1634 update

Discuss Breed Specific Legislation and local county laws on pit bull ownership.
User avatar
BullyLove
Adolescent Bully
Posts: 271
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:20 pm
Location: Redwood City, CA

1634 update

Postby BullyLove » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:23 pm


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

Postby Garm's Girl » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:02 pm

"We have six months to educate the committee," said the bill's author Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys (Los Angeles County) after he decided not to bring the bill to a vote. "I want to reach out again to the opponents."

Yeesh. Levine's ignorance, his arrogance, his smarmy dishonesty and his... absolute creepiness just defy belief.

There have been heaps of suggestions in editorials and elsewhere outlining better approaches than mandatory s/n. USA Today's article showed the most successful spay/neuter programs in the country are voluntary [but we knew that].
Research in Utah showed that about 85% of pet owners were already sterilizing their animals. "A big overpopulation problem was traceable to just 15% of animals," says Gregory Castle, who heads the No More Homeless Pets Utah program launched in 2000 by Best Friends Animal Society.

At the city or county level, California needs to do the basic research necessary to identify the owners responsible for the shelter problem --- and target them, rather than opt for the Judie Mancuso "if you have an intact dog, you're part of the problem" carpet-bomb approach. It's beyond insane, and beyond offensive, to insist that a stockdog trainer/breeder like Suzy Applegate is no different from the cretin breeding his dysplastic, human-aggressive pit bull on every heat or the idiot dumping a litter of pups in an orange grove. That's PETA ideology no matter what you do to disguise the smell.

Terrierman has a few more suggestions here.

User avatar
Rinalia
Pit Bull Forum Addict
Posts: 1886
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:16 pm
Location: California

Postby Rinalia » Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:06 pm

Garm's Girl wrote:
"We have six months to educate the committee," said the bill's author Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys (Los Angeles County) after he decided not to bring the bill to a vote. "I want to reach out again to the opponents."

Yeesh. Levine's ignorance, his arrogance, his smarmy dishonesty and his... absolute creepiness just defy belief.

There have been heaps of suggestions in editorials and elsewhere outlining better approaches than mandatory s/n. USA Today's article showed the most successful spay/neuter programs in the country are voluntary [but we knew that].
Research in Utah showed that about 85% of pet owners were already sterilizing their animals. "A big overpopulation problem was traceable to just 15% of animals," says Gregory Castle, who heads the No More Homeless Pets Utah program launched in 2000 by Best Friends Animal Society.

At the city or county level, California needs to do the basic research necessary to identify the owners responsible for the shelter problem --- and target them, rather than opt for the Judie Mancuso "if you have an intact dog, you're part of the problem" carpet-bomb approach. It's beyond insane, and beyond offensive, to insist that a stockdog trainer/breeder like Suzy Applegate is no different from the cretin breeding his dysplastic, human-aggressive pit bull on every heat or the idiot dumping a litter of pups in an orange grove. That's PETA ideology no matter what you do to disguise the smell.

Terrierman has a few more suggestions here.


I'm surprised any breeder was unhappy with the gutted, final bill. It was so watered down, so utterly useless, that anyone who likes to throw a dog with a bitch should have been happy. Anyone could have had one litter a year, including mixed breeds.

There were so many exemptions that any animal with balls could have reproduced and not incurred a fine or license fee.

I'm guessing he dropped it because, had it passed, it would have been a detriment to all dogs because of its lack of ANYTHING worthy.

Hope a new bill is created in a few years, one that has more teeth than the amended bill.

Do you even KNOW Levine? He's hardly arrogant, smarmy or creepy.

User avatar
Red
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 9519
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:35 am
Location: SoCal

Postby Red » Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:33 pm

Hope a new bill is created in a few years, one that has more teeth than the amended bill.


Hope it is way before than two years.Lots of folks happy with what has happened to the bill.I am sure they don't loose their sleep thinking about the hundreds of litters that will be killed first thing in the morning.

Research in Utah showed that about 85% of pet owners were already sterilizing their animals. Research in Utah showed that about 85% of pet owners were already sterilizing their animals. ""


Uhm, California here.Reverse those results and we are probably close.

User avatar
greenkozi
Bully Ambassador
Posts: 2014
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 11:55 pm
Location: where pit bulls come out of the bay
Contact:

Postby greenkozi » Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:03 am

Red wrote:
Hope a new bill is created in a few years, one that has more teeth than the amended bill.


Hope it is way before than two years.Lots of folks happy with what has happened to the bill.I am sure they don't loose their sleep thinking about the hundreds of litters that will be killed first thing in the morning.

Research in Utah showed that about 85% of pet owners were already sterilizing their animals. Research in Utah showed that about 85% of pet owners were already sterilizing their animals. ""


Uhm, California here.Reverse those results and we are probably close.


i don't know, i was pretty ambivalent about this bill, V. the "just one litter" thing really pushed me over the edge. how can a bill that claims to be part of the solution include part of the problem?

i hope this will have raised awareness enough, and raised some of the problems that the "community" has enough that we can approach this entirely differently.

i also think those stats are probably valid in some pockets of california. but the state is way too big and too diverse to claim an entire number for.

User avatar
Rinalia
Pit Bull Forum Addict
Posts: 1886
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:16 pm
Location: California

Postby Rinalia » Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:40 pm

Red wrote:
Hope it is way before than two years.Lots of folks happy with what has happened to the bill.I am sure they don't loose their sleep thinking about the hundreds of litters that will be killed first thing in the morning.


When it comes to legislation, it is wiser to wait at least a year before re-introducing controversial bills. Although, they may skip the legislature entirely and go for an initiative, but I doubt it would be any time soon. But perhaps more cities and counties will initiatie their own legislation before the state.

I hear you about people not losing their sleep, though. It's pretty amazing how people can convince themselves there isn't a problem...when all they need to do is go to the majority of city and county shelters.

User avatar
sara
2 Legit 2 Quit Bully
Posts: 986
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 4:12 pm
Location: Reading, Massachusetts

Postby sara » Thu Jul 12, 2007 2:55 pm

Hmmm. . . . I'm in Utah and I'm just not seeing that 85% either! Maybe back when you could get coupons from no more homeless pets utah and get the surgery nearly free. Of course, like all good programs, it was gutted.

User avatar
Red
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 9519
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:35 am
Location: SoCal

Postby Red » Thu Jul 12, 2007 10:27 pm

i don't know, i was pretty ambivalent about this bill, V. the "just one litter" thing really pushed me over the edge. how can a bill that claims to be part of the solution include part of the problem?


I agree.I was supportive of the intentions behind the initial draft of the bill. I no longer am, the "just one litter" is a slap in the face.

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

Postby Daphnesmom » Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:08 am

I got an email yesterday from the initiative group, they claim Levine pulled it to try again in 2008 so that's not that far off.

I told them they need to go back to the way the bill was in the beginning, and make the corrections (i.e., working stock dog exemptions, ADA compliant, etc) and DO NOT include the "just one litter" bullcrap - and that if they did that, they'd find many of their supporters will come back.

I got a kina terse response that "who knows what the resubmitted bill will look like, but thanks for your input."

So damn depressing, I really really hoped something would happen to change the status quo but looks like it's more death and sadness for our dogs and cats - I am so thankful I don't work in the shelters. : (

User avatar
AjaSage
Newborn Bully
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:56 am
Location: Baltimore, MD
Contact:

Postby AjaSage » Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:41 am

While I agree that s/n is essential, and irresponsible breeding is an epidemic, for many of the same reasons I don't support BSL (some of which have nothing to do with breed!) I will never support the govt. stepping in and telling me what to do with my own animals.

I see and about 70 dogs/owners weekly in my classes (private and group) I help out at several shelters, and I work with a couple rescues as well. I "sell" s/n. . .and I think most people in my position do as well. This is going to be highly more effective than any kind of bill that the govt can pass anyway. Unless they are going door to door, doing "ball-checks" there will be no way to enforce this. . .and if that is the eventual intent, it would be WAY too costly.

This is one of the reasons I am against registering dogs with the govt as well. . .if the dogs are registered (yes, mine are. Grumble.) then the govt. knows exactly where you live. Now, checking up with those dogs that are already registered/licenced with the city/state is a method of checking that is not entirely random- however, most people that actually licence and register thier dogs are responsible and have s/n dogs to begin with!!!! The others will stay under the radar, and the problem will continue. . .much like the States/counties with BSL in effect that still manage to populate shelters with an overwhleming number of the breed that is banned. . .

I think that it is irresponsible to pawn the responsibility of this off on the govt., or to ALLOW the govt. to get involved in our RIGHTS as owners. This is a baby step away from some very, very negative things. . .and yes, it can be worse than euthanasia of animals!!!

User avatar
Rinalia
Pit Bull Forum Addict
Posts: 1886
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:16 pm
Location: California

Postby Rinalia » Fri Jul 13, 2007 1:40 pm

Daphnesmom wrote:I got an email yesterday from the initiative group, they claim Levine pulled it to try again in 2008 so that's not that far off.


I was really surprised when I learned they were going to reintroduce in '08.

Unless the bill is significantly different, it's not like opposition is going to magically forget about the original form of the bill.

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

Postby Daphnesmom » Sat Jul 14, 2007 10:17 am

Maybe Levine will scrap the team pushing it (Judi et all) and get some people that aren't so focused on what they think is their ideal world of no animals being exploited. I remember when I asked about the working stock dogs exemption, and said she'd be welcome to attend one of our barrel races and see just how rural California really is, the person told me that "Judi would think it was cruel." I mentioned these (domestic) horses are very well cared for and love what they do and that circuses with their elephants and marine parks with their whales are far far more exploitive and cruel, that was ignored.But that's another tangent.

Anyway, since they are planning to reintro it in 08, maybe now is the time for all the good ideas to continue being submitted, maybe they'll listen. I hope so. And as far as the opposition, they are never going to get the support of the breeders, hobby, BYB, or otherwise, but they had and lost support of other equally important groups.

User avatar
1lila1
Pit Bull Forum Addict
Posts: 1878
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 12:35 pm

Postby 1lila1 » Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:58 pm

AjaSage wrote: I will never support the govt. stepping in and telling me what to do with my own animals.



:thumbsup: Perfectly said!!

Here's far from an original thought: Why don't they just enforce the laws we already have? It's already the law to license your pet! The fee's are more than double in most places for intact animals. Enforce that, take the $$, time, and energy and increase s/n education instead of intrusively telling people what they can and can't do with their own property, and you have solved most of the problem!

Personally, I hope that the dog and cat communities come together next time this bill is introduced like they did this time. I'm all about rescue and S/N, but not when it's forced upon me in a poorly thought out blanket approach like it was with this bill.

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

Postby Kingsgurl » Wed Jul 18, 2007 1:44 am

Enforce that, take the $$, time, and energy and increase s/n education instead of intrusively telling people what they can and can't do with their own property, and you have solved most of the problem!


Oddly enough, the people I come into contact the most with litters aren't uneducated as to spay/neuter, they are CHOOSING to breed. What does education do for these people? They don't believe THEIR dogs are part of the problem, after all, they have friends who want pups, and everyone knows that little Lhasa mix/terrier something from down the street mixes NEVER end up at the shelter. (true conversation I had with a lady just today about her Lhasa mix and her current potentially preggers condition. I talked to her about spay if the dog ended up not being pregnant (thinking the tryst with the 'terrier something' must have been accidental) but OH NO! First off, it was intentional 'since he was handy' and secondly, she has big plans for MORE litters) Every single day, it's a parade of people who think just like that. Don't even get me started on the cats.

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

Postby dawgdays » Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:31 am

Unless they are going door to door, doing "ball-checks" there will be no way to enforce this. . .and if that is the eventual intent, it would be WAY too costly.


Los Angeles County AS is doing exactly that, god bless'em.


Return to “Laws”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests