California AB1634 Mandatory Spay/Neuter (MSN)

[lizbud]

AB 1634 Summary of Provisions
Jul. 5th, 2007 | 10:55 pm
posted by: ldragoon in ab1634
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

OVERVIEW: AB 1634 would


· Require a cat or dog over the age of 6 months to be spayed or neutered, unless issued an intact permit or given a veterinary extension or waiver (see below)

· impose an intact permit fee, limited to an amount ‘reasonably necessary’ to help pay for the cost of the permit program, replacing the current ‘unaltered’ animal license

· make failure to obtain a permit or spay/neuter one’s pet punishable by a civil penalty ($500) to be waived if the owner has his or her pet spayed or neutered

· require revenues derived from civil penalties to be used for funding outreach efforts, as well as administration and enforcement, and to the extent funding is available, fund free and low-cost spay and neuter programs and outreach efforts for those programs (i.e., be fiscally neutral or positive)


EXTENSIONS, WAIVERS AND INTACT PERMITS:


Owners of intact dogs or cats may delay spay/neuter if they obtain a veterinary letter, authorizing a delay for medical reasons (see below for permits for pets to remain unaltered due to permanent health problems)
Complete exemption for dogs or cats visiting the state temporarily, as well as guide, signal and service dog programs
‘Intact permits’ are available for the following:

licensed breeders of pure or mixed breeds
owners of dogs or cats registered with an approved breed registry that qualify under any of the following conditions:

(a) shows or competes in a show or sporting competition, or is being trained to do so (if too young currently);
(b) has earned or is working towards a title in conformation, obedience, carting, protection, agility, rally, herding, sporting or other activity
dogs being bred for work (police, fire, rescue, etc.)
dog is trained or being trained as service, guide or signal dog
dog is trained or being trained for law enforcement or rescue work
dog is being used to herd or guard livestock
dog or cat is determined by veterinarian to be too old or sick for spay/neuter
‘Family dog permit’ allows one litter for dog owners committed to breeding
responsibly under the terms of the law
Permit fee:

only what is ‘reasonably necessary’ to administer permit program
fee waived for police and rescue dogs and breeders of such dogs
local jurisdiction may waive fee for veterinary exemption-based permits

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 2008

[SemaviLady]

AB 1634 Summary of Provisions
Jul. 5th, 2007 | 10:55 pm
posted by: ldragoon in ab1634
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

Sorry, the difference between linking to it and pasting it doesn't change its meaning. It is essentially "The Reader's Digest Version" of the "intent" of the bill.

The bill has a lot of fine print that the summary neglects to mention.

Mancuso herself for one, has LAUGHED, and said that extermination of mixed breed pets is not possible. Because there will be more, they keep on coming.
TOUCHE! YES, Judie, we all agree this bill will not accomplish the proposed “INTENT” of the bill. You are too proud to admit it.

It is had EIGHT rewrites with line after line, conflicting its own text. (see the lines in the bill regarding vets for one)

1. This bill ENDORSES commercial producers with the broadest and complete exemptions. Commercial breeders are for profit, they do not waste time and money on health testing. They do not follow up on their placements which may well be brokered just about anywhere.

2. Since 27 June, this bill actually mandates the breeding of immature and untested dogs because their one year ticket cannot be renewed til the dogs are old enough to have any kind of offical health test.

3. The bill does not grandfather in many owners who will NOT be able to dole out the cash. Elderly, disabled, young couples, singles, poor folk of every kind, hundreds of rescuers who are working out of their pockets and homes. Where are these animals going to go? Will pets will be torn from their settled homes and euthanized if the owner doesn’t have the means?

4. Every different jurisdiction can have a different way to define many of the rules. It is a Tower of Babel with local jurisdictions being given total control.

5. NO FIT. The bill heavily profiles all owners and all breeders alike and therefore has numerous NO FIT and illogical assumptions. The majority of problems in the bill are right here.

Do you know what ‘no fit’ means? Example:
Someone is put in charge of all vehicle regulation, mandates that all vehicles with NO exceptions, must have four tires in good condition plus a spare (sounds good so far maybe?), and be parked in a garage next to the owner’s residence - or each will be fined $500. Unleash this on the constituents and THEN watch out for the bicycle, the boat, the plane, the semi, the tractor owners. What about people living in condos or apartments? What if car owners have four vehicles, is it time to hire a contractor, what if there is no room on the property that will allow them to get a permit? They have all been profiled into a law that didn’t take them into consideration. They are gonna get awfully upset. Now some of the nicest people are law breakers. Righteous people who live in a house with a garage and have a car with the requirements will of course, say, “It’s all about money!”. They are going to say to those selfish tractor drivers, “if you weren’t so selfish, you would get your act together and you too could be exempt.”

This bill is horrendously guilty of profiling and no fit. It will increase the numbers of animals killed.

It does NOTHING to promote ethical breeding nor healthy pets. The principle designers of this bill do not even own pets nor understand the population that they are trying to control.