AB 1634: Neutered, defanged, declawed, renamed … and out of committee
By Gina Spadafori
June 25, 2008
After California State Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod looked at the writing on the wall (and the piles of melted-down fax machines in the Legislative offices) and sensibly forced the term-limited lame duck Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (now preparing for a new job, to judge from his own news release) to accept her gutting of his California Healthy Pets Act, Pet Extinction Act, Christie and I were surprised to get tons of forwarded e-mails (with lots! of!! exclamation!!! points!!!! and CAPITAL LETTERS!!!) claiming that the new version of AB 1634 was even worse (!!!).
We could only imagine this assertion came from people who couldn’t be bothered to read the new legislation, or had some strange disease by which they were unable to keep from forwarding nonsense along to, oh, 145,832 of their closest e-mail friends. Again and again and again.
Because anyone who actually read either the new bill or the Legislative Counsel’s analysis could see that the “new and improved” AB 1634, while not a piece of legislation we supported, was in fact little more than a face-saver for Levine and his pal Judie Mancuso, whose initial bright idea — before being made to start eating changes to the bill to make puppy-millers happy — was to force the spaying or neutering of every kitten, puppy, cat and and dog in the state. This, despite the problem of putting the state in the middle of a medical decision with some degree of risk that should be discussed between an informed client and a veterinarian, and made by a pet’s owner. And this, despite the fact that forced spay-neuter has never worked, anywhere, to reduce pet overpopulation for any number of reasons we’ve laid out, oh, a million times now, and here’s but one example.
(Hey Judie, it’s nice that you took credit for “[the] coalition we have built in support of AB 1634 [being] the largest many people in California politics have ever seen,” but why be modest? The coalition of people you inspired who didn’t want you to give puppy mills a pass while taking down responsible, ethical breeders — not backyard breeders or puppy-mill scum — with your spittle-spewing misrepresentations was even larger! So congratulations!)
The biggest problem with the “new” AB 1634 — aside from being a pointless face-saver, etc., etc. — was that a pet could be forced to be altered based on even unsubstantiated claims from a cranky neighbor. Well guess what? That got fixed:
From John Myers’ Capital Notes blog:
The debate this morning before the Senate Local Government Committee attracted a large crowd of both supporters and opponents. And it focused on AB 1634’s requirement that a citation must be issued after animal control officials receive a report of a problem pet. On the third citation, a dog would have to be fixed; a cat would have to be fixed after two citations.
So what happens, asked Sen. Tom Harman (R-Orange), if the complaint made to animal control officials is “frivolous or false”? Could a dispute between neighbors over something entirely different lead to mandatory sterlization of a dog after three complaints?
After a long discussion, Assemblymember Levine — who either saw merit in the above scenario or simply decided that some bill was better than no bill — agreed to once again amend AB 1634.
Now, instead of saying a pet owner “shall be cited” when a complaint is made… the bill says a pet owner “may be cited.” And that wiggle room for local animal control officials was enough to draw the vote of Sen. Mike Machado (D-Linden), who cast the deciding vote.
Now, where are we? AB 1634 is out of committee but can still be killed. I think it should be, because it’s redundant and pointless, and because I don’t care about how much face Levine and Mancuso want to save with their donors.
But will I move out of state if it’s passed? Nope. Will I care if it’s passed? Not too much. Why? Because I’m a responsible pet-owner, duh, and, possibly, someday, a responsible, ethical breeder as well. And because my heart’s not going to break if my idiot neighbor’s neglected, fear-aggressive and uncatchable outdoor dog has to be neutered after the third time we neighbors call animal control because the dog has jumped the four-foot fence, yet again, and is heading for the busy boulevard in search of love but more likely heading for a date with a Mack truck. (Although honestly, current law more than handles this situation, if enforced, which it’s not.)
So take your exclamation points, your capital letters and your conspiracy theories somewhere else. The forces of common sense, truth and good science (thank you, California veterinarians, who forced your own association to back away from this vile thing) won this round.
Now, can we move forward together on strategies that actually do work, like shelter reform and building no-kill communities? I can’t say I’d be able to find common ground with someone like Judie Mancuso or with anyone (hello, NAIA!) who believes reputable breeders and pet-lovers must support puppy-millers and factory farmers, but I quite certain there are a whole lot of people who are very much willing to work on opening what Nathan Winograd has called “A Third Door.”
You did not hear Levine speak at the Senate Local Government Committee hearing. He repeatedly said that “having an dog that was not spayed or neutered was a separate complaint.” He repeatedly compared AB1634 to the seatbelt law. The point was clear. Having an intact dog or cat will be an offense in California. It just won’t be one that Animal Control can cite you for unless there is another complaint first. Levine was also very clear that the truth of the initial complaint does not matter. Once there is a complaint, even a false, fraudlent, or even malicious complaint, Animal Control can cite you for having an intact animal. At least as Levine interprets it, if this bill becomes law, immediately every owner of an intact dog or cat will be a scofflaw at best.
It is worth noting that the seatbelt law is now a primary offense. You can be cited for just not wearing a seatbelt. That was an easy change.
Comment by Douglas Surber — June 25, 2008 @ 4:26 pm
It doesn’t matter what Levine said. It matters what the bill says. And you can look that up, here.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 25, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
Well, actually the “intent” of a law maker is taken into consideration when the a bill is being interpreted. So for instance if this version 2.0 of AB1634 passes, and someone feels that they have been erroneously charged, fined or harmed by it and they challenge it in court, then the intent of the law as determined by the testimony etc.. of the lawmakers involved would come into play. The same would go for an extremist who might wish to use it more as a weapon than a tool to punish etc… Whether or not that will/would happen or what the result would be, who knows? I have no exclamation marks to offer here nor a crystal ball. ;-) But it is just one more reason that this cumbersome, silly thing needs to die away with Loyd Levine’s legislative career
Comment by JenniferJ — June 25, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
I’m not an attorney so I don’t claim to be able to interpret the law. Levine wrote it so I think it is reasonable to assume that he knows what it means.
Comment by Douglas Surber — June 25, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
Gina, you write: And because my heart’s not going to break if my idiot neighbor’s neglected, fear-aggressive and uncatchable outdoor dog has to be neutered after the third time we neighbors call animal control because the dog has jumped the four-foot fence, yet again, and is heading for the busy boulevard in search of love but more likely heading for a date with a Mack truck.
Unfortunately the above scenario you cite is NOT the only one possible and responsible people who are less affluent and less physically able than yourself are are apparently below your personal consideration. I personally cannot believe you wrote this. You are normally a much better critical thinker.
Comment by Semavi Lady — June 25, 2008 @ 4:59 pm
What’s the problem? I said I’m against the bill. I sent my faxes and made my phone calls this week, and I’ll do it again.
But it’s not even remotely conceivable that the new AB 1634 is worse than the old one, even the amended old one before it was gutted.
By the way, I’m not normally a much better critical thinker at all. That’s what we have Christie here for. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 25, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
Having gone to Gina’s link, done my best to interpret ‘legalise’, it reads to me like that famous CA formula of 3 strikes and you’re out. In this case if you are a dog or cat, you lose your gonads.
Yes, it’s a silly bill, yes, it won’t be enforced, and will do nothing to address any meaningful issues regarding uncontrolled pets, shelter overcrowding, millers and bybs. Only a change in societal values towards non human animals will address that.
This reincarnation of AB 1634 is just really a waste of the legislators’ time. It’s not a ‘bad’ bill, it’s just a useless one.
We can only hope that Lloyd follows Magic Johnson’s advice and seeks a new career, one without political aspirations.
Comment by Ms Anne Thrope — June 25, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
Two strikes if you’re a cat, which still hasn’t been adequately explained in any reasonable manner to me. Anyone care to try?
By the way … I have made it a rule to never post elsewhere without using my own name, but if I were going to, I would love to steal yours.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 25, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
Gina, What if your idiot neighbor calls in a complaint about your intact dog to animal control? An AC officer will show up at your door. Let’s suppose you can demonstrate that the complaint is false. The AC officer says forget about that. But then he says, please prove to me that you dog has been spayed or neutered. Given what is hanging between you dog’s legs, you can’t do that. So he cites you for having an intact dog. $50 and strike one. Levine made very clear that the truth or falsity of the initial complaint doesn’t matter. Your idiot neighbor makes two more phone calls and snip, snip.
Comment by Douglas Surber — June 25, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
Normally Gina you’re spot on… and yes I did see where you still don’t support the bill… but this will be a problem if allowed to become law..Mr. Levine in his testimony kept using the analogy of not wearing a seat belt. If you
are pulled over for speeding and are not wearing a seat belt, you will receive two citations. Even if the speeding ticket is thrown out, the seat belt ticket is still active and penalties are due. Not wearing your seat belt while driving is illegal. Having an intact pet is not; so why should one receive a citation for having an intact pet if the complaint was found to be bogus?
And if you don’t think that AC will cite people you’re dead wrong… LA AC is riddled with AR types.
Comment by Ginger Cleary — June 25, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
Again, my point is this:
1) The current version is NOT worse than the original or even the amended original. And to say that it is makes those of us who support the preservation of heritage breeds and ethical responsible breeding practices seem like dogmatic crazy people.
2) It’s still a bad, stupid, pointless, face-saving bill that should be sent to the dustbin even IF it’s a pretty good bet animal control agencies won’t/can’t enforce it.
Your imaginings of free-roaming animal-rights vigilantes with Animal Control programmed into their cell phone speed dial don’t really worry me, realistically speaking. I have had an actual people-menacing dog on my street, and couldn’t get County AC out for five hours. Imagine the response anyone will get for reporting a lesser transgression, from any agency as chronically underfunded as Animal Controls tend to be, even before the recession, state/country/city budget cuts. Yes, there’s a possibility someone could be unfairly targeted, maybe even me. There’s also a possibility I could get ticketed for having my dog off-leash when I’m flinging tennis balls for him at the river. I’m pretty sure I’m far more likely to get a ticket for my dog’s tennis balls than his actual balls.
That said, I don’t support having bad, stupid, pointless legislation on the books, whether it’s about animals or pink plastic flamingos. That is why I faxed, called, etc., to express my opposition to the new AB 1634 as well as the old one. And why I will do so, again, at every stage until this thing is decided and, I hope, defeated.
However, we are not getting the point across to the majority of animal-lovers that there is difference between a puppy-miller, a careless/clueless backyard breeder and a reputable, responsible ethical breeder. We have allowed PETA, etc., to define the terms and made our allies accordingly. That has not worked for any animal or indeed any animal-lover except those who raise money for animal-rights groups. We still have municipal and non-profit shelters that kill animals for population control when they do not have to, and put them blame everywhere else while refusing to even consider alternatives such as the building of no-kill communities.
We need to give people a reason to go to shelters and rescue groups — that means shelter reform — and we need to find a way to get the point across that puppy-mills and backyard breeders are bad news. That means getting out of bed with people whose concern for a puppy or kitten or the people who buy them ends when the money changes hands.
We need to quit the politics of “if you’re not with us you’re agin’ us,” quit siding with animal abusers like puppy-millers and work on building on some common ground, not with animal-rights extremists but with the majority moderates, the average animal-lover.
Because we care about those shelter animals, too. Because we love animals, too, not just “our” breed. Because we rescue, and have animals who have captured our hearts from behind the bars of a shelter.
Remember, I’ve run a breed rescue. I’ve also titled dogs in conformation, field and obedience, starting in 1979. Some of my pets (over the years and now) are registered purebreds and some are rescued. They are all equally loved and cared for.
Yes, AB 1634 is, was and always will be a bad bill.
But would it be possible for those in opposition to quit being just opposed to something and to work for something instead? And would it be possible for those in support of forced spay-neuter and other punitive, non-workable measures to be open to the idea that there are those who breed for reasons that have nothing at all with money?
And would it be possible for us to work together on common goals for the good of animals?
I would like to think so.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 25, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
Gina, the opposition to the “new AB 1634” isn’t limited to those who “just say no” to all laws that pertain to pet owners.
The new AB 1634 had the potential to be narrowed to something that would not affect responsible dog and cat owners. Many of us contacted the Senate Local Government committee with very specific recommendations for changes in the bill that would accomplish this goal. Instead, the committee made a very minor tweak in the language of the bill that was rushed through, replacing “shall” with “may”. This in no way removes the risk that if this bill becomes law, it will amount to state-sanctioned vigilantism. It is not acceptable to violate our Constitutional right to Due Process. Government “may” not do that, not under any circumstance. “may” does not make this bill OK.
Here’s the letter that Save Our Dogs sent to the committee.
http://saveourdogs.net/documen.....ionLG2.pdf
Similar letters and emails were sent by the NAIA and many others. You’ll notice a lack of !!!!ANGRY!!!! comments, and a desire to transform this bill into one that fairly targets irresponsible behavior, while protecting the rights of responsible pet owners.
