[dolly329]

I got this news from my dog trainers today. Please stop this bill if you love your furry friends . Just go to the link below, and send them the emails

http://www.dpca.lobbynow.com/issues?AB1634


California AB 1634 has passed out of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee. The bill is now before the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the same committee before which we successfully defeated SB 1548, which would have criminalized ear cropping, in 2004.

AB1634 would mandate that all California cities and counties force castration and hysterectomies of dogs and cats at four months of age, whether those cities and counties wanted to do so or not. The legislation would create a new form of license - a breeder's license - that must be obtained by any person in California who wishes to own a dog or cat with reproductive organs intact. The purpose of the license is to be able to take it away - if it were readily available at all.

This draconian bill is the work product of radical animal extremists, who count among their members the prime sponsor of the bill. AB 1634 is entitled "The Healthy Pets Act," although it makes no effort to address the health of pets at all.

Make no mistake about it. The passage of AB 1634 sounds the death knell for dog and cat breeders in the state of California, and is the beginning of the end of pet ownership in the United States.

This bill must be stopped. Now.

The DPCA Legislative Committee has activated the DPCA LobbyNow Tool.

If you do not live in California, do not use the Tool yet!

Please forward this link to all California dog and cat clubs and all AKC parent clubs.

Please remind them to ask that only California residents use the LobbyNow Tool at this time. We want the Assembly Appropriations Committee members to see that the first batch of e-mails come from California residents. At an appropriate time, very shortly, we will notify you as to when non-California residents should use the LobbyNow Tool to demonstrate the scope of the opposition on a national level.

[Captbob]

It's a great Bill and will stop thosuands and thousands of dogs being killed in shelters due to overpopulation.


http://brightlion.com/InHope/InHope_en.aspx

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Captbob

It's a great Bill and will stop thosuands and thousands of dogs being killed in shelters due to overpopulation.


http://brightlion.com/InHope/InHope_en.aspx

Please precede your posts by in my opinion,

In my opinion, this is a poorly worded bill which is not necessary, and will only increase shelter populations as people abandon thier pets due to not wanting to spend the money on altering their dog. It will also not stop people from abandoning thier pets. It will only increase the illegal smuggling of poor quality, sick puppies from Mexican puppy mills that are sold on the side of the street. That already occurs. They only will increase as the good breeders stop breeding and the demand is still there.

[iwantmypup]

I do see it from both ways.....but if they lower the cost (even if its pretty darn low) maybe people will take em to be fixeda.

[Captbob]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Please precede your posts by in my opinion,

In my opinion, this is a poorly worded bill which is not necessary, and will only increase shelter populations as people abandon thier pets due to not wanting to spend the money on altering their dog. It will also not stop people from abandoning thier pets. It will only increase the illegal smuggling of poor quality, sick puppies from Mexican puppy mills that are sold on the side of the street. That already occurs. They only will increase as the good breeders stop breeding and the demand is still there.

I thought you said on another thread that there was no shelter overpopulation problem. You think people should get a pet, if they can't afford to have it S/N? Is that what the breeders sell the dogs to, people that can't afford S/N and vet care. That is pretty irresponsible.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Captbob

I thought you said on another thread that there was no shelter overpopulation problem. You think people should get a pet, if they can't afford to have it S/N? Is that what the breeders sell the dogs to, people that can't afford S/N and vet care. That is pretty irresponsible.

The words 'increase shelter population' does not equal 'overpopulation'. I said if this law is passed more will be abandonded and/or turned into shelters. That is future tense. Yes there are dogs in shelters. I never said otherwise. Do I think the sky is falling and there is an epidemic? No. You obviously do.
Yes we should do things so that more dogs are adopted and more dogs do not get to the shelter. But I just do not agree that this is the way to do it. To punish the responsible breeders, the only ones who do screen buyers and take back puppies. This does nothing to the pet stores, nothing to the people selling puppies out of the back of their truck from Mexican puppymills in the So Cal area.

Yes there are irresponsible owners. would I sell a dog to them, certainly not. I don't sell one of my puppies to just anyone. But pet stores will, commercial breeders will, puppy smugglers will. This is a much larger percentage of those that sell puppies than the responsible breeder.

