AB1634, worse than ever

Discuss Breed Specific Legislation and local county laws on pit bull ownership.
Garm's Girl
Matured Bully
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: SoCal

AB1634, worse than ever

Postby Garm's Girl » Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:58 pm

The latest draft.

Since the USBCHA grants no titles other than one championship title each year to the dog that wins the Finals, all other working border collies in California must now be spayed/neutered by 4 months.

Un-frickin'-real.

122336.1. (a) A person shall not own or possess within the state any cat or dog over the age of four months that has not been spayed or neutered.


Exemptions:

22336.2. (a) A cat or dog is exempt from the requirements of subdivision (a) of section
122336.1 if any of the following conditions are met:
(1) The owner provides proof that he or she is doing business and is duly licensed as a legitimate breeder by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, including providing proof of a business license and Federal and State tax number or other valid information as determined by the local jurisdiction in which the intact permit is sought.


Puppy mills will be laughing all the way to the bank.


(2) The owner provides proof of each of the following, as determined in the sole discretion by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency:
( a ) That his or her cat or dog is used to show or compete and has competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition within the last two years, as determined in the sole discretion of the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency.
( b ) That his or her cat or dog is a valid breed as recognized by a registry approved in the sole discretion by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency.
( c ) That the cat or dog has earned, or if under two years old, is in the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working or other title from a purebred registry or association approved in the sole discretion by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency.


All this before your pup is four months old, mind you.

And the fact that stockdog pups aren't actually started on stock until they're a year old, sometimes older? I know, I know... if I would just look into the faces of all those shelter dogs, I'd understand that the loss of the working border collie [and working Aussies, Kelpies and McNabs] is a small price to pay for an end to the shelter crisis Image


(3) The cat or dog is being trained, or is documented as having been appropriately trained and actively used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement and rescue activities, or meets the definition of guide dog, service dog, or signal dog, as set forth in subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of Section 365.5 of the Penal Code.
(4) The owner of a cat or dog provides a letter to the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog. This letter shall include the veterinarian's license number and shall also include the date by which the dog or cat may be safely spayed or neutered, if at all possible.


Police dog training for three month old pups...? And God forbid your holistic vet issues one too many letters exempting dogs from early spay/neuter for health reasons, or she'll have some splainin' to do to the authorities Image


PETA and the puppy mills must be happy as clams.


Someone please explain to me how a four month old pup can "show or compete and has competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition within the last two years" AND "has earned, or if under two years old, is in the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working or other title from a purebred registry"? And as these folks point out, all the talk of "the sole discretion of
the local jurisdiction" is a bit chilling when you recall that PETA boss Ingrid Newkirk used to be an ACO.

I think AB1634 is great for puppy mills, and very, very bad for good dogs and responsible owners. I can only hope that the bill is now so clearly frickin' ridiculous that no one with any sense will vote for it.
Last edited by Garm's Girl on Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
bahamutt99
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 10059
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 3:56 am
Location: west TX
Contact:

Postby bahamutt99 » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:11 am

Oh my. :teary: :skurrd:

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

Postby Garm's Girl » Tue Apr 03, 2007 12:12 am

Forgot this part:

(d) Nothing in this Section shall prohibit a local jurisdiction from adopting or enforcing a more restrictive spay or neuter program as provided in Section 122331 of the Health and Safety Code, provided that the program allows for a cat or dog to be temporarily or permanently exempted from a spay or neuter requirement if a letter from a California licensed veterinarian is provided to the local jurisdiction stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog, as specified in subsection (a)(4).


As I said, PETA and the puppy mills must be real happy.

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

Postby Kingsgurl » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:11 am

( c ) That the cat or dog has earned, or if under two years old, is in the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working or other title from a purebred registry or association approved in the sole discretion by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency.


OK, I'm again confused. It says right there that if the dog (it actually says dog or cat) is IN THE PROCESS of earning a title, it is eligable for exemption if it's under two years of age. So, the dog doesn't have to DO anything, proof wise, until after it is 2. Correct? Time enough for the McNabb owners to figure out if he/she might be a working project or a prospective breeder. Yes or no? Is 2 years not enough time?
It says OR, not AND for those requirements. The dog should be being shown, OR have earned a title OR be working toward one.

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

Postby Kingsgurl » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:26 am

I can't speak about the puppy mills, they just might have licenses, but the BYB's that I know/see don't. It WILL effect them, and they are much more the problem right now.

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

Postby Red » Tue Apr 03, 2007 1:32 am

So, the dog doesn't have to DO anything, proof wise, until after it is 2. Correct? Time enough for the McNabb owners to figure out if he/she might be a working project or a prospective breeder. Yes or no? Is 2 years not enough time?


