[ICKC] FW: ADOA NEWS

[big4dogs at comcast.net]

-------------- Forwarded Message: -------------- 
From: ADOA ADMIN <> 
To: big4dogs at comcast.net 
Subject: ADOA NEWS 
Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 15:15:23 +0000 



ADOA NEWS

CALIFORNIA - AB 1634

Cross-posted from Deerhound-L list with permission (and thanks to
Carol Martz on the New Mexico list):
 
 
For those you who have not read AB 1634 closely, its supporters are  
fond of saying it has exemptions provided for the show fancy. Today 
in  the paper in SJ in an editorial it said the bill only allows those  
exemptions until January of 2009 then all dogs with or without valid  
exemption licences must comply with the s/n regulations. A friend of  
mine who is very up on this law checked it and says that is correct.
The  law clearly ends all exemptions as of Jan. 1, 2009. So there are 
no  exemptions for show dogs, the ones that are going in are only  temporary.
Please  crosspost
OC Register
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Bad pet owners are the ones to snip
To spay or not to spay, that is the issue in California.
 
GORDON DILLOW
Register columnist
GLDillow at aol.com 
Almost everyone would agree that there are too many unwanted pets in California, and that reducing that number would be a worthy end. But when it comes to the means to achieve that end, people will fight like cats and dogs.
Consider, for example, the bitter battle over California Assembly Bill 1634, also known as the "California Healthy Pets Act," which is now working its way through the Legislature. 
The proposed new law would require that, with a few exceptions, every single dog and cat in the state that's over 4 months old would have to be spayed or neutered. Dog breeders and owners of show or competition or working dogs could be exempted if they got a local "intact permit" – for an as-yet-unspecified fee – as would people who could get a letter from a veterinarian saying their animal is too old or sick to undergo the procedure. For every other dog and cat it would be snip-snip time, with violators – the owners, that is, not the dog or the cat – subject to a $500 fine. 
It's hard to say how many of the estimated 15 million or so pet dogs and cats in California are already sterilized and how many aren't. But if enacted, AB1634 would mandate the most massive pet sterilization program in American history.
So is it a good idea? Or a draconian governmental intrusion on the rights of pet owners? 
The bill's author, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), and its many supporters – which range from the California Animal Control Directors Association to a group called the Canine Crusaders – say the measure is desperately needed. They say that every year some 500,000 unwanted dogs and cats wind up in animal shelters statewide, of which about 300,000 are ultimately killed. And they insist the legislation is primarily aimed at irresponsible pet owners who allow their animals to roam and reproduce indiscriminately. 
"We won't have dog and cat police going door to door lifting up your animal's leg to check" if it has been spayed or neutered, Levine said in a radio interview last month. Although the law would cover all dogs and cats, supporters say enforcement would be directed at people whose pets come in contact with animal control officers – and even they could avoid the $500 fine if they subsequently got their animal "fixed."
But the many opponents of the measure, who range from breeders to pure-breed cat and canine clubs to something called SoCal BARF (short for "Biologically Appropriate Raw Feeders"), believe the mandatory spay/neuter bill is a Big Brother-ish attempt by government to stick its nose where it doesn't belong – which is to say, in their pets' nether parts.
"It's Orwellian," says Kay Novotny of La Palma, who has three Borzois – some people describe them as "long-haired greyhounds" – that she raised for shows and competitions. "We all agree there are too many animals in shelters, but this isn't going to solve the problem. The vast majority of pet owners are responsible people, and they're the ones who will be punished. The scofflaws will still be scofflaws."
In fact, Novotny and others say that in addition to putting a financial burden on responsible pet owners, and allowing the government to make health decisions for their pets, the bill might actually exacerbate the problem by prompting irresponsible pet owners to dump their animals rather than get them fixed. And despite what Assemblyman Levine says, they aren't so sure there wouldn't be "dog and cat police" checking for compliance – and even if they didn't, the law could still make lawbreakers out of millions of responsible pet owners who aren't part of the problem.
Well, both sides have good arguments on the proposed mandatory spay/neuter law – too many to fully go into here. And it's not my place to tell you what to think on the issue.
Still, personally I have to wonder about a law that casts such a wide net, one that mandates restrictions on the responsible many because of the irresponsible actions of the relative few. It seems like we have too many laws like that as it is.
In any event, if you want to sound off on Assembly Bill 1634, pro or con, contact your California Assembly person. To find out who that is, and how to contact them, check the "state government" listings in the front of your phone book, or go to www.legislature.ca.gov and click on "Legislators and Districts." If you don't have Internet access, ask someone to do it for you. 
In the meantime, I'd like to propose another law, one that would require the forcible spaying or neutering of any human who abuses or abandons a dog or cat.
Yes, I know, some people might say that's a little harsh. But in addition to improving the gene pool, unlike a lot of laws, current and proposed, at least it would put the punishment on the guilty.
And leave the innocent alone.
714-796-7953 or GLDillow at aol.com

Sunday, May 6, 2007

NEW JERSEY
Sun May 6, 2007 10:31 am (PST) 
New Jersey animal cruelty bill A2649 is set for a vote in the New Jersey State Assembly. It 
is not what it seems -- it does nothing to deter animal cruelty, but adds a maze of 
inappropriately detailed restrictions and unnecessary, ambiguous offenses that will have 
severe repercussions for dog owners, breeders, exhibitors, and field trial participants.

The bill should be OPPOSED in its ENTIRETY.

A flyer for opposing A2649 is available in the Files area of this discussion group. The flyer 
is available in three formats (plain text, rich-text, and PDF) to help you spread the word to 
oppose this bill.

Below is a the plain text version of the content of the flyer.

************ ********* ***

NEW JERSEY DOG OWNERS - URGENT LEGISLATIVE ALERT!

A2649 creates unnecessary restrictions, reduces dog owners' rights

* New Jersey animal cruelty bill A2649 is currently is set for a vote in the New Jersey State 
Assembly.

* The bill "Recodifies Title 4 criminal animal cruelty offenses in State criminal code; 
increases level of certain offenses and crimes; establishes new offenses; revises civil 
penalties; repeals various sections of law; [and is] designated as Angel's Law."

* The bill creates new and inappropriately detailed restrictions for many animal care and 
handling situations. It also creates new and ambiguous potential types of animal abuse. 
Yet for all the complexity and restrictiveness of the new bill, it adds nothing substantive 
that will deter actual animal cruelty any more effectively than the existing laws, which are 
already sufficient if enforced.

* If enacted, the bill would have severe repercussions for dog owners, breeders, and 
exhibitors by creating regulations and restrictions that are inappropriate, ill-advised, and 
impossible to comply with. Just two of the provisions in the bill that would have adverse 
consequences:

Section 9.c. - This section contains dog tethering restrictions. As written, a person 
would be guilty of "cruelly restraining" a dog if the person tethers the dog with any collar 
other than a buckle collar or a harness, or tethers the the dog with tether under 15 feet, 
even briefly. These unreasonable restrictions would turn many everyday and completely 
non-cruel dog-handling situations for owners, exhibitors, field trial participants, 
groomers, and veterinarians  into offenses. The AKC opposes tethering bans and 
restrictions, because existing cruelty laws make tethering restrictions unnecessary.

Section 12.a.(2) - This section makes it an offense if a person "purposely, knowingly, or 
recklessly sells, offers for sale, barters, gives away or displays an animal under two 
months of age."  As written, this would make it impossible for breeders to announce an 
upcoming litter, show their puppies to prospective buyers, or even to socialize the 
puppies. This interferes with a breeder's rights, with his/her ability to place puppies in the 
most suitable new homes, and with his/her ability to provide for the healthy social 
development of the puppies. 

* What you can do to preserve your dog ownership rights: Read the bill at the New Jersey 
State Legislature Web site, and then contact your Assemblypersons to voice your concerns 
and to OPPOSE the bill. Also spread the word to friends, family, as well as members of dog 
and sportsmen's clubs in New Jersey, and encourage them to contact their legislators to 
oppose the bill.

* New Jersey Legislature Web site makes it easy to look up the bill by number (A2649) and 
the names and contact information for one's Assembly representatives: ?
http://www.njleg. state.nj. us/


To be removed from our mailing list, click here



This e-mail was generated automatically by ADOA





  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://inghamcountykc.org/pipermail/members_inghamcountykc.org/attachments/20070508/dca97103/attachment.htm>