CA AB 1634 PASSES COMMITTEE ON PARTISAN VOTE, 4/24/07

Ocracoke Island, NC has a great catch/spay-neuter and release program.
Every store, giftshops....even gas stations have donation jars for that, and you will see many cats roaming and literally just hanging out.
The folks on the island realized quickly the benefit of keeping cats around.......less rodents.

 
I am curious about something.  If they have a really good program then the number of ferals should be going down.  Do you know whether it is or not?
 

I am curious about something. If they have a really good program then the number of ferals should be going down. Do you know whether it is or not?

I can't make a statement on the numbers, I don't live there, I was there on vacation. But, it would seem to me Ocra coke being an island that eventually the number of reproducing cats could be brought under control.
The folks I spoke to seemed to be pleased and all around accepting of the cats.

I'll start by saying that I'm not in support of this bill, but I did want to provide the following amendment that was taken on Apr 17th.  I think it will address the issue of dogs who are in the state for a dog show:
 
[linkhttp://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm]http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm[/link]
 
 
 (e) Any owner of a cat or dog who is not a resident of
California and who brings a cat or dog into California from outside
the state shall be exempted from the permit requirements set forth in
this chapter if the owner provides proof, as determined by the local
jurisdiction or its authorized animal control agency, that he or she
moved from another state or country after April 1, 2008. For
purposes of this subdivision, proof may include, but need not be
limited to, a valid driver's license from another state.

I sent a letter to the democratic caucus even as an OH resident.  I also plan on donating to the Pet PAC that has been developed.

Cathy,
 
That sounds like the dog show exemption.  Allows people from out of state to just visit with their unaltered pets.  Looks like it is good as long as you have a out of state license.  But then again I am no lawyer.
 
 

Cathy,

That sounds like the dog show exemption. Allows people from out of state to just visit with their unaltered pets. Looks like it is good as long as you have a out of state license. But then again I am no lawyer.

 
That's what I think too, and I didn't know if people were looking at the most current (amended) version of the bill.  I know from experience that when you receive opposition letters that relate to issues that have already been addressed, the ltr is tossed to the side.  I just don't want anyone wasting their time on an issue that seems to have been rectified. 

[Deleted by Admins]

Respectfully I disagree.  This is the first step in the banning of many breeds from pet ownership.  The law is meant to bring into compliance individuals who do not comply with the existing laws.  Start a door to door champaign to license all dogs, heck get a DNA sample and have it on file to check for reproduction. 

This bill has no provisions for enforcement in the form of funding.  Another unfunded mandate will be no more successful addressing the problem than ones presently in place.

Yes Goldens are too popular and over bred.  However, there are many less common dogs with a limited gene pool, those animals could be lost.

How will all this mandatory spaying and neutering be funded?  California has so many issues to address from an economic standpoint, I doubt this will get high priority.

This bill is also economically discriminatory.  The less well off will could be forced out of ownership and participation in dog sport.  There are only so many dollars to go around.

The unintended consequences of this particular bill could be catastrophic and the trend has always been what happens in CA travels east.   So, if this doesn't work, and only responsible owners comply (which is what commonly happens anyway), will the same supporters work to repeal the act?

My greatest objection to this law deals with the attempt to legislate moral behavior.  People in this country have long had economic freedom that has been extended to the breeding of dogs.  Some folks had dogs bred for money, others for equally poor reasons.  The individuals who would comply are already following a number of those procedures outlined in the law.  I would bet a good chunk of dogs who end up in shelters and euthanized were from unlicensed parents to begin with. 

I firmly and completely believe the answer is to enforce the laws currently on the books, not write restrictive, discriminary new legislation funded by political action committess driven by organizations committed to the end of pet ownership period.

ORIGINAL: mrv

This bill has no provisions for enforcement in the form of funding.  Another unfunded mandate will be no more successful addressing the problem than ones presently in place.

 
I believe funding is in the bill---local jurisdictions have the right to set the fees for intact permits and use that money for paying for the other things in the bill. So, set the intact fee at $200 and you'll see quite an uptick in your income. Really want to discourage intact dogs? Set it at $500.
 
At least, letting the towns decide how much to charge was in the last version of the bill I read.
 
If this passes I am guessing that some group will be already geared up for a court challenge. Allowing each jurisdiction to determine which dogs and which registries are allowable, and the ability to set whatever fees they want is a huge red flag. Passing a law which allows such unequal and varied levels of enforcement should be challenged.
 
BTW I am opposed to it for many other reasons---but these seem to the best reasons to get it wiped out if it is passed.
 
What makes me craziest is that commercial breeders will be able to turn out pups as fast as they want---and may actually see an increase in business. These dogs are still going to end up in shelters---but not as puppies, as 8 month old dogs as someone else pointed out.
 
[:@]
 
If they really want to cut down on dogs in shelters, have folks pass a test similar to a driver's license to show they know how to take care of a dog.  Educate eople about dog laws, the risks of breeding, etc. as part of this. Offer classes about dog care similar to driver's ed and have reg. fees help pay for them---or get the HSUS to offer to sponsor them.
 
Would this stop every BYB? No. But it would stop many good people who have no clue and think since Fluffy is so cute, Fluffy should have a chance to be a mommy. It would also help the folks who have no clue what "in heat" means. Plus, you could include behavioral stuff like socialization and bite inhibition.
 
Broken down into simple bite-sized chunks with only the most important information there, it could make a real difference.
 
But the folks in CA pushing for this are NOT trying to help people become more knowledgeable, better dog owners. They want to use a punitive method to force people to alter their pets to stop breeding.
 
I am not advocating a dog license exam, I just wanted to point out that there are alternatives to this which would have more positives than negatives.

ORIGINAL: chmissgingerisfancy

Goldens are SO incredibly and terribly overbred, that I refuse to add to the problem.  So I will continue to prove my dog's excellent lineage as representatives of their breed, but I will not add more Goldens in to this world simply because I can.

I see this bill as a necessary step, albeit a SMALL step, to stop unwanted breedings of more and more puppies.  Many people will alter their dog out of fear of a steeper fee, and thus, one less litter.  And that is what counts in the end.  One less litter. 
And NO, this bill WILL NOT wiep out the entire dog or cat population.  That thinking is simply ludicrous.  Those who support this bill support saving dogs lives and stopping stupid wreckless breeding practices.

 
First, IF you had an outstanding golden with many, many titles, health clearances, etc. it would be a good idea to breed it. Saying "I am not going to breed one of the best dogs in the US because there are so many other, lesser dogs" out there is ludicrous.
 
If the top breeders in each breed chose not to breed because of puppy mill dogs, the breeds would be ruined. The breeds would spiral downwards as the top breeders kennel lines died out and then lesser dogs became considered the best--and so they stop breeding.
 
Second, you are correct that this bill alone will not wipe out the pet population. However, that is the goal of some parties involved with it. Parties who know they cannot wipe out all pets with one law and instead must take one step at a time.
 
Do I think they will succeed? I hope not.
 
Do I want to reduce the number of homeless pets in the US? Absolutely. Is this the way to do it? Allowing commercial breeders a pass and regulating everyone else? NO!
 
It is more than "one less litter" because how you get to that "one less" matters too.
 
 
 

Respectfully, I doubt the revenues with be as much as would be necessary to support low cost clinics and enforcement.  I am just to much of a skeptic about what income will really be generated to allow agencies to actually enforce what is required.
 
The hobby breeder who is practicing good strategies and demonstrates ethical behavior on breeding (the most common type of breeder in my breeds of choice) will be financially penalized.  As you stated, commercial breeders get to skate on by.  If  that is not discriminatory, I dont know what is.
 
Check the licensing compliance at the current lower costs, I remain extremely skeptical this bill will improve upon that.  Too bad, I really like California wines and produce.  Really had planned to vacation there as well.  Oh well, my dollars will just go else where.

also believe no dog should compete rigorously in performance events without first making sure the dog is fit, healthy, and able to compete, thus completing the necessary health screeings successfully. Showing an altered dog in agility seems foolish to me because you may not even know it has early hip displaysia forming.

**Content Removed personal attack**

Message removed by Timsdat since original post responded to was removed by admin.
 

[Deleted by Admins]

I have five dogs competing in agility, and three of those are altered. My dogs have numerous high titles. I compete in agility because it is fun, challenging, and my dogs love it.

**Content Removed**

[Deleted by Admins]