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 digest
system
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)
**************************************************************