Why does it make sense to punish 10% of the population that sells dogs? And that percentage contributes even less to the perceived problem?

[RonE]

In my opinion 'in my opinion' is assumed. When someone posts on a forum like this one, it's an opinion (or sometimes an urban legend.)

If anyone starts saying, "Your opinion sucks and you obviously don't know nothin'" then we'll just merge this thread with the other overblown epic and save a line on the menu.

[Quincy]

Here we go again with yet another thread on AB1634, maybe we can copy and paste some previous things we already wrote.
.

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by dolly329

the same committee before which we successfully defeated SB 1548, which would have criminalized ear cropping, in 2004.

Interestingly, several countries years ago banned ear cropping, and also recently several countries have banned tail docking but exemptions might apply for medical and actual working reasons. Here is one example of what's happening around the world:-

The long awaited Animal Welfare Act has been passed through Parliment here in the UK. It came into force on Friday, April 6th in England and March 28th in Wales. The Act calls for a ban on docking dog's tails amongst other issues. Disappointingly working dogs are exempt from the ban but at least restrictions are in place. The owner has to conform to strict guidelines and must prove to a veterinary surgeon that the dog is truly working. Scotland accepted the Act with no EXEMPTIONS, just as many other countries have done.

The pro docking lobby had little on which to base an arguement seeing as many scientific studies have proved that puppies DO feel pain through and after the procedure. There is no scientific evidence that shows that working dogs injure their tails anymore than undocked working dogs.

The two main working breeds, the Border Collie and the Foxhound both have undocked tails yet can work through dense undergrowth, rough terrain and woodland and do not suffer major injuries to their tails. In general, tail injuries need only basic first aid and no one seems to be interested in working dogs that injure their ears, (far more common) or any other parts of their bodies such as the feet. Cut pads are more frequent than damaged tails!!!

The majority of organisations and the public are disappointed that working dogs are exempt, but most of the veterinary organisations say that their members will not be docking even working breeds tails for ethical reasons and for fear of reprisals due to the complicated rules that need to be adhered to.

The Council for Docked Breeds, (CDB) fought against the Act from 2002 together with the UK Kennel Club. The CDB lost its valuable ally when by 2004 the Kennel Club shifted its stance away from docking to a ban on electric shock collars. David McDowell, RSPCA Acting Chief Veterinary Advisor said:

"However docking is dressed up, it remains a painful and cosmetic amputation, which is all about tradition rather than the dog's welfare. In Scotland there will be a complete ban from 30th April on the unacceptable practise of docking a dog's tail, except when medically required after suffering injury or disease. Why England was unable to emulate this sound and scientifically-led stance is deeply disappointing."

The Dog's Trust also supported the ban and called the new legislation:

"The most significant animal welfare legislation for nearly a Century."

The Animal Welfare Veterinary Team of the Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs, (DEFRA) review of tail docking in 2002.

"The arguements put forward by those who wish docking to be continued are unsound from a scientific viewpoint, are contary to accepted standards for the welfare of the dogs and serve only to contribute to artifical physical breed standards."

The Animal Welfare Act means that any owner or keeper of animals now has a legal, "Duty of care" for their animals and must provide.

1. A suitable environment in which to live.
2. To exhibit normal behaviour patterns.
3. A suitable diet including fresh water.
4. To be housed with or apart from other animals.
5. To be protected from pain, injury, suffering and disease and to recieve veterinary treatment when necessary.
6. The minimum age which a person can buy an animal is now raised from 12 to 16 years.

Offenders can now be prosecuted and recieve up to 51 weeks in prison and/or a fine of up to £20,000. In Scotland, the Animal Health and Welfare Minister, Ross Finnie said:

"Tail docking of dogs involves the removal of most or part of the tail, serving muscles, tendons, nerves and sometimes bone or cartilage. That cannot be justified because of a possibility that the dog may injure its tail in later life."

The Animal Welfare Act is currently in primary legislation. Secondary legislation, which will detail specifics regarding this law, and Codes of Practise will follow. It is to be hoped that Parliment will refine the exemption for working dogs and make it very difficult for any dog owner to continue with this barbaric tradition of amputating a dog's tail purely for cosmetic reasons.

