Bulldog Breeds Forums banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER laws in CA.....what do you think?

Jump to Latest
41 - 60 of 69 Posts
#41 ·
Copied from another forum...

CA Spay/Neuter Action Center
May 16th Update - CA AB 1634 Voted Out of Committee

Today, the California Assembly Committee on Appropriations voted 9-to-7 in favor of Assembly Bill 1634. The bill will now be considered by the full Assembly.

The American Kennel Club thanks the more than 600 people who attended today's hearing in opposition to AB 1634, and everyone who contacted their legislators and the Assembly Appropriations Committee members.

Today's developments are only one part of the long legislative process. As the bill continues to move, continued fervent opposition by breeders and concerned dog owners is essential to its defeat. Now more than ever, it is vital that breeders and concerned owners in California write or visit your Assemblymember and express your vehement opposition to AB 1634. More often than not, Assemblymembers work from their district offices on Fridays. This makes Fridays a great time to meet with them and discuss your concerns.

AKC will continue to monitor and report developments in California as they warrant. Please return to AKC.org tomorrow for further information.
 
#43 ·
Kyle

As you can see almost everybody agrees with the goals. The opposition comes from the language of the bill. As I've said the bill with its current language will do more harm than good.
 
#44 ·
#45 ·
Well, I took my time reading the bill, and everyones opinions and views.

I still stand by what I say, I really hope this law passes. Not to repeat myself for the 10th time, but 18,000 dogs > 100 dogs. Knowing that thousands of dogs that breed every month, are now going to be spayed, makes me very, very happy. Frankly, I don't care about anything otherwise, just knowing that, makes me happy and makes me think its well worth it.

I think im going to stop reading this thread, dont want to keep stiring things up with my opinion :)
 
#46 ·
KyleB said:
Dogs that should not reproduce should be fixed. Dogs that should reproduce (dog has earned, or is in the process of earning, a conformation, obedience, agility, carting, herding, protection, rally, sporting, working, or other legitimate title from an approved purebred registry or association) can be expempted.
Click to expand...
Who is to say who is a reputable breeder and who is not? What qualifications do these people have to make that decision?

According to what I've heard - only the AKC will be approved for exemption. This means, that under CA law my dogs, and any of the RB breed for that matter - would be forced to be spayed/neutered. Which means the RB breed will become extinct.

Now, seeing as I dont work my dogs and I dont show my dogs - does this mean my dogs are any less worthy of being bred? Keep in mind, this is a relatively new breed, and we are still planting roots. Under this "law" anyone who has a working dog under the age of one year will have to neuter their dog. This is because, and this was mentioned already, you can NOT trial a dog that young! This goes for responsible breeding as well! No responsible breeder will breed a dog that young. Heck, most of the breeders I know wont make a firm decision to breed or not breed, until the dog is at LEAST a year old.


This "law" is pure bull crap. I will not support this bill, nor will I respect anyone who does.
 
#48 ·
Kudos to Tehama County!

We need more politicians like this!

La Malfa voted against the bill. He put two stacks of letters in front of him. The 2 inch stack of letters from supporters of the bill, and the 16 inch stack of letters from opponents of the bill.


 
#49 ·
This bill is a pile of b.s. Tinkerbell, you are the type of breeder that this bill is aimed at. No personal offense, but if someone doesn't show or work their dogs, regardless of how new the breed is, then NO they don't need to be breeding dogs. Period. We have enough mutts that do nothing but eat, sleep, pee, & poop out there to be breeding more with no specific purpose.

Back to the bill, this was introduced after numerous BSL tries failed in certain areas. Now they've one. All it is is another form of BSL. Heck, we all know ABs & APBTs aren't AKC registered thus they must be automatically spayed/neutered even though they are registered show dogs and/or working dogs through another organization.

And I agree that the government doesn't have the power to differentiate b/n a good, reputable breeder & one that shouldn't even own dogs much less breed them. In fact, through this bill, the government gives even more power to puppy mills & basically slaps them on the back with a "job well done."

Kyle, no one is arguing that there is an overabundance of dogs out there. And no one is arguing that their are some unscrupulous people pumping out litter after litter after litter & that those dogs are ending up in horrible situations & the local shelters. But what does happen is that this bill allows those types of breeders, who are at fault here, to continue while it puts an end to those who actually breed the best of the best of their breed only after the dogs have been shown and/or worked & proven themselves all because their dog doesn't mean the said government criteria concerning registries & such.

Again, this is nothing more than a giant step towards ending pet ownership. Period.
 
#50 ·
Miakoda said:
This bill is a pile of b.s. Tinkerbell, you are the type of breeder that this bill is aimed at. No personal offense, but if someone doesn't show or work their dogs, regardless of how new the breed is, then NO they don't need to be breeding dogs. Period. We have enough mutts that do nothing but eat, sleep, pee, & poop out there to be breeding more with no specific purpose.
Click to expand...
First off Miakoda- you know nothing about me.
Secondly - it is not my choice if my dogge is bred. I am under a leagally binding contract with her breeder. It is his decision, not mine if and when she is bred. You have an issue with that - take it up with him.

Lisa- we may pursue other routes with Annie in the future. We could not afford the club fees at the time they wanted us to start her. We are planning to start her in WP this summer now that she is older and finances are better.
 
#51 ·
Tinkerbell said:
Miakoda said:
This bill is a pile of b.s. Tinkerbell, you are the type of breeder that this bill is aimed at. No personal offense, but if someone doesn't show or work their dogs, regardless of how new the breed is, then NO they don't need to be breeding dogs. Period. We have enough mutts that do nothing but eat, sleep, pee, & poop out there to be breeding more with no specific purpose.
Click to expand...
Secondly - it is not my choice if my dogge is bred. I am under a leagally binding contract with her breeder. It is his decision, not mine if and when she is bred. You have an issue with that - take it up with him.

quote]

Please don't let the breeding be up to Tinks breeder... didn't she come down with demodex?
Click to expand...
 
#53 ·
I disagree with the bill. I don't believe the state or federal government should be able to enforce people to spay or neuter. I don't want to put more power into the hands of our government ever. They do enough already. :roll:

Before anyone says so, I want to express that this doesn't mean I don't care about over population. I wish people would take it upon themselves to do the right thing.
 
#55 ·
Who has a license like this? Hmm I'ld lay odds that a good number of those holding this kind of permit/license are puppymill operators.
(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 requested 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.
 
#56 ·
recieved this email just a couple on minutes ago

OKAY---straight from Levine's office. 37-34---it did not pass. He pulled
the bill and moved to pass, which in English means he will be bringing it
back to the floor, probably today, but definitely before the end of the week
for another vote. "He is working the floor"

Guess we had better get to work too!

Some notes I made:

Lieu-voted to support when Levine assured his the cat breeder friend would
be able to get an exemption

Leno-voted to support when Levine assured him there would be an amendment
when the bill was in the senate to allow one crossbreed litter per
year---hum, how is this going to happen when they must be altered at 4
months and there is no approved registry for cross breeds.

Now I can't find the note I made, but he song and danced someone else that
they would also be adding exemptions for crossbreed sports dogs.

Here's how I recorded those that spoke:

Adams---oppose

Beall---supports

Brownley---supports

DeSaulnier---supports

Duvall---oppose

Emmerson---oppose

Gaines---oppose

Huff---oppose

Jones---supports

LaMalfa---oppose

Leno---supports

Levine---supports

Lieu---supports

Nava---supports

Plescia---oppose

Solorio---supports

Spitzer---supports---republication

Wolk---supports

It will likely be brought to the floor again as Levine is trying to rally support....

another email I recieved .....CA residents please call your Assemlyman

The vote on AB1634 hangs by a thread. All residents of California must
call their State Assembly Member immediately. Identify yourself as a
constituent. Ask to speak to the staff member handling AB1634. Tell
them the following:

In spite of what Assembly Member Levine said on the floor, law
enforcement still strongly opposes AB1634. All law enforcement groups
in opposition have examined the May 31 amended version of the bill and
reaffirmed their opposition including the California Association of
Highway Patrolmen, United States Police Canine Association, California
Organization of Police and Sheriffs and others. There is no possible
amendment that will address the law enforcement objections.

Please stop reading this email and call now
 
#58 ·
Where have you been Cinder?....it was proposed in FEb of this year..


Cross posting requested to all ANTI AB 1634 lists or people. CALLS
NEEDED NOW !!!
Genny Wall

The CA State Assembly voted today on AB 1634 (the "Pet Extinction
Act" that requires castration and hysterectomies of all dogs & cats
in California by the age of 4 months, with rare exceptions). The
sponsor, Lloyd Levine, did not get enough votes to pass the bill on
the floor of the assembly, but it is still alive. He is "working"
the floor right now for more votes and he hopes to get them today.
IF YOU DON'T WANT AB 1634 TO PASS, TODAY IS THE DAY TO MAKE YOUR
PHONE CALLS TO THE FOLLOWING 8 ASSEMBLY MEMBERS AT THEIR SACRAMENTO
OFFICES. PLEASE DO IT NOW !!! Each call should take you less
than a minute.

The 8 legislators listed below abstained today from voting on AB 1634
on the assembly floor today. We need to make sure THAT IF THEY
WON'T VOTE NO THAT AT LEAST THEY CONTINUE TO ABSTAIN. If Levine
can't get them to vote yes AB 1634 he should not be able to get
enough votes to pass AB 1634.

Please call and fax ALL 8 of these legislators NOW. If you are a
constituent in their district, be sure to say so. Ask them to
PLEASE VOTE NO ON AB 1634 OR IF THEY WON'T VOTE NO, THEN CONTINUE TO ABSTAIN.

After you make your call, you can also FAX them - just say PLEASE
VOTE NO ON AB 1634 OR CONTINUE TO ABSTAIN


ARAMBULA, JUAN (D 31) - Phone (916) 319 - 2031 Fax (916) 319 - 2131
District includes: Mendota, San Juaquin, Kerman

HOUSTON, GUY (R 15) - Phone: (916) 319-2015 Fax: (916) 319-2115
District includes: Livermore, Walnut Creek, San Ramon, Danville,
Oakley, Brentwood, Elk Grove, Galt, Stockton, Pleasanton, Isleton

GALGIAN, CATHLEEN (D 17) - Tel: (916) 319-2017 Fax: (916) 319-2117
District includes: Stockton, Tracy, Lathrop, Manteca, Livingston,
Atwater, Merced, Gustine, Newman, Los Banos

KARNETTE, BETTY (D 54) - Phone (916) 319-2054
District includes: Long Beach, Signal Hill, Palos Verdes, Rolling
Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, San Pedro

SALAS, MARY (D 79) - Tel: (916) 319-2079 Fax: (916) 319-2179
District includes: Coronado, National City, Imperial Beach

RICHARDSON, LAURA (D 55) - Tel: (916) 319-2055 Fax: (916) 319-2155
District includes: Carson, West Carson, Wilmington, part of Lakewood

SWANSON, SANDRE (D 16) - Tel: (916) 319-2016 Fax: (916) 319-2116
District includes: Alameda, Oakland, Piedmont

WALTERS, MIMI (R 73) - Phone: (916) 319-2073 Fax: (916) 319-2173
District includes: Laguna Niguel, Oceanside, San Clemente, Dana
Point, San Juan Capistrano, Laguna Hills, Aliso Viejo
 
#59 ·
There are several stupid laws up for vote here in Cali. We may soon not be able to breed our dogs or buy ammo online, but an illegal immigrant or white trash idiot can still pump out kids by the dozen.

When do I get my papers to carry around, too?
 
#60 ·
Copied from another board....
.
.
.
.
.
The mandatory spay/neuter "Pet extinction bill" has been passed by the assembly, last night at 7pm. I think it was 41 to 38. Now it goes to the senate. This is insanity................
If you don't live in California thats ok, it's coming to your state soon!

But while you wait do us a favor and contact your senators and let them know that you oppose this bill.
 
41 - 60 of 69 Posts
About this Discussion
68 Replies
20 Participants
Last post:
CowBella
Bulldog Breeds Forums
posts
536K
members
11K
Since
2005
A forum community dedicated to Bulldog owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about breeding, health, behavior, housing, adopting, care, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Photos General/Misc. Bully Discussion New Member Introductions News & Events