Its over ..... for now

[lecuyer]

Hope this is ok to post..


--- In pet-law@yahoogroups.com, Walt <waltah@...> wrote:

The California Senate Local Government Subcommittee hearing is over.
Mr. Levine did pull his bill for now, asking that it be held over to
next January. The AKC has so announced.

Levine's last shot was to offer to give it 'secondary enforcement' --
MSN would still be the law but would be enforced only if "animal
control was called to your house because of other violations." That
didn't play too well, with one representative of A/C organizations
saying he really wanted to be able to discuss the specifics with the
his organizations rather than amending on the fly. The chair
expressed similar reservations.

I didn't hear all the speakers but I thought Bill Hemby of PetPac did
a particularly good job with presenting both 'the bill will not work'
-- he got that up front -- and the working dog view. Joan Miller was
very clear on the cat issues.

Levine's closing included a broadside at opponents who wouldn't work
with him. This is the first time I've heard him speak and I agree with
others who have: he's not misguided or even an opportunist, he's an AR
slimeball.

The committee still doesn't understand how working dogs are bred and
selected: They don't understand that while many come from breeders of
purebreds, those individuals don't self-identify as breeders of dogs
for the specific purpose. Rather they breed the breed, and over some
period of time -- often two or more years -- the dogs sort out
according to their talents and get jobs accordingly. So how do you
know which breeders are actually breeding working dogs?

(It seems to me that it's sort of like a specific high school baseball
team and major league baseball -- you can hardly say they 'train for
the majors' just because they have a good program and one player does
make it. Yet AB 1634 would say if the program's not registered, no
player could go on. Laura and others if that analogy is correct, do
you think it would help the committee?)

The presentations I heard were better on "it won't work" than in the
past but we still need to hammer that. We're still in the mode of
Levine saying he just wants to pass a bill that will work for
everyone, and lawmakers giving him a free pass on the need to DO
SOMETHING.

We will need to continue to work very hard on that so that when the
bill comes back, it will go nowhere. 'Secondary enforcement' is almost
precisely the same as what would have happened with the current bill
because no local A/C was going to do general enforcement, anyway.
Remember Judie M. saying something like "they're going to work it into
their daily routine"? 'Secondary' would still leave it up to animal
control to pick people they don't like, visit them, and say "Sorry,
you have to spay/neuter them all." From an AR A/C point of view,
that's the best of both worlds -- no major expense for them but they
can still nail all the Nasty Breeders.

So if A/C shows up at your door and says "Sorry, we've had a complaint
about barking" and then they tell you "S/N all of them" ... what? S/N
is the law and you're in violation. What good is it going to do to
strongly suspect that there WAS NO complaint? In the places where A/C
is AR controlled, good breeding would be zapped within a few months.

Great job California. Unfortunately we have much more work to do.

Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets

[mferg]

Originally Posted by lecuyer

Hope this is ok to post..


--- In pet-law@yahoogroups.com, Walt <waltah@...> wrote:



The committee still doesn't understand how working dogs are bred and
selected: They don't understand that while many come from breeders of
purebreds, those individuals don't self-identify as breeders of dogs
for the specific purpose. Rather they breed the breed, and over some
period of time -- often two or more years -- the dogs sort out
according to their talents and get jobs accordingly. So how do you
know which breeders are actually breeding working dogs?


Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets

I attended the hearing today. I was very pleased with the presentations of the opponents of the bill. One of the primary presenters came with graphs showing (I shall assume since the graphs were pointing toward the committee members and not the gallery) the disconnect between the statistics being touted by the proponents of the bill and the verifiable state collected statistics that show very different conclusions.

Douglas Serber was the primary speaker on working dogs. He did an excellent job on his piece making very good points. I spoke with him after the hearing and he said he met up with Senator Kehoe (the one that needed clarification on where police dogs come from) after the hearing and explained to her about where a large number of police dogs come from and how they would be considered "general pet owners" rather than the breeders. Douglas said he'd cleared up that issue. I was certain he would do just that and I'm glad to have been proven right.