Anyone that tries to claim that it is in the dog's best interest should refer to the wily old fox that can lead a pack of hounds a merry dance through the most dense undergrowth yet sports a BUSHY TAIL......
Dog Lover.
.

[DogAdvocat]

..........The legislation would create a new form of license - a breeder's license ......... The purpose of the license is to be able to take it away - if it were readily available at all.

It sure would be nice if the opponents of the bill would play fair and tell the truth. Breeder licensing isn't new. Los Angeles licenses breeders and has for some time. When the law was being considered that would require s/n in Los Angeles, breeders showed up in droves to protest that they would be unfairly persecuted by having to pay higher dog license fees for intact dogs, and not only were most of them seen getting into out-of-state vehicles afterwards, but it was pointed out that at that time, there were only 3 breeders licensed in the city of L.A., and those three weren't in attendance. So all those breeders attending, that claimed to be so responsible, were breaking the law because they weren't licensed already, not to mention giving the impression that they were constituents of the city counsel when they really came from other states.

This draconian bill...... is the work product of radical animal extremists, who count among their members the prime sponsor of the bill. AB 1634 is entitled "The Healthy Pets Act," although it makes no effort to address the health of pets at all.

Any time a law is proposed that would regulate breeders, they claim it's an AR plot. To the contrary, it's an animal welfare issue, and a public benefit issue. Why is it that breeders think they are the only industry that shouldn't be regulated? They are either running a business, or they are non-profit. If the former, then they need to be licensed and regulated like any other business. If the latter, then they should be applying for their non-profit status. Either way, they shouldn't be the only ones who have no rules to follow.

I've snipped the rest of the instructions, but wouldn't it be nice if those fighting this bill would put that much effort into developing a bill acceptable to them that would solve the problems? How can they justify fighting for the right to breed irresponsibly? It hurts dogs, and it hurts people. It just doesn't make sense except pure selfisness.

[Chloef_2799]

The only thing I am adverse to about this bill is having to have all dogs and cats altered at four months. It is better to wait until they are six to eight months of age. I think all breeders should have to be licenced and they should all face regular inspections and have to under-go through questioning and interview processes to make sure that they are breeding for the right reasons and I think any dog that they sell that will not be used for breeding by someone who is a licensed breeder should be altered. And I also think that the amount of dogs and cats in shelters is pathetic and absolutly un-acceptable. But I am also of the opinion that my current government could care less about anything that may benefit animals or the environment.

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by Chloef_2799

The only thing I am adverse to about this bill is having to have all dogs and cats altered at four months. It is better to wait until they are six to eight months of age.

If your not a breeder and have not intention of breeding or even to show or to "work", then there maybe no need to have entire cats or dogs, and they could even be spay neuter at ages younger than 4 months quite safely. I know some breeders who for many years and before handing over pets to go to their new home, have spay neutered at 8 to 10 weeks of age and who had no problems.

Also think about pounds/shelters where at times they certainly do have very young kittens and pups, and for years many have been spay neutered at ages less than 4 months of age before going to their new homes.

Keep in mind that in this Bill there is provision where a veterinarian can write a letter that on medical grounds a dog or cat could be exempt from this Bill, so if there was any medical reason why a cat or dog could not be spay neutered at 4 months of age then a veterinarian could easily write a letter for an exemption.
.

[DogAdvocat]

Thank you for the great information on docking, Quincy.

That's another thing I think needs to be changed here. Most of the reasons it's done is purely cosmetic and in each case there are comparable breeds that are not cropped/docked, proving that it's not necessary. Add to that the fact that most dogs are not used for the jobs they were originally bred for. Why should a puppymill miniature or toy poodle have to have their tail docked? The percentage of them who are used for the task that originally required tail docking has to be exceedingly small.

