Land of the free? ya , right

Home Main Forums Dogs Dogs in the News Land of the free? ya , right

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #61857
    *Nick*
    Member

    Do Or Die For California Dog Owners

    Senate May Vote This Week On AB 1634 ‘Vigilante’ Bill

    by JOHN YATES
    American Sporting Dog Alliance
    http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
    asda@csonline.net

    SACRAMENTO, CA – Legislation that would lead to the forced sterilization of thousands of dogs and cats and empower animal rights vigilantes to launch a campaign of legalized terror has advanced to the floor of the State Senate for a final vote.

    The vote could come as early as tomorrow, Thursday, August 7, according to the Senate calendar, but Friday, August 8 is more likely. The vote also might be delayed until next week, but dog owners will have no way of knowing until it’s too late to act.

    Dog owners should be prepared for the worst. It’s now a matter of do or die.

    The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges every California pet owner to immediately phone or fax his or her state senator to oppose AB 1634, which is sponsored by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine. Please ask your friends, neighbors and family members to help, too.

    In addition, we are urging all dog owners to immediately contact their assembly representatives, as the measure must go back to the Assembly for a concurrence vote if the Senate passes it. The Assembly passed this bill last year in a different form, which called for mandatory pet sterilization statewide.

    Here is what the current version of AB 1634 will do to dog and cat owners if it becomes law:

    · It will create animal rights vigilantes. The bill empowers anyone to make a complaint about any dog owner for an alleged violation of any law pertaining to animals. Complaints can be anonymous. Any animal control officer or humane police officer must look into the complaint, and may file a citation against a dog owner if the officer believes a law has been violated. An officer also can cite a dog owner based simply on his/her own opinions or observations.

    · Filing a citation is entirely based on the opinion of the officer, and the dog owner has no way to challenge the citation. Dog owners must not forget that the state association of animal control officers has endorsed the forced sterilization of all pets, and that many humane police officers work for private organizations that are hotbeds of animal rights activism. Many of these officers are personally opposed to the private ownership of dogs, breeding dogs and using dogs for hunting, obedience events, field trials or shows.

    · If an officer cites a dog or cat owner, civil penalties automatically kick in. These penalties are mandatory even if the charges are never filed, dropped, or if the dog owner is found to be not guilty in court. The fact that a citation has been issued automatically creates the civil penalties. There is no hearing, no chance to defend oneself and no appeal. It doesn’t matter if the dog owner is found innocent of the charge. The civil penalties still apply.

    · For dog owners, the civil penalty for the first citation is a $50 fine. For the second citation, it is $100. For cats, there is a $50 civil penalty for the first offense only.

    · For the third offense, spaying or neutering becomes mandatory for the dog or dogs that are owned by the person who is cited. For cats, the penalties are even more stringent. Cat sterilization is mandated for the second citation.

    · Similar penalties are provided for dogs and cats that are picked up by animal control and taken to a shelter, or taken to a shelter by any person who claims that the animal is a stray. Animal rights activists have been known to turn dogs loose, or steal dogs and turn them loose.

    The important thing to understand is that the officer who files a citation does not have to prove that the allegation is true. Nor does a dog or cat owner have to be convicted of any violation in court. You do not have to break a law to be cited.

    The officer who files the citation also is judge, jury and hangman.

    The American Sporting Dog Alliance sees this legislation as a clear and deliberate violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right of due process under the law. This guarantee is central to the U.S. and California Bill of Rights. This legislation is a wholesale desecration of every American’s constitutional right of due process under the law. Accusations do not have to be proven. There is no opportunity to defend oneself. There is no appeal. This legislation imposes the legal system of a totalitarian state on every Californian.

    Want proof?

    Here are some quotes from the public record.

    Rep Levine’s testimony: “No, that complaint doesn’t have to be proven.”

    The consultant for the Senate Appropriations Committee: “Due process is too expensive.”

    Levine’s top aid, Zak Meyer-Krings: “You don’t have a right to have due process.…”

    The California Department of Finance also issued a cautionary statement about AB 1634 last week. The Finance statement said the legislation likely will increase state costs under “Hayden Law” reimbursements, as it will cause many people to give up their pets.

    No significant amendments were attached to AB 1634 over the summer recess. Only one amendment was filed: To take the teeth out of a requirement for municipalities to file shelter data with the state.

    Amendments may be made from the floor of the Senate, and we urge dog owners to ask their senators to do this if they will not simply vote against the legislation.