Many of us who oppose the new AB 1634 are in the responsible middle. We are not extremists who fight against everything. Yet we were ignored by the committee. The committee sided with extremists in passing a bill that, according to its author, will establish through legislative intent (which does carry weight in the courts) that owning an intact dog or cat in California is illegal. All it takes is 3 unsubstantiated bogus vindictive “complaints”, and government “may” then violate your due process rights and force you to s/n your dog. No matter how responsible you are.
Gina, I’m guessing that given your line of work, you and Christie have managed to acquire some enemies in the wacko fringe AR spectrum. Three bogus complaints from these wackos pertaining to your pets, and your government “may” force you to s/n your pets. They could likewise force every police dog, search-and-rescue dog, herding dog, hunting dog, show dog, competition dog, and breeding dog in California to be s/n. Geez, even the previous POS version of AB 1634 supposedly allowed some of these dogs to obtain intact permits and escape the government-ordered knife. This one makes no such allowances.
The bill that passed today is quite different from the one we dealt with last year. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a very bad bill.
Comment by LauraS — June 25, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Amended 1634 only passed committee. It still has to go to the legislature, yes? there is still time for us to send thoughtful snail mail and email letters opposing it.
Sorry, I forgot the bit that cats only get two strikes. Now that’s extremely prejudicial and totally UPC. Why should one species of predator be subjected to harsher standards than other? Must be Bozone at work! From the Urban Dictionary:
The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.
Comment by Ms Anne Thrope — June 25, 2008 @ 7:56 pm
No, it’s not over yet. We’ll post updates so people can contact their elected representatives — or the elected representatives of others — accordingly.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 25, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
I’m not an attorney so I don’t claim to be able to interpret the law. Levine wrote it so I think it is reasonable to assume that he knows what it means.
Levine didn’t write the current version of the bill. The current text is a complete replacement of the text he wrote. If this passes, rather than being defeated, the courts are not going to buy the notion that someone who wrote text that got rejected and completely replaced with new text that says completely different things, is correct when he says that “legislative intent” was to do exactly what he said in his original, rejected version.
Legislation is a difficult process, but it’s not actually black magic where the evildoers always win and the loudest mouth prevails in court regardless of what the text of the legislation clearly says.
Comment by Lis — June 25, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
After watching the AB 1634 hearing today (6/25) it is clear that AB 1634 is still a mandatory spay neuter bill for dogs and cats.
Mr. Levine kept trying to justisfy his complaint procedure for not being spayed or neutered by analogizing the complaint/citation procedure under this version of AB 1634 to one in which an officer investigating a primary offense of drunk driving or speeding, and seeing the secondary offense of driving without a seatbelt citing the driver for that secondary offense. However, he failed to note that drunk driving, speeding, and not wearing seatbelts are already violations of the law.
This analogy to spay/neuter doesn’t work, because under this version of AB 1634 any “complaint” about any violation of the animal laws (founded or not) can result in a citation for the “secondary offense” of the animal not being spayed or neutered.
How can a dog or cat being intact be a “secondary offense” if it is not illegal to be intact in the first place? Bottom line is - they are still making it illegal for a dog or cat to be intact - if that isn’t mandatory spay/neuter, what is it?
Genny Wall
Comment by Genny Wall — June 25, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
Gina, no disrespect. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that matter that this bill is not somehow “worse”. The former amendments in the prior form of the bill at least attempted some poorly worded, badly structured, alleged “exemptions” for service dogs, breeding stock of service dogs and at least an attempt at consideration to other working animals. Now there is no exemption at all.
Comment by Semavi Lady — June 25, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
Trying to stick to the middle range and avoid extremism, I can envision that there may be AC officers who (incorrectly) think breeders are bad people - all breeders - for various reasons. For any laws which take effect regarding pets, AC officers will be the first line of interpretation. It’s possible that a cited citizen could appeal and ask for a judge - the second line of interpretation - to make a ruling. This could go on and on - more appeals and more interpreting - but in the meantime the potential exists to my mind that AC confiscated and neutered the cited citizen’s pet. That’s how I interpret it anyway - which my interpretation means nothing except as a point of discussion.
Comment by slt — June 26, 2008 @ 4:19 am
I don’t think I read the linked article (“The California ‘Healthy Pets’ Act: An overly simple — and ultimately unworkable — solution for a complex problem” By Gina Spadafori, May 23, 2007) at the time it was posted, but I would like to add one thing to the discussion.
…And that is the incorrectness of the term “pet overpopulation.” …At least by every measure I’ve come up with.
Yes, some shelters are overpopulated with unadopted pets. …Clearly.
But, going by my own experiences working with shelters and dog owners, and comparing that to an Anthrozoos study on the subject, it doesn’t appear the United States is anywhere close to being “overpopulated” with dogs…at least, if we’re talking about homes “wanting” dogs.
The theory of “pet overpopulation” is so simplistic, it seems. About 1-2 million dogs are killed in U.S. animal shelters each year (just dogs, not including cats and other shelter animals). So that must mean there are 1-2 million “surplus” dogs, right?
Well, no. Not quite.
According to the Anthrozoos report, about 7.3 million dogs are acquired each year in the U.S., including 5.8 million puppies from pet stores, show breeders & backyard breeders; about one million dogs from animal shelters, and 500,000 “other” (strays picked up, etc.).
The study concludes approximately 4 million dogs enter U.S. shelters each year. Owner surrenders are about 1.8 million (300,000 for euthanasia and 1.5 million for adoption). One million of the estimated 3.1 million dogs available for adoption do get new homes, leaving 2.1 million shelter dogs euthanized.
A study from Tufts also found 1.5 million to 2.1 million dogs are euthanized in U.S. shelters each year.
Assuming these figures are even remotely accurate, that puts the “overpopulation” theory to rest.
If 7.3 million dogs are acquired each year, and only about 2 million dogs are killed in shelters, we still have a deficit of 5 million homes that wanted, and found, dogs. (Or, to be picky, 4 million homes that wanted, and found, dogs from sources other than shelters.)
While these other sources are still producing dogs to satisfy the market, there are more than enough potential homes for all the (est.) 3 million otherwise adoptable dogs in shelters. In fact, there may be as many as twice as many (or more!) homes looking for dogs, as there are dogs in shelters.
