I realize this list is mostly pet people. If you think AB 1634 doesnt affect you, think again:


To Senators Cox and Harman:
>
> Thank you for voting for common sense. You did the right thing. The rest
of this letter is not addressed to you.
>
> To Senators Kehoe, Machado, and Negrete-McLeod:
>
> YOU BLEW IT! YOU SCREWED UP! YOU SOLD OUT!
>
> Why in the world did you vote for this terrible bill?!?
>
> Why can't you tell the difference between an unsubstantiated complaint
and a conviction on a cited complaint?
>
> Why can't you see that Levine is now proposing that a pet being
unaltered
is now a crime, even if it a "secondary" complaint?
>
> Why can't you see that the bill's wording still mandates an impoundment
for complaints not listed here but do currently exist in the state codes,
and that changing a "shall" to a "may" on the citation side does
absolutely
nothing to change that? Do you honestly think that a cash-starved Animal
Control Department (by their own admissions!) is going to look at a "may"
fine option and decline to do so, especially in a recession?
>
> Look at the effects of this bill now:
>
> 1. One complaint, whether it be a real one, a bogus one made up by a
nasty neighbor, or simply a delusion in the mind of an Animal Control
Officer, will allow an Animal Control Officer to engage in a spay/neuter
fishing expedition. By Levine's own testimony, under this bill, a lack of
being altered is now a SECOND complaint. For cats, that means
immediate $50
fine for the first complaint, and mandatory S/N on the second, the second
being that they weren't S/N in the first place! For dogs, just add one
initial made-up complaint to the pile and the same thing happens to the
tune of an extra $100. Think they don't make complaints up? Think again.
>
> That's right: IT MAKES AN UNALTERED PET ILLEGAL! The only legal pets are
altered! It's not MSN in the direct sense, but it causes MSN by
backhanded means. It makes breeders outlaws, as well as anyone else who
owns an unaltered pet, including police and fire departments, SAR
organizations, farmers, ranchers, and show owners. Congratulations, you
just put our police and fire agencies on the same level as puppy
mills--CRIMINALS! I'm sure they'll thank you for it later.
>
> 2. This gives Animal Control Officers the ability and motivation to go
door-to-door to extort fines, based on made-up and unsubstantiated
complaints that may not even exist! They become effective GRU-style
agents,
demanding to see pet papers. Why is this police-state action acceptable to
you?
>
> 3. Complaints are not given due process to challenge them in court. This
violates the state constitution (Article I: Sections 1, Section 7-a,
Sections 15 and 16, and Section 29). The way the bill is worded, the owner
is presumed guilty until proven innocent. Senator Negrete-McLeod, you even
addressed this in your questions period yesterday, yet you still voted for
this bill? WHY? Why vote in a way that is directly contrary our system of
Justice?
>
> 4. There is no "closing the book" on a complaint. Sure, an Animal
Control
Officer "may" decide to not cite the owner AT THAT TIME, but there is
NOTHING to stop them from doing so later. There is no time limit on
complaints, either, so a dog can get all three strikes at once, or one
strike now, then the next two strikes a decade later. It doesn't matter.
The bill doesn't address that, either. Why vote for a bill that puts FAR
too much power in the hands of an Animal Control Officer?
>
> 5. Animal Control Officers are neither qualified medically nor legally
allowed to search (Article 1, Section13) to determine if a female
animal is
spayed, or even if a male is naturally sterile (they DO exist--they are
called cryptorchids and are up to 10% of all male dogs and 2% of male
cats). Most of the time they can't even get a breed correct, or their
records accurate! Who is going to pay for the training for them to get it
correct? The bill doesn't address that, either. It assumes that sterility
comes only from certain medical procedures, not that it can happen on its
own. Why vote for a bill that creates and promotes incompetence in Animal
Control Officers?
>
> 6. Previously, AB1634 tried (and failed miserably) to exempt all
kinds of
service and show animals. No such exemptions exist now. This means CA show
dogs, police dogs, service dogs, and even military MP dogs are now on the
chopping block. The complaints and citations will rise, and these animals
will be removed from shows and honorable service because of it. People's
lives will be irrevocably altered by this bill, even fatally! How many
people will die because they lost their service animal that could have
saved them by warning them of an impending seizure, stroke, or heart
attack? How many blind people will lose their seeing-eye dogs from this?
How many kids will lose their therapy and assistance dogs? How many
casualties will there be from no more SAR dogs? How many violent criminals
will escape capture without police dogs, to go on and commit even more
crimes, even murder? DID YOU THINK OF THAT when you voted for this bill???
>
> 7. The basis of this bill was supposedly pet shelter overpopulation. Yet
this bill does nothing to address that situation, and in fact will
increase
those populations because people will be forced to abandon their animals
instead of paying the higher citations. Senator Machado, YOU stated this
concern yesterday, yet you still voted for this bill—WHY? Furthermore, it
does nothing to address the true causes of shelter overpopulation
(where it
even exists locally), which is A) importing animals, B) breeding mills
(not
hobby breeders), and C) educating irresponsible pet owners (which is more
than just promoting S/N!). Why vote for a bill that claims to deal with a
problem, yet does nothing to actually deal with the problem?
>
> 8. When the next big earthquake hits, animals will be loose after the
damage is done. How is Animal Control going to treat those situations?
Assuming they don't kill the animals on sight, or repeat the fiasco of
Katrina-New Orleans, it will be more citations etc. Never mind that the
situation was a pure accident, which does happen. The bill doesn't address
deliberate acts vs. accidents, either. ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL! Why vote
for a bill that would penalize people for being victims of Acts of Nature?
>
> 9. There is no age limitation on the MSN. It is commonly-accepted
fact in
the veterinarian community and in the endocrinology community--the experts
on this, not Levine, Mancuso, or Boks--that pre-adult alteration causes
major health problems in the future, because it messes up their endocrine
system, which is vital for development into adulthood, INCLUDING BEHAVIOR
ISSUES! A puppy getting three strikes from the aforementioned nasty
neighbor, and guess what? He's messed up for life. The bill is silent on
age, and that too is a problem. Again, ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL! Why vote
for a bill that hurts puppies and kittens???
>
> 10. Let us presume that someone actually can go to court and challenge
the citation and win. Then what? Does the complaint get expunged? Or does
it still hang out there as a strike? The bill doesn't address that,
either.
Why vote for a bill that is incomplete in its scope?
>
> These are only some of the problems with this bill. YOU DIDN'T THINK IT
OUT! If those of us opposing it can think of this, can you imagine
what the
radical extremists who want to eliminate pet ownership are thinking of in
terms of exploiting the loopholes in this mess?
>
> We pet owners are emotional, and we have great motivation and
organization, and LONG memories. Expect the fallout to be huge unless you
change your tune. We took down Levine in his Senate bid. It can happen
again.
>
> I strongly suggest that if this bill gets before the full Senate, you
change your vote to NO.

I have A.D.D Can you explain in laymens terms exactly what this bill is about?

I started to read it and then when I got about a third of the way down I was losing attention. Confused !

Is this a bill that requires spay and neautering?

Kathy

I'm pretty sure we are all on the side of reason, & anti-BSL. However!!!!!!!!!

Before you contribute to ANY org that says it's anti-BSL, check to see Where your $$ is going, & Extensively check the rest of their political activity (links) just to make sure that you are not getting onside with a bunch of garbage that you Absolutely Don't agree with.

(Been there, done that & won't make that mistake again!)