[RonE]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

Ok, I'll bite.

See? I TOLD you it was a dog fight.

Try to keep it semi civil and maybe this one will hang around for 30-40 pages.

For myself, I'm calling it a day. I need to get up at dawn to take the dog for a long run.

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Education IS working. There is NO quick fix.

Santa Cruz County had for decades various comprehensive education programs that emphasizes public education and animal welfare, and which even reaches thousands of K-5 school students in Santa Cruz County each year this with 6 different interactive presentations. The programs are still operating today, and if you or anyone has any suggestions on how to improve on their education programs then please contact them.

Santa Cruz County 12 years ago realised that decades of education was no quick fix, and they really needed to try something different and why they thought about and then started the mandatory spay neuter law 12 years ago. THIS DID WORK in reducing shelter intake numbers by 63%, and this even though there was a 15% increase in the population within the county. Seeing the results it was then decided this may similarly work across California and why this Bill came about and using Santa Cruz County AS THE WORKING MODEL WHICH DID PRODUCE RESULTS as seen here, and the figures certainly were presented to all legislative representatives involved with this Bill:-

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Read: I refuse to see the facts that shelter deaths have gone down significantly and continue to do so each year.

Well you probably would refuse the figures from Santa Cruz County that's acting as the model for this Bill. If you have any figures other than what's been presented to the legislative representatives then I suggest you get them to the legislative representatives as soon as possible.
.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Quincy

Santa Cruz County had for decades various comprehensive education programs that emphasizes public education and animal welfare, and which even reaches thousands of K-5 school students in Santa Cruz County each year this with 6 different interactive presentations. The programs are still operating today, and if you or anyone has any suggestions on how to improve on their education programs then please contact them.

Santa Cruz County 12 years ago realised that decades of education was no quick fix, and they really needed to try something different and why they thought about and then started the mandatory spay neuter law 12 years ago. THIS DID WORK in reducing shelter intake numbers by 63%, and this even though there was a 15% increase in the population within the county. Seeing the results it was then decided this may similarly work across California and why this Bill came about and using Santa Cruz County AS THE WORKING MODEL WHICH DID PRODUCE RESULTS as seen here, and the figures certainly were presented to all legislative representatives involved with this Bill:-

.

Reality is different. This will no way be like what is on the books in Santa Cruz. First of all, it is extremely easy to get a breeding permit. This simply NOT the case here. And it will be exhobitantly expensive as each locality sets prices and increases them yearly. It is simply a tax on breeders.

My AR friend thinks that's a good idea. He sees nothing wrong with taxing breeders. Well I have a different opinion.

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Reality is different. This will no way be like what is on the books in Santa Cruz. First of all, it is extremely easy to get a breeding permit. This simply NOT the case here. And it will be exhobitantly expensive as each locality sets prices and increases them yearly. It is simply a tax on breeders.

It appears that maybe your not interesting in giving it a try to see if it does work in California as it did in Santa Cruz County, and in all previous topics regarding this Bill you have apposed nearly every point in the Bill. OK, well we will go over yet again these particular points you mentioned yet again.

You mentioned it's not the case that a breeder can easily obtain a permit, well anyone reading the Bill will clearly see that breeders can easily obtain Intact Permits, please folks have a read of the Bill via this link address and see for yourself:-
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/...d_asm_v95.html

As to your comment "exhobitantly expensive to breeders". Well how many breeders does one see who give away their pups for FREE $0?
From what I see the vast majority of breeders certainly do charge for their pups, and any costs to the breeder are spread and added to each pup they sell, where at the least they try to break even otherwise if they kept loosing money then they would go broke, or they may need a good paying job to financially support a money loosing breeding practice.
Breeders will do what breeders have allways done, and breeders will pass on the costs of Intact Permits on to puppy purchasers, and spread out through all the pups breeders sell that will not be much at all per pup and this in effect it really costs the breeder $0 for Intact Permits.
Think of another cost say health testing and who really pays for it, maybe first the breeder but then the breeder passes this on to all those who buy their puppies and where the breeder gets their money back.

Also in regards to your comment "exhobitantly expensive to breeders", do you know how much Intact Permits will cost?
By the way, have you heard that Los Angeles animal services is already on record as stating that an intact permit in L.A. will cost exactly $0.00. Yep, $0.00. L.A. is planning on just using the current intact dog license as the permit, at no extra charge. Maybe we can expect other jurisdictions to follow suit, or to set low-cost permit fees. At Santa Cruz they charge right now $15 for their Intact Permits, and that's certainly is not "exhobitantly expensive to breeders" expecially when this cost is spread in to a litter of pups where the breeder gets their money back from selling pups.
Keep in mind that the goal of the bill is not to make money, it is to bring down the numbers of animals in our shelters, and bring down the associated costs that taxpayers are already paying.

