Biscuits Against AB1634

RedyreRottweilers · 06-09-2007, 08:54 PM

Received from Judy Strait jstrait@worldnet.att.net
Cross posted with permission permission to forward granted

To go along with the faxes and letters everyone is encouraged to send to
State Senate members and even to Arnold, we've come up with an idea to
garner some attention.

Biscuits Against AB1634

Just this week, the fans of the TV show "Jericho" were able to save their
show by showing just how popular it really is... They banded together, each
donating a small amount of their own money, to send 20 TONS of peanuts to
the CBS headquarters to voice their opposition to the cancellation of this
show. CBS listened, and just yesterday announced they will renew the series
for the fall politely asked them to stop sending the peanuts - LOL!).

Why couldn't the pet loving public do something similar to get the attention
of the Senate?

So... Biscuits Against AB1634 was born.

Dog biscuits... Ever a popular symbol of this country's obsession with our
dogs. How about sending some to California State Senators with a tag
attached simply saying "Vote NO on AB1634". Think of the boxes and boxes we
could pester them with? The space we could take up? The annoyance of
receiving pounds and pounds of dog biscuits at your office.

There are a number of ways to do this... Send your own biscuits with tags
attached. (Provided for print out on the website) Links to each State
Senator's website and address are available there also.

Or give a buck to Biscuits Against AB1634. We'll wrap them up all nice and
pretty with the tag, your name, and any comments you'd like included, then
box them in bulk and start sending!

Each dollar should cover the cost of one large biscuit, materials and
postage.

To further ... Poke fun at ... This absurd bill, we'll be sending California
Natural Health Bars... We've asked for support from Natura, but haven't
gotten a response yet. Regardless, we've got plenty of biscuits and are
ready to start shipping on Monday!

http://www.k9snatur ally.com/ stopab1634. htm This is the link if you want to send the biscuits.

------------------------------------------------

I just did this, and gave $25.00. Click on the red box. It's quick and easy if you have a pay pal account.

cshellenberger · 06-09-2007, 10:43 PM

The site is down or the link isn't working. Got a "cannot display web page" .

LassiesDad · 06-10-2007, 08:56 AM

Guess I won't be buying anything made by Natura

RonE · 06-10-2007, 09:02 AM

http://www.k9snaturally.com/stopab1634.htm

You can't have a space in a URL. Yours has two.

RedyreRottweilers · 06-10-2007, 09:59 AM

TYVM, Ron.

I cut and pasted from an email, and the link worked there, but thanks very much for fixing it.

Quincy · 06-10-2007, 10:02 AM

With the biscuits, maybe everyone could include a message to the Senators that they give a biscuit to all those who are about to be killed as there are not enough homes for them.

iwantmypup · 06-10-2007, 10:22 AM

I don't know what to think of this.. it can be good or bad

but geesh! " If you are a breeder, put a disclaimer on your website that you will NOT sell any puppies or kittens from upcoming litters to any resident of California if this bill passes.".. were not alll bad people!

LassiesDad · 06-10-2007, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quincy

With the biscuits, maybe everyone could include a message to the Senators that they give a biscuit to all those who are about to be killed as there are not enough homes for them.

Maybe they could suggest that the biscuits be served right before the animals are put to sleep.

RedyreRottweilers · 06-10-2007, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iwantmypup

I don't know what to think of this.. it can be good or bad

but geesh! " If you are a breeder, put a disclaimer on your website that you will NOT sell any puppies or kittens from upcoming litters to any resident of California if this bill passes.".. were not alll bad people!

Do you mean the law? Because it is ONLY bad. This law is the beginning of the end for purebred dogs, and pets in general. This is a huge accomplishment for PETA in reaching their goal of "no domestic slavery" for animals.

There is no way I would send ANY puppy to California, nor attend any dog show, nor visit there for any reason, nor buy anything that comes from that state, nor spend one red cent of my money there.

There is a lot of work going on to move dog shows OUT of the state of CA because of the money this generates. The Eukaneuba will almost certainly be moved from Long Beach, a notoriously anti-dog environment.

This is something you can ALL DO. You can do it for ONE DOLLAR.

Get busy. Send a message.

Curbside Prophet · 06-10-2007, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

There is a lot of work going on to move dog shows OUT of the state of CA because of the money this generates. The Eukaneuba will almost certainly be moved from Long Beach, a notoriously anti-dog environment.

This attitude IMO, causes only more dissention. And to any breeder who doesn't have a workable solution to help the problem with shelter dogs, I say don't let the door hit you on the way out. The status quo isn't working, and everyone (including breeders) need to be a part of the solution. So where can I send my biscuits to help find a soultion where everyone is working together?

RedyreRottweilers · 06-10-2007, 01:33 PM

What the State of California is going to realize is how much money the responsible dog owning public is putting in their pockets when multiple millions of dollars are removed from their economy.

What the rest of the US is going to realize if this law ultimately stands is how fast their own states will attempt to pass such legislation and how fast purebred dogs will disappear or become so exhorbitantly expensive because of the permits required to breed AT ALL that ONLY commercial facilities will be able to afford to breed (and commercially farm) purebred dogs.

The next step (the ARs ultimate goal) will be very few or no more companion animals. Yep, the shelters will be empty. So will homes and laps.

I hope on Monday morning the CA legislature is so overwhelmed with biscuits and biscuit boxes that they are unable to conduct normal business.

The US Gov't has no business trying to tell me what breed of dog I can own, and whether or not I can breed it if I choose to. None whatsoever.

4onthefloor · 06-10-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

What the State of California is going to realize is how much money the responsible dog owning public is putting in their pockets when multiple millions of dollars are removed from their economy.

What the rest of the US is going to realize if this law ultimately stands is how fast their own states will attempt to pass such legislation and how fast purebred dogs will disappear or become so exhorbitantly expensive because of the permits required to breed AT ALL that ONLY commercial facilities will be able to afford to breed (and commercially farm) purebred dogs.

The next step (the ARs ultimate goal) will be very few or no more companion animals. Yep, the shelters will be empty. So will homes and laps.

I hope on Monday morning the CA legislature is so overwhelmed with biscuits and biscuit boxes that they are unable to conduct normal business.

The US Gov't has no business trying to tell me what breed of dog I can own, and whether or not I can breed it if I choose to. None whatsoever.

I don't see this as a bad thing. No more puppy mills, no more dog fighting rings, no more abusing animals. If someone really wants a dog they'll pay for it. If they really want a dog they'll care for it. If they really want a dog, there will still be plenty of dogs. Millions are being killed (& let's not use the work euthenize - let's call it what it is) in shelters every year. Greyhounds not fit for racing aren't even included in that #. There's plenty of dogs overseas & other countries that rescue groups work with that we'll never run out. It's Not the US govt. trying to tell us what to do. It's the PEOPLE that the government is representing. The people want change. Something needs to be done about the BYB, & Puppy mills, & the millions of animals being killed every year. Ask a breeder, are you in it for the love of the breed. Those who are do not breed thier dogs more than once a year. In other countries they are limited to 3 or 4 litters per lifetime. Those countries do not have a problem with homeless animals That's for the betterment of the breed. But who needs 100 - 500 dogs for the betterment of the breed!

Snowshoe · 06-10-2007, 03:55 PM

Unfortunately, this bill doesn't touch puppy mills. That is a misconception. Many puppy mills are subsidized by the gov't and have been since the great depression.

RedyreRottweilers · 06-10-2007, 03:55 PM

Can you tell me where breeding limits of less than 5 litters in a lifetime are in effect?

How does this help purebred dogs if the excellent dogs and breeders cannot breed good dogs?

When a purebred dog costs upwards of 10K, no one will have them except the super rich. Dogs on the black market will cost even more. No one except large commercial millers (like Hunte) will be able to afford to breed dogs. There won't be any dog shows either.

I have been watching this unfold for thirty years. People who love dogs, and showing and breeding them as a hobby, should be scared.

Very scared.

I know I am.

LassiesDad · 06-10-2007, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

Can you tell me where breeding limits of less than 5 litters in a lifetime are in effect?

How does this help purebred dogs if the excellent dogs and breeders cannot breed good dogs?

When a purebred dog costs upwards of 10K, no one will have them except the super rich. Dogs on the black market will cost even more. No one except large commercial millers (like Hunte) will be able to afford to breed dogs. There won't be any dog shows either.

I have been watching this unfold for thirty years. People who love dogs, and showing and breeding them as a hobby, should be scared.

Very scared.

I know I am.

I wonder how many people that sell multi-thousand dollar dogs pay income taxes on the sale?

cshellenberger · 06-10-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iwantmypup

I don't know what to think of this.. it can be good or bad

but geesh! " If you are a breeder, put a disclaimer on your website that you will NOT sell any puppies or kittens from upcoming litters to any resident of California if this bill passes.".. were not alll bad people!

We have a litter of mastiffs that were born to one of our rescues (in the pound before we picked her up), NONE will be adopted to California because it simply isn't safe to spay that early. In fact we won't place any of our dogs in California under 6 months old. Too bad, we had some GREAT apps here too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LassiesDad

I wonder how many people that sell multi-thousand dollar dogs pay income taxes on the sale?

Yes, they do as a small business, that's why this bill does NOTHING about puppymills. I have two boxes being sent, one from me as an individual, one from FORM (Friends of Rescued Mastiffs).

