits Against AB1634*

What a GREAT idea!!!


----------



## GSD4LIFE21

> Originally Posted By: Honeybee1999Good luck getting the media to cover it. They might, but they'd give the wrong slant to the coverage...so they'd support the legislation. The media is way too politically correct, and, well, early spay/neuter is very PC. They'd think "Oooh, mandatory spay/neuter will cut down on animals dying in shelters! Good idea! Let's promote it!"
> 
> Can you tell I'm jaded by the media? <span style="color: #CC0000">And California in general? Freedom is an illusion. </span>


I agree!


----------



## JakeN

Here are some links you guys can check out!! 

http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/CA_action_center.cfm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070627/ap_on_re_us/pet_sterilization_bill

the first link have lists of your local rep. Write to them I have had all my relatives (big family) both my sisters and all of their college friends write in. SPAM SPAM SPAM them with your Anti letters!!!


----------



## agilegsds

The bill was amended in the Senate yesterday, raising the age from 4 months to 6 months. It also added this, among other things:

_This bill would, until January 1, 2012, authorize a local
jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency to allow
for issuance of an intact permit for one male and one female dog per
household in order to allow the dogs to produce a single litter of
offspring, subject to specified criteria. It would authorize the
imposition of an intact permit fee for these purposes in an amount
determined by the local jurisdiction, to be used for funding the
administration of the local jurisdiction's permit program._

The text goes on to say that the dog(s) must be spayed/neutered after the one litter, if I'm reading it correctly. Here's the entire amended bill: AB 1634 Amended


----------



## im4dogz

I don't give a [email protected] how much they ammend it, it's still an outrageous law and it won't get my support. 

I will only support it if it leave the purebred dogs alone and requires spay/neuter of all mixed breeds. (including designer MUTTS!)


----------



## JakeN

What a load of *&^$#!!!! From 4 months to 6 months WOW big woopie doo doo. I can't believe PETA is supporting this bill.


----------



## Vandal

> Quote:I can't believe PETA is supporting this bill.


You can't??? This is right up their alley.


----------



## im4dogz

> Originally Posted By: JakeNI can't believe PETA is supporting this bill.


I SURE CAN!!!!


----------



## nathalie1977

> Originally Posted By: JakeNWhat a load of *&^$#!!!! From 4 months to 6 months WOW big woopie doo doo. I can't believe PETA is supporting this bill.


I am shocked as well. I'm shocked they are not requiring that all animals be spayed/neutered at 8 weeks regardless of what they are used for, and that they aren't including prison sentences for anyone who breeds an animal.

This is kind of tame considering that PETA wants to eliminate all pet/animal ownership altogether.


----------



## Kayla's Dad

I just got an email from one of my club's member's indicating that CVMA (Ca Veterinary Medical Assoc.) is pulling their "support" for AB 1634 and going neutral. 

The leadership had (aparently without originally polling their members) originally thrown their support behind this bill. Folks were asking their vets why and many vets weren't aware. 
Sounds like it may have come to a head at the CVMA convention at the end of June.

If true (I'm looking for another source to confirm) it should send a message to the Senate that the Assembly didn't get.


----------



## sammys_mom

I saw the article on the front page of my newspaper this morning. So it must be true. I live in Imperial Beach Ca. They also said that it would be impossible to enforce. 

Jackie


----------



## Kayla's Dad

Here's the link to the CVMA web page "explaining" why they remove their support. http://www.cvma.net/doc.asp?ID=3189

Looking at the second to last paragraph one wonders why they supported the bill in the first place since they are indicating issues with the original bill. From the web page "AB 1634 is a good example of why the CVMA needs to “be at the table” on important issues. The CVMA was approached by the sponsors of the bill and asked to be a co-sponsor. The draft form of the bill required every dog or cat over four months of age to be spayed or neutered. There were no veterinary or medical exemptions. There were no requirements that the surgeries be performed by a California licensed veterinarian. And, there was nothing in the bill stating that veterinarians are not responsible for enforcing the bill. During the subsequent months of debate on the bill, the CVMA worked hard to improve this legislation"

Seems they should have gotten the changes implemented before allowing their name to be used.