I am confused on that as well.If puppies come from a working and titled stock form a breeder that follow the criteria they talked about then one could assume that the offsprings can be considered in the process to earn titles.By what was quoted it seems that they allow a dog to be intact untill two years old.If so that is plenty of time to determine if a young dog is a working prospect or not.

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

Postby Garm's Girl » Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:58 am

It says right there that if the dog (it actually says dog or cat) is IN THE PROCESS of earning a title, it is eligable for exemption if it's under two years of age. So, the dog doesn't have to DO anything, proof wise, until after it is 2. Correct? Time enough for the McNabb owners to figure out if he/she might be a working project or a prospective breeder. Yes or no? Is 2 years not enough time?
It says OR, not AND for those requirements. The dog should be being shown, OR have earned a title OR be working toward one.


If we're confused, imagine how much fun this will be to enforce.

For intact dogs, the bill states that "the owner provides proof of each of the following":
The dog must be in competition AND must belong to an approved registry AND must have earned a title by the age of two or be in the process of earning a title.

If all three requirements are not met, and the dog is older than 4 months, it must be spayed/neutered.

"In the process of earning a title... from a purebred registry or association" means, to me, that your dog has earned at least one leg toward the title. Otherwise this section is pointless and completely unenforceable.

Once again, the USBCHA does not grant titles. This is intentional. Title-chasing is for owners of dogs that are useless on stock: AKC "herding" breeds, for example, with their dumbed-down, Mickey Mouse arena trials on tame sheep. HC Barbie's Foo Foo HIC PT HSAs JHD HTD-Is? Useless. Samoyeds earn these titles. Try sending Foo Foo on a half-mile, uphill outrun for wild range sheep.

McNabs are well-known to all stockdog people. Unfortunately for this great working strain, they have no registry.

According to the bill, an intact dog must be "used to show or compete and has competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition within the last two years." What "legitimate" shows or sporting competitions allow four month old dogs to compete?

Border collies under the age of 30 months compete in Nursery --- and many handlers believe that Nursery trials are too much, too soon for young dogs. Most border collies that make it to Open aren't at the top of their game until the age of four.

Do the people who wrote this mess know anything about dogs? I honestly think they're rubbing their hands together in glee at the prospect of eliminating one breed after another.

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

Postby Kingsgurl » Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:20 pm

I wasn't confused by the bill's wording, but rather your interpretation of it. It clearly states OR in the beginning of the list of exceptions. The list of possible exceptions has certain criteria that must be met (the ands for the ONE criteria) to qualify for THAT exception.

If you are competing with the dog, then you are 'in the process' of earning a title.

The breed extermination angle and the PETA calling really turns me off to discussing this, as it borders on hysterical. PETA would, I am sure, much prefer we continue on the path that we are on now, the one that WILL eventually lead to the banning of the American Pit Bull Terrier.
The aim of this bill is to prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths per year, not cause certain rare breeds to go extinct. As was suggested before, get YOUR interests out there to the law makers, educate them on what exceptions need to be made, or that you would like to see.

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

Postby Garm's Girl » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:05 pm

Here is Article 3 [Exemptions] of the current bill:

122336.2. (a) A cat or dog is exempt from the requirements of subdivision (a) of section 122336.1 if any of the following conditions are met:

(1) The owner provides proof that he or she is doing business and is duly licensed as alegitimate breeder by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency,including providing proof of a business license and Federal and State tax number or other validinformation as determined by the local jurisdiction in which the intact permit is sought.

(2) The owner provides proof of each of the following, as determined in the sole discretion by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency:
(A) That his or her cat or dog is used to show or compete and has competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition within the last two years, as determined in the sole discretion of the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency.
(B) That his or her cat or dog is a valid breed as recognized by a registry approved in the sole discretion by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency.
(C) That the cat or dog has earned, or if under two years old, is in the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working or other title from a purebred registry or association approved in the sole discretion by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency.

(3) The cat or dog is being trained, or is documented as having been appropriately trained and actively used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement and rescue activities, or meets the definition of guide dog, service dog, or signal dog, as set forth in subdivisions (d), (e), and (f) of Section 365.5 of the Penal Code.

(4) The owner of a cat or dog provides a letter to the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog. This letter shall include the veterinarian's license number and shall also include the date by which the dog or cat may be safely spayed or neutered, if at all possible.


A dog failing to meet requiremet 1, 2 [in its entirety], 3 or 4 must be spayed/neutered by four months.

If this law is enforced as written, it most certainly will mean the extinction of working stock dogs in California.

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

Postby Daphnesmom » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:26 pm

Garm's Girl wrote:Here is Article 3 [Exemptions] of the current bill:

122336.2. (a) A cat or dog is exempt from the requirements of subdivision (a) of section 122336.1 if any of the following conditions are met:

(1) The owner provides proof that he or she is doing business and is duly licensed as alegitimate breeder by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency,including providing proof of a business license and Federal and State tax number or other validinformation as determined by the local jurisdiction in which the intact permit is sought.

