Cartoon by Ed, aka borzoipet
And here it is ....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.
Targeted 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.
Many 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.
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
Healthy Pets Act, indeed.Hope everyone has or had a Happy Fourth!
Related link:APHIS/USDA Info for DealersSubsidized Spay Neuter
- added July 5, 2007
No on California AB 1634
Healthy Pets Act"
Choosing a 'feel good' perky name for a bill perpetuates the GRAND deception