Several members of my DTC have been heavily involved in the letter writing campaign and going up to Sacramento for the various hearings and to speak to legislators. The CVMA position was referred to a lot as reasoning behind supporting the bill by assembly members. Considering the narrow margin by which it passed in the Assembly (41-38), CVMA's change of position should send a strong message to the Calif senators and help defeat this bill.

If it gets through the Senate, it goes back to the Assembly for vote on the senate amendments to the bill.


----------



## zapols

Apologies if this is posted already, just got it in email

Permission is granted to cross post 
There turns out to be a rather major problem with the bill analysis that came out on Friday. It seems somehow that a number of the opponent organizations where not listed ( We are up to 60 and counting so far). I am compiling a list of such organizations to be presented to the committee on Wednesday. I need your help. 
First in working on this list I noticed that only THREE Schutzhund clubs were listed - USA, Placer County ( tho ran together w/ another clubs name) and Somis. So Cal SchH club has contacted me to tell me they are not on the list. PLEASE PLEASE tell me that they are not the only clubs to write letters from the club ( as opposed to the members letters).
Also there were no Malinois clubs listed and I've only heard from one - the American Belgian Malinois Club. Are there no local clubs in California - even if they're breed clubs?
Next Dobies - 8 clubs listed 3 from out of state. 1 rescue 4 breed clubs. Are there not more Dobie clubs in Ca and are there any working clubs oriented to Dobes?
Next Rottweilers - 3 national or out of state 3 Ca clubs and 1 individual breeder ? Am I missing something here? I know there has to be more clubs/breeders than that!
ASCA people - ONLY the national organization is shown. I know you have a ton of local clubs. Cattle dog people ditto. Border Collies ditto. Herding and stock dogs clubs ONLY AHBA is listed. AKC has over 500 clubs in CA. This is not remotely reflected in the list.
Also there are some individual breeders listed who wrote on their business stationary. But damned few and I know in the GSD/ Working dog world there are a number of highly successful importers/breeders doing business in Ca. Where are they?
If I'm wrong and you all sent letters - then my apologies here and now. Please send me an email to that effect and follow the directions below and I will include you on the list to the committee on Wednesday.
God forbid I'm right and a letter has not been sent - ITS NOT TOO LATE. Write the letter opposing AB1634 as amended 7/3. Fax it to all committee members, consultants and PetPac. If you need help figuring how to do that holler. Then follow the directions below. You will then go on a list of new opponents to AB1634.
Next and this is equally important. I am not a person to subscibe to lists or posts to boards so I need the help of people who do this. Please post the following three messages TONIGHT as far and as wide as you can with permission to cross post.

Message one
"There turns out to be a rather major problem with the bill analyis on AB1634 that came out on Friday. It seems somehow that a number of the opponent organizations where not listed. I am working with PetPac to compile an accurate list of such organizations and that list will be presented to the committee. If your organization is in opposition to AB1634 please take the following steps. 
1. Pull up a copy of the bill and look for your organization. Search by key words and do multiple searches as in german then shepherd then san jose. There are misspellings and some opponents are shown as proponents and some clubs were listed with a "the " in front of their name. For the analysis see http://www.naiaonline.org/ or the official legislature site if you can not read pdf.
2. If you were not included in the opponents list of the bill analysis of AB1634, or are not sure, please follow these steps.

a. If your organization updated its letter to reflect the 7/3 amendments and faxed or mailed it to the committee and consultants send an email to Beth immediately at [email protected] stating the above info and the club's name. Then either fax a copy of the letter to PetPac at 916 485-5594 or email a copy to [email protected] indicating it had been sent to the committee . We need you to do both. Beth is producing a double checked vetted list and then PetPac will have the documents to back it up. 

b. If because of the holiday the last letter your organization sent reflected 6/27 or prior amendments, please, draft a new letter reflecting the 7/3 amendments and fax it to all committee members and both consultants (see AKC site for fax numbers). Remember to include the line, "we asked to be included in the listed opposition". Then follow the directions in above in "a" . In the email to Beth, please list the name of the organization, contact info and also indicate it was a newly updated letter that was faxed and then make sure you get a copy to PetPac and on the cover sheet indicate it is a newly updated letter. 

c. If your club or business has not sent a letter on its letterhead IT IS NOT TOO LATE. Follow the steps outlined in b. The only difference is in the email to Beth and on the fax cover sheet indicate this is a first letter never sent before.

d. IF your organization's name is being used by the proponents without your permission or is listed as a proponent in the analysis and that is a mistake please follow the steps above but indicate that information in the email to me.

3. If you have already sent me your club's info or faxed the letter to PetPac do not resend it.

4. If you are an AKC club and have been contacted by them please follow their directions but please also take the steps above. We need to be able to provide one unified list of ALL missing organizations. 
Time is of the essence on this. I thank you in advance for your help. Please understand it is unlikely I will have the time to respond individually to you. Thank you. Beth"

Message two
" Saturday 7/7/07 at 7 P.M. RE the date and time of the committee hearing. I just spoke with Kelley Moran of PetPac who is in communication with the committee. NOTHING HAS CHANGED. The bill will be heard in the Local Government Committee on Wednesday July 11th at 8 a.m. Be there early. Don't forget to also attend the rally regardless of the outcome on the bill. We need numbers! If you want a life that includes animals it's time to stand up and be counted. "

Message three
" Folks I can find no better reason to send you this appeal than today's events. Yes it is frustrating the games that are being played by the proponents - last minute amendments on holidays, missing letters etc. I for one certainly wonder how "accidental" it is that so many of our letters are MIA. The point is they want to fatigue us. They want us to go away. Well my reaction is **** NO! This is all the more reason that we need to stand together and speak with one voice. I do not care if you are AKC or UKC or USA or none of the above. We are in this fight because we want the right to share our lives with animals. Just for the next four days let us put aside our differences and come together behind what I believe is the strongest and largest voice in this fight - PetPac who already has 20,000 members. They have produced two great commercials but need money to buy airtime. This is all the more crucial given the games of the last two days. We need to get our message to the public. Sad to say it was not the dog fanciers who paid for these commercials - we have them thanks to the generosity of a grant from the cat fanciers. CAN WE DO LESS? The time has come to commit by reaching into your pocket book. If you can buy a new dog toy or leash or enter a show you have money that can be going to this fight. Show me that I'm right that dog people aren't just words and no action. We need to make something happen. Do that now by going here and contribute http://petpac.net/action/contribute?page_id=MTU . An army may run on its stomach but they don't run at all without money - that is a cold hard fact. Thank you I know you will be generous. Beth Shea "


----------



## LisaT

But the benefit of this wording is that it won't require spay/neuter at 8 weeks, which is just wrong.


----------



## towtrip

> Quote: I will only support it if it leave the purebred dogs alone and requires spay/neuter of all mixed breeds. (including designer MUTTS!)


What is a "purebred" dog? Who determines that?


----------



## DianaM

I would assume a mix would be unregistered... HOWEVER, there are problems with that. What registry would be considered? Just the AKC? What about the UKC? Or ARBA (or whatever the rare breed reg is)? ACA? What of dogs bred for working purposes such as Mal x Dutchie crosses? Or border collies and Jack Russells registered only by their parent working-oriented clubs and NOT the AKC? Hog catching dogs? Golden retriever x labrador crosses to be used as guide dogs? Breeds in the making?

That would be too difficult to define and IMO should not be touched with a 10' pole. There ARE legitimate mixes out there amongst all the ones that shouldn't really be there.


----------



## towtrip

Not to mention all the registries that simply require that you send an application, a photograph and your $10 -- and your dog, too, can be "registered"! You can send a photo of darn near any dog and register it as darn near any breed.


----------



## arycrest

From the SACRAMENTO BEE:
"*Spay-neuter bill in big trouble
A Senate committee is expected to kill the controversial plan today.*
By Jim Sanders - Bee Capitol Bureau
Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, July 11, 2007"
Full article: http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/266605.html


----------



## nathalie1977

*NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

http://www.nbc11.com/news/13660622/detail.html?dl=mainclick

The lawmaker who proposed a controversial bill that would require most California pets to be spayed or neutered is dropping his effort.

Assemblyman Lloyd Levine made the announcement about his proposed bill Wednesday morning.

Levine told NBC11 News that he is very saddened that the proposal did not have enough support. He said he will allow Wednesday’s scheduled testimony to continue in the state senate but that he will pull the proposal after that. 


The proposal would have meant that the state legislation would require pets to be spayed or neutered at six months or pay a $500 fine. There are some exceptions to the rule that would exempt breeders.

Retired game show host Bob Barker was in Sacramento on Monday to support the bill.

Famous TV dog Lassie and John Pprovost, star of the series "Lassie," lobbied against the bill.


----------



## DianaM

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*








x 1,000,000,000,000

This is a massive victory for ANYONE involved in ANY part of the dog/cat fancy, be it simple pet ownership, showing, working, or even rescue, even if some people don't realize it yet! There are better ways to control overpopulation, this is definitely NOT one of them!


----------



## lhczth

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

Unfortunately by pulling the bill he can introduce it again, but this is excellent news for now.


----------



## DianaM

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

We'll deal with that problem when it arises. For now:

Fancy: 1 
Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill: 0!


----------



## towtrip

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*



> Originally Posted By: DianaM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> x 1,000,000,000,000
> 
> This is a massive victory for ANYONE involved in ANY part of the dog/cat fancy, be it simple pet ownership, showing, working, or even rescue, even if some people don't realize it yet! There are better ways to control overpopulation, this is definitely NOT one of them!


I beg to differ on this being a "massive victory for ... rescue" I don't see any "better ways" being discussed, proposed or introduced -- and I bet the fancy won't be the ones stepping up to the plate to try to do it, either.


----------



## towtrip

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*



> Originally Posted By: DianaMWe'll deal with that problem when it arises. For now:
> 
> Fancy: 1
> Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill: 0!


Rescue/Shelters: -1


----------



## Kayla's Dad

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*



> Originally Posted By: Susan F
> 
> Rescue/Shelters: -1


Actually in Calif, I don't think the shelters/rescue lose here. There were several problems with this bill. Good intentions do not always equate to good process when the lawmakers get involved. As part of the intent of the lawmakers/organizations behind this bill was to pull/reallocate funding for shelters that now is also set aside. Is it enough? No but then in Calif. neither is funding for our school systems or infrastructure or........ which is something Sacramento should be spending their time with.

There is no one size fits all solution to this issue/problem/challenge. Not in this state and probably not in many others. What may be needed in Los Angeles/Orange County (Southern Calif-highly urban) to correct will not work in Humboldt County or the Central Valley (more rural). Where folks were indicating the process has worked has been where the local municipalities have implemented steps. So leave it there and put pressure on other local governments to come up with something. 

Putting pressure on local government is something Sacramento can (and does) do.


----------



## borzoimom

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

opps I started the thread too.. Let me delete mine in chat..


----------



## Annikas Mom

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

Great news!!!! We have been working tirelessly on this for 5 months and getting the CVMA to pull their support was a big victory for us. Yes, the bill can be brought up again at a later date but for now we can go back to training our dogs instead of fighting for the right to own them, because in the end that is what this bill is all about, taking away the rights of citizens. 

Doing the happy dance in CA!!!


----------



## annekca

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

YAY AND YAY!!!
















~Anne


----------



## im4dogz

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

YES!!!!! This is great news!! 

Whooo!!


----------



## selzer

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

Now I have to get to work on HB127 in Ohio.


----------



## zapols

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

You have a link, Selzer? As I'm in Ohio, maybe I could help?


----------



## selzer

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

I think that it is the 127 congress that I am thinking about as I could not find this bill. It used to be house bill 606, but they changed it. I was reading through, some of the proposed changes yesterday, no I do not have a link. I did a search for breeders. It is bad because you have to let them search, and they can decide to take your dogs. If you don't let them search they can take all of your dogs. They do not need a warrant. They will fingerprint everyone like criminals. There are a lot more issues with the bill. You have to kind of read the whole thing.


----------



## zapols

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

I'd done some googling before I asked for a link, I couldn't find it either and hadn't heard about it. Sounds like something I'll be totally against - so before I further hijack this thread, just pm me if I can be helpful!


----------



## im4dogz

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

I'm with vbl, I couldn't find anything about this, or what it will do. Links? Or even a new post about it?


----------



## Barb E

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*









http://www.thereporter.com/ci_6357259?source=rss
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1761946.php
http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_6356747?source=rss


----------



## Timber1

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

Are you a socialist believing the government should decide for people. As for white german shepherds, another controversial topic which I best not even touch.

This was a massive victory, as Diana noted; no state should mandate how an owner deals with his/her pets.


----------



## JakeN

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

Lets hope this law doesn't come back.


