Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Animal Advocates Need to Seek Common Ground

2006 Photo by Dave Koerner
Big sister, Ruya, watches over a half sibling baby brother.

Christie Keith writes "Forget all the rhetoric on both sides, and just keep the goal clear in your mind: Reducing the number of dogs and cats who die in California shelters."
Can the two sides of mandatory spay/neuter find common ground? See the whole article at SFGate.

From the very start of the issues involved with AB 1634, I've felt that if more people had a better feel for the complexity of elements involved with reducing the euthanization of pet animals and finding successful "forever homes" -- we'd have more in the way of cooperative and successful teamwork. So many have been saying, "Education doesn't work" and argue that brute strength of law is the only solution. AND then... THEY go on to illustrate by their own arguments, amazing ignorance in the complexities of the equation. Hello? Education? How about starting with up close and personal.

Education is the key.
Divide and conquer, and punitive legislation are hurtful and counterproductive.

Mind opening newsletters. . .

Seeding ideas for thoughtful consideration... see Nathan Winograd's No Kill Advocate newsletters here. A recent one, for example, had a good bit of info on how to increase successful placement of adoptable pit bulls is Issue #2 2007 (direct link to specific PDF article)

He's got a lot of articles on reforming Animal Control - under Legislation, The Dark Side of Mandatory Laws(PDF)
Which points out HSUS's dichotomy, for example, spreading fear about feral cats. He, in another document, writes (p6) also about how HSUS opposed King County in Wa State when they were adopting a real No-Kill philosophy.

There's a youtube vid featuring Nathan (about half an hour)


Go on a tour of shelters here. Shelter accountability needs to be addressed.

Nathan Winograd is doing a lot to educate and promote working together. Spend some time checking out his site, subscribe to the free e-newsletter, consider becoming a No Kill Advocate member and get the hard copy version of No Kill Sheltering Magazine.

Link:
No Kill Advocacy Site

Labels:


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 7/24/2007 03:56:00 PM | Permanent link | (0) Comments

Monday, July 23, 2007

HSUS Finds Scam Opportunity and Cash Cow in the News on Vick


Wayne Pacelle, CEO and President of Human Society of the United States, wrote in his blog on 20 July, 2007, "The response to our campaign urging the NFL to suspend Vick has been unprecedented. The outpouring of actions through humanesociety.org was larger than we have ever seen, and it shut down portions of our web site for two days."

HSUS does not run a shelter. It often solicits money by using the story of some animal or event somewhere and asks people to send money to help animals like the one in the story, which leads people to believe their donations directly help the animal(s) in the story. The terrible destruction wrought by Katrina provided another such cash cow. Heavy campaigning by HSUS to solicit funds allegedly for animal care was obvious to many but what they actually did with the cash remains mysterious. Many legitimate rescue organizations were scraping by during Katrina and trying to save animals and reunite them with their owners. HSUS had millions to spend yet many of the rescues reported problems regarding HSUS mismanagement of goals and resources. There has been no accounting for the nearly $20 million HSUS raised for the Katrina dogs and cats. HSUS is under investigation by the Louisiana Attorney General for their handling of that situation.

People send HSUS tens of thousands of dollars annually, while ignoring the REAL animal shelters in their own towns. :(

Check out the changes that I have captured from a cache of the original solicitation page and compare it to the current revised one (of tonight) at this page. From the language of the page, they are clearly using the Vick stories to pump up their coffers and are changeable and unclear on what solicited funds will be used for.

Support your legitimate local shelters and/or your breed rescues. :)

Labels: ,


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 7/23/2007 11:13:00 PM | Permanent link | (0) Comments

Former CVMA President, John Hamil, DVM writes about AB 1634

Semavi Nipper at left in a 1992 photo.

Many Anatolians and their progeny will NOT qualify for an exemption under AB 1634 as currently suspended until 2008.

The so called "exemptions" are little more than misleading hocus-pocus and bluffery designed to appease the unknowing.

Past President of California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) and animal advocate, writes from experience of twenty five years in trying to find solutions to the problems of animal relinquishment and euthanasia. Go here to read the TESTIMONY OF JOHN HAMIL, DVM on seven false premises of AB 1634.

At Sandiegodog blog, a piece by Laura Finco fleshes some some of it out as she writes about a neighbor. Meanwhile, in L.A. stuff like this goes on under General Manager Ed Boks - shown here to be manipulating his shelter statistics while under scrutiny.

Mandatory spay and neuter is a NON-solution to relinquishment, abandonment, lack of responsibility and the issues of unowned strays.

Deliberately choosing to ignore the above complex problems and lack of accountability in most animal shelters, while shifting "the blame" flaunts ignorance, denial in perception and problem solving ability.

Well, humans are fickle.

Humans and long term relationships will always have dynamics. Consider marriage, 50% of which are said to end in divorce - The remaining 50% cannot even be considered uniformly successful. Who knows how many 'stick together' despite abusive or other malignant activity? Relationship failures are complex.

Why should it be no surprise that not every pet which starts out with a home has a permanent one.

Pets being relinquished or left to run free are not caused by an "over population" problem but something more far more complex.


Homelessness, World Hunger?
- - Is it People Overpopulation?


Lessee... using the same simplistic logic of "STOP THE FLOW!" endorsed by Judie Mancuso, Lloyd Levine, and others for AB 1634-
  • Homelessness, world hunger, pollution, crime, wars, disease and even "pet overpopulation" can all be solved by stopping the source of all these problems.
  • Stop HUMAN reproduction.
Using the same principles of logic, every two year old, pre-adolescent child in California must be castrated. I'd hate to see these geniuses try to work out who gets "exemptions".

My whole point is that "stop the flow" does NOT address the problems. Profiling a population, even a pet owning one as they do is draconian, ignorant and juvenile.

