We got word this morning from Alex Traverso of the office of Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), that AB1634, the Healthy Pets Act, has just passed the Business and Professions Committee by a vote of 7-2. Here is our editorial on the subject.
Posted by Gail Marshall on April 24, 2007 3:52 PM|Permalink
Comments
Breeders terrified of this bill are resorting to extreme measures to defeat it. These include telling people dependant on service dogs, the blind and disabled, that they will lose their dogs! (they are exempt) Other extremists have paraded unpublished, unreviewed and misleading information masked as 'science' before the Legislature via lobbysists and the public via websites. As disgusting as these behaviors are, the worst is the misrepresentation by the animal exploition (AE) movement that, "California doesn't have an overpopulation problem." While the Bee is correct in changing its position, the editorial under-reports the numbers of the Central Valley killings which currently exceeds 170,000 animals per year (Source: Hope Foundation) This figure includes the stats of only 9 of 16 area facilities impounding and destroying pets.
Besides the truth, the AE movement has much to hide: an $80 million underground pet-breeding economy rampant with violations of tax, zoning, license and health provisions. If real dog lovers who breed dogs would join the mainstream of citizens who observe the law and accept the accomodations for every aspect of legitimate breeding, the taxpayers would be able to reduce the cost of $100 per person to destroy adoptable pets.
Your editorial, "Pet Overpopulation", was right on the mark.
The "problems" have been addressed, and breeders should (and many are) supporting it.
Overpopulation doesn't just effect "one" area. Rescues, and particularly purebreed rescues, take their breeds in from around the state and nation. A Fresno dog can and does end up in a San Diego rescue. Thus, we must address this first as a state, then as a nation. Local ordinances, as long as not more lenient, are fine but do not provide the umbrella needed.
No amount of lies will change the fact that 25% of the dogs euthanized are purebred. As a rescuer, I have to be permitted, I am inspected, and I pay a fee for the "privledge" of saving dogs produced by breeders (many of whom make a tidy sum) and those who are otherwise irresponsible.
Breeders need to pay their fair share and irresponsible members of the public need to change their behavior.
Comments
Breeders terrified of this bill are resorting to extreme measures to defeat it. These include telling people dependant on service dogs, the blind and disabled, that they will lose their dogs! (they are exempt) Other extremists have paraded unpublished, unreviewed and misleading information masked as 'science' before the Legislature via lobbysists and the public via websites. As disgusting as these behaviors are, the worst is the misrepresentation by the animal exploition (AE) movement that, "California doesn't have an overpopulation problem." While the Bee is correct in changing its position, the editorial under-reports the numbers of the Central Valley killings which currently exceeds 170,000 animals per year (Source: Hope Foundation) This figure includes the stats of only 9 of 16 area facilities impounding and destroying pets.
Besides the truth, the AE movement has much to hide: an $80 million underground pet-breeding economy rampant with violations of tax, zoning, license and health provisions. If real dog lovers who breed dogs would join the mainstream of citizens who observe the law and accept the accomodations for every aspect of legitimate breeding, the taxpayers would be able to reduce the cost of $100 per person to destroy adoptable pets.
Posted by: kelly Burch | April 25, 2007 9:09 AM
Your editorial, "Pet Overpopulation", was right on the mark.
The "problems" have been addressed, and breeders should (and many are) supporting it.
Overpopulation doesn't just effect "one" area. Rescues, and particularly purebreed rescues, take their breeds in from around the state and nation. A Fresno dog can and does end up in a San Diego rescue. Thus, we must address this first as a state, then as a nation. Local ordinances, as long as not more lenient, are fine but do not provide the umbrella needed.
No amount of lies will change the fact that 25% of the dogs euthanized are purebred. As a rescuer, I have to be permitted, I am inspected, and I pay a fee for the "privledge" of saving dogs produced by breeders (many of whom make a tidy sum) and those who are otherwise irresponsible.
Breeders need to pay their fair share and irresponsible members of the public need to change their behavior.
Posted by: Sherry Meddick | April 25, 2007 11:11 AM