Government has no business spay/neutering animals or people which will  be next if things like this are allowed. California just outlawed homeschooling IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A COLLEGE TEACHING CERTIFICATE!! Be one of The Approved or else!!!!! These are the kind of things China does and Gernans did under the Nazis. Sterilize those who did not meet THEIR STANDARDS!!  Go to Wikipedia the online encyclopedia and type in "Prescott Bush History" which is George Bush Jr.'s Grandfather and you will find that He and HIS Bank Financed the Nazis BOTH before and during when they were in power and assets of his bank was confiscated for participating in financing the Nazis. The Fruit Don't Fall from the Tree!! There is a concerted effort to take away ALL our Rights guaranteed by The Constitution of the United States that MANY of our ancestors died to guarantee for us. When this Constitution was finished, Benjamin Franklin was ask, "What have you created?" His reply was "A Republic IF you can 

keep it." Another quote of his was "Those who will give up a little freedom for a little security, deserve neither!!"  NO, I DO NOT support ANY of the Presidental Canidates because I trust NONE OF THEM!!  Yes there are animals which are mistreated BUT these Spay/Neutar laws will ONLY harm the good animal owners and good breeders and homeowners. Government will no more stop abuse or etc. than it will stop illegals coming across the border, or prevent our children from taking drugs. There are already laws on abuse and those laws stop nothing.  Please stand up for our rights as American citizens, and protect our Constitution of the Unied States and what it stands for . Seymour


----- Original Message -----
From: Bonnie <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, July 10, 2008 5:40 am
Subject: Re: [FARMCOLLIE] FARMCOLLIE Digest - 7 Jul 2008 to 9 Jul 2008 (#2008-82)
To: [log in to unmask]

> Hi Laura,
> I wanted to write, but I have a question. Would this effect puppy 
> mills and
> pet brokerages?  Personally, the biggest problem I see with mandatory
> sterilization is the loss of well bred cats and dogs to puppy 
> mills, as
> there will always be the want/need for puppies....so I do not see the
> retail/wholesale business declining. It has only increased. If 
> there is a
> market for puppies, those puppies would be better off born into 
> good homes
> vs. mills, of course. That goes without saying for working dogs 
> (S&R, police
> dogs, service dogs, etc).
> 
> Can you explain this bill in a little more detail? Certainly 
> California is
> not thinking of banning all sales of puppies---or are they? As 
> that would be
> part of a mandate, I would think, if all dogs need to be sterilized.
> 
> I want to write a coherent letter, of my own, so this bill does 
> not have far
> reaching consequences for many states. But I am confused.
> 
> Bonnie Hess
> Faithful Companion Dog Training,LLC
> WWW.Faithful-companion.com
> also see:
> WWW.Trulydogfriendly.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Farm Collie Breed Conservancy and Restoration
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of FARMCOLLIE automatic 
> digestsystem
> Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2008 12:11 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: FARMCOLLIE Digest - 7 Jul 2008 to 9 Jul 2008 (#2008-82)
> 
> There is 1 message totalling 71 lines in this issue.
> 
> Topics of the day:
> 
>  1. AB 1634 update
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> 
> Date:    Wed, 9 Jul 2008 15:41:46 -0700
> From:    Laura Sanborn <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: AB 1634 update
> 
> -- Permission to cross post granted --
> 
> California AB 1634 was "gut amended" 3 weeks ago into a different 
> bill from 
> the one that passed the state Assembly last year.  Rather than a 
> broad 
> sterilization mandate on all owned dogs and cats, with limited 
> specified 
> exceptions, the bill now targets dogs and cats who are subject to 
> "complaints" and impoundments for other reasons.  On the third 
> such 
> infraction, a dog would need to be sterilized.   On the surface, 
> this makes 
> the bill acceptable, focusing on irresponsible pet owners and 
> leaving the 
> rest of us alone.  The devil is in the details though, and 
> unfortunately as 
> written AB 1634 is not limited in this way.
> 
> In his testimony before the Senate Local Government Committee, 
> Assemblymember Levine repeatedly compared what AB 1634 would do to 
> a seat 
> belt law in establishing a secondary offense.  Not wearing a seat 
> belt is 
> illegal, but one will not be cited for it unless stopped for 
> another 
> traffic infraction, the primary offense.   Just as the seat belt 
> law made 
> not wearing a seat belt illegal, AB 1634 makes owning an intact 
> dog or cat 
> illegal, no exceptions.
> 
> You might imagine that there is no problem with this, just keep 
> your dog 
> out of trouble with animal control, and AB 1634 won't be enforced 
> against 
> you.  Unfortunately, as Mr. Levine repeatedly stated in his 
> testimony, the 
> primary offense of a "complaint" against a dog or cat need not be 
> valid or 
> upheld to trigger penalties for the secondary offense.   The 
> complaints 
> could come from a malicious ex-spouse or neighbor.  The secondary 
> offense 
> penalties will also be triggered by impoundments subsequent to 
> severe 
> traffic accidents, natural disaster, or a contractor or cleaning 
> service 
> inadvertently allowing your dog to escape from your property.  
> Many of us 
> suggested amendments to AB 1634 to insure that only irresponsible 
> pet 
> owners would be targeted, adding Constitutional due process 
> protections 
> lacking in the bill, but Mr. Levine ignored all suggestions.
> 
> AB 1634 passed the California Senate Local Government Comittee on 
> June 25, 
> by a party line vote.  It will be heard by the Senate 
> Appropriations 
> Committee on July 14, next Monday.  If it passes there, it will be 
> voted on 
> in the full California state Senate.  If it passes there, it would 
> go on 
> back to the Assembly for a concurrence vote and then on to the 
> Governor.
> Experience shows that only a massive letter writing campaign can 
> slow this 
> bill down.  We are asking all California dog and cat owners to 
> write to the 
> Senate Appropriations Committee and their state senator to oppose 
> this 
> bill    Compelling arguments, in and of themselves, have proven 
> ineffective 
> in a political environment poisoned by partisan politics.
> 
> The Appropriations Committee responds specifically to fiscal 
> arguments.  With the state facing a $15 billion deficit, anything 
> that 
> increases spending may die in the Appropriations Committee at this 
> time.  This is our best chance to stop this bill.
> 
> The easiest way for Californians to send AB 1634 opposition 
> letters is with 
> the NAIA's capwiz.  It only takes a few minutes.  The system is 
> set up with 
> text you can choose from, or your can write your own.  Your letter 
> will be 
> sent to all members of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
> http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/issues/alert/?alertid=11576491&type=CT&show_aler
> t=1
> 
> The letter that Save Our Dogs sent to the Senate Appropriations 
> Committee 
> is here.  It contains specific fiscal arguments.
> http://saveourdogs.net/documents/SaveOurDogsSenateAppro.pdf
> 
> Laura Sanborn
> http://saveourdogs.net/
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of FARMCOLLIE Digest - 7 Jul 2008 to 9 Jul 2008 (#2008-82)
> **************************************************************
>