No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception

Labels:


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 7/23/2007 12:53:00 AM | Permanent link | (0) Comments

Saturday, July 21, 2007

Burglars Chose Police Dog Training Center To Steal Copper


What were they thinking?!


From AccessNorthGA.com
Dogs chase down suspects in break-in at K-9 training facility

The Associated Press - GAINESVILLE, Ga.

You can't say the three burglary suspects chased down by police dogs weren't warned: Signs identified the scene of the alleged crime as a police dog training facility.

"It was posted everywhere, 'K-9 training facility,'" said Hall County Sheriff's Sgt. Kiley Sargent.

The dog handlers showed up at 4 p.m. Wednesday up for a training session inside the abandoned Lakeshore Heights Nursing Home when they discovered two men and a woman dismantling the building's copper pipes and wiring, Sargent said.

When the officers arrived, the three dropped their tools and ran.

That was their second mistake.

"For anyone to try to run from a whole unit of canines, it's just a no-win situation," Sargent said.

The woman, Pamela Puckett, 37, quickly surrendered. One man, Paul Perry, 39, got a dog bite just below the buttocks before he was arrested, authorities said.

The second man, Marc Black, 18, was tracked to a trash bin behind a nearby convenience store.

Perry, a Gainesville resident, and Puckett and Black, who live in Braselton, were each charged with burglary, Sargent said. Perry and Black also face misdemeanor obstruction charges. Perry was treated at Northeast Georgia Medical Center for a superficial bite wound, Sargent said.

Police don't know whether the three didn't see the dog training signs or just ignored them.

"It's not like it was a secret," Sargent said. "I guess someone who is that determined to steal something might not pay attention."

Semavi Lady woofed at @ 7/21/2007 07:31:00 PM | Permanent link | (2) Comments

Anonymous jan sent us a woof // July 22, 2007

That's hilarious. It reminds me of something I saw on TV as the police have busted a crack house and are carrying away evidence. One guy comes up and wants to buy drugs from one of the policemen.   

Blogger Semavi Lady sent us a woof // July 23, 2007

One guy comes up and wants to buy drugs from one of the policemen.

People are AMAZING. ;)   

China shuts plants that produced tainted medicine, pet food


China shuts plants that produced tainted medicine, pet food - CNN.com
:
"BEIJING, China (AP) --
Ahead of high-level visits by U.S. and European officials, China moved to sharpen its product safety image Friday, shutting down a chemical plant linked to dozens of deaths in Panama from tainted medicine and closing two companies tied to pet deaths in North America.

Inspectors work in a food safety inspection center in Beijing, China.

The measures come as Beijing struggles to reassure global customers that it takes food and drug safety seriously amid concerns over chemicals and toxins that have been found in its products.

The closures come months after links between the companies' products and the deaths became known, but only days before visits by European Union and U.S. officials." (more)

Labels: ,


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 7/21/2007 11:17:00 AM | Permanent link | (0) Comments

Thursday, July 12, 2007

GIANTmicrobes | Ulcer (Helicobacter pylori)

GIANT microbes!

This guy on the left is too cute. Know anyone that would like to have a pet Ulcer bacterium? Now they can be the person with everything and thank you for this thoughtful gift of a giant Helicobacter pylori. (site says toys are 5 to 7 inches long). That's a sizeable ulcer bug!

Your favorite hypochondriac or chosen victim (hopefully one with a great sense of humor) might also enjoy having Athlete's Foot, Mange, The Clap, a Pox (way cute!) and Heartworm too! Spread the joy with the kind of gifts that have been known for their ability to keep on giving! ;) The common cold also comes as a soap dispenser.

The giant mosquito, the fly and the little Martian may appease those with different tastes. It takes all kinds! Check out GIANT Microbes.

I don't think any of these would be Anatolian Shepherd proof for all but the youngest pups, but maybe adding a squeaker in the stuffing, reinforcing the stitches and giving some playtime supervision can bring lots of giggles. :D

Thanks to Mark for the alert!

"Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have."
-- Dave Barry

Labels: ,


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 7/12/2007 10:51:00 AM | Permanent link | (0) Comments

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Lassie Goes to the State Capitol! NO on AB 1634!




WE THE PEOPLE PRESS RELEASE
JULY 10, 2007

LASSIE GOES TO THE STATE CAPITOL - Brings Legislators to their knees!

Lassie and Sen. McLeod
Lassie arrived late afternoon at the State Capitol and went right to the top. No, not to the Governator, but to Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, Chairwoman of the Local Government Committee that will hear bill AB 1634 on Wednesday morning. Nearly 1000 Californians are expected to show up for a hearing in a room that only holds 60 people. Sounds like a morning on a Los Angeles freeway!

Lassie then went calling on Legislators seeking their opposition to the bill that many are calling "the Pet Extinction Act". Lassie is really Laddie, a 7 year old massive specimen of a collie, and certainly a fine actor since he has been cast as a female dog! This is a continuation of the tradition to use a male to represent the beloved Lassie, American icon of family values and courage. And the answer is yes to the question to whether Laddie is an intact male. Her owner, world famous dog trainer, Bob Weatherwax, heir to 65 years of Lassie lore and legend, plans to breed Laddie in the near future to insure another generation of the unique collies. The Weatherwax collies are not registered since they all carry the trait of a large white blaze on the head that collies registered with the American Kennel Club do not bear. Senators and aides alike agreed that this marking was one of Laddie's best features! This unique line of collies would not be eligible for exemptions under the complex mandates of AB 1634.

Lassie and Sen. McLeod
Accompanying Lassie and Weatherwax was Jon Provost who played "Timmy" on one of the longest running shows in television history, over 20 years! Mr. Provost charmed all with his timeless boyish good looks as he spoke eloquently not only for Lassie but also all the mutts of California who are more often used for canine assistance dogs than purebreds due to cost and availablity. Mr. Provost is a honorary member on the Board of Canine Companions for Independence. Laddie is also trained and certified as a service dog.


The halls at the Capitol thronged with admirers and fans as Lassie brought them all to their knees for close-up photos snapped with the world's most famous dog that has been a favorite of Hollywood and one of California's best known icons.

It remains to be seen if even our beloved Lassie will fall victim to this far over-reaching leislation. In Bob Weatherwax's words, "It's like casting your net for tuna, and then pulling in a bunch of dolphins." We agree, it's just not right -- for California. Let's hope this ends as all the episodes in the past, with Lassie coming to the rescue!


Lassie, Lassie, everywhere!

Contact information and photo files:
Diane Amble 650-296-2169 wethepeople2007@gmail.com




No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception

Labels:


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 7/11/2007 08:12:00 AM | Permanent link | (2) Comments

Blogger cdlcruz sent us a woof // July 11, 2007

WE DID IT! AB1654 has been euthanized. But don't get too complacent - PETA will resurrect it again in some other guise. Thanks to everyone who wrote letters, made phone calls and jammed faxes to defeat this.   

Anonymous jan sent us a woof // July 11, 2007

What a classy dog.

I kind of feel sorry for Bob Barker. He is reduced to a mindless sound bite after so many years. I'm sure he has no idea of the reality of the bill. I hope I never get that old.   

AB 1634 Lobbying Efforts

Lobbying efforts to fight this draconian bill have been exhausting but the efforts have been very positive. People are learning that there is a need to spay and neuter! People are also learning that the pet world is very complex and profiling is dangerous here, as it can be in other areas of concern.

Mancuso herself for one, has LAUGHED, and said that extermination of mixed breed pets is not possible. Because there will be more, they keep on coming.
TOUCHE! YES, Judie, we all agree this bill will not accomplish the proposed “INTENT” of the bill. You are too proud to admit it.

It is had EIGHT rewrites with line after line, conflicting its own text. (see the lines in the bill regarding vets for one)

1. This bill ENDORSES commercial producers with the broadest and complete exemptions. Commercial breeders are for profit, they do not waste time and money on health testing. They do not follow up on their placements which may well be brokered just about anywhere.

2. Since 27 June, this bill actually mandates the breeding of immature and untested dogs because their one year ticket cannot be renewed til the dogs are old enough to have any kind of offical health test.

3. The bill does not grandfather in many owners who will NOT be able to dole out the cash. Elderly, disabled, young couples, singles, poor folk of every kind, hundreds of rescuers who are working out of their pockets and homes. Where are these animals going to go? Will pets will be torn from their settled homes and euthanized if the owner doesn’t have the means?

4. Every different jurisdiction can have a different way to define many of the rules. It is a Tower of Babel with local jurisdictions being given total control.

5. NO FIT. The bill heavily profiles all owners and all breeders alike and therefore has numerous NO FIT and illogical assumptions. The majority of problems in the bill are right here.

Do you know what ‘no fit’ means? Example:
Someone is put in charge of all vehicle regulation, mandates that all vehicles with NO exceptions, must have four tires in good condition plus a spare (sounds good so far maybe?), and be parked in a garage next to the owner’s residence - or each will be fined $500. Unleash this on the constituents and THEN watch out for the bicycle, the boat, the plane, the semi, the tractor owners. What about people living in condos or apartments? What if car owners have four vehicles, is it time to hire a contractor, what if there is no room on the property that will allow them to get a permit? They have all been profiled into a law that didn’t take them into consideration. They are gonna get awfully upset. Now some of the nicest people are law breakers. Righteous people who live in a house with a garage and have a car with the requirements will of course, say, “It’s all about money!”. They are going to say to those selfish tractor drivers, “if you weren’t so selfish, you would get your act together and you too could be exempt.”

This bill is horrendously guilty of profiling and no fit. It will increase the numbers of animals killed.
It does NOTHING to promote ethical breeding nor healthy pets. The principle designers of this bill do not even own pets.

NO on AB 1634


No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception

Labels:


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 7/11/2007 07:52:00 AM | Permanent link | (0) Comments

Friday, July 06, 2007

Assorted Distractions- Explosions, Computer Cooling and the Best Springfield!


A literally COOL idea.
Mineral Oil Submersion Cooling for a computer!
Watch the movie to the end and check out the bubbles!





Best Springfield?
Also until July 9, 2007, 11:59 pm (Pacific), you have a chance to vote for the best Springfield in the country. In the Springfield Challenge... The winning Springfield gets to host the hometown premiere of The Simpson Movie. I guess this is especially exciting if your state has a Springfield. :)
The Simpsons Movie
While I'm not much of a TV watcher nor a huge fan of The Simpsons I have to admit I've gotten more than a few laughs from the sharp wit of the story writers who have given a sprinkling of just about every kind of humor in the show. General kookiness, sneaky bits of decidedly (nearly innocent) adult humor and political commentary sometime has me (sometimes almost disgusted yet) transfixed for the next lightning speed quip that one could almost miss. Thank goodness for closed captions!
Go here and choose the best Springfield.


Confessions of a Pioneer Woman
And one of my favorite funny and beautiful blogs ever, Ree over at Confessions of a Pioneer Woman has her annual Fourth of July and celebration to be enjoyed if you haven't seen it already. Pyromaniacs and they curious may enjoy these different permalinks here and here. And foodies and cake lovers... don't miss the guilt and advice, complete with sneaky repairs to a wee bit of damage to a gorgeous red white and blue berry cake! (recipe included on her site) :)
What else can I say? Love horses? Love photography? Country life? Mischievous humor? Calf nuts? Vignettes of life with kids? If you've got something of a rural background, you can often get a kick out of the comments section below each entry alone. :) The photo captioning contests are often hilarious and feature unpredictable prizes for the winning captions. Okay, I'm starting to sound like an advertisement. Anyway, as you can see, Ree's blog is a favorite.


Related links:
The Simpsons website
Confessions of a Pioneer Woman - Go see what Ree is up to! and what she's cooking!

Labels: ,


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 7/06/2007 06:27:00 PM | Permanent link | (2) Comments

Anonymous jan sent us a woof // July 07, 2007

I have a link to one of your posts on AB1934. It is a very thorough treatment   

Anonymous Anonymous sent us a woof // July 10, 2007

I want a new computer, kiddo! Mineral spirits, eh? I don't think I'll use it on my computer yet.

Mark   

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

AB1634 Cartoon & Support for Animal Dealers and Stupid Breeding Practices

Cartoon by Ed, aka borzoipet :)

And here it is ....drumroll ......Drumroll.............. another sequel to our ongoing series
-the bill has now had 8 edits.


click this link to see the bills

Each edit reveals yet another, and then yet another problem that will need yet another go to get (almost) fixed.
The bill remains broken!
Each new layer makes the bill dizzier, and dizzier, defeating whatever good intent may have been fantasized.


MAJOR NEWS! update July 5, 2007
From: NAIA Administration <-@naiaonline.org>
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2007 10:18:08 -0700
Subject: [NAIAandNAIATrustMembers] Great News! The CVMA has gone neutral in their position - permission to crosspost

Great News - The CVMA has gone from support to neutral on AB 1634.
......
This is a huge shift. As a supporter, the CVMA served as a major legitimizer for the bill. I spoke to the CVMA earlier today and confirmed that they are no longer in support. They have taken down their support page and will be issuing a press release later today. The 6/27 set of amendments is a big factor, as is the position of their constituency. This means the bill has no viable support outside a very tiny community of activists, and LA politicians. I imagine that even they are wondering how they got wrapped up in such a ridiculous cause. Patti



Perhaps now there is a little more awareness of the complexity of issues in the scope of our cat and dog influenced world. Maybe the policy makers have learned that generic policy that mandates and profiles every breed of dog and every breeder and owner of cats and dogs exactly the same way, is just bad policy -- the main thing they still don't admit is that the real sources of the problem are not being addressed or remain under the radar.

I know dogs better than cats, so I'll be speaking mostly from that perspective again.

Many of the AB 1634 supporters haven't even read the bill.

With thousands of people as trusting as they are, somehow believing this is only about stopping animals from being euthanized in shelters. See food for thought!

Would you believe, it's taken several rewrites but finally the "Ugly American" Levine and his equally dysfunctional animal policy advisors finally expanded the bill after repeatedly being told that the two major American dog show registries are not legitimate registries for hundreds of breeds and their varieties from around the world (there are well over four hundred distinct breeds in the world). Limited populations of these varieties in California would have been decimated because they had no "legitimate registry". This unfunded mandate had decreed that they must all undergo the knife.

You don't even have to go to international breed books to find some beloved dog breeds that would have been affected.

Australian ShepherdTargeted by the original bill, I've noted that in many forums in previous months and now... many self described pet or dog loving persons who present themselves as knowledgeable about dogs/breeds totally forgot (or actually never knew, even when they owned one!) that one of our country's favorite Made in America breeds, the Australian Shepherd (also called Aussie) has thousands of dogs registered with its own parent club, Australian Shepherd Club of America (ASCA), and not with AKC nor with the UKC.

Born in the USA, BulliesMany more breeds or individual dog examples exist which are not AKC or UKC registered. Many individual working breeds from police dogs, to native hunting and regional bully breeds, to varieties of the Parson/Russell Terrier types, to farm dogs such as livestock guardians used in herd protection & wildlife conservation, and hard working herding breeds are among many dogs that are not registered in a "legitimate" registry. Some are new imports which have been selected for contribution to genetic diversity. I have involvement with a breed that cannot always be registered until various requirements are met to verify the quality of the animal and these requirements often cannot be met in a puppy. I know of many other dog enthusiasts who can reel off names and recognize many rare breeds on sight. These people knew that the breeds and the livelihoods of their owners who depended on them could be jeopardized.

People who work in rescue, and Animal Control Officers that are not trained in breed matters, when shown a picture, they see these dogs as collie or pitbull or mastiff or shepherd crosses or heinz's goodness knows what else. Go figure. Many shelter workers only know a handful of breeds and and often misidentify the ones they think they know! The same people who can't identify breeds want to make our animal laws and some even want to tell us which breeds are dangerous.

Levine, Mancuso, the AB 1634 supporters don't know much about our country's dogs, the clubs, the pet industries, the sports, the people that own the dogs and in their haughty ignorance and disdain of pet people, they have "profiled" all of them.

You can't miss this on many of the interviews or emails that come from Mancuso. Quick, the Mancuso Mantra!! "It's all about Money!" Gah, listen to the woman go on about how it's all about profit and that breeders are not reporting their income!

And the parrots! My goodness she has lots of mindless little parakeets uttering the same commentary, just about everywhere. Little capuchin monkeys turning a crank and just blurbing whatever they are told. I love original dialog that shows distinct interest in a subject and pursuit of knowledge. I seek that sort of company. But when it comes to issues like this, I am so disappointed in all the little monkeys and parakeets.

Ethical breeders, reputable breeders, they are not in the majority. The bulk of those who are law abiding, income reporting, pet loving and responsible breeders who ARE fighting this bill -- are not covered by the first so-called "exemption" (they are not DEALERS who ARE required to report income) nor do the other wonky exemptions apply!

Many people who have never raised a dog for show or trained for any of the (alleged) "exempt" working purposes haven't walked the walk yet they too are eager to profile all to a lowest common denominator. Come on, point to a 4-6 month old puppy and tell me you can 100% guarantee the dog won't be nervous, gun-shy, too outgoing, lack drive, lack working ethic, have hip dysplasia, develop a serious malocclusion, cardiomyopathy or other health problem before actually passing testing to do the work required. Come on Newbies, you write the law, let's see you do it.

Picture this:
If some "genius" put in charge of all vehicle regulation, mandates that all vehicles with no exceptions, must have four tires in good condition plus a spare, and be parked in a garage next to the owner's residence - or every owner will be fined $500 --- Watch out for the bicycle, the boat, the plane, the semi, the tractor owners. What about people living in condos or apartments? They are gonna get awfully upset. (Mancuso will of course, say, "It's all about money!")


Profiling again. But for SHAME!

Mancuso and Levine have sneakily sold AB 1634 supporters on being endorsers of commercial and bulk producers of animals.

USDA producers do not raise pets in a house, surrounded by toys and children nor underfoot watching TV from the couch.

The animals are raised in cages or runs with hard surfaces that USDA inspectors believe can be disinfected. Buildings housing the animals must not have furniture in them... etc. Most all police dogs and show dogs are raised as pets. They sometimes sleep on carpets, on beds and couches. These facilities would not pass USDA inspection.

What is required to pass these dealer requirements?

Thought you'd never ask!
AB 1634 supporters want
producer type facilities to raise our future pets.

Somehow, this is not how responsible owners should be taught how to choose a good source for a pet.

Why are some of those cage raised little dogs so hard to housebreak? When they are, do they get relinquished to the shelter?

Levine and his advisors have, with the rewrite of the bill of June 27, have built in even more problems. A permit is mentioned that can only be applied once to a dog for one year... and cannot be renewed.
  • Accidents happen on farms and working situations and dogs get killed.
  • AS the bill is written: The breeding permit given is only being given for one of their female farm dogs, to produce replacement dogs. The farmer is allowed one male and one female to be intact for exactly one shot at breeding - actually this is very odd from a breeder's perspective to assume that the exact pair on hand is the best breeding match plus the dogs will be immature -- it goes to show that the government officials know zip about genetics and animal selection)
  • After that litter is born, it's scapel time for the parents.
  • The permit cannot be renewed under any circumstances after that one year.
  • What if the female is not fertile til she is older? What if the male dog is a klutz (it happens) and the fireworks and lullaby don't happen (sorry I'm going through severe The Sims 2 withdrawal!)
  • What if during the year the dog is run over by a tractor and what if the puppy that is kept turns out to have issues making it unsuitable for the work required? What is the farmer to do then? His carefully selected working stock has been selectively destroyed by the state mandate by reducing genetically available options of maintaining tested stock.
  • Since the parent dogs and the allowed litter are so close in age, if the young dogs are not bred their first year of life, this would mean that when the parents are approaching middle age, there are NO young dogs from the farmer's line to carry on with keeping young stock dogs in training and for replacements. (couch potato yuppies with their rescued cats don't know about these kinds of realities, but they sure know how to legislate!)
  • In my breed, the dog is immature when this "one year only" clause is in effect. Breeding an immature dog without having the results of adult tests for hip dysplasia and other important factors, then forcing the parent dogs to be neutered means that the government endorses breeding immature animals that have not been tested for breeding quality.
  • AB1634 Supporters are also in favor of the problems in red. They WANT this. They are voting for it.
AB 1634 supporters. Look at the bill with comprehension before you endorse.

Healthy Pets Act, indeed.

Happy Fourth!Hope everyone has or had a Happy Fourth!

Related link:
APHIS/USDA Info for Dealers
Subsidized Spay Neuter - added July 5, 2007

No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception

Labels:


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 7/04/2007 11:02:00 AM | Permanent link | (1) Comments

Anonymous jan sent us a woof // July 05, 2007

Love the cartoon. I should probably be blogging this, but you are doing a totally masterful job. Be assured that my group is calling and calling. Without hysteria although it is hard when dealing with stupidity.   

Monday, July 02, 2007

AB 1634 Supporters - Mandatory Spay & Neuter Gone Wild!

A part of (most) everyone's education as they become an adult is to learn to read and comprehend any form or bill before signing and approving it. You can't trust everyone nor assume everyone thinks just like you do about a certain issue. You can't automatically assume things. You are encouraged to clarify any points that seem vague or ambiguous before agreeing.

How much can we really control? When we have an opportunity to vote on something, this does offer a little toe hold on what may be unleashed.

We have sure gone through a lot recently, learning about how our food industry and government oversees the quality and control our our pets' food. Maybe you know how twisted things can get when bureaucracy has jurisdiction over prevailing common sense. Remember Reno? How about Spartacus?

One of the amazing things about some people is that they are so trusting. That if someone says animals are dying because this bill hasn't passed yet, they sometimes need no further information. If for example the fine print is left to interpretation and you are feeding a food, or using equipment that someone in control doesn't think is appropriate for your pet in your jurisdiction, with the passing of this bill, you have given them permission to use whatever logic and power they feel is necessary to enforce the letter of the law as they interpret it.

Common sense isn't common...

Thanks for the follow basic layout by Michael S and formatting fixes by Jan B.
The following provides food for thought on items in the bill

BILL NUMBER: AB 1634 AMENDED
BILL TEXT

AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 27, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 31, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 9, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 30, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 17, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 9, 2007

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Levine
(Principal coauthor: Senator Padilla)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Nava and Solorio)

FEBRUARY 23, 2007

An act to add Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 122336) to Part 6 of Division 105 of , and to repeal Section 122336.21 the Health and Safety Code, relating to pets.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the California Healthy Pets Act.
SECTION 2. Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 122336) is added to Part 6 of Division 105 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:

CHAPTER 9. SPAY AND NEUTER PROGRAM FOR CATS AND DOGS

Article 1. Definitions

122336. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:

(a) "Intact permit" means a document issued annually by a local jurisdiction or its local animal control agency if authorized to issue these permits, that authorizes a person to own or possess within that locality an unaltered cat or dog and meets the requirements of subdivision (a) of Section 122336.2. A dog or cat license that meets the requirements of subdivision (a) of Section 122336.2 shall be considered a permit for purposes of this chapter.
  • (PROBLEM: Here an intact permit is for one dog or one cat. In later sections the permit is addressed as being for the owner. WHICH IS IT?)
(b) "Local animal control agency" means the municipal or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing animal-related laws.

(c) "Local jurisdiction" means any city, county, or city and county.

(d) "Spay or neuter" means any procedure, as performed by a duly licensed veterinarian, that permanently sterilizes an animal and makes it incapable of reproduction.
  • (PROBLEM: Note that “permanently” excludes tubal ligation and vasectomy, both of which are reversible and healthier for the dog or cat as they mature since it keeps the organs that produce the hormones intact.)
Article 2. General Provisions

122336.1. (a) Subject to subdivision (c), a person shall not own or possess within the state any cat or dog over the age of six months that has not been spayed or neutered, unless that person possesses an intact permit, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 122336.
  • (PROBLEM: Pediatric s/n has a host of medical consequences and risks and is discounted by reputable vets as being unsafe and inadvisable.)
(b) (1) Subject to subdivision (c), any person who violates subdivision (a) shall, for each animal for which a violation has occurred, be issued a citation subjecting the person to a civil penalty of five hundred dollars ($500) if the person fails to provide proof that the person has met the requirements of subdivision (a) within 30 days of the date of the issuance of the citation. This penalty shall be imposed in addition to any other civil or criminal penalties imposed by the local jurisdiction.
  • (PROBLEM: Now a violation is a “fix-it” ticket that gives the owner 30 days to prove intact permit or spay/neuter is done. Note that the owner is presumed guilty until presumed innocent and that there is no due process.)
(2) At the time a citation is issued, the citing authority shall provide the person being cited with information as to the availability of spaying and neutering services at reduced cost.
  • (PROBLEM: And if no such service exists, then no such information will be provided?)
(c) If an owner of a cat or dog provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that it is the medical judgment of the veterinarian that the cat or dog should not be spayed or neutered prior to the age of nine months, the owner shall not be in violation of this chapter. No earlier than 30 days after the cat or dog has reached nine months of age, the veterinarian may provide a letter to the owner extending the date for spaying or neutering the cat or dog to 12 months of age. The letter from the veterinarian shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, and a description of the cat or dog in question.
  • (PROBLEM: Okay, get this scenario: A puppy is born, the vet issues a letter saying no s/n until 9 months according to this section, then has one month for a second letter to extend to 12 months, but then what? What about s/n when it is best after 12 months? No provision for that, either!)
(d) Any civil penalty imposed under subdivision (b) shall be waived, in whole or in part, by the local jurisdiction if the person in violation provides verification that his or her cat or dog has been spayed or neutered.
  • (PROBLEM: Changing “may” to “shall” is superficial because local discretion is still in play.)
  • (PROBLEM: Waiving a fine “in part” can mean waiving only $1 if the ACO desires. In other words, if cited, an owner may be in compliance but be fined anyway even if the pet is s/n. This reeks of a money grab.)
  • (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)
(e) (1) Any person who is in possession of any document issued by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency that permits the owner to possess an unaltered cat or dog shall be deemed in compliance with this act until the document expires or January 1, 2009, whichever occurs first.

(2) Upon expiration of the permit, the owner of the intact cat or dog permit shall obtain a new permit pursuant to the applicable provision of Section 122336.2 in order to be in compliance with this section.
  • (PROBLEM: How long is the new permit good for? Not specified.)
(f) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impose any obligation on a veterinarian to enforce the provisions of this chapter or to require the veterinarian to provide information to a local animal control agency as to the spay or neuter status of a cat or dog.
  • (PROBLEM: This was added to placate the CVMA board. It’s also garbage as the vet is in fact required to provide the s/n status in the letter for the dog or cat to get them out of doing it! If this subsection is to be valid then subsection (c) cannot be valid, and if subsection (c) is valid then this subsection is not valid!)
Article 3. Permits

122336.2. (a) A local jurisdiction shall issue an intact permit, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 122336, if the owner provides proof acceptable to the local jurisdiction , as determined by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that any of the following conditions are met:
  • (PROBLEM: “acceptable to the local jurisdiction” is a completely subjective term and will result in a patchwork of requirements that have little uniformity and result in a dog /cat being legal in one place and illegal in another.)
  • (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)
(1) The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or her business license and federal and state tax number, or by other proof, as required by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that he or she is doing business and is licensed as a breeder at a location for which the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency has issued a breeder license.