“Overpopulation” indeed.
Of course I, probably more than most, recognize that the kinds of dogs in shelters are often not the kinds of dogs “people” are looking for. (A person owned, and abandoned, most of those shelter dogs, at some point. So “people” do, indeed, want the kinds of dogs that end up in shelters. They just don’t want “pre-owned” dogs or ones they perceive as having some defect.)
But it seems many American dogs are acquired on the basis of “cuteness,” “age” (the youngest puppies are preferred, despite the extra work), and “whim” (pretty much the entire business model of pet shops).
Very little of that applies to the dogs found in shelters. I further suspect that, even if we all but eliminated dog breeding, most people would rather get a dog from the blackmarket, or sit on a waiting list for a puppy from one of the few remaining legal breeders, rather than adopt from a shelter.
Remember the figures also show the number of dogs in shelters represent 60% of dogs acquired each year. When I did these kinds of calculations about a decade ago, I came up with similar numbers. And that’s just shelter dogs. Many more dogs are re-homed privately, or via rescue groups. Some put the estimate as high as 80% of dogs re-homed at some point in their adult lives. (Myself, all but one of the dogs I personally know - my past & present dogs, and those currently belonging to friends, family members, neighbours, etc., have been re-homed at some point. I’m afraid to think what the abandonment rates might really be, if we were to take a comprehensive census.)
A dog is supposed to be “for life.”
Comment by Marjorie — June 26, 2008 @ 7:18 am
Majorie, we’ve made this point countless times here. As have others here and elsewhere, most notably Nathan Winograd.
But it’s difficult to change a point of view that has been with us so long as to be taken by most as unchallengeable fact.
That’s why I keep hammering personally on the point that what we’ve been doing — killing for population control and blaming “bad” people and “bad” breeders, all breeders together — isn’t working. We need to reduce the numbers of “undesirable” pets — primarily feral cats — through aggressive trap-neuter-release programs, aggressively offer low- and even no-cost spay-neuter to people who want to do right but are counting their pennies and do a better job to develop community-wide consensus to tap into the animal-loving populace to get homes for the rest.
That’s going to take shelter reform and a retirement of the “blame game.” Not seeing much but resistance to this from the entrenched shelter industry, which prefers to see the interest of reputable, responsible breeders to get to “no kill” as a way to get off the hook for “overpopulation.”
Wow, sometimes I just wish I could get everyone in a room and lock the door until they stop parroting their dogma and start listening.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 26, 2008 @ 7:42 am
“Wow, sometimes I just wish I could get everyone in a room and lock the door until they stop parroting their dogma and start listening.”
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 26, 2008 @ 7:42 am
Let’s all meet at PETA’s evaluation facilities where Vets and behaviorists perform and document detailed physical and behavior evals on thousands of pets each year!
Wait - did I just propose we all meet in a figment of my imagination?
Comment by slt — June 26, 2008 @ 7:58 am
Is there enough room in your imagination for everyone?
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 26, 2008 @ 8:09 am
My point was merely that the entire basis for sweeeping MSN (i.e. THIS BILL) is to assist in solving the “pet overpopulation problem.” That’s its core; its justification.
Without the perception of “overpopulation,” the ‘call to sterilize’ is rather hysterical, n’est-ce pas? There would be no bill at all.
If I read the term “pet overpopulation” one more time, I think I’m gonna hurl. At least where dogs are concerned, it’s a fallacy. It doesn’t exist. The fact there’s a state bill in the works to “solve” this non-existant problem is almost comical. It really speaks to the level of ignorance out there.
Based on what we know about the real-world figures, anyone who continues to use the term “pet overpopulation” only discredits him/herself.
As for the “new” bill, I’ll reserve judgement until I’m better-versed. But, based on your assessment, I’d have to say I, too, would not feel particularly grieved if habitually-negligent dog owners are required to be more responsible.
Will forcing Joe down the street to neuter his roaming Shepherd reduce the number of shelter euthanasias? Probably not by much, if at all, since the people who’ll acquire those puppies are probably no more, or less, likely to abandon their dogs, than they would if they bought them at a pet store or many other less-than-reputable, but perfectly legal, sources.
Comment by Marjorie — June 26, 2008 @ 8:13 am
Gina, you wrote,
“Your imaginings of free-roaming animal-rights vigilantes with Animal Control programmed into their cell phone speed dial don’t really worry me, realistically speaking. I have had an actual people-menacing dog on my street, and couldn’t get County AC out for five hours. Imagine the response anyone will get for reporting a lesser transgression, from any agency as chronically underfunded as Animal Controls tend to be…”
I had to kind of smile when I read that because, having worked in animal welfare for over 40 years, I find a sort of inverse correllation, in regards to the competency of animal control and silly proposed laws.
The better a community’s animal control department (staffing, funding, community support), the less animal-related problems they have, which all but eliminates hysterical calls for new legislation to deal with problems that are mostly due to poor enforcement and lack of leadership on those very issues.
The worse animal control is managed in a community, the more likely the area is to spawn all sorts of draconian proposals that are poorly-founded, ineptly-aimed, and have zero hope of doing anything but add another unread page or two to the municipal code books.
On the plus side, there ARE places where animal control is well-run, and the community (and animals) benefit tremendously. Now if we could just make the case to the defeatists…
I read somewhere that Bill Bruce, of the notoriously-successful Calgary Animal Control department, admitted that despite all the times he’s been asked to present the Calgary model to various communities, not one has actually adopted it.
Comment by Marjorie — June 26, 2008 @ 8:26 am
Some tangential musing on getting more people to adopt, and whether or not good breeders are the problem:
I have a Chinese Crested, whom I got from a very good breeder. I didn’t set out to get a Chinese Crested originally; I had a much more general set of requirements for a dog. 1.Small (I have a small house, no yard, asthma, and a bad knee.) 2.A good walker (A walking companion was my main goal, with “good indoor companion” being close behind.) Because of this, no smush-faced breeds need apply. 3.Good with cats. (Have two, age ten and age fifteen. Not going to take a dog into my home who would be a threat to them or bedevil their later years.) 4.Coats requiring lots of grooming much preferred to coats requiring lots of additional vacuuming. (Love grooming my pets; hate vacuuming. Your mileage may vary.)
After some investigation, this resolved to several people with other breeds I was interested in telling me that my ideal dog was a Chinese Crested Powderpuff. Met some breeders and handlers with CCs at shows, told them what I was looking for, they agreed that a CC PP was a good fit.