Edited in - see here via this link is the cost of $15 in Santa Cruz for an Intact Permit (Unaltered Animal Certificate), wow how "exhobitantly expensive to breeders" particularly when breeders pass such costs on to puppy purchasers, and where over a litter and for each pup the cost each puppy buyer pays maybe less than a cup of coffee:-
http://www.scanimalservices.us/uac.pdf
.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Quincy

It appears that maybe your not interesting in giving it a try to see if it does work in California as it did in Santa Cruz County, and in all previous topics regarding this Bill you have apposed nearly every point in the Bill. OK, well we will go over yet again these particular points you mentioned yet again.

You mentioned it's not the case that a breeder can easily obtain a permit, well anyone reading the Bill will clearly see that breeders can easily obtain Intact Permits, please folks have a read of the Bill via this link address and see for yourself:-
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/...d_asm_v95.html

As to your comment "exhobitantly expensive to breeders". Well how many breeders does one see who give away their pups for FREE $0?
From what I see the vast majority of breeders certainly do charge for their pups, and any costs to the breeder are spread and added to each pup they sell, where at the least they try to break even otherwise if they kept loosing money then they would go broke, or they may need a good paying job to financially support a money loosing breeding practice.
Breeders will do what breeders have allways done, and breeders will pass on the costs of Intact Permits on to puppy purchasers, and spread out through all the pups breeders sell that will not be much at all per pup and this in effect it really costs the breeder $0 for Intact Permits.
Think of another cost say health testing and who really pays for it, maybe first the breeder but then the breeder passes this on to all those who buy their puppies and where the breeder gets their money back.

Also in regards to your comment "exhobitantly expensive to breeders", do you know how much Intact Permits will cost?
By the way, have you heard that Los Angeles animal services is already on record as stating that an intact permit in L.A. will cost exactly $0.00. Yep, $0.00. L.A. is planning on just using the current intact dog license as the permit, at no extra charge. Maybe we can expect other jurisdictions to follow suit, or to set low-cost permit fees. At Santa Cruz they charge right now $15 for their Intact Permits, and that's certainly is not "exhobitantly expensive to breeders" expecially when this cost is spread in to a litter of pups where the breeder gets their money back from selling pups.
Keep in mind that the goal of the bill is not to make money, it is to bring down the numbers of animals in our shelters, and bring down the associated costs that taxpayers are already paying.

Edited in - see here via this link is the cost of $15 in Santa Cruz for an Intact Permit (Unaltered Animal Certificate), wow how "exhobitantly expensive to breeders" particularly when breeders pass such costs on to puppy purchasers, and where over a litter and for each pup the cost each puppy buyer pays maybe less than a cup of coffee:-
http://www.scanimalservices.us/uac.pdf
.

I live in the real world where municipalities WILL see these permits as a source of revenue and WILL be charging a hundred if not HUNDREDS of dollars EACH. Multiply that times the number of dogs you have. Again, my estimate is that it will possibly cost EACH breeder $1000 PER YEAR for these TAXES. How is that fair? How is that fair to the GOOD breeders? yes Santa Cruz charges a very low price, but for how long will that last? It could go up at any time. And most localities will not charge such a low price. It is quite a bit more in LA County. You mentioned LA City.

Of course the costs will be passed on to the consumer. By my estimate, by the number of litters and number of puppies per litter in my breed, it will raise prices $200 per puppy. How is that fair to the consumer? Now it is a tax on consumers since it will be passed onto them. How many can afford that extra cost? and then have to pay $500 to spay the dog? That is the average cost to do so in CA. I have asked many CA residents what thier vets charge. I also know what the bills for the altering surgery of those that bought my puppies. I see the bill when they send me proof of altering. It is anywhere from $300 to $600.


There are no provisions for low cost clinics in this bill. Just a pie in the sky promise that maybe we will. It will NEVER happen.

And since you have absolutely no idea about the dog show world, it looks to the unknowledgeable that it is easy to get an unaltered permit. It simply, in fact, is NOT. It is practically IMPOSSIBLE to meet those criterion. You have no idea of the reality of the dog show world and how old the dogs are when they can be shown, how old they are when they are shown , and how old they are when they are mature enough to win. Some breeds aren't regularly shown until 3. They aren't mature enough until then. But by law they must be altered by 2 according to this law. If they do not have a CH by 2 they must be altered. So they are out of luck. Most dogs do NOT finish their CH by 2 years of age in most breeds. You just can't and refuse to understand that.

See I live in the real world and know how governments work and know that these permits will be raised each year. My county raises the dog license fee each year, why would this be any different. Answer: It won't be.

And I live in the real world and know about dog shows and how these criterion are not realistic for 90% of dogs out there being shown. If you refuse to understand that, well not my problem. But hopefully some will be able to comprehend it.

[Quincy]

Here you go again with exaggerations and assumptions to try and gather support to kill this bill. You even assume I have absolutely no idea about the dog show world, well I have been a "hobby breeder" for many years and have champion titled several of my dogs in conformation, obedience and tracking.
.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by Quincy

Here you go again with exaggerations and assumptions to try and gather support to kill this bill. You even assume I have absolutely no idea about the dog show world, well I have been a "hobby breeder" for many years and have champion titled several of my dogs in conformation, obedience and tracking.
.

Not exaggerations, reality based knowledge. There is absolutely NO DOUBT in any realistic person's mind that these localities will see this as a new found source of revenue. Anyone who things otherwise has thier heads who knows where. Legislation has to ACTUALLY WORK! Why is that concept so hard to grasp? What will ACTUALLY happen needs to be considered. This is not being done here.

Well, your grasp of the reality of how these restrictions to get an intact permit will really work is sorely lacking. the age restrictions on neutering age and on how young they have to be have finished thier championship are not realistic at all.

We need workable solutions, not pie in the sky liberals funded by AR fanatics that have no idea whatsoever about breeders making solutions. Throwing poorly worked legislation at the situation will not solve your perceived problem.

[Quincy]

Well you have your views and opinions and so do I, and I am willing to give this Bill a go and try my best to make it work where I can in that it may help what's occuring in shelters.

I certainly do know that many will not finish their championship for the reality is only some will, and by 2 years of age a breeder/exhibitor would have a pretty good idea if to show or not to show a particular dog. Besides there is sufficient provision in the Bill from exemptions and where Intact Permits will be issued if a 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 an approved purebred registry or association. This I feel is quite considerate in the Bill where all that is required is some proof which can easily be obtained that their cat or dog has competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition, hosted by, or under the approval of, a recognized purebred registry or association, and is being trained to show or compete and is too young to have yet competed.
.

[Doobiesmom]

Happy to report that the law passed in California despite all the attempts to defeat it by the special interest groups. Some of the stories these people made up to try to discredit this law, were unreal, but in the end the people of California were smart enough to ignore it all and pass a law that will save thousands of animals from being euthanized in shelters.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Not exaggerations, reality based knowledge. There is absolutely NO DOUBT in any realistic person's mind that these localities will see this as a new found source of revenue. Anyone who things otherwise has thier heads who knows where. Legislation has to ACTUALLY WORK! Why is that concept so hard to grasp? What will ACTUALLY happen needs to be considered. This is not being done here.

Well, your grasp of the reality of how these restrictions to get an intact permit will really work is sorely lacking. the age restrictions on neutering age and on how young they have to be have finished thier championship are not realistic at all.

We need workable solutions, not pie in the sky liberals funded by AR fanatics that have no idea whatsoever about breeders making solutions. Throwing poorly worked legislation at the situation will not solve your perceived problem.

You talking about realism.. Now that is a stretch.......

[xoxluvablexox]

Woohoo! It passed? That's so great

[Curbside Prophet]

No, it hasn't passed into law yet.

[xoxluvablexox]

Thank for ruining my happy dance

[ritabooker]

I read that it did pass some kind of Business Comittee vote, but not a vote by our State Legislators, yet.

Here it is, I found this in a press release:

Nearly 350 supporters attended this morning’s hearing, including veterinarians, animal
control officers, and animal advocates. Hundreds of organizations and thousands of
individuals have submitted letters in support of the California Healthy Pets Act. The
success of today’s hearing comes three weeks after AB 1634’s first hurdle was cleared,
when the Assembly’s Business and Professions Committee voted 7-2 in favor of passing
the much-needed measure.


The California Healthy Pets Act will next be heard by the full Assembly at a date to be
determined between now and June 8. For more information, please visit our Web site at
www.cahealthypets.com.

[Curbside Prophet]

You can keep track of it here...
Bill List

[ritabooker]

Good link, Curbside, Thanks.

