CALNRA: NRA Opposes Mandatory Pet Spay/Nueter (AB 1634)


PDA






MikeHaas
May 1, 2007, 11:56 PM
NRA Members' Councils of California
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/skin/mclogoclr2.gif (http://calnra.com)
CALNRA: NRA Opposes Mandatory Pet Spay/Nueter
8:30 PM, 05/01/2007

Issue: MANDATORY PET SPAY/NUETER (Levine)

Description: This bill would prohibit any person from owning or possessing any cat or dog over the age of 4 months that has not been spayed or neutered, unless that person possesses an intact permit, as defined.

The bill would establish an intact permit fee in an amount to be determined by a local jurisdiction, and would require the revenue from these fees to be used for the administration of the local jurisdiction's permit program.

The bill would become operative on April 1, 2008.

Latest Info: 05/01/2007 - NRA opposes AB 1634 as amended by the Business and Professions Committee on April 24th. AB 1634 will next appear before the Assembly Appropriations Committee, date unknown at this time. Please contact the Assembly Appropriations Committee members (http://calnra.com/legs/asmapprops.shtml) and urge a NO vote on AB 1634.

Bill author Assemblymember Levine is also the author of AB 334, MANDATORY LOSS/THEFT REPORTING (http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2007&summary=ab334).

In its current form, AB 1634 proposes to seriously restrict the property rights of responsible hunting dog breeders and owners while imposing untold and unjust punitive costs upon their activities. If adopted, the provisions of AB 1634 would have a profound negative economic impact on both the state and local economies in California.

AB1634 is poorly conceived and, as written, this legislation presents a "ONE-SIZE FITS ALL" early-age sterilization approach with little thought regarding the health and behavior considerations of early spay/neuter. More information is available at the American Kennel Club (AKC) (http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/CA_action_center.cfm) and ab1634.com (http://ab1634.com/).

Action needed: Send a ONE-CLICK Email to the ASSEMBLY APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE (http://calnra.com/legs.shtml?year=2007&summary=ab1634

Mike

If you enjoyed reading about "CALNRA: NRA Opposes Mandatory Pet Spay/Nueter (AB 1634)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Nitrogen
May 1, 2007, 11:59 PM
.

rkh
May 2, 2007, 12:12 AM
I'm opposed to government permits for anything. For that reason, I support the NRA's stance on this bill.

That said.. it is grossly irresponsible to keep non-sterilized pets. Just visit your local humane society and try to pick out which animals are next in line for euthanasia. :mad:

Please neuter your dogs and cats.

jeepmor
May 2, 2007, 03:17 AM
I agree wholeheartedly with responsible pet ownership and have 4 animals, two cats, two dogs and all are spayed/neutered. However, I had a dog that was such a keeper that I still regret not breeding her. She was just a mutt, but a darn good one, and she saved our bacon on one known occasion when some prowler thought it'd be cool to climb into our window at o'dark thirty. I remember white teeth and arses and elbows of the shadowy figure. I have not met a dog yet that can hold a candle to this one with the exception of a police dog, even then, just barely.

I don't support a tax/permit fee structure of any kind, but any visit to the local pound will definitely illustrate that irresponsible pet owners are a burden for the rest of us taxpayers.

MikeHaas
May 2, 2007, 09:52 AM
Message received over the NRA CA Members' Councils internal state-wide network:
-----
To all;

My wife and I are volunteer puppy raisers for Guide Dogs of America and this bill has severe implications not only for sportsmen, but also because it makes no provision to protect existing breeding stock of charitable organizations such as Guide Dogs of America.

Guide Dogs of America and other organizations like them provide Service Dogs to the blind and other disabled people. AB 1634 would destroy these outstanding, carefully managed breeding programs with onerous Annual Fees, and would do a terrible dis-service to the community at large by denying blind and other disabled people some of the freedoms that we take for granted.

GDA is completely dependent on donations, and the tens of thousands of dollars for Intact Fees would kill the breeding program, AND every puppy in training can't be evaluated as breeding stock until 6 mos, so EVERY dog would be subject to the fee, eve though 90% will be spayed/neutered anyway.

Whether you own a dog or not, if this bill can be defeated, it will be a win/win for all responsible dog owners, for the charities that work so hard to breed outstanding animals, and for the thousands of disabled people who are waitng for a dog to change their life.

Please take the time to visit calnra.com and oppose this bill.

Joe
-----
Mike

.cheese.
May 2, 2007, 11:53 AM
Why the NRA out of curiosity?

No_Brakes23
May 2, 2007, 12:48 PM
Why the NRA out of curiosity? Notice the part where they mentioned that it would adversely affect hunting dogs. Since the NRA is nowhere near a libertarian organization, I would have to assume that's the reason.

obxned
May 2, 2007, 01:36 PM
Sounds like some folks in Sacramento need to be spayed or neutered!

SoCalShooter
May 2, 2007, 02:23 PM
I would say that this is another misuse of power and I support the NRA's position on it, first our animals then us.

trueblue1776
May 2, 2007, 02:29 PM
ridiculous.

jamz
May 2, 2007, 08:15 PM
I would say that this is another misuse of power and I support the NRA's position on it, first our animals then us.

Personally, I would LOVE to see leash laws for some people. :D

Sindawe
May 2, 2007, 08:30 PM
Personally, I would LOVE to see leash laws for some people.After rousting off the third group of littering & loitering teens from my property in as many days, I heartily agree. :mad:

My feelings are identical to rkh's All four of my cats have been spayed or nurtured since none are of breeding or show quality, all Humane Society adoptions or rescure kittys.

