CVMA withdrawals support for AB1634

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8
The constant claim by the anti crowd that this law won't work by people that don't even live in California, shows that they know it will work, and that if it passes, it will soon be in their state when the voters see how much money can be saved by S/N laws.

No, it shows that people understand that politicans won't wait to see if the bill works.  They will pass similar bills to show that they are "doing something", rather than spending the effort to examine the programs that are working without draconian measures.
 

ORIGINAL:  newspaper columnist Patt Morrison
[font="verdana"]There's one business the bill is anti: illegal, underground animal breeding — all those backyard puppy mills churning out defective Dalmatians or border collies or whatever purse-sized dog happens to be hot.

[/font]
Leaving aside the fact that many of the BYBers are not currently illegal, Morrison is right that the shelters might get less pups if the law can be enforced - Oh yeh, there is no funding.  Right now people have no reason to hide, but AB1634 would give them one.  That means more time and money to find them.  It means more search warrants and court cases.
 
People who have pups will not find it easier to "dispose" of the pups (drown them, abandon them in the boonies, leave them in public places in the middle of the night, sell them to unscrupulous puppy brokers, etc.) than to come up with the means (money, transportation, effort) to spay.  Yeh, anybody believe that?  But that's OK, just keep the pups out of the shelters.
 
Californians would still get all the puppies they wanted because the pups would come in from all borders and from the big, unregulated uppy mills in California.  With AB1634 politicans could reduce the number of small pups PTS in shelters, but that doesn't mean that the pups that would have been PTS don't die elsewhere.  Some of them might have had a chance at a shelter.

With the millions of dollars the state will save in shelters they will be able to hire the best enforcement people they can find, and still have money left over.

The argument that the law won't work and yet states will rush to get a similar law just doesn't make any sense. If the law doesn't work, then any new law will be opposed using the fact that it doesn't work  as the main  reason that it shouldn't be enacted.  That is not want the anti 1634 folks are worried about.  They are  terrified  that it will work and then other states will adopt it. That is their biggest fear. 

ORIGINAL: janet_rose

[font="verdana"]When I asked and reasked what specific parts of the bill were a deal breaker for the association, he could not come up with any answer. That shows me that he didn't have a good answer to give me.

[/font]
[font="verdana"]He couldn't give you a "good" answer because there was no "specific" part.  The CVMA leadership supported a bill that their members objected to in principle. [/font]
  
[font="verdana"]Here we go!!  The CVMA has a new president.  Dr. Faoro was ousted or persuaded to resign.
 
CVMA - AB 1634 Update  (the "recent" meeting was June 22nd)
[link>http://www.cvma.net/doc.asp?ID=3189]www.cvma.net/doc.asp?ID=3189[/link][/size]

On July 2, the CVMA Board of Governors reviewed the latest amendments to AB 1634, the California Healthy Pets Act, and moved from a co-sponsor to a neutral position.

The bill was a major topic of discussion at the recent joint Board of Governors and House of Delegates meeting in Anaheim.  During the joint session of the Board and House, then-CVMA President Dr. Ron Faoro presented a history of the bill, addressed the concerns that members have raised and discussed some of the amendments that were being considered. 

[/font]

When you object to something " in principle", you have to have some specific parts of the bill that are of concern , unless your objection to the bill is based on a reason that you don't want to admit, like political or financial pressure. I think that the CVMA buckled under the pressure, never thinking that there would be a backlash from the proAB1634 folks and the issue would " go away". 

I think people should contact the CVMA and let them know how you feel about their bailing out on AB1634.  

Bobsk8

They caved to pressure from the anti folks, is probably the bottom line, but I don't think it will have much of an effect on the bill passing.

The bill barely squeaked by in the House with CVMA support.  How could the withdrawal of a major sponsor not have a big impact?  
 
How could any legislator actually vote for a bill that now generates free puppies?

How could any legislator actually vote for a bill that now generates free puppies

 
They did pull that out of the latest revision on the 3rd.
 

Bobsk8

When you object to something "in principle", you have to have some specific parts of the bill that are of concern , unless your objection to the bill is based on a reason that you don't want to admit, like political or financial pressure.

Malarkey!  One could just be opposed to mandatory s/n. 

Bobsk8

I think that the CVMA buckled under the pressure, never thinking that there would be a backlash from the proAB1634 folks and the issue would " go away".

I think people should contact the CVMA and let them know how you feel about their bailing out on AB1634.

The CVMA answers to the vets in the organization - not to the general public.  They may listen, but it won't change anything.  You would have to talk to the vets.

timsdat

janet_rose

How could any legislator actually vote for a bill that now generates free puppies

They did pull that out of the latest revision on the 3rd.

Whoops!  Missed a version.      Glad to hear that they removed something that nutty from the proposed bill.  It really made them look stupid.

I just received a forwarded  email from an agility judge who is with the Anti 1634 crowd Here is an example of the tactics the anti folks are using to try and fight AB1634.  This is a portion of the email:
[font="sans-serif"]

We are carefully reviewing the new amendments especially the "one litter
per dog in its lifetime." Believe me when I say that this is coming from
left field and that these were not what we expected. We knew coming out of
the Assembly that Levine had mentioned litter limits. We were under the
impression it would be one litter per year, not one litter per animal for
its entire life.

As soon as we hear back from the legal departments, you can bet that there
will be additional information about addressing these amendments in
letters. We still need to be sure that all organizations and clubs write
their letters of opposition with the heading "OPPOSE AS AMENDED ON JUNE
27, 2007" and that they are on letterhead.

I cannot stress how important it is to get these letters out to the
consultant for the senate committee. Remember that an organization does
not have any membership requirement- - if you train dogs, put your logo on
a letter and send it out as "Such and Such Dog Training." If you walk your
dog with a couple of friends, it is easy to create the "Fluffy Dog Walkers
of Kalamazoo" with a logo created in Microsoft Office.

In other words, the email is encouraging people to not tell the truth when they contact the senate committee.  It is amazing what people will stoop to when money is involved. 

The constant claim by the anti crowd that this law won't work by people that don't even live in California, shows that they know it will work, and that if it passes, it will soon be in their state when the voters see how much money can be saved by S/N laws.

 
Normally I don't respond to your posts, because it's not worth the effort-but this time you're spreading some serious malarky. 
 
How much money will truly be saved?  Let's see.  If you figure that whatever professional breeders will get their licenses/exemptions, feral cats won't be touched, more pups will be smuggled into CA from every direction possible, and even figuring that a minority of owners will be scofflaws-thus needing more AC officers on the street, and more court cases will be needed for the prosecution of scofflaws.  And these are things off the top of my head, a criminal will be able to exploit every weakness of the law in a heartbeat.
 
How much money will be saved Bob?  A dollar?  Maybe two or three?  Hardly.  This bill will COST MORE MONEY to taxpayers in California.  I'm hardly an expert but I do know that there's no such thing as a free lunch, nor a free law. 

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

The constant claim by the anti crowd that this law won't work by people that don't even live in California, shows that they know it will work, and that if it passes, it will soon be in their state when the voters see how much money can be saved by S/N laws.

Normally I don't respond to your posts, because it's not worth the effort-but this time you're spreading some serious malarky. 

How much money will truly be saved?  Let's see.  If you figure that whatever professional breeders will get their licenses/exemptions, feral cats won't be touched, more pups will be smuggled into CA from every direction possible, and even figuring that a minority of owners will be scofflaws-thus needing more AC officers on the street, and more court cases will be needed for the prosecution of scofflaws.  And these are things off the top of my head, a criminal will be able to exploit every weakness of the law in a heartbeat.

How much money will be saved Bob?  A dollar?  Maybe two or three?  Hardly.  This bill will COST MORE MONEY to taxpayers in California.  I'm hardly an expert but I do know that there's no such thing as a free lunch, nor a free law. 

California spends about $2,500,000 per year taking care of discarded animals. The cost for the last 10 years to the state of California is 2,750,000,000.  ( That is two billion seven hundred and fifty million dollars)  I think that is a tad more than a dollar or two.

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8


California spends about $2,500,000 per year taking care of discarded animals.  I think that is more than a dollar or two.

 
And that will change?  Hardly.  What's the number of registered animals that are discarded?  This law is unenforceable and will cost more than $2.5M to the taxpayers.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

ORIGINAL: Bobsk8


California spends about $2,500,000 per year taking care of discarded animals.  I think that is more than a dollar or two.

And that will change?  Hardly.  What's the number of registered animals that are discarded?  This law is unenforceable and will cost more than $2.5M to the taxpayers.

We will see how enforceable it is once it goes into effect. 

We will see how enforceable it is once it goes into effect.

 
I notice that you're not in CA. 
 
I also notice that you didn't respond to the number of "discarded animals" that were unregistered.  Since you're probably not aware of this, I figured I'd share it with you.  I think you'd be astounded to know that over 40% of companion animals are NOT registered, and thus this CA law would NOT be enforceable.  Ok, so they nab JQP two or three times a month-hardly a dent in the over population.
 
 

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

We will see how enforceable it is once it goes into effect.

I notice that you're not in CA. 

I also notice that you didn't respond to the number of "discarded animals" that were unregistered.  Since you're probably not aware of this, I figured I'd share it with you.  I think you'd be astounded to know that over 40% of companion animals are NOT registered, and thus this CA law would NOT be enforceable.  Ok, so they nab JQP two or three times a month-hardly a dent in the over population.

I really doubt that you live in California either.  By the way, what has that to do with my thinking that this law is a great idea.  When it is successful in California, then many of us in Georgia are going to push for the state legislature to enact the same type of law in our state.  I am tired of hearing about thousands of animals being executed in our shelters all over the state of Georgia, some of them in Gas Chambers. This law has worked in Santa Cruz ( despite the fabricated numbers that NAIA and Petpac tried to claim were truthfull), and it will work for the rest of the state.  This is what has the anti people terrified.  If they thought it wouldn't work, they would even bother to discuss the issue. One minute the Anti 1634 folks  claim it won't work, and in the very next breath they are telling people that pets will disappear because of the law...   Kinda funny, when you think about it.....[sm=lol.gif]

I really doubt that you live in California either.

 
I don't, but I've a good many friends that show who do live in CA.   So this law, IMO is ridiculous for the reasons I've stated, as well as for the show-dog owner that isn't a breeder. 
 
So how much money do you think it will cost to enforce this law?  Less than $2.5M?
 

I live in California and I agree that this bill would be unenforceable in the places it needs most to be enforced. Spay/neutering of feral cats, spay/neutering of pets of irreponsible owners... not to mention increased education on proper breeding ethics. I grew up with dogs and my mother showed Irish Setters for several years (before I was born), but until coming to this board I'd never thought beyond "spay/neuter if you don't want your dog to have children." Never thought about genetic testing, eye/hip certification, potential medical risks... these are the the things that need to be pushed upon the public, not mandatory surgery.