(2) The owner's cat or dog is a valid breed that is recognized by an approved registry or association, and complies with at least one of the following:
  • (PROBLEM: Who defines what “approved” is and isn’t? A lack of a specific definition [and not a list as was in the very first version of the bill] makes this too vague and subjective.)
  • (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)

(A) His or her cat or dog is used to show or compete and has competed in at least one legitimate show or sporting competition hosted by, or under the approval of, a recognized registry or association within the last two years, or by whatever proof is required by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency that the cat or dog is being trained to show or compete and is too young to have yet competed.
  • (PROBLEM: “whatever proof is required” is a completely subjective term and will result in a patchwork of requirements that have little uniformity and result in a dog /cat being legal in one place and illegal in another.)
  • (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)
  • (PROBLEM: Who defines what “approved” is and isn’t? Ditto for “recognized”. A lack of a specific definition [and not a list as was in the very first version of the bill] makes this too vague and subjective.)
  • (PROBLEM: It is impossible to tell at 6 months if a dog or cat has the aptitude and/or temperament to be a show animal. Therefore it is impossible to train them at 6 months and this exception is impossible to achieve for new dogs and cats.)
  • (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)

(B ) The cat or dog has earned, or if under three years old, is in the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other title from an approved registry or association.
  • (PROBLEM: Who defines what “approved” is and isn’t? A lack of a specific definition [and not a list as was in the very first version of the bill] makes this too vague and subjective.)
  • (PROBLEM: Not all of these animals earn or need a title to do their work. Most farms and ranches don’t bother to spend the time earning a title; they just put the animal to work! This shows an urban mindset ignorant of rural activities and operations.)
  • (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)
(3) The owner is a legitimate breeder of mixed breed or purebred working dogs, or is supplying mixed breed or purebred dogs for training as working dogs to law enforcement, fire agencies, or legitimate professional or volunteer private sector working dog organizations.
  • (PROBLEM: Who defines what “legitimate breeder” is and isn’t? A lack of a specific definition [and not a list as was in the very first version of the bill] makes this too vague and subjective.)
(4) The dog is being actively used by law enforcement, fire agencies, or legitimate professional or volunteer private sector working dog organizations for law enforcement, fire service, search and rescue, or medical service activities, or is being raised, groomed, socialized, or otherwise prepared for duties for any of these purposes.
  • (PROBLEM: It is impossible to tell at 6 months if a dog or cat has the aptitude and/or temperament to be one of these animals. Therefore it is impossible to train them at 6 months and this exception is impossible to achieve for new dogs and cats.)
(5) 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. The letter from the veterinarian shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, a description of the cat or dog in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the condition of the cat or dog, and the date by which the cat or dog may be safely spayed or neutered.
  • (PROBLEM: This conflicts with 122336.1-f, above.)
  • (PROBLEM: If a vet is seen by these records as being more favorable to s/n exceptions, they may become targets for backlash and professional reprisals, especially license revocations on bogus charges since these letters are not protected medical files but are public licensing records!)
(b) Any cat or dog owner 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.
  • (PROBLEM: Who defines what “legitimate” is and isn’t? Isn’t breeding a legitimate reason? A lack of a specific definition [and not a list as was in the very first version of the bill] makes this too vague and subjective.)
  • (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)
(c)(1) Any individual or organization breeding animals for services provided by guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs, as defined in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, shall be presumptively entitled to an intact permit issued pursuant to this chapter.
  • (PROBLEM: Is this intact permit entitlement actually for the person or organization as is stated here, or is it one for each animal?)
(2) Any animal possessed by any individual with a disability protected by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-336) shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter if the animal is providing guide dog, service dog, or signal dog services, as defined in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of Section 54.1 of the Civil Code.

(3) Guide dog, signal dog, and service dog programs licensed by the State of California are exempt from all of the provisions of this chapter.

(4) A person in possession of a cat or dog to be used for any of the purposes set forth in the federal Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. SECTION 2131 et seq.) shall be exempt from the provisions of Section 122336.1, provided the person is licensed by or registered with the United States Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act.
  • (PROBLEM: This section exempts animals for medical research and out-of-state breeders, including PUPPY MILLS, meaning that the overpopulation problem cited as the reason for this bill will continue, making this entire bill nothing more than a giant fraud!)
(d) An unaltered cat or dog for which an intact permit was issued who ceases to meet the requirements of subdivision (a) is subject to the spay and neuter requirements set forth in Section 122336.1.
  • (PROBLEM: Since subdivision (a) above has local discretion worded into it, the mere act of the ACO “changing its mind” on what is acceptable proof will put people out of compliance!)
  • (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)
(e) (1) The amount of the fee for an intact permit shall be determined by the local jurisdiction, and shall be no more than what is reasonably necessary to fund the administration of that jurisdiction's intact permit program.
  • (PROBLEM: Who defines what “reasonably necessary” is and isn’t? A lack of a specific definition [and not a list as was in the very first version of the bill] makes this too vague and subjective.)
  • (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)
(2) A local jurisdiction shall waive the intact permit fee for an unaltered cat or dog that meets any of the requirements described in paragraphs (3) and (4) of subdivision (a), and the provisions of subdivision (c) and may waive all or part of the intact permit fee for an unaltered cat or dog meeting the requirements of paragraph (5) of subdivision (a).
  • (PROBLEM: Waiving a fine “in part” can mean waiving only $1 if the ACO desires. In other words, if cited, an owner may be in compliance but be fined anyway even if the pet is s/n. This reeks of a money grab.)
  • (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)
(3) Any fee assessed by a local jurisdiction pursuant to this chapter shall not be duplicative of any other local fee in that jurisdiction.

(f) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a local jurisdiction from adopting or enforcing a more restrictive spay or neuter program pursuant to Section 122331, provided that the program allows for a cat or dog to be temporarily or permanently exempted from a spay or neuter requirement for the reasons set forth in paragraphs (3) to (5), inclusive, of subdivision (a), or the provisions of subdivision (c).