Now, guess how many CCs, hairless or powderpuff, were available for adoption anywhere in New England. I would have had a significant wait to hopefully be matched up with a dog I would have to have shipped to me with, no opportunity to meet my new pet before introducing him or her into my household.
So one of thoes breeders connected my with another breeder who had a year-old returned bitch looking for a pet home. (This, please note, was a dog who didn’t wind up in a shelter when she was no longer wanted, because she came from a good breeder who took her back.)
And getting that first Crested from a good breeder got me hooked into a community of people who have Cresteds, both breeder dogs and rescue dogs, people who breed, and people who do breed rescue.
I now have a level of knowledge and confidence, both with the breed, and with the people and organizations that do CC breed rescue, that I never imagined before. Most importantly, in some ways, I’ve seen that the level of success in matching human and dog in these organizations is quite high, and failures are few. I do plan to get a second dog eventually—and when I’m ready, I’ll feel a lot more comfortable filling out those applications and waiting and watching for the right dog, even if she’s a distance away, even if I’ll have to travel to get her or have her shipped. This wouldn’t have happened if I’d found my dog from any other source than a good breeder. Even if I’d lucked into the right dog in my local shelter (where, for some odd reason, small fluffy dogs who like to walk and are known to be good with cats are not going begging for homes), it wouldn’t have made me any more likely to accept a long-distance adoption, or even consider it.
Comment by Lis — June 26, 2008 @ 10:29 am
Gina, I take exception to your nasty comment related to NAIA. First of all please tell me the legal definition of a puppy mill. There isn’t one. Animal rights people think of anyone who breeds anything as a puppy mill. NAIA supports animal welfare and anyone who believes animals should be treated humanely, whether for pets, food or any other use. Of course if you are a vegan, you think animals shouldn’t be used as food. But let’s get a few things straight. NAIA does not support anyone who does not treat animals humanely. NAIA also has been very hard at work related to AB 1634. NAIA actually understands a lot more about the process and making a difference during it than any of the arm chair experts taking pot shots. Naia is fact based, science based and believes in operating within the law. In a country where between 95-98% of the population consume animal products having an organization that cares about how animals are treated to feed people is better than groups that want us all to just eat grass.
Comment by Charlotte McGowan — June 26, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
I personally consider any commercial operation that pursues profit over the preservation and improvement of the breed to be a puppy-mill, and that goes from the “model” operations that are clean to the ramshackle, feces-thick hell-holes we know from humane busts. A dog is a pet, not an agricultural crop. The high-volume production of pets as if they were widgets is abhorrent, even under clean conditions, and to have groups argue that we need to accept high-volume breeders to underwrite our dog shows with their registration money is disgusting.
I notice you did not mention non-pet animal agriculture, a point on which I also disagree with the NAIA. As far I’m concerned, the fact that you are on the side of battery-caged hens and intensive egg production in the matter of the upcoming California ballot initiative says all I need to know about where the NAIA stands on animal welfare.
I am not a vegan, or even a vegetarian. My dogs and cats certainly are not either. I buy a LOT of meat, mostly for the dogs and cats, and keep my own hens for eggs. Much of the meat I buy comes directly from small regional suppliers whose values with regard to animals and sustainable use of ag land I support. I also own a very nice shotgun, and I am not against hunting. On the red/blue scale there’s a lot of purple here, and I never turn down the chance to listen to anyone’s point of view in forming my own.
With animals, my views are that I believe in the preservation of our mostly rare heritage breeds — especially dogs who actually can do the work they were developed for — by experienced, dedicated and responsible breeders. As far as other animals, I support humane, environmentally sustainable and (when possible) local animal agriculture, and I also support heritage livestock breeds and the traditional relationship our kind have had with theirs since we first stopped hunting/gathering and started farming.
In no way and for many reasons beyond animal welfare do I support battery-caged hens or other “intensive” production of food animals.
You may consider me “armchair expert,” but frankly, I don’t care. My money spends just like everyone else’s, and I use it in support of my values. My opinion is likewise just as worthy as yours, despite your reputation in the dog-show world. (I’d have to check, but I think you have given points to one of my dogs within the last couple of years, by the way, so thanks.)
If this is your first time here, welcome.
We tend to have people drop in at one point or another, typically attracted by a post about a particular issue, make a snap judgment about the bloggers here and then move on after a couple of nasty comments. That’s always a mistake, since what sets us apart here is that everyone’s sound-bite philosophy gets challenged, and yours is no exception. Mostly, what we challenge here is the idea that people who love animals are fuzzy-headed idiots who believe and do as they’re told, whether by PETA or the NAIA. (Or, for that matter, by the bloggers here, and that’s fine, too, but if you can’t argue with anything more than pre-packaged off-the-shelf opinions, you’re not going to like it here much.)
You may find it interesting as you read on, if you do, that I have been even more critical of PETA, and I offer as proof their threatening me for writing about the kill rate at their “shelter.”
My problem with animal-rights groups such as PETA is that I believe they manipulate well-meaning animal-lovers into giving them money by appearing to be mainstream while they pursue a decidedly non-mainstream agenda they don’t broadcast much: a world where no animals are “exploited” by our kind, not even as pets and certainly not as dinner.
My problem with the NAIA is that by positioning your group as the opposition to such extremism you have proven to be far too willing to look the other way on poor breeding practices in dogs or even suggest all would be well if large-scale breeding operations just cleaned up their acts. Shame on you for letting your hatred for PETA have you defending practices I doubt you would use with your own beloved dogs.
And as for your anything-goes-and-agribiz-knows support of intensive animal agriculture, I could not disagree more. On the NAIA Web site, nothing is said about the suffering of factory-farm egg-layers; rather, your group’s work in opposition to efforts to end the worst examples of factory farming cites the economic fall-out of an end to factory farm egg production. Where is the animals’ interest in that?
I suspect we are going to have to settle on common ground with regard to our view of PETA. As discussed many times here, my view of the HSUS is a lot more complicated and nuanced than many in the “dog world,” and there I go again, thinking for myself and encouraging others to do so as well. As for the NAIA, I believe that by embracing commercial breeders you made it downright easy for PETA and other such groups to say, “see, all breeders are the same, they say so themselves! They should all be shunned, if not banned.”
The NAIA has actually helped to forward the animal rights strategy of painting a good breeder as an animal abuser, and for that alone I cannot get behind your group.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 26, 2008 @ 5:20 pm
Gina, I take exception to your nasty comment related to NAIA. First of all please tell me the legal definition of a puppy mill. There isn’t one.
Charlotte, please tell me what the legal definition of green is. There isn’t one.
A puppy miller is anyone who regards dogs and cats as agricultural product to be factory farmed, and engages in the factory farming of them. I don’t need a statute or a court decision to make that a valid definition. And while cleanliness and some degree of medical care are obviously better than the lack of those things, it doesn’t change the fact that raising dogs and cats in cages with minimal human contact and no human affection, exercise, playtime or toys is by definition serious abuse.
Not by legal definition, not by statute or court decision, but by ordinary human definition, the kind used by people who haven’t forgotten that money is a means and not an end, who haven’t fallen into the trap of thinking that the fact that something is profitable must mean it’s automatically morally right.
Dogs, and to a lesser extent cats, have been quite ruthlessly selected for thouasands of years for a preference, even a need, for human companionship. They are what we have made them—and when you support, endorse, and defend raising them in cages for their entire lives in in order maximize their production of puppies and kittens, breeding them every heat and taking their babies from them at five or six weeks so that the babies reach the pet stores at maximum cuteness and the mamas go back into heat sooner, you are supporting, endorsing, and defending what is an abomination.
The fact that you think only animal rights extremists could seriously object to this shows how far you’ve cut yourself off from normal human feeling.
No, I don’t have to support factory farming of cats and dogs in order to support responsible breeding, and I don’t have to be a vegetarian in order to oppose factory farming of cats and dogs.
I only have to be a thinking, feeling human being.
Comment by Lis — June 26, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
Hey Gina
I love your site and what you write - thanks for being so on the ball.
Having been at the hearing, I was very surprised by what Levine said about this whole citation thing.
Here is the part of the bill that applies
“SEC. 2. Section 30804.8 is added to the
Food and Agricultural Code , to read:
30804.8. (a) The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is
the subject of a complaint may be cited “
When asked about citations based on a complaint, Levine explained very carefully and more then once that we were reading the sentence wrong. He says that the citation will be for having an unneutered dog or cat, not for whatever the complaint is about and he stated that the complaint did not have to be upheld for the citation to be applied. He is right, the sentence can be read and interpreted that way.
Question - can you be cited for something that is completely legal?
No - you can not.
You can only be cited for something that is illegal. This bill therefore makes it illegal to have an unneutered dog or cat. I have run this by an attorney and the way this sentence is written will allow Animal Control to cite you for just having an intact cat or dog.
This bill, if it passes as worded will make it illegal to own an intact dog or cat in CA. Period. No exemptions exist any longer. If your dog is too old or sick to undergo surgery, no letter from your vet is allowed to exempt them. All previous exemptions have been removed from the bill.
This is how Levine wrote it, this is his intent
While the first part of the bill applies to impounded dogs and cats, the 2nd part applies to the pets at home. They do not even have to be off your property or misbehaving for this to be applied to them.
So this bill does not only target the bad owners and bad dogs!
Thanks again for addressing these issues.
Comment by Fiona Bennett — June 26, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
Gina wrote:
“Your imaginings of free-roaming animal-rights vigilantes with Animal Control programmed into their cell phone speed dial don’t really worry me, realistically speaking. I have had an actual people-menacing dog on my street, and couldn’t get County AC out for five hours. Imagine the response anyone will get for reporting a lesser transgression, from any agency as chronically underfunded as Animal Controls tend to be…”
Had somebody raised this concern with me at the beginning of 2007, I might have said the same thing. AB 1634 has been the vehicle for my crash course into the sometimes ugly reality of pet-law related issues.
I’ve read a number of stories on the various pet law email lists describing egregious abuses by animal control authorities. Most of these stories are relayed by those who experienced them first hand, or who had a friend or relative experience it.
Some of these stories involve AC impounding one or more dogs, and threatening to kill the dog(s)unless the owner signs a document saying they agree that their dog is vicious, or that they were breeding illegally, or that they will s/n their dog, or they will give up the dog for adoption, or some other admission of guilt and acceptance of penalty. AC does NOT have the legal authority to just order these penalties, but they blackmail dog owners by threatening to kill their dog(s). One wonders why these AC authorities weren’t prosecuted for criminal extortion, it’s that bad.
Now let’s set aside for the moment that these abuses reportedly happen.
Who has been lobbying for “universal” spay/neuter? Mostly it’s been shelters and animal control authorities. The very same people who have spent the last 16 months dismissing all of the reasoned arguments from subject matter experts in the 700+ organizations that oppose AB 1634 are now going to be sympathetic to allowing your dog to keep his gonads? The same people who have been vilifying all of us in the opposition as “greedy breeders” will suddenly sing a different tune? Anyone who has followed this story knows that they hold us in utter contempt.
You need not point out that not all AC authorities are like this. I know that already. There are many fair and reasonable people amongst in their profession. That doesn’t change the fact that there are others in positions of authority who irrationally hate us, who believe all dogs and cats should be sterilized, and who will abuse authority given to them.
Last but not least, the legal framework in the United States of America is one that defines limits on what government may and may not do. Our system of government does not allow unconstitutional powers to be handed to local governments, with assurances not to worry, that authorities won’t abuse these unconstitutional powers. Our system of government is based on the principle that unconstitutional powers are never accorded to government, period. It’s true that sometimes legislatures and executive branches violate this principle. Yet regardless of where one stands on an issue, responsible citizens should oppose unconstitutional power grabs whenever their rear their ugly heads.
AB 1634 as passed by the California state senate committee this week would accord unconstitutional powers to local governments, and we’ve been assured not to worry because only “irresponsible owners” will be targeted. Sorry, that’s not the way lawmaking is supposed to done in the USA.
Many of us in the opposition to AB 1634 proposed specific amendments that would have preserved our constitutional rights while focusing the bill on problem dogs and their owners. We tried to work with the committee and the bill’s sponsors, and they threw us under the bus.
Comment by LauraS — June 26, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
What is a “good breeding practice”? It is what YOU do.. what is a “poor breeding practice’? It what they “other guy” does.You mention you want to become a responsible ethical breeder. I am a breeder and I can tell you.. there is NO SUCH thing.( to the ‘other guy”) No matter what you do and what your values are.. someone will find fault, call YOU irresponsible and unethical , you can bet on it…… so the idea is to do what YOU think is best and devil take the hindmost.