----------



## ninhar

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*



> Quote:no state should mandate how an owner deals with his/her pets.


So then, this shouldn't be an issue? 
http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=329532&page=1&fpart=1

after all, they are his dogs, right?


----------



## selzer

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

That is really two different things, though fight pitt owners probably look at it the same. One of these constitutes cruelty to the animals involved. If people fight pits, the animal will undergo much cruel treatment. If a person does not spay or neuter, they may never even be bred. The act of breeding and the act of whelping a litter is not an act of cruelty. Euthanizing puppies is disgusting, sure, not cruel unless they are gassed or electrocuted, etc. If it is cruelty that you wish to make a law against, make a law against gassing dogs or electrocuting dogs or drowning puppies.


----------



## Kayla's Dad

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*



> Originally Posted By: JakeNLets hope this law doesn't come back.


This bill has not gone away. Levine chose not to let it come to vote in committee. It can come back up at the beginning of next year. 

And the issue is coming up in other states and municipalities across this country. It will continue to be discuss and debated in various forms and with as much emotion and opinions as it was in Sacramento.


----------



## derby98

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

This bill is still ALIVE !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just saw a piece on the local news showing protesters & supporters rallying outside the State Capitol building.


----------



## 1PuppyPlus4

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

This bill is now Law.


----------



## Kayla's Dad

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*



> Originally Posted By: 1PuppyPlus4This bill is now Law.


Not sure where you got that. Not true at the moment-at least at the state level.

It seems the proponents, while keeping the state bill alive went "local" - trying to get bills in various local communities. They unfortunately succeeded in L.A. just recently. It seems similar bills have and are popping up in various communities and states.

There was a big rally by supporters in San Jose last night. I know several people opposing the bills who went to counter the planned rally.


----------



## derby98

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

We should all take the time & write a letter to your local assembly person & let them know how you feel.


----------



## mspiker03

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

Didn't the bill already pass the assembly and is or was stalled in the Senate? Does it have to go back to the assembly at some point? Or should people be concentrating their efforts on the Senate now?

I am just unsure of where the bill is really at and where it would come back to life (Senate or Assembly)...


----------



## Kayla's Dad

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

It passed the Assembly and stalled in the Senate Local Government Committee hearing when Levine tabled it due to lack of votes to support. It did not get to the Senate floor. His move basically set it aside so it could be revived a later date without starting the process all over again.

Sure more will be coming out as it seems the rallys for and against are picking up steam again. There was one in San Jose Tuesday night and one in the Capitol.


----------



## towtrip

*Re: NEWS! AB 1634 - BILL HAS BEEN PULLED!!!*

This is probably going to be like Missouri's felonious photography bill that keeps coming up at every legislative session. I think they're hoping that they can bring it up and pass it without anybody noticing. 

For those who aren't aware, Missouri keeps having a bill introduced at nearly every legislative session that would make it a FELONY to photograph an "animal production facility." Animal abuse is only a misdemeanor, yet photographing a kennel or puppy mill would be a felony. arrgh.

So, in California the debate will continue ... those for, those against mandatory spay/neuter. Unless there are major amendments to the bill that topples it to one side of the fence or the other, it will probably just keep cropping up, getting people all mobilized on each side, and then get tabled again. This could take years to resolve. 

Query how the New England states have managed to get through such effective spay/neuter laws.


----------



## jakobi

This is just crazy. I see where they're trying to go with this....trying to cut down on the number of unwanted pets but really.... I've been told that if you get a large breed dog (like GSD) fixed before at least 5 months of age it can cause incontinance (sp?)


----------



## hannibalGSD

I think the manditory spay/neuter is ok, however they need to allow people to keep their dogs intact too, if they want them intact bad enough. If they had a provision where an owner could register their dog in some system, pay a fee (like $50) and receive a special permit or tag, they could keep their animal intact.


----------



## mspiker03

> Originally Posted By: HannibalGSDI think the manditory spay/neuter is ok, however they need to allow people to keep their dogs intact too, if they want them intact bad enough. If they had a provision where an owner could register their dog in some system, pay a fee (like $50) and receive a special permit or tag, they could keep their animal intact.


I'm not sure about other CA cities, but where I live, this is already in place. You must register your dog in the city and if your dog is still intact, you pay more.


----------