122336.21. (a) The local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency may allow for issuance of an intact permit, and imposition of an intact permit fee, for one male and one female dog per household in order to allow the dogs to produce a single litter of offspring. In no event shall the intact permits issued for this purpose have a duration in excess of one year. In addition, the following conditions shall be met for purposes of obtaining and retaining the permit:
  • (PROBLEM: WHAT ABOUT CATS?)
  • (PROBLEM: In no event are these intact permits extended beyond one year. Most dogs are too young to have hip and other certifications so this bill promotes the breeding of immature dogs that have not undergone screening as adults. )
  • (PROBLEM: In seeking an intact permit and the animal is too young to breed, but is not shown or trained for anything listed above, then what?)
(1) The animal has been examined by a licensed veterinarian and is following the preventative health care program recommended by the veterinarian.
(2) The owner has not been convicted of one or more violations of the following offenses:

(A) Section 121705 of the Health and Safety Code. (Rabies concealment)
(B ) Section 286.5 of the Penal Code. (Bestiality)
(C) Section 596 of the Penal Code. (Animal poisoning)
(D) Section 597 of the Penal Code. (Animal tortue/overwork.abuse/neglect, including endangered species violations)
(E) Section 597.5 of the Penal Code. (Felony dog fighting)
(F) Section 599aa of the Penal Code. (Animal fighting)
(G) Section 487e of the Penal Code. (Grand theft animal-napping > $400)
(H) Section 487f of the Penal Code. (Petty theft animal-napping < $400)
(I) Section 487g of the Penal Code. (Animal fraud)

(3) The owner has not been convicted of two or more violations of any local ordinance involving the dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought.

(4) The owner has not received an order from the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency involving the dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought.

(5) The dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought has not been determined by local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency to be a "vicious animal."
  • (PROBLEM: Breed-specific discrimination.)
  • (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)
(6) The animal is properly housed and cared for as follows:
(A) The animal is provided sufficient quantity of good and wholesome food and water.
  • (PROBLEM: Who defines what “sufficient quantity” is and isn’t? Ditto for “good and wholesome”—does that exclude raw food diets, for example? A lack of a specific definition [and not a list as was in the very first version of the bill] makes this too vague and subjective.)
  • (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)
(B ) The animal is provided shelter that will allow the animal to stand up, turn around, and lie down without lying in its feces, and the area where the animal is kept is properly cleaned and disinfected.
  • (PROBLEM: Who defines what “properly cleaned and disinfected” is and isn’t? Does that mean the entire house for those people who do not crate their animals? The entire yard for those who keep them outside? A lack of a specific definition [and not a list as was in the very first version of the bill] makes this too vague and subjective.)
  • (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)
(C) The animal is fully contained on the owner's property and provided appropriate exercise.
  • (PROBLEM: Who defines what “appropriate exercise” is and isn’t? A lack of a specific definition [and not a list as was in the very first version of the bill] makes this too vague and subjective.)
  • (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)
(D) The animal owner otherwise complies with any applicable state law concerning the care and housing of animals.

(7) The owner furnishes the director of animal control services with a signed statement agreeing to the following conditions:

(A) Offspring of the unaltered animal may not be sold and may be adopted without a fee only after they reach eight weeks of age.
  • (PROBLEM: If the puppies/kittens cannot be sold, then how can the owners recur anything of the expenses?)
  • (PROBLEM: Why at 8 weeks?)
  • (PROBLEM: By this wording, the puppies/kittens can be adopted with a fee before 8 weeks, but that is before weaning, and no responsible breeder does that!)
  • (TRAP: If we claim this section as bad then supporters will come right back with a claim that it really is about the money after all!)
(B ) Records will be kept documenting how many offspring were produced and who adopted them.
  • (PROBLEM: This creates a list of who to go after to check for not being s/n for more fines. This reeks of a money grab and a witch hunt.)
(8) The dog for whom the unaltered animal certification is sought is currently licensed pursuant to local requirements.

(9) The owner has considered having the animal microchipped for purposes of identification.

(b) The owner shall maintain records documenting how many offspring were produced or adopted, or both, and shall provide proof that the dog has been spayed or neutered after a single litter. This information shall be made available to an animal control agency upon request.
  • (PROBLEM: Poison pill here. The sire and dam are required to be s/n after they have the litter? It’s one and done? How does this affect artificial insemination or animals raised specifically for stud purposes only?)
(c) The amount of the fee for an intact permit issued under this section shall be determined by the local jurisdiction and shall not exceed the cost of administering this section.
  • (PROBLEM: What are the costs for this mess, and how will they be constrained to keep the fees from skyrocketing?)
  • (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)
(d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2012, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2012, deletes or extends that date.
  • (PROBLEM: After 1-1-12 this section ends, leaving the other sections in play, which means breeding exemptions will end as well! All this does is postpone the whole point, which was to end legal pet breeding in the state!)
Article 4. Funding

122336.3. (a) (1) Any civil penalty collected pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 122336.1 shall be used for funding the administration, outreach, and enforcement activities set forth in Article 5 (commencing with Section 122336.4).

(2) To the extent that funding is available pursuant to this chapter, a local animal control agency shall establish a free and low-cost spay and neuter program for low-income individuals. The agency shall undertake outreach efforts to inform qualified persons about these programs.
  • (PROBLEM: What are the costs for this mess, and how will they be constrained to keep the fees from skyrocketing and allow for low-cost s/n?)
  • (PROBLEM: What does “low-income” mean? What dollar amount?)
  • (PROBLEM: This puts far too much discretion in the hands of the ACOs, which is ripe for abuse.)
(b) All permit fees collected pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 122336.2, and subdivision (c) of Section 122336.21, shall be used for funding the administration of the permit program in the local jurisdiction in which the permits are issued.

Article 5. Enforcement

122336.4. A local animal control agency shall be responsible for enforcing, conducting outreach efforts in connection with, and administering, this chapter.
  • (PROBLEM: There is no accountability for the ACOs here.)
SECTION 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.

SECTION 4. This act shall become operative on April 1, 2008.

No on California AB 1634
"California Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception

Labels:


Semavi Lady woofed at @ 7/02/2007 11:45:00 PM | Permanent link | (1) Comments

Anonymous jan sent us a woof // July 03, 2007

Brilliant post.

I wish we had law makers as thorough and knowledgeable.