    Before contacting senators, it is important to become familiar with the legislation. Many senators have not read the bill for themselves, and are relying upon biased and inaccurate summaries from party leadership. Please study our objections above, and read the bill for yourself. Here is a link to the current version: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20080805_amended_sen_v89.html.

    This link will give each senator’s mailing address and district office address: http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp. You can find your senator from this list, simply by clicking on the correct name. You also can search for the name of your senator by using your address.

    Here is a link for each member of the Assembly: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset7text.htm.

    Because this legislation is expected to move quickly, it is important to contact Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and ask him to veto AB 1634. Here is a link to email the Governor: http://gov.ca.gov/interact. Under subject, choose animal issues and concerns. A link at the top of the page will give phone and fax numbers.

    #90237
    -Alison-
    Member

    😮 😮 😮 This is just outrageous!!!

    #90238
    *Nick*
    Member

    You’re quite right Alison. Thanks for taking the time to read it.

    #90239
    xtine
    Member

    I read it this morning but couldn’t quite get my head round it.. or is that because it is ridiculous… I hadn’t had my coffee either  ::)

    #90240
    *Nick*
    Member

    No, you were right xtine, it is ridiculous…..it’s california.  ::)  Their Governor is Arnie ferpetesake …what a joke.

    #90241

    Was talking to someone on grooming forum about the whole mandatory neutering thing. Caused a bit of an uproar, I understand the rescue situation is bad out there – and a lot of people agree – but I cant agree with something that takes away our rights for OUR pets ….

    Will read all the links later or over the weekend Nick  :-*

    #90242
    *Nick*
    Member

    Just a quick update. The American Kennel Club has withdrawn their opposition to this bill.

    quote :

    The AKC negotiated in secret with Rep. Lloyd Levine and agreed to a “compromise” on AB 1634, which continues to be staunchly opposed by virtually all kennel clubs and dog owners’ organizations in the state. Levine is allied with some of the most radical animal rights groups in California, and has stated publicly that he wants to see almost every dog and cat in the state spayed or neutered.

    In cutting the deal with Levine, AKC slapped the face of every member of its affiliated clubs in California and signaled a willingness to work against the interests and beliefs of dog owners nationwide.

    As justification for the deal, an AKC announcement said the legislation simply requires dog owners to follow the law and be responsible. The American Sporting Dog Alliance rejects this position, because current laws already address animal control problems and mandate penalties for noncompliance. There is no reason to make owners of intact animals into second-class citizens by imposing a double penalty and endangering their dogs.

    Perhaps the greatest error committed by AKC was to create division and disunity in the ranks of dog owners. This is cause for celebration among the animal rights groups, as their most successful tactic has been to divide and conquer animal owners. AKC stumbled into the trap they set.

    Animal rights groups have targeted AKC as the weak link in dog owners’ advocacy groups, and are portraying the lumbering and toothless giant as the voice of all dog owners. AKC has come under sharp attack for its main function as a registry for purebred dogs, and has shown an increasing tendency to compromise with the very groups that want to destroy it. Animal rights groups oppose dog breeding in any form and regard every compromise as a victory that carries them one step closer to their long-range goal of eliminating animals from American life.

    AKC apparently won two concessions in the “compromise.”

    The first is that Levine inserted a provision to exempt nonresidents from the law if they can prove that their dogs are temporarily in California for shows, events, training and other legal activities. Prior versions of the bill would have made it unsafe to bring dogs into the state for AKC-sanctioned events, which would have hit AKC in the pocketbook. However, Levine also gained the assurance that his draconian law would not hurt tourism in California, thus making it more politically palatable to elected officials.

    The “compromise” also eliminated a provision to allow anyone to make an anonymous complaint about dog owners, which could have led to citations and forced sterilization.

    The AKC has shown clearly what it’s in the Dog ‘game’ for. To make money.  They don’t care about animal health or owners rights.

    #90243
    *Nick*
    Member

    This bill was defeated. Didn’t receive enough support in the state senate and was defeated by a 27-5 count.  The legislation can be brought up again next week but since they need 21 votes to pass and 27 voted against this time it seems unlikely that this will proceed.    Can’t wait to hear the AKC—-“Yup, we were against it all along”  :whatever:

    #90244
    Prem2Pram
    Member

    So glad to hear it was defeated, however it doesn’t mean they won’t try again, and next time they might try to push it through a backdoor  :nono:

    #90245
    *Nick*
    Member

    true minpin, but hopefully california will decide to focus on their more pressing problems like rolling blackouts.

    #90246

    am pleased Nick  :-*

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!