Faxes and phone calls: AB 1634 still a bad bill
By Gina Spadafori
July 10, 2008
It’s no longer carrying the ridiculous moniker of the California Healthy Pets Act.
It’s now billed as a tool for helping local officials deal with nuisance pets by forcing owners to neuter them.
But California’s AB 1634 is still bad legislation, still really the California Pet Extinction Act, with too many hooks that seem innocently or conveniently placed to punish responsible, law-abiding pet owners and reputable, ethical breeders.
We have a couple more chances to kill this piece of crap developed by animal-rights advocates and carried along by well-intentioned animal-lovers who can’t get past the sound bites to understand why mandatory spay-neuter does not work, and how it distracts from the more important causes of shelter reform. There’s even a case to be made — as Nathan Winograd charges — that mandatory spay-neuter will increase the killing, since some people will give up their animals to animal control rather than take a citation. Those pets will be killed as unwanted — which they weren’t at all — while the people who gave them up will go to the flea-market or pet store, neighbor, relative or casual backyard breeder and get another pet.
Wash, rinse, repeat.
The bill comes before the Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday, which means it’s time to fax and phone. Pet Pac has the information.
Thanks to Terrierman for pointing out this letter from the folks at SaveOurDogs.net. The letter lays out how the bill as it stands now needs to be changed to truly be about targeting irresponsible pet-owners while leaving responsible owners and reputable breeders alone. The fact that the pro-1634 forces aren’t interested in fixing the problems with this bill as much as they are with fixing your pet, whether you like it or not, tells you what’s really going on.
How much more control of our lives are we willing to give up to the government? Seems more is chipped away every day, and no one says a thing. From the Save Our Dogs letter:
AB 1634 also contains no recognition of Californians’ Constitutional right to Due Process. In no circumstance may government fine or otherwise penalize its citizens without access to a process of administrative, civil, or criminal hearings to determine culpability and allow the accused to make their case. Yet AB 1634 establishes a system whereby unsubstantiated complaints, impoundments that had mitigating circumstances, and no system of Due Process would result in fines or government-ordered sterilization of dogs. This would amount to state-sanctioned vigilantism.
Say something.
The health decisions you make for your pet should be between you and your veterinarian, not slammed down on you by the state without any right to a hearing to establish the legitimacy of the complaints.
Call.
Fax.
End it.
If you’re just coming to this issue via this post, know this: I’ve never bred a litter. I have owned dogs I’ve trained and shown to titles in multiple areas of competition. I’ve run a breed rescue, and taught obedience classes. I have rescued pets and ones I’ve bought from and co-own with reputable breeders, and I’ve co-owned one champion, field-titled dog who has sired a litter. I’ve spayed and neutered almost every pet I’ve ever owned, but it was my decision to do so — not the state’s.
This is a bad bill that may make things worse and certainly will not make anything better, just as the previous version was. Forced spay-neuter stands in the way of the no-kill revolution and shelter reform that really does help people and pets. Let’s move on to what really will change things, without eliminating our heritage breeds and our working dogs and without possibly making things worse for all pets.
Here are all the previous posts on forced spay-neuter laws.
I appreciate this post very much. Your initial reaction was that it didn’t see too bad.. and indeed just reading the bill it doesn’t seem so. But on reading some very plausible interpretations of what dreadful things might happen, especially if courts accept Levine’s “legislative intent” b.s., I’ve come to the same conclusion as you. Crap is too mild a word.
Comment by EmilyS — July 10, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
Well … to be fair, I never endorsed the “new” AB 1634. But I’ve decided that even if it’s not enforced widely, it still could be capriciously enforced. It does seem to make altering the default position for all animals, even if it won’t be enforced without “cause.” It offers no out for working dogs and those working to preserve heritage breeds. And it still does not address what’s really at the root of why animals end up in shelters and doesn’t come out alive.
Man, that’s a bad bill. We can argue until the cows come home or not if it’s better or worse than before, but in the end … it doesn’t matter. It’s still a bad bill.