[DogAdvocat]

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

I live in the real world where municipalities WILL see these permits as a source of revenue and WILL be charging a hundred if not HUNDREDS of dollars EACH. Multiply that times the number of dogs you have. Again, my estimate is that it will possibly cost EACH breeder $1000 PER YEAR for these TAXES. How is that fair? How is that fair to the GOOD breeders? yes Santa Cruz charges a very low price, but for how long will that last? It could go up at any time. And most localities will not charge such a low price. It is quite a bit more in LA County. You mentioned LA City.

It could even be a billion dollars a year, or maybe a trillion - I mean if you're going to invent numbers out of thin air, why not let your imagination run wild? Oh wait, you already are.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Of course the costs will be passed on to the consumer. By my estimate, by the number of litters and number of puppies per litter in my breed, it will raise prices $200 per puppy. How is that fair to the consumer? Now it is a tax on consumers since it will be passed onto them. How many can afford that extra cost? and then have to pay $500 to spay the dog? That is the average cost to do so in CA. I have asked many CA residents what thier vets charge. I also know what the bills for the altering surgery of those that bought my puppies. I see the bill when they send me proof of altering. It is anywhere from $300 to $600.

Once again, your imagination runs wild. I routinely have dogs altered here and it costs a whole lot less than what you're claiming. Even assuming that you're right, the people who are paying that much for altering are being ripped off because there are quality vets that charge a whole lot less. I pay between $35 to $65 depending on the size of the dog. And contrary to your prior claims, based on no first hand knowledge, that is not reducing the quality of the care at all.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

There are no provisions for low cost clinics in this bill. Just a pie in the sky promise that maybe we will. It will NEVER happen.

We already have low cost clinics. There was no need to put it in the bill. We have lots of programs for reducing spay/neuter prices, and even free programs, but what we need is an impetus to get people to actually use them. That's what this bill will do.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

See I live in the real world and know how governments work and know that these permits will be raised each year. My county raises the dog license fee each year, why would this be any different. Answer: It won't be.

Then your issue should be with your county, not California.

Originally Posted by saveourdogs

Not exaggerations, reality based knowledge. There is absolutely NO DOUBT in any realistic person's mind that these localities will see this as a new found source of revenue. Anyone who things otherwise has thier heads who knows where. Legislation has to ACTUALLY WORK! Why is that concept so hard to grasp? What will ACTUALLY happen needs to be considered. This is not being done here.

You keep saying that your argument is based in reality, and then you go off on a tangent about what you think will happen. The reality is that you're just guessing, and you have no idea what will happen. The reality is that you don't even live in California and you have no idea what the shelter and rescue community can and will do to make this successful. The reality is that you keep giving erroneous information about current spay/neuter programs, and you base your information on what's happening in your locale without any indication that your locale is anything like California. And that's not even to mention your AR paranoia that colors your view of the world.

There are approximately 350 humane groups that have endorsed this bill. Can you even name that many groups working in your state?

[Quincy]

I find it interesting reading to see what the American Kennel Club is telling it's members, and encouraging it's members to send letters to politicians including the governor.

First read this which is in the Bill and I'm sure non resident could easily show some proof, say maybe just show a drivers license or whatever if they ever happened to be asked, now what is in the Bill:-
"Any owner of a cat or dog who is not a resident of California shall be exempted from the permit requirements set forth in this chapter if the owner provides proof, as determined by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that the cat or dog is temporarily in California for training, showing, or any other legitimate reason, as determined by the local jurisdiction."

Now read this which is on the AKC website, and further down it mentions "the death knell for dog shows" and "making it virtually impossible for the vast majority of our exhibitors to attend this event" , click on this link address and see for yourself what bunk the AKC is passing on:-
http://www.akc.org/pdfs/canine_legis...ReBill1634.pdf
.

[Curbside Prophet]

The letter by the AKC was dated April 5th. The bill was corrected to account for this concern, was it not? Aren't you then taking what the AKC said out of context, since the original bill was worded poorly?

[Quincy]

Originally Posted by Curbside Prophet

The letter by the AKC was dated April 5th. The bill was corrected to account for this concern, was it not? Aren't you then taking what the AKC said out of context, since the original bill was worded poorly?

There was some small amendments to that part of the Bill, but it was in the Bill previous to that and the intent all along was not to apply the Bill to visitors from other states.

It's been some time now since the last amendments, maybe it's time the AKC removed that from their website and informed their interstate members of the exemptions from the permit requirements, maybe to get the message quickly to their members they might include that on their website.
.

[saveourdogs]

Originally Posted by DogAdvocat

It could even be a billion dollars a year, or maybe a trillion - I mean if you're going to invent numbers out of thin air, why not let your imagination run wild? Oh wait, you already are.



Once again, your imagination runs wild. I routinely have dogs altered here and it costs a whole lot less than what you're claiming. Even assuming that you're right, the people who are paying that much for altering are being ripped off because there are quality vets that charge a whole lot less. I pay between $35 to $65 depending on the size of the dog. And contrary to your prior claims, based on no first hand knowledge, that is not reducing the quality of the care at all.



We already have low cost clinics. There was no need to put it in the bill. We have lots of programs for reducing spay/neuter prices, and even free programs, but what we need is an impetus to get people to actually use them. That's what this bill will do.



Then your issue should be with your county, not California.



You keep saying that your argument is based in reality, and then you go off on a tangent about what you think will happen. The reality is that you're just guessing, and you have no idea what will happen. The reality is that you don't even live in California and you have no idea what the shelter and rescue community can and will do to make this successful. The reality is that you keep giving erroneous information about current spay/neuter programs, and you base your information on what's happening in your locale without any indication that your locale is anything like California. And that's not even to mention your AR paranoia that colors your view of the world.

There are approximately 350 humane groups that have endorsed this bill. Can you even name that many groups working in your state?

My reality is based on well, REALITY ie what has happened in the past. MANY places keep raising fees yearly. There is no denying that. There is nothing in this provision that states what the cost will be. Therefore, each municipality will set thier own fees. And some WILL set it at an exhorbitantly high cost and keep increasing it each year. Believing anything else shows lack of knowledge of lawmaking and how municipal governments work.

And that list of groups that support the bill is not accurate. Many are on there due to ONE member of the group without the knowledge of the board of directors of the organization, sending in a letter. And some are on there are no letter was sent from any member of the organization. Many have written to have thier name removed as they did not send in an endorsement.

The CVMA did NOT consult the vets on whether to support this bill. Many vets have written the CVMA bashing them for this and have written letters against this to the legislature. Do a google search to find this information.

What erroneous information have I been giving about altering clinics? The fact that the law does not provide for it? That it is a wish, IF there is money left over? Again, as above, anyone who is knowledgeable about how local municipalities work will know that there will NEVER be any leftover funds.

It is a FACT that there are not enough low cost clinics in your state. Anyone who believes otherwise is not working with the proper facts. Are there SOME? yes, enough for the population? No. Do some research. Go google.

Originally Posted by Quincy

I find it interesting reading to see what the American Kennel Club is telling it's members, and encouraging it's members to send letters to politicians including the governor.

First read this which is in the Bill and I'm sure non resident could easily show some proof, say maybe just show a drivers license or whatever if they ever happened to be asked, now what is in the Bill:-
"Any owner of a cat or dog who is not a resident of California shall be exempted from the permit requirements set forth in this chapter if the owner provides proof, as determined by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that the cat or dog is temporarily in California for training, showing, or any other legitimate reason, as determined by the local jurisdiction."

Now read this which is on the AKC website, and further down it mentions "the death knell for dog shows" and "making it virtually impossible for the vast majority of our exhibitors to attend this event" , click on this link address and see for yourself what bunk the AKC is passing on:-
http://www.akc.org/pdfs/canine_legis...ReBill1634.pdf
.

Are you familiar with the term boycott? I will certainly boycott the state if this passes. I will never travel there for any reason. I do not wish to give economic benefit from hotel rooms, airtravel, gas, restaurants, etc etc, to a population that lets the AR fanatics dictate how you live your lives. Some of us value our freedoms.


The AKC WILL move the National Championship show out of the state if this passes. The legislature and the Governor have already been informed of this. This will cost the community millions of dollars yearly. As well as losing the good national publicity as this show is televised nationally.

This happened in Louisville this past March. The Louisville dog show cluster is always the largest entry dog show in the US. This year thier entry was down $1000 dogs. And the majority that did enter did NOT stay in the county or go to restaurants in the county, gas stations, etc.. They stayed in the next county. The hotel and restaurant owners are furious and have demanded the retraction of the draconian legislation that was passed. Well, it seems that none of the lawmakers even read it before they voted for it. When complaints where made about specific provisions, the answer was, that's in there? It will be totally reworked due to the will of the people, not some fanatic AR minority that got it passed in the first place. There are also lawsuits, as there are lawsuits planned if this passes in CA.