There are cases where tails are repeatedly injured because the dogs just wag too hard and don't seem to note that they are beating their tails against a solid surface, BUT there are other breeds that have the exact same problem, and are not traditionally docked. It makes no sense except to meet a ridiculous standard of what breeders think their dogs should look like - totally cosmetic.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by Chloef_2799

The only thing I am adverse to about this bill is having to have all dogs and cats altered at four months. It is better to wait until they are six to eight months of age. I think all breeders should have to be licenced and they should all face regular inspections and have to under-go through questioning and interview processes to make sure that they are breeding for the right reasons and I think any dog that they sell that will not be used for breeding by someone who is a licensed breeder should be altered. And I also think that the amount of dogs and cats in shelters is pathetic and absolutly un-acceptable. But I am also of the opinion that my current government could care less about anything that may benefit animals or the environment.

Are you actively campaigning against pounds that alter dogs and cats at 8 weeks? If not, then why is it okay for the pound animals, but not okay for animals coming directly from breeders?

[Tamara]

I agree nice post on docking Quincy. The law went into effect with little hoopla. Every dog owner I know thought it was about time and didn't feel like their rights had been stripped away.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Tamara

I agree nice post on docking Quincy. The law went into effect with little hoopla. Every dog owner I know thought it was about time and didn't feel like their rights had been stripped away.

Actually that is totally not true. Those that have docked breeds in England that are serious breeders are FURIOUS that AR wack jobs are telling them what to do. They have rallied and rallied against docking bans for years. Just lost the fight this time. It's a big shame. Means that those that have no knowledge what so ever of the procedure are telling others how to run thier lives/breeding programs. Very sad state of affairs indeed. There are NO studies whatsoever that show that the baby/neonate 2 day old pup has any nerves/feeling in his tail at that age. None whatsoever. More lies and distortions by the AR fanatics.

[saveourdogs]

There are many scientific studies that show that early altering has bad effects on the dog. yes they go through the surgery OK, but the long term effects are not good. They lose the hormones for proper development. This is bad especially in the larger breeds. Again, a law that has been developed by someone who has no knowledge whatsoever (a legislator that has no animal knowledge whatsoever) telling others and knowledgeable vets how to practice veterinary medicine. I have a big problem with that.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Quincy

If your not a breeder and have not intention of breeding or even to show or to "work", then there maybe no need to have entire cats or dogs, and they could even be spay neuter at ages younger than 4 months quite safely. I know some breeders who for many years and before handing over pets to go to their new home, have spay neutered at 8 to 10 weeks of age and who had no problems.

Also think about pounds/shelters where at times they certainly do have very young kittens and pups, and for years many have been spay neutered at ages less than 4 months of age before going to their new homes.

Keep in mind that in this Bill there is provision where a veterinarian can write a letter that on medical grounds a dog or cat could be exempt from this Bill, so if there was any medical reason why a cat or dog could not be spay neutered at 4 months of age then a veterinarian could easily write a letter for an exemption.
.

Simply because the owner wants to wait because it is better for the dog's development is not a good enough reason. So that argument is false.

[Tamara]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Actually that is totally not true. Those that have docked breeds in England that are serious breeders are FURIOUS that AR wack jobs are telling them what to do. They have rallied and rallied against docking bans for years. Just lost the fight this time. It's a big shame. Means that those that have no knowledge what so ever of the procedure are telling others how to run thier lives/breeding programs. Very sad state of affairs indeed. There are NO studies whatsoever that show that the baby/neonate 2 day old pup has any nerves/feeling in his tail at that age. None whatsoever. More lies and distortions by the AR fanatics.

It had little to do with what you call AR fanatics

http://www.bva.co.uk/policy/issues/p...ef_docking.pdf

It actually was a decision from vets, the KC and breeders. But I suppose they are all AR wack jobs too.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Tamara

It had little to do with what you call AR fanatics

http://www.bva.co.uk/policy/issues/p...ef_docking.pdf

It actually was a decision from vets, the KC and breeders. But I suppose they are all AR wack jobs too.

Sorry, you are incorrect. It had EVERYTHING To do with AR wackjobs in Europe. They are everywhere there, running amok. They are terrorizing people who work at medical facilities that do testing among other things.

Some vets where for it, doesn't mean they are not AR wacksjobs. Plenty of vets are AR wackjobs.
And no the Kennel Club was DEAD set against it and so where all the breeders.
Not sure where you got your information, but it is incorrect.