If this law is enforced as written, it most certainly will mean the extinction of working stock dogs in California.


I guess I'm not following you, but if you want to exempt the dog why not apply for the legitimate breeder's business license - if it's that important, than the cost should be bearable to you? You don't have to meet 1,2,3 and 4 exemptions just one of them.

User avatar
dawnapbt
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 4815
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:30 am
Contact:

Postby dawnapbt » Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:28 pm

Daphnesmom wrote:
Garm's Girl wrote:Here is Article 3 [Exemptions] of the current bill:

122336.2. (a) A cat or dog is exempt from the requirements of subdivision (a) of section 122336.1 if any of the following conditions are met:

(1) The owner provides proof that he or she is doing business and is duly licensed as alegitimate breeder by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency,including providing proof of a business license and Federal and State tax number or other validinformation as determined by the local jurisdiction in which the intact permit is sought.

If this law is enforced as written, it most certainly will mean the extinction of working stock dogs in California.


I guess I'm not following you, but if you want to exempt the dog why not apply for the legitimate breeder's business license - if it's that important, than the cost should be bearable to you? You don't have to meet 1,2,3 and 4 exemptions just one of them.


Doing "business" as a breeder necessitates breeding and selling pups. A lot of people have intact dogs b/c a dog must be intact to be shown.... showing doesn't equal breeding. I show. I have never bred a dog.

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

Postby Daphnesmom » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:13 pm

But then if it's for showing, you'd be exempt under the showing criteria.

And I was pretty sure she was referring to breeding working dogs, but maybe I was misreading, there has been so much discussion about this already.

I still hope it passes, I am sick of all the death, just sick of it and even if this bill is not perfect, it does not discriminate against a specific breed and includes cats. I hope it generates enough revenue to really offer comprehensive low-cost/no-cost spaying and neutering as well.

User avatar
dawnapbt
Addicted to PBF
Posts: 4815
Joined: Sat Dec 18, 2004 12:30 am
Contact:

Postby dawnapbt » Tue Apr 03, 2007 6:18 pm

Not necessarily. Did you read "as determined in the sole discretion of the local animal control agency..." (or words to that effect).

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

Postby Garm's Girl » Tue Apr 03, 2007 7:05 pm

I still hope it passes, I am sick of all the death, just sick of it and even if this bill is not perfect, it does not discriminate against a specific breed


It discriminates against working border collies and other stockdogs, since stockdogs can't begin training until the age of almost a year, are generally not ready for trials until they are two or older, and since the USCHA does not grant titles.

Working border collies will not be able to meet the requirements of Section 2.

And it beats me why I should need to obtain "proof of a business license and Federal and State tax number or other valid information" in order to keep one or two working dogs intact -- not bred -- until they are three or four years old.

Since I and other good owners are no more responsible for the shelter crisis than Lloyd Levine is, why not pass a bond issue taxing ALL Californians in order to establish spay/neuter programs, educational programs and increase shelter funding? That would be a heck of a lot fairer than putting all the burden on folks like me --- and it sucks hugely that our good working dogs should be so threatened.

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

Postby Kingsgurl » Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:41 am

Here's the thing, Garm's Girl. Not ONE SINGLE PERSON you meet is repsonsible for the over-population problem. Just ask them, they will tell you. It's ALL someone else. THEIR dogs aren't the problem, it's OTHER peoples dogs. Not ONE person selling puppies, not one person breeding their dog to the dog next door because they are 'cute' and the store clerk at the 7-11 said they wanted a pup just like it. Certainly not the person who has 13 cousins/aunts/uncles all ready and willing to take a pup.

You know what? This has finally driven a couple things home for me. The REASON we are at this point, the reason all these dogs die, each and everyday, with hardly anyone to care, is because we have NO ONE who is willing to take ANY responsibility in any of it. It's ALL someone elses fault, and it's ALL someone elses mess to clean up.

"What's a few thousand more lives, as long as I don't have to, gasp, apply for an intact permit. As long as I don't have to pay a fee to breed. Who CARES how many shelter dogs die, as long as I am not inconvienenced, or have to jump through any hoops." That's what I hear.

Here's a newsflash for ALL of you
"as determined in the sole discretion of the local animal control agency..."

Hello! That's who sets your animal regulations NOW. Yep, that's right, your local Animal Control. What they are saying here is that your local jurisdiction can make decisions to HELP you if you have some off the wall breed who has no registry, no shows, not titles, but, by God, it needs it's balls (or ovaries)

You really think California would pass a bond to increase tax for ALL Californians? While I think it's an admirable idea (although we have seen how even FREE neuter/spay is a difficult sell) why on earth would they (California) vote that in, since NONE of the voters are the problem? It's ALL someone else.


Return to “Laws”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests