| Federal, State & Local Legislation that Affects You!! Action Needed ASAP! |
CA AB 1634: Opposing Arguments.
If this passes in California, it paves the way for similar legislation in
many other states. Everyone has a say in this!!! Please sign the petition
Dog and Cat Owners Say No To AB 1634
many other states. Everyone has a say in this!!! Please sign the petition
Dog and Cat Owners Say No To AB 1634
| Announcement Board |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |
| © Wild At Heart: The International Journal of the Pixie-Bob. All Rights Reserved |
AB 1634 Threatens Future Pet Ownership: Texas May Be Next!
From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance, the reasonable voice regarding animal issues in Texas. Responsible Pet Owners Alliance is an
animal welfare organization, not "animal rights" and, yes, there is a difference. Permission granted to cross post.
May 2, 2007
California has a major battle brewing over AB 1634 which has alarmed the entire country -- a statewide mandatory spay/neuter bill for
all dogs 4 months of age. The exemptions cannot be met by dog or cat fanciers we're told. No breeding = No pets!
The committee vote that passed the bill was split along partisan lines with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.
The "animal rights" movement has been proposing this legislation for 16 years in spite of proof that more animals, not less, will be
killed at animal control facilities. RPOA has defeated this legislation in three Texas cities to date -- San Antonio, Austin and Corpus
Christi -- but it keeps coming back.
If it isn't defeated in the state of California, it will be in our Texas Legislature next.
From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance, the reasonable voice regarding animal issues in Texas. Responsible Pet Owners Alliance is an
animal welfare organization, not "animal rights" and, yes, there is a difference. Permission granted to cross post.
May 2, 2007
California has a major battle brewing over AB 1634 which has alarmed the entire country -- a statewide mandatory spay/neuter bill for
all dogs 4 months of age. The exemptions cannot be met by dog or cat fanciers we're told. No breeding = No pets!
The committee vote that passed the bill was split along partisan lines with Democrats supporting and Republicans opposing the bill.
The "animal rights" movement has been proposing this legislation for 16 years in spite of proof that more animals, not less, will be
killed at animal control facilities. RPOA has defeated this legislation in three Texas cities to date -- San Antonio, Austin and Corpus
Christi -- but it keeps coming back.
If it isn't defeated in the state of California, it will be in our Texas Legislature next.
THE SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE UNION-TRIBUNE EDITORIAL
Drastic overreach
Pet sterilization measure should be scrapped
April 26, 2007
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine's bill to require the vast majority of California's dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered by the time they are
4 months old which took its first step toward passage this week with the approval of an Assembly committee is best described as a
well-intentioned mess.
Levine, D-Van Nuys, is on solid ground in saying there are far too many unwanted, abandoned dogs and cats, and that it is both disturbing
and costly that 300,000 to 500,000 animals have to be euthanized in California each year at a cost of $250 million. But his bill would
punish millions of responsible pet owners while actually encouraging more irresponsibility from the minority of pet owners who are
causing the problem in the first place.
Under AB 1634, any dog or cat that had not been spayed or neutered could be impounded. Owners could only recover their pets if they
agreed to have their animals fixed or if they paid a $500 fine. Given these owners couldn't be bothered to spend $50 to $150 for the
procedure in the first place, it's highly likely that many would never try to get back their pets who then would join other abandoned
animals at shelters as likely candidates for euthanasia.
It's also likely that many responsible pet owners and breeders who would have to pay for permits on a pet-by-pet basis to stay in business
would see the law as a governmental overreach and ignore its requirements. Such laws often lead to black markets and unexpected new
headaches.
Beyond these shortcomings, there is an angle to this debate that deserves far more attention: the fact that fixing dogs at such a young
age can cause many long-term health problems. For one example, sterilizing dogs before maturity more than triples their risk of bone
cancer.
Unfortunately, Levine brushes aside these concerns and says the choice is adopting his bill or doing nothing. We strongly disagree.
Before following Levine's prescription, why not first act to fully subsidize all spaying and neutering? Or offer a tax credit to pet owners
who can document their animals are sterilized? Or provide tax credits to veterinarians based on how many of their clients they get to fix
their pets?
This is much more practical and defensible than Levine's drastic overreach especially considering one minor detail that supporters of his
bill never bring up: The number of unwanted pets at state animal shelters has declined over the past decade. This suggests that existing
subsidies and public education efforts have worked and that there's promise in expanding them.
A final note: It's dismaying that Levine's bill passed the Assembly Business and Professions Committee thanks to unanimous support
from the panel's Democrats. We hope that every Assembly Democrat takes an independent, fresh look at AB 1634 and not just go along
with Levine because of that after his name.
Pet overpopulation is a complex issue. Decisions on how to deal with it shouldn't be driven by partisanship.
Drastic overreach
Pet sterilization measure should be scrapped
April 26, 2007
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine's bill to require the vast majority of California's dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered by the time they are
4 months old which took its first step toward passage this week with the approval of an Assembly committee is best described as a
well-intentioned mess.
Levine, D-Van Nuys, is on solid ground in saying there are far too many unwanted, abandoned dogs and cats, and that it is both disturbing
and costly that 300,000 to 500,000 animals have to be euthanized in California each year at a cost of $250 million. But his bill would
punish millions of responsible pet owners while actually encouraging more irresponsibility from the minority of pet owners who are
causing the problem in the first place.
Under AB 1634, any dog or cat that had not been spayed or neutered could be impounded. Owners could only recover their pets if they
agreed to have their animals fixed or if they paid a $500 fine. Given these owners couldn't be bothered to spend $50 to $150 for the
procedure in the first place, it's highly likely that many would never try to get back their pets who then would join other abandoned
animals at shelters as likely candidates for euthanasia.
It's also likely that many responsible pet owners and breeders who would have to pay for permits on a pet-by-pet basis to stay in business
would see the law as a governmental overreach and ignore its requirements. Such laws often lead to black markets and unexpected new
headaches.
Beyond these shortcomings, there is an angle to this debate that deserves far more attention: the fact that fixing dogs at such a young
age can cause many long-term health problems. For one example, sterilizing dogs before maturity more than triples their risk of bone
cancer.
Unfortunately, Levine brushes aside these concerns and says the choice is adopting his bill or doing nothing. We strongly disagree.
Before following Levine's prescription, why not first act to fully subsidize all spaying and neutering? Or offer a tax credit to pet owners
who can document their animals are sterilized? Or provide tax credits to veterinarians based on how many of their clients they get to fix
their pets?
This is much more practical and defensible than Levine's drastic overreach especially considering one minor detail that supporters of his
bill never bring up: The number of unwanted pets at state animal shelters has declined over the past decade. This suggests that existing
subsidies and public education efforts have worked and that there's promise in expanding them.
A final note: It's dismaying that Levine's bill passed the Assembly Business and Professions Committee thanks to unanimous support
from the panel's Democrats. We hope that every Assembly Democrat takes an independent, fresh look at AB 1634 and not just go along
with Levine because of that after his name.
Pet overpopulation is a complex issue. Decisions on how to deal with it shouldn't be driven by partisanship.
Support our K9 Cops and Service Dogs, Oppose AB 1634!
This is a strange twist on problems caused by CA AB 1634.
http://cops.cc/r/3292/195754 - Petition Link
We need your help to save police K-9?s. Please help COPS stop proposed legislation that will eliminate police dogs used for law
enforcement and rescue activities.
The legislation, California Assembly Bill 1634 authored by Assemblymember Lloyd Levine has been craftily titled the ?Healthy Pets
Act, but the effect would be to force the surgical sterilization of all dogs and cats. Elimination of future police dogs would devastate
police K-9 departments. AB 1634 would also eliminate many guide dogs for the blind and service dogs for the disabled.
Please sign our online petition in opposition to AB 1634 at:
http://cops.cc/r/3293/195754
The bill mandates all dogs and cats must be neutered at four months of age, with few exemptions. And the remaining pure bred animals
with exemptions would be taxed and regulated by a newly created government bureaucracy. The legislation even threatens criminal
penalties--just what we need--police arresting citizens for having unneutered cats and dogs!
Nearly all working police dogs were once somebody's pet dog. They are bought as young pups, placed with families, and then if they
pass all the working and health tests, eventually they may end up with a police department. Neutering all non-breeding K-9's will
destroy law enforcements ability to have successful K-9 departments.
Without police K-9's, our citizens will be more vulnerable to criminals and we will be unable to perform dangerous rescue operations in
times of need. That's why the United States Police Canine Association, the Western States Police Canine Association, the North
American Police Work Dog Association and the Canine Specialized Search Team all agree with COPS in opposing AB 1634.
AB 1634 takes away the rights of law abiding citizens, discriminates against our disabled citizens, and creates new taxes and
government
bureaucracies. Please join us in opposing AB 1634.
Sign the petition: http://cops.cc/r/3294/195754
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Monty Holden
Executive Director
COPS
P.S. *Please forward this to your friends and family and ask them to sign the petition: http://cops.cc/r/3295/195754
This is a strange twist on problems caused by CA AB 1634.
http://cops.cc/r/3292/195754 - Petition Link
We need your help to save police K-9?s. Please help COPS stop proposed legislation that will eliminate police dogs used for law
enforcement and rescue activities.
The legislation, California Assembly Bill 1634 authored by Assemblymember Lloyd Levine has been craftily titled the ?Healthy Pets
Act, but the effect would be to force the surgical sterilization of all dogs and cats. Elimination of future police dogs would devastate
police K-9 departments. AB 1634 would also eliminate many guide dogs for the blind and service dogs for the disabled.
Please sign our online petition in opposition to AB 1634 at:
http://cops.cc/r/3293/195754
The bill mandates all dogs and cats must be neutered at four months of age, with few exemptions. And the remaining pure bred animals
with exemptions would be taxed and regulated by a newly created government bureaucracy. The legislation even threatens criminal
penalties--just what we need--police arresting citizens for having unneutered cats and dogs!
Nearly all working police dogs were once somebody's pet dog. They are bought as young pups, placed with families, and then if they
pass all the working and health tests, eventually they may end up with a police department. Neutering all non-breeding K-9's will
destroy law enforcements ability to have successful K-9 departments.
Without police K-9's, our citizens will be more vulnerable to criminals and we will be unable to perform dangerous rescue operations in
times of need. That's why the United States Police Canine Association, the Western States Police Canine Association, the North
American Police Work Dog Association and the Canine Specialized Search Team all agree with COPS in opposing AB 1634.
AB 1634 takes away the rights of law abiding citizens, discriminates against our disabled citizens, and creates new taxes and
government
bureaucracies. Please join us in opposing AB 1634.
Sign the petition: http://cops.cc/r/3294/195754
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Monty Holden
Executive Director
COPS
P.S. *Please forward this to your friends and family and ask them to sign the petition: http://cops.cc/r/3295/195754