.com Forum · Real Show Dogs

*Permission to cross post*
The below is a partial list of individuals and other corporations which support AB1634. If you belong to any of them or purchase anything of theirs, I strongly suggest you contact them and tell them that you will no longer be a part of this madness! Some, like Bob Barker, we cannot do anything about. However, what about boycotting Diane Keaton's movies or Pierce Brosnan's movies? What about boycotting Dale's Doggy Daycare or Coast Dermatology? If you subscribe to any of the Herald Publications, I'd cancel that subscription and tell them why. It is time we take our countryback from the fanatics! I'd also not support the listed vets & vet clinics. Oh, and if I were a member of the CA American Postal Workers Union, I'd definately complain about the President of the group using her position to support something like this. Since it is signed with her position and not as a representative of the Union, she's misrepresenting the Union's position.

Individuals & Other Organizations
* Keely and Pierce Brosnan (Actor)
* Isabelle Bailey, President of the California American Postal Workers Union
* Emmylou Harris (Singer)
* Gavin Polone, Film/TV Producer ("Curb Your Enthusiasm," "Gilmore Girls," "Panic Room" )
* INXS (Band)
* Diane Keaton (Actress)
* Naren Shankar, Exec. Producer, "CSI"
* Ben Stein (Actor)
* Bark Avenue Foundation (Associated with Bark Avenue Dog & Cat Boarding)
* CaliMax (either Pellet Stoves or a Mexican Grocery)
* Canine Communications (Trainers)
* Cesar Millan Inc. (Trainers)
* Coast Dermatology Medical Associates
* Custom Canine Quilts
* Daisy's Delights Gourmet Pet Treats (located in Ridley Park, PA -online store, etc.)
* Dale's Doggie Daycare
* Fox Companion Care (Mobile Veterinary care)
* Herald Publications
* Lohr Insurance Agency
* NorthCoast Greyhounds.net-McKinleyville
* Palisades Park Dog Walkers
* Pariah Film & Television
* Paws and Cues Dog Training
* PearlParadise.com (Jeweller specializing in pearls)
* Pickett's Pets-Santa Monica
* Sauthier, Steele & Associates (Encino Financial Advisors)
* Staged to Move (prepares Homes for Sale)
* The Pacific Pooch
* Tower Rescue Trainers, LLC
* Walk With Wendy
* WillyB
* Winchester Retriever Club

Vets & Vet Clinics
Dr. Darcey Barnes, DVM
Dr. Alan Drusys, DVM
Dr. Madeline Graham, DVM
Dr. Jean Swingle Greek, DVM
Dr. Barry Kipperman, DVM, DACVIM
Dr. Paula Kislak, DVM
Dr. Laurel Leach, DVM/Owner Beverly Oaks Animal Hospital
Dr. Peter V. Mangravite, DVM
Dr. Lisa Newell DVM/CA State Veterinary Board Member
Dr. Leticia Obledo, DVM
Dr. Kristin Polci-Moger, DVM
Dr. James Schulke, DVM
Dr. Scott Smith, DVM
Bellflower Veterinary Hospital
Irvine Animal Care Center
Madera Veterinary Center, Inc.

What a list! With that many vets and vet clinics listed, it certainly makes one wonder WHY they all support this bill????? Why is that? I mean is there something we AREN'T being told about???

The vets are probably thinking more about their pocket books than the health of the animals. Thats hundreds of dollars a head they get for S/N. I personally think anyone who's for this bill, and not just a blind follower, has some sort of ulterior motive.

S/N of all pets by 4 months = money for vets to do the mandatory S/N comes to mind as to why there are alot of vets backing it.

That's depressing. I'm glad I don't use Irvine Animal Care anymore.

KNU

quote

---

posted by Sunnierhawk0
S/N of all pets by 4 months = money for vets to do the mandatory S/N comes to mind as to why there are alot of vets backing it.

---

Exactly.

Also, in response to all the Actors, singers ect. Most of them probably dont even know what the bill really is for. Someone who is behind it, probably said, yea it just to reduce the shelters and such. And htey probably thought OO awesome! and never did research.

BUMP

What if you buy them when they are certain amount Of Yearswould you be fined????

bump

I support it partially. I don't think showers should have buy a permit.It just wastes money.I do however, think that shelter dogs should be Altered.One of the supporters is where I got my dog..........
~HP07~

Thats horrible the vets probably were just thinking of their money and the signers were probably just saying it to look like good people even though its stupid

I am completely against the AB1634, but I do not think these vets are trying to line their pocketbooks.

This bill is supposed to cut down the population, which means fewer dogs to go to the vet? Wouldn’t this mean less money for vets in the long run? I admit I may be wrong, so please don’t jump on me.

As I have not seen the bill so don't know its' details, I can't say whether I agree or not. But I DO think all non show dogs should be spayed/neutered. One possible exception could be a breeder of PUREBRED dogs with a long standing reputation for producing strong, healthy dogs with good temperments. Same breeders should require any pup sold be neutered/spayed unless show quality. There are hundreds of thousands of homeless, abandoned, abused dogs every year. My opinion.

Just a reminder about this bill. It currently has provisions for excluding show dogs, registered performance dogs, service dogs, police dogs, and military dogs from its measures. However, these provisions cease in 2009. Even now, this bill makes it difficult, if not impossible, for dog show exhibitors to comply with its measures.

This bill is intended to be a "zero growth" law. It goes well beyond that, in fact, in that after 2009 there will not be any dogs in CA that can legally be bred. All well-bred animals will be wiped out in a matter of years if there is compliance with this bill; the only breeding dogs will be the feral canines on the street--you know, the ones that justify shelters' existence.

There is nothing good about this bill. It has been called the "pet annihilation bill," the "pet eradication bill," or the "pet extinction bill" for a good reason.

Wow, this is actually the first time I've heard about this bill. Yes, I guess I'm a bit sheltered. Anyway..I only know what I've just read and it actually sounds good to me..except for the 2009 part. I've worked at an animal shelter for the past 2 yrs and I constantly see undernourished, neglected dogs giving birth or who have gave birth to many, many homeless puppies. Imagine how this bill would help fix our pet overpopulation problem? I work at a shelter that is non-profit and we are also a no-kill shelter. This means we are constantly struggling but we will do anything for these dogs that have nowhere else to go.

I do understand the side everyone from SD is on, though. People who show their dogs and breed them are doing so to increase the quality of that breed and this bill would totally ruin that for them. Besides, puppies from show dogs and bitches are often reserved before the dogs are even bred. I think this bill had good intentions at first (think about puppy mills!) but I totally don't support the permit cut off in 2009.

Wow, that was my rant for the night lol. I'm not trying to offend anyone here, just saying I totally see both sides of this.

Please understand, Calix, that current spay/neuter programs are already working. The ONLY reason that this bill is being pushed is due to animal rights pressure--and, of course, their ultimate aim is to eliminate all "enslaved" pets and service animals. There are many shelters that import animals from other countries or from U.S. territories/possessions/whatever, because they cannot meet the demand for small and medium-sized dogs. If the American public and American politicians were permitted to see this success, then we'd see a lot less of the knee-jerk legislation such as this bill and more thoughtful and useful legislation that will actually be of uses to both pets and their owners.

This isn't going to stop puppy and kitten mills at all. Why? Because in this bill people can buy a license to breed their animals.

Here are the emails I recieved from pet pac. The first was before the bill got signed, the second is a result of what happened.

You do not have to live in California to have your voice heard. Please click the link in blue and sign.

To California State Legislators:

We represent law enforcement, the blind and disabled, veterinarians, animal rescue and welfare groups, the livestock industry, dog and cat owners, clubs and breeders from across California. We are all united in our opposition to Assembly Bill 1634, an ill conceived and irrational measure that will require the forced sterilization of nearly all dogs and cats statewide at four months of age. Owners who don't sterilize their pets will face a $500 fine and possible criminal penalties.

petpac.net/r/132/4652/ click link and sign.

AB 1634 undermines proven successful programs.
The number of dogs impounded in California has been falling dramatically for decades – down 86% over the past 30 years — because local agencies utilize programs that work: Pet owner education, enforcement of "at large" and leash laws, and subsidized free or low-cost spay/neuter services. NONE of these programs are state funded under AB 1634, nor does it address the root source of pet population problems, especially the feral cat population.

AB 1634 will not work and will create additional problems for the State of California.
Animal control efforts will be set back decades under AB 1634's overreaching government mandate: In local jurisdictions nationwide, similar forced spay/neuter laws have failed and subsequently been repealed following sharp increases in shelter intakes, higher euthanasia rates, skyrocketing animal control costs, and unprecedented reductions in voluntary pet licensing and rabies vaccines.

Animal population issues must be resolved at a local level, not state level.
Clearly, different jurisdictions face different types of animal control issues, yet AB 1634 will blanket all 58 counties in California with a mandate to fund and staff an expensive enforcement and government permit system -- regardless of need, necessity or desire.

Arbitrary and expensive government permits will eliminate guide dogs, police K9s, and working dogs.
To receive a government permit to keep animals "intact," owners and breeders of purebred dogs and pedigreed cats will have to pay hundreds of dollars per animal every year. Exemptions under AB 1634 for mixed breed dogs are convoluted, illogical and nearly impossible to meet. As a result, police dogs, search and rescue dogs, service dogs for the blind and disabled, and working stock dogs serving California's $1.5 billion livestock industry will be wiped out in one generation.

AB 1634 is poorly designed, cannot be successfully enforced and would be extremely costly to enact.
AB 1634 will harm animals, punish millions of responsible pet owners, cost taxpayers billions, and increase both the abandoned pet population and euthanasia rates across the state.

We urge you to vote NO on AB 1634.

And as a result of this bill:

PRESS RELEASE / June 21, 2007
Animal Shelter Costs
Double Following
Mandatory Spay/Neuter
Law in Santa Cruz

Claims that a law to force the sterilization of dogs and cats in California “will save millions of taxpayer dollars” are being discounted after government documents show that animal control expenses have nearly doubled in the county that serves as the model for the proposed statewide measure.

In arguably the most contentious bill before the California Legislature this year, AB 1634 by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) will require nearly all pet owners to spay or neuter their animals or face a $500 fine.

Claiming taxpayer savings as the basis for the bill, proponents point to a 1995 mandatory spay/neuter law in Santa Cruz County that serves as the blueprint for AB 1634. In a recent interview, Assemblyman Levine said that based on the Santa Cruz ordinance, he assumes that California taxpayers can expect to “save $200 million or more a year.”

But records obtained by PetPAC from the California State Controller’s Office paint a very different picture: Animal control expenses in Santa Cruz County have skyrocketed since the law took effect, from $635, 296 in 1995 to more than $1.1 million in 2005 – an increase of 93%.

In contrast, animal control expenses statewide decreased more than 10% during the same 10-year period, according to government figures supplied by Judie Mancuso, the bill’s own sponsor.

Ignoring clear evidence to the contrary, proponents of AB 1634 contend that local governments will save money despite being saddled with a new law that is expensive to implement, a burden to administer, and impossible to enforce.

“I am no longer surprised by the stunning erroneous claims that supporters of AB 1634 are making, ” said Bill Hemby, Chairman of PetPAC, an organization dedicated to the rights of pets and their owners.

“What concerns me is that backers of the bill have no problem giving state lawmakers flat-out false information on which to base their vote. That takes a lot of nerve, I’ll give them that.”

AB 1634 will be heard in the Senate Business, Professions and Economic Development Committee on July 9. If passed, it will be heard next in the Senate Local Government Committee on July 11.

quote

---

posted by RevolverDobermans

petpac.net/r/132/4652/ click link and sign.

---

Yes please sign ^. I did weeks ago

Ahh..thanks for the extra information. Those responses to the bill make a ton of sense. In my county it is a law for all dogs over 4 months to be licensed or its a $110 fine. Although a license cost only $20 (compared to over $100 for a S/N depending on the dog), many owners dump their dogs just to avoid this law. Its only obvious how stupid owners will get when their choices are reduced to a $100 surgery or a $500 fine. Its great that the government is trying to help, but the law really will only make matters worse. Especially if we take into account all the feral and stray animals running around. Who gets fined for not S/N them? Does anyone know if this law is only in Cali or if it is any other states? I live in Michigan and I think I've heard something about a law like that maybe being passed in the future.

I am against this bill all the way .I think instead of trying to pass bills against breeding they should put the money into low cost spay neuter and education . I am all for the spay /neutering of pets and I do hate that animals are put down .I just don't think this is the answer . I am afraid it might increase abandoned pets in the short run at least .