AB1634, worse than ever

Discuss Breed Specific Legislation and local county laws on pit bull ownership.
User avatar
dawgdays
www.BadRap.org
Posts: 2498
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 3:34 am
Location: oakland, ca
Contact:

Postby dawgdays » Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:40 pm

GG, You're assuming we have the luxury of time. Educating kids (which should be done and in some places is starting to happen) means we don't start to see a pay-off for about 10 years, if we're lucky.

I don't think we have 10 years.

But if you think we do, then I'll happily take the summer off. 8)

What we need is fewer people wringing hands at their keyboards and more out in the real world doing the outreach that needs to be done, on all levels and for all people - including and especially the breeders that are at the top of this trickle-down pyramid.

The proponents of AB 1634 like to say that "education" has failed as a means of reducing shelter populations. This is a huge lie.


Education has failed because, as you've pointed out, most communities lack the initiative. This isn't the school system's problem to solve, or even the shelters or the rescues. If dog fanciers want a positive change that benefits their traditions, they'll have to lead the way. It's a do or be damned situation.

User avatar
Sarah
Dabbling Dog Coddler
Posts: 10361
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 1:21 am

Postby Sarah » Mon Jun 18, 2007 12:51 am

Kingsgurl wrote:And Sarah, could you supply me with some articles NOT written by one of the founders of the SaveOurDogs opposition to the bill? I'm trying to gather facts and would really appreciate reading studies from someone with no vested interest in either side.


As has been said, the 2nd article is very rational in presenting information from both sides, and is extensively footnoted. However, if you feel that it is sullied by it's source, I must point out that the Zink article which you seem to be unwilling to read was written some years ago, before AB1634 was proposed, so I don't see how you could consider there to be a connection. That article is also footnoted, though not as extensively. (it's a shorter article.)

User avatar
Kingsgurl
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 7459
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:59 pm
Location: Shingle Springs, CA
Contact:

Postby Kingsgurl » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:14 am

Sarah, as I requested before, please feel free to PM me the extensive studies that must have been done. I've read all the articles you have, thus far, provided. I'm extremely curious about the best age to suggest neuter to people, as I have a daily opportunity in this regard. You can bet your behind, with the people I am dealing with on a daily basis, that neuter is, indeed, the BEST option for the DOGS, I would just like to be able to help the dogs by suggesting the appropriate age.

Education IS vital. In fact, I switched jobs in order to be more in a position to educate on a daily basis. It's frustrating and extremely slow. For every one person you might reach, there are 100 more who blow you off, who have their 'education' (be it from family or friends) firmly entrenched and virtually unassailable. Kindergarten education is a GREAT idea, it's only 15 years until these people are making decisions regarding pet welfare and it MUST start somewhere. Unfortunately, for the APBT, it will be too late.

User avatar
Sarah
Dabbling Dog Coddler
Posts: 10361
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 1:21 am

Postby Sarah » Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:46 am

Kingsgurl wrote:Sarah, as I requested before, please feel free to PM me the extensive studies that must have been done. I've read all the articles you have, thus far, provided. I'm extremely curious about the best age to suggest neuter to people, as I have a daily opportunity in this regard. You can bet your behind, with the people I am dealing with on a daily basis, that neuter is, indeed, the BEST option for the DOGS, I would just like to be able to help the dogs by suggesting the appropriate age.
.


Good, I'm glad you finally found time to read them. Why don't you look up the footnotes if you want more info?

User avatar
chako
Bully Ambassador
Posts: 2416
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2006 10:55 am
Location: Sacramento
Contact:

Postby chako » Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:02 pm


Garm's Girl
Matured Bully
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: SoCal

Postby Garm's Girl » Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:11 pm

I'd laugh, if it weren't so frikkin insane.

Six revisions, three or four committee/assembly votes, and still the vegan, oops!, PETA-minded authors are determined to screw people who raise cattle and sheep. Nothing remotely resembling protection -- let alone exemptions -- for stockdogs/LGDs, and it's pretty clear by now that there never will be.

Puppies can't be sold, only given away, am I reading that right? And dogs must be neutered after one litter?

Pet stores and puppy mills still get a free pass, though.

AB 1634 won’t cause a single pit bull to be adopted from a California shelter. It won’t stop owners from relinquishing their dogs due to a move, a new baby, too much barking. It won’t make dogs healthier, and it won’t save money. It is a frightening, deeply offensive government intrusion into the lives of responsible, law-abiding citizens and their companion animals.

But hey, if you would just spend an hour at your local shelter, :blah: Because stockdog owners in Red Bluff and Scottie guardians in Paso Robles are totally to blame for the homeless cats and unwanted pit bull mixes being euthanized in San Bernardino shelters, right? And only people who hate shelter animals would oppose this bill...!

Speaks volumes that Maddie's Fund and the SFSPCA, groups that have actually enjoyed far greater success lowering euth rates than the authors of AB 1634 could dream of, are NOT supporting this bill. (Just spoke with a SFSPCA rep on the phone.) I'm praying the senators are brighter than the assembly members --- this thing really needs to be kicked to the curb. A bad law is a gazillion times worse than no law at all.

User avatar
Kingsgurl
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 7459
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:59 pm
Location: Shingle Springs, CA
Contact:

Postby Kingsgurl » Thu Jun 28, 2007 4:46 pm

I used to live in Red Bluff. Trust me, they have plenty of their own shelter issues, and they too have a problem with pet overpopulation. Although if you live in a more rural section, the coyotes will often take care of some of it for you.

Garm's Girl
Matured Bully
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: SoCal

Postby Garm's Girl » Thu Jun 28, 2007 5:01 pm

I live in San Bernardino County, and wouldn't dream of blaming folks in Red Bluff for our local shelter issues. I wouldn't dream of imposing a one-size-fits-all disaster like AB 1634 on every dog owner in the state, either, but that's just me.

Off to mail, phone and fax ---

Kirstan
Forum Junky
Posts: 3775
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 7:28 pm
Location: Seattle-ish

Postby Kirstan » Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:56 pm

still the vegan, oops


Hey now! Watch the vegan reference! I write in ALL the time on this ordinance, I'm not a PETA supporter AND I have pit bulls... AND I'm vegan. Careful... we don't all support PETA.

~kirstan

Garm's Girl
Matured Bully
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: SoCal

Postby Garm's Girl » Thu Jun 28, 2007 8:34 pm

Sorry, Kirstan --- really. I'm a fishetarian, myself: don't eat beef or lamb unless I know who raised the livestock. I'm just majorly peeved that we stockdog people have been promised exemptions since March, and I suspect the folks behind the bill have AR motives for wanting to stick it to farmers and ranchers.

Y'know how Thomas Jefferson said something like, "Government is the art of being honest"? He never met the Levine crew 8l (And honesty isn't an "art," for Pete's sake...! It's a frikkin virtue!) Oy, politicians... can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em...

User avatar
Kingsgurl
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 7459
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 11:59 pm
Location: Shingle Springs, CA
Contact:

Postby Kingsgurl » Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:58 am

Personally, I'm still in the camp that firmly believes something must be done to address this issue. I see so many animals in search of homes, I see so many people treating their animals as disposable objects everyday.
It's a shame the politicians couldn't have taken the very valid suggestions put before them and crafted this into something that could help curb the problem.
This could have been a ground breaking, fair way to elleviate pet suffering, had it been crafted with the proper exemptions as promised from the start, but it's all just political mish mash now. I thought they could fix the wording, that it was just rushed, but in their desire to appease some, they have compromised the rest.
The input for exemptions were given, instead of acting on those, I see pandering to the AKC, whose interests, truly never were in jeopardy.

User avatar
Daphnesmom
Matured Bully
Posts: 454
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sacramento

Postby Daphnesmom » Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:00 pm

This is what I posed to one of the regional coordinators of the health pets coalition, as I've been helping gather support signatures. I am still not convinced that if this bill gets passed, things will be so dire the McNabbs will face imminent extinction and no one in California will be able to find a mutt anymore but I wasn't happy with what showed up amended, especially the exemption to have "just one litter" for the owners of poodles and pugs or poodles and beagles or whatever the heck passes for a fad these days.

Of course, the working ranch dogs question too, I posed. But I still think we have to start somewhere and after a week's worth of endless requests for help surrendering their pup because he's too wild; or the one who is pregnant now and eating too much; or my favorite from today, who after 8 years isn't wanted because the new wife has kids; my heart is quickly turning black and I hate that feeling. I KNOW this won't stop these losers, but just maybe, if we can stop the endless flood of dogs into the shelters, just maybe when these losers dump their dogs, they have a shot at getting adopted. Call me naive or whatever, but if it's this or nothing, I will still support this.

But, if I get any response back I'll post it for you...

Please don't take this the wrong way, but it seems like pandering to the AKC by granting exemptions for one litter regardless of the reason. I like that the pups can't be sold, but enforcing that would be darn near impossible, since the bill doesn't include any provisions banning advertising animals.

Another question I had is the one concerning the working dogs, the heelers, mcnabbs, etc. of our cow country folks.

Does this: (3) The owner is a legitimate breeder of mixed breed or
purebred working dogs, or is supplying mixed breed or
purebred dogs for training as working dogs to law enforcement,
fire agencies, or legitimate professional or volunteer private sector
working dog organizations.


mean to include exemptions for those stock dogs, who are true working dogs, running cattle, guarding livestock, etc. but aren't law enforcement agencies type dogs? You know I live in Sacramento, and am active in the barrel racing horse world, and as a result I know many of these dogs and their owners. This has been a hot button with the ranchers for some time, as it seems like they don't get a specific exemption, yet now Joe Schmoe down the street with his labradoodles can have a litter. This seems like an oversight somewhere, so could you help clarify for me?


I know there is no possible chance of making everyone happy, and I truly believe something has to change to stop this endless death of perfectly healthy cats and dogs but fixing a bill after it's passed and signed is damn near impossible, and if changing parts to really get some of the more vocal opponents on board will help, shouldn't that be done?

User avatar
Daphnesmom
Matured Bully
Posts: 454
Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sacramento

Postby Daphnesmom » Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:39 pm

I did get a response - it seems that many of the people on the coalition have the same exact concerns, both with the exemption to have one litter and the stockdogs. Here's the response...and that Judie is a little hard to influence in this area due to her east coast urban outlook, but at least they're aware of it.

I think the one litter exemption will probably be fixed to be made palatable, and I am pretty sure that the "working dog" thing will have to include stockdogs, or else the Farm Bureau will go to Schwarzenegger and he'll kill the bill. I agree, the bill needs to be fixed now, before it's final.


So....any more thoughts, if they change the exemption for the one litter to require an adoption fee that covers vetting and vaccinations, then I still don't like it, but feel something has to be done....I'm still supporting it.

Garm's Girl
Matured Bully
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: SoCal

Postby Garm's Girl » Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:30 pm

Daphnesmom, thanks for the effort, and thanks for sharing the response. It says a lot.

I don't think the AKC had anything to do with the "one litter per pet" revision. I think the CVMA may have had more to do with that. Not that all vets support the bill --- I'm convinced most don't. This is an incomplete list of vets in opposition --- none of my vets are on the list, and they're all opposed.

What's just unreal are the new intact permit requirements. There are just two [overworked, underpaid] ACOs in my town--- who will enforce this stuff?
122336.21. (a) The local jurisdiction or its authorized local
animal control agency may allow for issuance of an intact permit, and
imposition of an intact permit fee, for one male and one female dog
per household in order to allow the dogs to produce a single litter
of offspring. In no event shall the intact permits issued for this
purpose have a duration in excess of one year. In addition, the
following conditions shall be met for purposes of obtaining and
retaining the permit:
(1) The animal has been examined by a licensed veterinarian and is
following the preventative health care program recommended by the
veterinarian.
(2) The owner has not been convicted of one or more violations of
the following offenses:
(A) Section 121705 of the Health and Safety Code.
(B) Section 286.5 of the Penal Code.
(C) Section 596 of the Penal Code.
(D) Section 597 of the Penal Code.
(E) Section 597.5 of the Penal Code.
(F) Section 599aa of the Penal Code.
(G) Section 487e of the Penal Code.
(H) Section 487f of the Penal Code.
(I) Section 487g of the Penal Code.
(3) The owner has not been convicted of two or more violations of
any local ordinance involving the dog for whom the unaltered animal
certification is sought.
(4) The owner has not received an order from the local
jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency involving
the dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought.
(5) The dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought
has not been determined by local jurisdiction or its authorized local
animal control agency to be a "vicious animal."
(6) The animal is properly housed and cared for as follows:
(A) The animal is provided sufficient quantity of good and
wholesome food and water.
(B) The animal is provided shelter that will allow the animal to
stand up, turn around, and lie down without lying in its feces, and
the area where the animal is kept is properly cleaned and
disinfected.
(C) The animal is fully contained on the owner's property and
provided appropriate exercise.
(D) The animal owner otherwise complies with any applicable state
law concerning the care and housing of animals.
(7) The owner furnishes the director of animal control services
with a signed statement agreeing to the following conditions:
(A) Offspring of the unaltered animal may not be sold and may be
adopted without a fee only after they reach eight weeks of age.
(B) Records will be kept documenting how many offspring were
produced and who adopted them.
( 8 ) The dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought
is currently licensed pursuant to local requirements.
(9) The owner has considered having the animal microchipped for
purposes of identification.
(b) The owner shall maintain records documenting how many
offspring were produced or adopted, or both, and shall provide proof
that the dog has been spayed or neutered after a single litter. This
information shall be made available to an animal control agency upon
request.
(c) The amount of the fee for an intact permit issued under this
section shall be determined by the local jurisdiction and shall not
exceed the cost of administering this section.


Personally, I'm still in the camp that firmly believes something must be done to address this issue.

Kingsgurl, EVERYBODY believes something must be done. I've adopted three dogs from the local pound. I give hundreds of bucks each year to the local shelter. I volunteer. I teach after-school classes on dog care and safety.

This debate isn't between people who truly care about shelter animals and people who don't give a damn. (The folks who really don't give a damn aren't even aware this debate is taking place.) It's between people who think that the solution is legislation, and those who believe that spay/neuter legislation points government in a dangerous direction, has a poor track record at best, won't save money and won't help shelter animals. Here's what Maddie's Fund has to say about government programs, and why they don't fund them:
Maddie's Fund® does not provide funding for government programs, including state and local animal care and control mandates. This policy applies to mandatory spay/neuter laws, as well as to other requirements imposed by federal, state and local legislation. Reasons for this policy include:

¨ Maddie’s Fund is committed to supporting volunteerism and encouraging local philanthropy on behalf of animals.
¨ Maddie’s Fund believes in local solutions for local problems and supports the right of every community to determine its own path.
¨ Maddie’s Fund feels strongly that accountability is essential to saving more animal lives.

Sounds utopian, but Richard Avanzino, the SFSPCA and Maddie's Fund DO have a track record of saving lives, and it's a very impressive one. Lodi reduced euthanasia rates by over 40% in two years with help from Maddie's Fund.

Have you seen the Maddie's Fund AB 1634 statement ? A SFSPCA spokesperson told me it would be a "tragedy" [her word] for California to lose Maddie's Fund grants by passing this bill.

And, as always, commercial breeders, puppy mills and pet shops are unaffected by AB 1634. A new BarkWorks pet store is opening near me --- check out all the different breeds available! :yucky: Thanks, Lloyd! Thanks, Judie!

User avatar
dawgdays
www.BadRap.org
Posts: 2498
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 3:34 am
Location: oakland, ca
Contact:

Postby dawgdays » Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:02 pm

Since our inception, Maddie's Fund has had a policy of not funding government mandated programs. As stated on our website, "This policy applies to mandatory spay/neuter laws, as well as to other requirements imposed by federal, state and local legislation."


Interesting.

Yet Maddies Fund is still willing to give millions to shelters within SB861 enforcement (SF). Methinks someone doth protest too much about all-breed measures.

By the way, when and if the SFSPCA puts pit bulls up for adoption (very rare), adopters are forced to submit finger prints, mug shots and prove that they have .5million liability coverage. Not so for any other breed.

The politix of the animal welfare world never ceases to amaze.

¨ Maddie’s Fund believes in local solutions for local problems and supports the right of every community to determine its own path.


... as long as you limit your legislation to pit bulls, that is.


Return to “Laws”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest