S/N bill pulled.

Local government entities, need to get off their butts...go out and do some work...and enforce their own laws...and gather info on the situations unique to their areas...and base any new laws on that.

I think this may be the most significant statement I've seen in regards to this bill. I too feel that the biggest problem is that like almost all nanny state legislation in CA, it will make things worse by treating the problem as if it were ONLY what is in seen in one part of the state (usually LA - the old saying was - "If it burns in LA, NoCal pays").

One famous example of state politics crippling local governments was Prop 13 - pressure to get this passed from the metro areas meant that small towns in other parts of the state could not assess property taxes to match growth and demand for services. I am totally not a tax supporter, but that really didn't make sense. I was nine when they passed that and we lived in a small community that was experiencing a huge boom. In order to be able to provide basic services with the reduced income, they had to cut things like swimming lessons at the rec center. You bet I remember that.

A friend of mine was pointing out that 47% of euthanasias in LA county are pit bulls and pit bull mixes. There's little connection between those dogs and the responsible breeders who oppose this bill and ones like it. The breeding of those dogs will go on regardless of what official action is taken to make life difficult for those who play by the rules. And, limiting the actions of responsible breeders will simply mean that more irresponsible puppy sales will take place - pet stores, back yard breeders, brokers. More puppies placed irresponsibly means MORE dogs in shelters.

Nobody is happy about animals PTS in shelters.

 
I know that Janet, but when I saw the press and news stories with people cheering in front of the capitol yesterday, it felt like the issue was being forgotten. 
 

One famous example of state politics crippling local governments was Prop 13

 
Yep, and I was in a small town that also suffered from the passage.  I was attending the community college and they cut summer school classes.  I was an avid library user and suddenly they were only open 2-3 days a week and only for a few hours.  
 
I hope that Levine, or any other legislator who's been involved in this, will take the information they've no doubt been given the last few months and try to come up with a better plan.  All of these legislators have local districts that they could help to implement changes in. 

From California State Senator Dave Cox's Senate Report:   July 2007:
   
AB 1634 (Levine), which would have required the spaying or neutering of privately owned dogs or cats, was withdrawn by its author at the Senate Local Government Committee hearing on July 11 th.  It cannot be considered again until January of 2008.
 
If a vote had been taken at that hearing, I would have voted against this bill.  As a proud pet owner myself, I do not feel that it is the business of the State of California to tell individuals how to take care of their personal pets. In addition, the mandate on cities and counties to provide spaying and neutering services was required without state funds to perform such services.  A one-size-fits-all type of solution to the pet overpopulation problem does not work well in rural areas where dogs are raised for work in farming and ranching operations.
 
AB 1634 generated an immense amount of interest on both sides from the people of California and the people of the First Senate District.

cakana

I know that Janet, but when I saw the press and news stories with people cheering in front of the capitol yesterday, it felt like the issue was being forgotten.

I assure you that the shelter overpopulation problem is not being forgotten.  If Levine did nothing else, he gave the folks that are opposed to mandatory s/n a strong push to implement other programs.
 
I understand why people cheering could dismay you, but a bill that required local governments to come up with enforcement money would be very unpopular with a lot of folks.  Add to that the severe problems and dubious benefits of the bill and a lot of people were really angry about the whole thing.

Before the Californian Legislature this year there are 1,750 Assembly Bills, see list at this address:-
[linkhttp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/index_assembly_bill_author_topic]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/index_assembly_bill_author_topic[/link]
 
There are also over 1,000 Senate Bills, see list at this address:-
[linkhttp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/index_senate_bill_author_topic]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/index_senate_bill_author_topic[/link]
 
Due to the overall Legislative workload and the available time during this current sitting, Bill AB 1634 along with heaps of other Bills will have to be put on "hold" till a Later Legislature Sitting.
 
The Senators on the committee acknowledged as a group that there is a pet overpopulation problem that must be addressed in California. The Committee indicated that they are willing to work with both sides to make the necessary adjustments to the Bill in order to advance it through their Committee. Although the Bill's supporters would have preferred that the Bill be immediately processed and had left the Committee during this Current Sitting, but unfortunately that's not the case, and under Senate Rules will be attended to in a Later Legislature Sitting where it will be brough out of "hold" and processed according to Senate Rules, and this applies to the heaps of other Bills that also have been ut on "hold".