This is must more freaking nannyism from the CA legislature. No time or money to address REAL issues, but lots to waste on this dren.

Flyboy
May 2, 2007, 09:16 PM
That said.. it is grossly irresponsible to keep non-sterilized pets. Just visit your local humane society and try to pick out which animals are next in line for euthanasia.
Unfortunately, my local shelter doesn't have any Springers. Guess I'll have to go to the breeder after all.

That's a pretty broad and sweeping statement you've made. While I agree that it's irresponsible to let a pet have uncontrolled litters, that's a far cry from "keeping non-sterilized pets."

Geronimo45
May 2, 2007, 09:24 PM
If you outlaw... 'guns', only outlaw (dogs) will have... 'guns'.

Speer
May 2, 2007, 09:37 PM
That said.. it is grossly irresponsible to keep non-sterilized pets. Just visit your local humane society and try to pick out which animals are next in line for euthanasia.

Here, here.

WoofersInc
May 3, 2007, 12:44 AM
Check the screen name. It comes from having multiple Labs. All however are spayed/neutered. I am though against more government intrusion. Just another way of the state looking for money.

sixgunner455
May 3, 2007, 01:58 AM
Owners of animals should be making the decision whether to neuter, not the freaking nannies in the legislature!

Good grief.

obxned
May 3, 2007, 09:11 AM
Geologists now say that Californica will NOT drop into the ocean. How depressing!

WhitetailFanatic
May 3, 2007, 11:15 AM
Dogs and cats need loving too!

Walkalong
May 3, 2007, 11:28 AM
ridiculous.
__________________
I love Alabama.

Ditto ! :)

MikeHaas
May 3, 2007, 10:54 PM
I'm opposed to government permits for anything. For that reason, I support the NRA's stance on this bill.

That said.. it is grossly irresponsible to keep non-sterilized pets. Just visit your local humane society and try to pick out which animals are next in line for euthanasia.
No question. And it's heartbreaking to actually see an anaimal put down.

However, that said, this should be improved via education and outreach. If the state of CA can spend money on something as silly as second-hand smoke commercials, why not something real like this issue?

Compassion and common sense cannot be legislated.

Mike Haas
http://patriotboxers.com/

LAR-15
May 9, 2007, 02:26 PM
Sounds like it would make it virtually impossible to breed top flight bird dogs.

Notch
May 9, 2007, 04:20 PM
Well I'm glad that they have won all the battles on the "gun front" so that they are able to pursue topics that have as much to do with "n RIFLES a" as a flat bottom boat. GREAT use of members money.....

beaucoup ammo
May 9, 2007, 04:37 PM
Some owners are irresponsible and need a little direction. They keep cats and dogs that wander the neighborhood, stealing other pet's food, breeding, chasing people, breeding, digging up gardens, breeding, breeding, breeding.

There are disrespectful low lifes who allow their pets to live under the cars, roam the streets and generally make life miserable for their neighbors.

If you keep your animals properly contained in the yard or inside..great, let them live their lives happy and intact. However, if an irresponsible pet owner lets their pets dump in other's yards, keep neighbors awake at night, dig through the trash,etc. then THAT person needs to be held accountable.

A law requiring their pets be spayed and neutered..a law that gives those living near them some ammunition to take care of the problem..would be welcomed by the majority.

Zundfolge
May 9, 2007, 05:03 PM
There are disrespectful low lifes who allow their pets to live under the cars, roam the streets and generally make life miserable for their neighbors.
True, but forcing all pet owners to spay/neuter their pets regardless of whether they are "bad" pet owners or not is the same bovine scat as forcing law abiding gun owners to give up their guns thinking it'll stop bad people from doing bad things with guns.

Lets punish bad people for doing bad things, not punish EVERYONE because they might do bad things.

beaucoup ammo
May 9, 2007, 05:26 PM
Point taken. It would be better if the proposed law were tweaked to reflect "those who allow pets not spayed/neutered to roam free will be ticketed."

A responsible breeder would never let his bread and butter be deluted or otherwise compromised. Of course his animals are well under control.

Zundfolge
May 9, 2007, 05:29 PM
It would be better if the proposed law were tweaked to reflect "those who allow pets not spayed/neutered to roam free will be ticketed."

Which is already illegal ... plus the law currently prohibits people from allowing their spayed/neutered animals to roam free as well.

Mot45acp
May 9, 2007, 05:52 PM
Does any one have a problem with this. If I wanted to save the puppies and kitties of the world, I would join PETA. I wanted to save the RKBA so I joined the NRA. Glad to see my $$$ go to good use. :barf:

beaucoup ammo
May 9, 2007, 06:01 PM
It is an imperfect world isn't it? Being responsible just doesn't compute with a lot of people. Adherence to the laws already on the books, the ones you mentioned, would solve my problem.

That done.. no, I would not want any further goverment fiddling whatsoever.

ArfinGreebly
May 9, 2007, 06:37 PM
Hey, guys, chill already.

It's for your own good.

After all, who can object to common sense dog laws?

You all want to keep dogs out of the wrong hands, don't you?

Some people just should not be allowed to own a dog.

And there are some types of dog that nobody (except professionals) should be allowed to own -- nobody really needs that kind of dog!

Besides, it's not like the right to keep and walk dogs is constitutionally protected, right?

And if it's not specifically protected in the Bill of Needs Rights, then it automatically becomes subject to government regulation.

Trust us: we know what's good for you (™).

If you enjoyed reading about "CALNRA: NRA Opposes Mandatory Pet Spay/Nueter (AB 1634)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!