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4onthefloor

I don't see this as a bad thing. No more puppy mills, no more dog fighting rings, no more abusing animals. If someone really wants a dog they'll pay for it. If they really want a dog they'll care for it. If they really want a dog, there will still be plenty of dogs. Millions are being killed (& let's not use the work euthenize - let's call it what it is) in shelters every year. Greyhounds not fit for racing aren't even included in that #. There's plenty of dogs overseas & other countries that rescue groups work with that we'll never run out. It's Not the US govt. trying to tell us what to do. It's the PEOPLE that the government is representing. The people want change. Something needs to be done about the BYB, & Puppy mills, & the millions of animals being killed every year. Ask a breeder, are you in it for the love of the breed. Those who are do not breed thier dogs more than once a year. In other countries they are limited to 3 or 4 litters per lifetime. Those countries do not have a problem with homeless animals That's for the betterment of the breed. But who needs 100 - 500 dogs for the betterment of the breed!

You have been VERY mislead, this bill will only affect the hobby breeder, those who breed for show and breed less than 8 littlers per year. It allows puppy mills to continue. It has NO provisions against fighting dogs and still allows dogs to be sold like bedsheets in petstores. Even the Police and seeing eye dog breeders will be affected.

Quincy · 06-10-2007, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cshellenberger

You have been VERY mislead, this bill will only affect the hobby breeder, those who breed for show and breed less than 8 littlers per year.

This Bill will NOT affect hobby breeders and who show, they can easily obtain Intact Permits. Folks have a read of the Bill yourself and you will see that they can, the latest copy of the Bill is via this link address:-
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/...d_asm_v94.html

American breeders will do as breeders have always done, and that is pass the costs of these Intact Permits on to those who buy their puppies, and over a litter of pups the cost each puppy purchaser pays maybe less than a cup of coffee, and the breeder gets their money back from each puppy purchaser.
Los Angeles Animal Services has already on record stated that an Intact Permit in LA will cost exactly $0.00, LA is planning on just using the current "Intact Dog License" as the permit, at no extra charge. Maybe we can expect other jurisdictions might follow suit, or to set low-cost intact permit fees. At Santa Cruz (the functioning model for this Bill) they charge right now $15 for their Intact Permits (Unaltered Animal Certificates), and maybe some other jurisdictions might follow this suit, see for yourself $15 on that form via this link address:-
http://www.scanimalservices.us/uac.pdf

Some breeders already do spay neuter their pets and for various reasons, and this even to stop Puppy Millers, Backyard Breeders and Designer Breeders from getting their hands on their sexually entire dogs even if they are pets, and some breeders certainly do "impose by contract mandatory laws" on pet owners who want to buy their pets where they must spay neuter at this age or that age. Many Pet Owners who have no intention of breeding don't mind if their pets are spay neutered, such as it may help address things like marking issues or in-season blood stains on floors or lounges, and there are health issues to consider like the probability of pyometra, prostrate cancer, etc.

In many places pet owners who do spay neuter their dogs can obtain cheaper yearly dog licenses, and this over the lifetime of a dog plus combined with low cost spay neutering it could be cost effective to spay neuter. Maybe this Bill's intention just might be to give heaps more pet owners a push in this direction.
.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedyreRottweilers

There is a lot of work going on to move dog shows OUT of the state of CA because of the money this generates. The Eukaneuba will almost certainly be moved from Long Beach, a notoriously anti-dog environment.

The Eukaneuba dog show event is only for a few days in Long Beach, and the residents and businesses there do not base their annual income just on a few days but on what they conduct throughout the entire year. So I don't think the vast majority of residents and businesses in Long Beach would really care, and similarly so the rest of California would not really care. Besides if the AKC cancels the venue booking then some other organization may take up the booking space for their functions. And I hear other organizations are interested in booking and why the AKC has to book 2 years in advance to make sure that they do get the booking.
Besides the money generated from AKC functions in California is small compared to the $250 MILLION EACH YEAR EXPENDITURE that taxpayers money is spent to house abandoned cats and dogs in shelters and then sadly euthanize (kill) the majority of these pets, and where financially they would be better off to also address that $250 MILLION annual expenditure.
.

Snowshoe · 06-10-2007, 09:58 PM

Wow Carla, I didn't realize that people were actually withholding puppies from those that live in the state of CA.

Don't you all worry about people in CA buying more puppy mill/ petstore puppies if they can't get them from a reputable breeder or rescue?

I realize that there are many in CA who do breed and rescue reputably. I suppose CA residents will have to look harder to find a quality/rescue pup.

I suppose that it's all for the love of the puppies you all rescue and have, though. I know that its not healthy for large breeds to be speutered before they are around a year and a half for growth purposes. I would rather see the pups you have grow and live and be healthy, as would you.

I just feel terribly for those in CA. I think that this bill is ignorant.

sillylilykitty · 06-10-2007, 10:08 PM

Why does it seem that everyone is repeating themselves?

Snowshoe · 06-10-2007, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sillylilykitty

Why does it seem that everyone is repeating themselves?

probably because we are

This is one topic that just won't die. Personally, I can't help myself. I think I am addicted to DogForums and need counseling. Anyone up for the task? I offer 4 dog bones per hour to anyone who can break my addiction!