So … yes, I’ll be sending my faxes and making my calls … again … and again if it lands on the governor’s desk.
Maybe once it’s finally dead, we can work on community no-kill solutions that help people and pets, instead of punish both.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 10, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
I’ll make some calls tomorrow. We have someone trying to intro BSL yet again along with anti-tethering (NYC and other municipalities), so I’ll be working both states tomorrow. The guy got PETA involved this time. {sigh}
Comment by straybaby — July 10, 2008 @ 11:32 pm
It was announced today that AB 1634 is bypassing the Appropriations Committee and going straight to the full California state Senate for a floor vote. Levine is fast-tracking this bill in an attempt to keep us from mounting our opposition in time to stop it.
Californians should contact their state Senator NOW and voice their strong opposition to this bill. Burn down their fax machines and overwhelm their phone lines with your polite opposition. It worked last year, when we stopped the “old” AB 1634 from advancing.
The only thing that will stop this bill from passing in the California state legislature is tens of thousands of citizens in opposition. After over a year working on this, it’s clear that this legislature cannot be persuaded by logic and reason. They respond when we tie up their fax machines and phone lines with an overwhelming volume of opposition.
How to contact your state senator http://saveourdogs.net/
Policy objections: http://saveourdogs.net/documen.....ionLG2.pdf
[note: the points are still valid, though it is too late to ask for the amendments mentioned in this letter]
Fiscal objections: http://saveourdogs.net/documen.....eAppro.pdf
Comment by LauraS — July 11, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
Great post.
Would faxing from out of town (Ontario) help or hurt the cause, do you think? I’m willing to voice my concerns but don’t want to muddy the waters.
Comment by Caveat — July 11, 2008 @ 5:22 pm
I dunno …
Don’t think it will pull much weight with the senators, but it might influence the governor if the bill lands on his desk.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 11, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
Funny, everyone claimed AB 1634 was dead..Petpac, you, CDOC, etc. And you’re saying it worked last year (burning up their faxes to kill it), but it’s still alive this year. So really it never died, so really burning up their faxes didn’t work, nor did your argugments against it. Isn’t that the real situation? There is no new AB 1634, it’s a two year session, it’s the same bill but has been amended, and the fact is, it’s never been dead.
Comment by jerry — July 11, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
It’s the same bill number with new bill language. You can go here to bring up the bill history and look at the changes.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 11, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
Ok, we’re in agreement. It’s just that you reported it was dead a while back and so did others, when technically it has never been dead…to be dead a bill would need to be voted down and this bill never has. In a two year session a bill gets a number and can go through many changes, but it is AB 1634, it is about spay and neuter and has never been dead. That was my point. So to your point of what worked last year (i.e. burning up the fax machines) that really did not work, because it didn’t kill the bill.
Comment by jerry — July 11, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
Well … it worked in that AB 1634 as originally written by Levine was completely re-written to get out of the Senate committee.
However, the language that replaced it is still not anything I can support, for reasons articulated earlier.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — July 11, 2008 @ 7:36 pm
Hmmmm, it seems like they only got mad and worked with the author, it didn’t kill it, it got the committee chair to actually join the other side. I’m afraid it’s not working.
Comment by jerry — July 11, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
Oh a troll. Shocking, Don’t folks have better things to do?
Self answering question!
Comment by JenniferJ — July 11, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
Actually, I find the new wording even worse for the reasons pointed out in the letter Gina posted.
I’ll send a note to a relative who lives in CA and ask him to send it along to the Senators and Ahnuld.
Unlike Jerry, I think that a loud, reasoned, sustained voice from a lot of people can make a difference. Even stalling it year by year while more info comes out about Peta and the AR gang who are behind it in the media outlets is worthwhile imo. This war won’t be won with one battle on one front but we can win it eventually.
And yeah, Jerry, we all thought the Bill was dead initially but a quick read-through revealed that it was undead - and even more unconstitutional than the first iteration. That’s how stealth campaigns work - red herrings, disinformation, a false sense of security, duplicity. Duh.
Comment by Caveat — July 12, 2008 @ 6:37 am