As for AB 1634. It is such bad law it is almost funny. “Complaint driven” laws always are a farce. But to suggest that just because we don’t have enough AC’s to enforce this law now does certainly not mean we won’t in the future. There can be volunteer AC’s ( guess who that would be) and neighborhood watch groups for pets violating a law. ( interestingly pets cannot violate a law.. only the owners can and yet the animals suffer the consequences of surgery)
I would guess that your unneutered neighbor dog will still bolt out the dog even afer being neutered or does neutering work like one of those bands in the ground at the supermarket that stops shoping carts from being taken from the lot ( if this were so obedience training would be so much easier). The premeise that Rover is “looking for love” because he runs out the door is a fallacy and sadly one perpetuated by the AR cause who would like us to believe that every loose dog is in season or is mating and causing shelter numbers to explode. It just is not biologicly so ( at least for dogs).
On farming, you are very lucky, you can afford what you want to eat, can keep your own livestock and choose from a variety of foods. Not everyone in the USA is so lucky. While I do not condone cruely to animals I do condone supplying a safe and inexpensive food source for humans. The price of eggs may not affect you or your diet but it most certianly can affect an elderly person on SS and limited income and thier ability to obtain the necessary protein to remain healthy ( thereby reducing our insurance costs as well). Eggs and other inexpensive sources of protien will become out of range fo many of these people and also the children of poverty level people.
Lis.. many dogs prefer to be left alone, could care less about toys and won’t “play” at “playtime” and are in no way abused. The mothers are called bitches or queens and the get are called puppies and kittens. A “Momma” is what you have..”babies’ are what humans have. There was nothing “ruthless’ about selective breeding. It was done for survival in many cases. A “puppy mill” is what the “other guy” has.. or in your case.. what any “greedy breeder’ has. and one last thing.. you cannot force a bithc to go back inot season by taking the puppies at six weeks.. in fact many experts in dog behavior recommend that pups are removed at this age to minimise the “fear factor’ that sometimes occurs at the 8-10 week stage.
NO ON B 1634 in any form.. a bill that has morphed from Mandatory spay/castrate to making it illegal for anyone to own an intact dog or cat in California.
Comment by bestuvall — June 27, 2008 @ 10:00 am
You could have saved yourself a whole lot of typing by just stating that you are cool with animal cruelty if it provides a cost-effective retail product.
That’s your bottom line. Mine is that I do not support the idea of dogs as livestock or the abuse of livestock to produce food.
As for the cost factor … Americans spend a smaller percentage of their income for food than any other country in the world. That “cheap” food has a high price, since we also lead the world in the health problems related to obesity. In many if not most countries, the poorest people starve. In America, they lose their limbs to diabetes.
Would it not be better to work towards safer, more nutritious, more humane food for all and subsidize the cost for people who can least afford it than to have us ALL support a non-sustainable system based on cruelty?
You’re going to subsidize cheap food either way … with farm subsidies at one end and the cost of healthcare for the uninsured at the other. Why not just help people who need help and overhaul the system?
Then we could ALL have better, safer food, a food system that’s not based on cheap imports, animal cruelty and fossil fuel we can no longer afford. And one that doesn’t have the massive environmental impact of factory farming.
Yeah, it’s a complicated issue. But one we’re having to address more and more as time goes on.
We provided food for ourselves for many, many generations without intensive animal farming, by the way. “Modern” farming methods pretty much date from the end of World War II, when we had a lot of cheap oil and a lot of cheap fertilizer that was being made into bombs to get rid of. Because synthetic fertilizers took the place of organic ones, farms were able to become larger and specialize in monoculture — growing one thing, like corn or soy. Since you didn’t need livestock in the system anymore, it made “sense” to concentrate them as well.
In the long term — aside from the cruelty issues — the system we have is not sustainable.
If we can change it AND have a more humane life for the animals who serve us in this manner, why not do so?
As for my “livestock,” I don’t live on a farm. I live in a normal, suburban house with a normal, suburban lot. With a few chickens and a vegetable garden, as was pretty normal for most people before we handed all food “production” over to agri-business and “experts.”
Even people without a lot of money can have a garden and probably some chickens, by the way. Community gardens thrive in even the most urban of areas, and even my local community urban farm (a couple miles away, and I get a box of nice veggie from them every Friday) has chickens that provide lovely eggs.
A degree of self-sufficiency used to be “The American Way,” and we need to reclaim our heritage.
We are more vulnerable through our concentrated, transportation-dependent food system then we are to a terrorist bombing, because our food system can be sabotaged intentionally, accidentally (through the breakout of disease) or just with a decision made by some greed-head to up the protein content of food ingredients by adding plastic to the mix.
Scary? Damn right.
And for those who keep bringing up my supposed “affluence,” well, you have an extremely interesting view of the money a person who writes about pets can make. I wish I had the money you all seem to imagine I do. I personally eat very little meat, in part because of the cost of it.
Finally, and yet again, I do not support AB 1634 in its new version. And we still have three chances (once in the Senate, once in the conference committe and once on the Governor’s desk) to drive stakes in it.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 27, 2008 @ 10:33 am
Excellent post and I’m hopeful that AB1634 in whatever form is voted down, withdrawn, whatever.
As Marjorie pointed out above, ‘pet overpopulation’ is a myth. Actually, it’s a relatively new theme from the militant animal rights camp because it opens the door to laws like AB1634 and other mandatory sterilization legislation. It also provides an easy excuse for shelter workers who kill all the animals every year.
I never accepted this lie, partly due to my familiarity with shelters and rescues over the decades.
You are absolutely right, Gina, that by allowing the animal-killers to do the framing, we have fallen down on the job. Their longstanding stealth campaign is starting to pay off.
It’s never too late to fight for our pets’ lives though. Today would be a good time to start.
Comment by Caveat — June 27, 2008 @ 11:04 am
Lis.. many dogs prefer to be left alone, could care less about toys and won’t “play” at “playtime” and are in no way abused.
Most dogs who display these characteristics are the product socially-deprived environments—they grew up in cages without canine or human companionship. And many of them do learn to play and have fun, as they begin to feel safe and learn to trust the people and dogs around them in their new homes.
The mothers are called bitches or queens and the get are called puppies and kittens. A “Momma” is what you have..”babies’ are what humans have.
English is fairly unusual in having separate words for these things for each species, actually. Even German, English’s closest relative, uses the same words for these relationships regardless of species.
I love the variety of English vocabulary, but biologically, the relationships are the same—especially when we’re talking about other social mammals.
There was nothing “ruthless’ about selective breeding. It was done for survival in many cases.
Compelling reasons doesn’t mean it was any less ruthless. Dogs that loved being with people and responded well to training were favored, protected, and bred. Dogs that didn’t, weren’t, and in fact were often culled. And that’s beeng going on for 14,000 years, with dogs, maybe nine or ten thousand years with cats.
Genetics plays a large role in forming basic personality. Dogs and cats are what we have made them, and depriving them of what we have created them to require is cruel.
A “puppy mill” is what the “other guy” has.. or in your case.. what any “greedy breeder’ has. and one last thing..
No, it’s not all relative and subjective. Smears against people who provide love, medical care, and a healthy environment for animals who are carefully screened for temperament and health before being bred, are not the same as people who raise dogs or cats in cages of the minimum size required by the USDA with its livestock-based standards, and give them no love, attention or care. People who sell a kitten or puppy to anyone who has an enough room on their credit card, at a significant markup from the cost expended to produce the “merchandise,” are not the same as people who carefully screen every potentional home, trying to ensure that the kitten or puppy will be safe and happy, and who provide a safety net in the form of a return clause that means the animal always has a home to go to, if the buyers can’t or own’t keep it, and who charge a price that sort kinda almost covers their costs.
And another point: dogs or cats who actually did do well with life in a cage, without human contact, or canine or feline companionship except for breeding, would not, given the huge role that genetics plays in personality, be the best candidates to produce well-adjusted family pets.
you cannot force a bithc to go back inot season by taking the puppies at six weeks..
Take away the babies, and she stops lactating. Stop the lactating, and the biological process that sends her back into heat resumes. Granted, this is a bigger deal with cats, who in the right conditions can be pregnant, nursing, or in heat almost continuously. But it will shave a week or so off the process for dogs, too.
in fact many experts in dog behavior recommend that pups are removed at this age to minimise the “fear factor’ that sometimes occurs at the 8-10 week stage.
Give me three cites to genuine experts not paid by the puppy/kitten mill industry who say that this is a good idea. (Bet you can’t find one.) With toy breed dogs, the recommendation is to keep the pups with momma until at least ten weeks.
Oh, and last point: no one here actually supports the new version of AB 1634. Some of us just don’t hate it quite as bad as the original version.
Comment by Lis — June 27, 2008 @ 11:21 am
The last version of AB 1634 was bad. Why do you think this one is not so bad?
The last version had exemptions. This one has none.
I do not subscribe to the “free-roaming animal-rights vigilantes with Animal Control programmed into their cell phone speed dial” either, but how about this scenario
You are going through a BAD divorce. Your ex has taken up with a Bimbo and already has stolen your cat. Cat disappeared - you believe he took it over to HER house, but can not prove it. Cat has never wandered before! You have moved out with your dogs. Hubby does not want the dogs, but wants to make your life miserable and knows how much you adore them, so is using them as a way to get to you. In court you are trying to work out the settlement He gets the house, so has to pay you money. He is a skin flint and so is trying to make that amount as SMALL as possible so he is claiming that the dogs are worth $1000 each and so you owe him money over them.
I have a friend, whose story this is - she is going through this right now.
Do you suppose that it is beyond the B@$!@&d to call in a fictitious complaint against you to get AC to come out?
By the new version of this bill, if he does that to you 3 times, AC can take your dogs and castrate them or give them a hysterectomy!
Remember your ex is trying to wound you and knows he can do that through your dogs!
In many places AC will not come out when you call as others have stated. However, what do you think they will do if they will get MONEY for doing so into their coffers?
Now rethink this bill
It makes keeping a cat or dog with its reproductive organs intact illegal, period, no exemptions for service dogs, show dogs, farm dogs, old or sick dogs!!
Comment by Fiona Bennett — June 27, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
For the 654,234th time, I do not support the “new” AB 1634. It’s a bad piece of legislation, and we still need to work to defeat it.
The California Legislature is basically inactive for the next month, but we’ll update when it’s time to call, snail-mail and fax.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 27, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
Sorry Gina
I should have made it clear that I was replying to this comment by Lis — June 27, 2008 @ 11:21 am
“Oh, and last point: no one here actually supports the new version of AB 1634. Some of us just don’t hate it quite as bad as the original version.”
Thanks again for running this forum for us to discuss these things and air our concerns
Appreciatively yours
Fiona
Comment by Fiona Bennett — June 28, 2008 @ 10:15 am
I’ve read the bill (several times). I’m not that upset about the requirement for neutering strays after the third “pickup”. I’d like to see a provision regarding natural disasters, vandalism or similar “outside owner’s control” exemptions but if that was ALL the bill had, it could be tolerated. Unfortunately, changing “The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is the subject of a complaint shall be cited and pay a civil penalty as provided in this section” to “MAY” doesn’t do anything. It just makes it up to the WHIM of the officer issuing the citation. A citation is for something that is ILLEGAL. It should not be to create unequal justice under the law — one rule for those with intact animals and another for everyone else.
Lyndon Johnson once said: You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.
— based on that, 1634 is a bill that should not be passed.
Peggy Richter
Comment by Peggy Richter — July 1, 2008 @ 9:34 pm
>Lyndon Johnson once said: You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.
***
I had never heard that one before, but I will certainly remember it now. Thanks!
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 1, 2008 @ 10:00 pm
Unless I am mistaken, the code 30804.7 currently has a provision which absolves all civil liability for the city/county,etc in regard to any civil claim. Therefore if they allow frivolous claims to come through, and act on such claims, the owner(s)have no recourse and the city/county etc has no liability. There is a case from the CA 4th DCA which addressed the issue when FA 30404.7 didn’t contain reference to altering—and it found the city/county was not immune. But if they add in altering, and that provision is there, it will insulate them from any civil claim. I certainly hope all reading this realize what this means? See http://www.petdefense.wordpress.com if you don’t understand, just in case…
Comment by s kennedy — July 2, 2008 @ 12:23 am
I love Gin’s summation of what the agriculture crowd says: “anything-goes-and-agribiz-knows”
To be clear, it’s not this way with factory farming alone. It’s also this way with illegal immigration and its antecedent, slavery.
Finally, 10 points to the folks at http://saveourdogs.net and their very well-done letter at >> http://saveourdogs.net/documen.....ionLG2.pdf
That’s GOOD lobbying.
Patrick
Comment by PBurns — July 10, 2008 @ 1:20 pm