I was impressed with the questions and concerns of all the members of the committee. Senator Harmon has had hunting dogs for years and understands the problem of sterilizing dogs long before they can be properly evaluated for their performance abilities. Sen. Harmon also asked about what it costs to spay/neuter a pet. (It might be good for some of us to fax copies of invoices of high cost s/n we have had to pay in the past.)

Senator Machado was concerned about having all these amendments added along the way to get it passed and then the possibility of those revisions getting pulled back out down the road. A very valid point, but Levine promised that once the amendments were in, they would stay. Yeah. Sen. Machado made a great crack: He said, "Once these amendments are added are they there to stay or will they be cut out of the bill later (meaning the bill would be spayed/neutered)?"

Senator Cox was concerned about the practice of these amendments being added on the fly (Levine was very quick to offer to add more amendments to try to appease more opponents) without having the chance to evaluate them and come to an informed decision about them. I can certainly see his concern: A bill that they deliberate over and vote to pass on may well not end up anything like what they saw.

Chairwoman, Senator McLeod had a great little story about being a parent that has kids that have animals "follow" them home and then adopting them. She said they'd had dogs, cats, rabbits, chickens, etc. Every one of them (except the rabbits and chickens) were s/n. She considers herself a responsible pet owner and does not appreciate being told how to be a responsible pet owner. YEEHAW! I was SO happy to hear that!

I honestly think Levine would have had a heck of a time getting this through this group of senators. I think each and every one on this committee deserves a note of appreciation for their lucid comments and questions about the bill and for having given it a careful evaluation. I was very impressed.

Oh, I could also tell that the committee members were none too pleased that they were having to go through all of this when Levine already knew he was going to pull the bill. I think it's good the meeting was held anyway because there were very good presentations made by the opponents. Also, the general consensus was that the proponents knew it was going to be pulled well in advance because their numbers were very diminished at this hearing. So, the great majority of the turnout were the opponents. And that is a powerful sight to see.

Sorry this got so long.

[fbkeays]

Thanks Marlene for going. I had technical difficulties and didn't get up in time to make the 120 mile trek. I appreciate having the eye-wittness account. I tried to listen, but my dial-up connection isn't all that good and I missed about half of the proponants and of course the it couldn't keep up with the streaming so I got a lot missing during the buffering.
I am glad that we don't have to look out of state for a new place to live. At least not yet.

[lecuyer]

Thanks for the run down on things. I wish I could have been there. So do you think this bill will be reintroduced in Jan?

[fbkeays]

The problem is that Mr. Levine doesn't have to to "reintroduce" the bill. He can completely gut and amend this bill (just like what happened to SB861 in 2005) and it just continues from this point forward. The bill is just in a holding pattern until January. He does not have to start from scratch with this.

[Cash]

It most certainly is NOT over. This is a 5 month reprieve for Levine to get his ducks in a row. HE pulled the bill because as was, it would not of passed.

We, in LA, did an amazing job of sticking together and keeping the mandatory neuter/spay to a minimum, it's possible, but it's not possible if you are only willing to stand by and watch. There are so many Rottweiler owners in CA and the turn out and support is pathetic. Take pride in our breed and get involved, PLEASE!

This is serious business, and it doesn't take but 10 minutes to make a phone call and send a fax!!!

[fbkeays]

Originally Posted by Cash

It most certainly is NOT over. This is a 5 month reprieve for Levine to get his ducks in a row. HE pulled the bill because as was, it would not of passed.

We, in LA, did an amazing job of sticking together and keeping the mandatory neuter/spay to a minimum, it's possible, but it's not possible if you are only willing to stand by and watch. There are so many Rottweiler owners in CA and the turn out and support is pathetic. Take pride in our breed and get involved, PLEASE!

This is serious business, and it doesn't take but 10 minutes to make a phone call and send a fax!!!

I have been keeping my fax machine busy every Sunday afternoon faxing for both my local rottweiler club and for myself. I have made nearly a dozen phone calls to my local senator asking for a meeting. I have not gotten one reply back to my request. What do you think the chance of him getting my vote at the next election???? Before every committee hearing I have impersonated friends and family in the lawmaker's district on the phone too.

[Bucky's Mom]

Originally Posted by Cash

We, in LA, did an amazing job of sticking together and keeping the mandatory neuter/spay to a minimum, it's possible, but it's not possible if you are only willing to stand by and watch. There are so many Rottweiler owners in CA and the turn out and support is pathetic. Take pride in our breed and get involved, PLEASE!

This is serious business, and it doesn't take but 10 minutes to make a phone call and send a fax!!!

What can people outside of CA do? - Can we help in anyway without compromising a petition or anything?

[mferg]

Senator McLeod griped about her fax machine breaking because of all this. It was pretty funny. I really liked her (and not just because of her responsible owner statement - but that helped a lot). She ran a tight ship but wasn't awful about it. At the beginning she stated that Levine would introduce the bill and then each side would have 20 minutes to present. She said she'd cut it off right at 20 minutes and don't consider it rude because they'd been forewarned. And, sure enough, she did. Time updates were given along the way and she interrupted the final speaker of the proponents. The opponents were between speakers when their time was called.

When Lassie and "her" trainer were introduced, McLeod said that if Lassie wanted to speak, it would count against the clock. Later on, there was a bit of mild vocalization from Lassie and McLeod said that Lassie was trying to get into the conversation. Very cute and offered some needed levity.

Levine likes to take a lot of cheap shots. It's very irritating. I am happy that the opponents' speakers keep it very neutral and refrain from personal attacks. One thing Levine said, and positively acknowledged, was only one opponent of the bill repeatedly met with him and discussed the issues over this bill. Levine keeps harping that all the opponents say nothing can make this bill passable and offer no solutions (um, wrong). So, perhaps writing constructive letters to Levine (not ones that encourage him to continue with this bill, tho) and others would be a good thing for out of state (AND in-state) folks to do. My personal opinion is that strict enforcement of existing containment and leash laws would go a very long way toward reducing unwanted litters of puppies and kittens. I think that is the direction that should be taken. That targets the irresponsible owners while allowing the responsible owners to be at peace.

So, write letters. I think snail mail would be a good way to go for a while. Give the fax machines a break. If you have the chance to meet with legislators, very good.

Oh, Levine is going to be running for State Senate. Definitely something to do would be to identify his opponents and SUPPORT them. Get Levine OUT. That is something both residents and non-residents can do.

[mferg]

I give permission to cross-post messages (in their entirety) on this forum in regards to this discussion on AB1634 to other forums, email lists, and privately.

[Bucky's Mom]

Originally Posted by mferg

When Lassie and "her" trainer were introduced, ..........So, write letters. I think snail mail would be a good way to go for a while. Give the fax machines a break. If you have the chance to meet with legislators, very good.

Oh, Levine is going to be running for State Senate. Definitely something to do would be to identify his opponents and SUPPORT them. Get Levine OUT. That is something both residents and non-residents can do.

I HOPE someone pointed out that Lassie is (well you know)

Can you post an address for a snail mail letter?

Would like to help - just need to know what to do.

[fbkeays]

Originally Posted by mferg

Senator McLeod griped about her fax machine breaking because of all this. It was pretty funny.

I believe it because I had tried to fax her several times without getting a response. So I started to fax her district offices instead.

Levine likes to take a lot of cheap shots.

He seems to love the cheap shots. It doesn't make him look intelligent. He reminds me more and more of a slimey vendor sales guy. I have never liked small talk and he seems to love small talk.

Levine keeps harping that all the opponents say nothing can make this bill passable and offer no solutions (um, wrong). So, perhaps writing constructive letters to Levine (not ones that encourage him to continue with this bill, tho) and others would be a good thing for out of state (AND in-state) folks to do.

I have very mixed emotions on this. That is good for lawmakers that are trying to do a good thing. Levine is an PETA/HSUS puppet and doing that is a very BAD thing. This bill is inherently flawed. MSN is inherently flawed. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. By saying what the details were wrong, gave Levine the ability to do window dressing amendments that actually make it worse, but makes it easier for the lawmakers to pass it because they think the "problems" have been "fixed".
Would this bill have gotten through this committee if the one senator didn't have a history of hunting dogs? Or how about the chairwoman becoming irritated with being told how to be responsible? Perhaps it is because she did come from a rural enviornment, but a "city" person may not have felt that way. Then there was Mr. Cox that has a dozen counties in his district so he realize that one size doesn't fit all.

My personal opinion is that strict enforcement of existing containment and leash laws would go a very long way toward reducing unwanted litters of puppies and kittens. I think that is the direction that should be taken. That targets the irresponsible owners while allowing the responsible owners to be at peace.

Completely agree. Unfortunately try to get an AC officer to come out and grab a stray dog from your neighborhood is like finding a four leaf clover in astroturf. I have called AC after a dog tried to bite me in my own driveway. I was told to capture the dog myself and drop it off at AC myself. What part of dog attacking did they miss???? If I was wearing shorts instead of jeans, I would be filing a bite report instead of loose dog terrorizing me in my driveway report. I am not alone in this experience in complete lack of AC doing its job. I know people in other counties getting the same advice on loose dogs with near miss attacks.

Oh, Levine is going to be running for State Senate. Definitely something to do would be to identify his opponents and SUPPORT them. Get Levine OUT. That is something both residents and non-residents can do.

I would love for his opponant to get a landslide victory against him. Lets all do to him what we did to former senator Speier.

[mferg]

That's why I put Lassie's gender in quotes. I don't think it was specifically pointed out at the meeting but was common knowledge at the rally, I'm sure.

For monetary donations, there have been a number of groups fighting this bill. Two that have been very active are PetPAC, http://www.petpac.net, and SaveOurDogs, http://www.saveourdogs.net. You can probably also do a search to find other groups. A number of police organizations have been working to fight this, too. One being COPS.

The members of the Local Government Committee are Senators Gloria McLeod (Chair), Dave Cox (Vice Chair), Tom Harmon, Christine Kehoe, and Michael Machado. If you search the CA legislature website, http://www.legislature.ca.gov/, you can find mailing address for each.

I have no idea about opponents to Levine in campaign. I am not near his district (So. Cal somewhere) so am not up to date on that. I'm sure some simple searching will yield results.

[mferg]

Originally Posted by fbkeays

I have very mixed emotions on this. That is good for lawmakers that are trying to do a good thing. Levine is an PETA/HSUS puppet and doing that is a very BAD thing. This bill is inherently flawed. MSN is inherently flawed. As the saying goes, the devil is in the details. By saying what the details were wrong, gave Levine the ability to do window dressing amendments that actually make it worse, but makes it easier for the lawmakers to pass it because they think the "problems" have been "fixed".

Ah, well, you kinda cut apart my post at a vital intersection. The next breath out of my fingertips was advocating a different approach to dealing with this issue. Also, I stated the letters should not be trying to rectifying this current bill. The implication was this particular bill and all derivations of MSN bills should not be supported. I was, however, brief on that.

Completely agree. Unfortunately try to get an AC officer to come out and grab a stray dog from your neighborhood is like finding a four leaf clover in astroturf. I have called AC after a dog tried to bite me in my own driveway. I was told to capture the dog myself and drop it off at AC myself. What part of dog attacking did they miss???? If I was wearing shorts instead of jeans, I would be filing a bite report instead of loose dog terrorizing me in my driveway report. I am not alone in this experience in complete lack of AC doing its job. I know people in other counties getting the same advice on loose dogs with near miss attacks.

Yes, I heard a slightly different version of the same problem earlier today. I agree it's dismal. My meaning is we should implore the legislators to implement more vigorous enforcement of these existing laws.