$500 Fine for Pets not Spayed or Neutered by 4 MONTHS!!!

[proudyorkiemom]

Originally Posted by stow1

Outsourcing Pet Owner Privacy for Profit

Lloyd Levine's mandatory castration proposal could lead to record
corporate profits -- pet owners are in the crosshairs

Has your personal information been databanked ?

Read it and weep, California pet owners. Last week we did a little
speculating on enforcement strategies for Lloyd Levine's radical proposal
to surgically sterilize every single pet dog and cat in the entire state
of California.

But that was then, and this is now. The beat goes on.

The Mother of All Databases is already a reality

PetData Inc., a private corporation in Irving, Texas, already collects
information on law-abiding citizens who happen to own pets. They say
they have already databanked information on 2 million residents in more
than 20 U. S. communities, and four entire counties. Matthews, North
Carolina, just joined the ranks of municipalities contracts with PetData.

Your personal privacy on the auction block

If you live in a community that outsourced animal licensing functions
to PetData, you may not even realize it yet. When you vaccinate your
cats and dogs for rabies, your vet forwards the details to PetData Inc.

Your name, your address, your contact information. And your dog's, or
cat's, veterinary information- cat's, veterinary information--in
goes into for-profit PetData Inc.'s privately-owned, privately-controlle g
database.

PetData proudly advertises its membership in the Humane Society of the
United States. It has no corporate privacy policy.

From rabies vaccination to Animal Control at the door --two shakes of a
lamb's tail!

These California communities already contract with PetData--

a.. Antioch
b.. Dana Point
c.. Fairfield
d.. Oakland
e.. Riverside
f.. San Clemente
g.. San Luis Obispo
h.. Torrance
i.. Vacaville
j.. Vallejo
k.. County of San Luis Obispo
l.. County of Solano
If you live in one of these California municipalities or counties, your
local elected officials struck a deal with PetData. For a modest fee,
PetData is doing the animal licensing enforcement for your community. If
you vaccinate an unlicensed pet, you're going to hear from PetData.

But it gets better.

PetData can kick back and watch the profits roll in

Matthews, North Carolina, is paying them $3.75 for each one year
license they collect on.

That's just the beginning.

Its the aftermarket sales that are going to be most valuable to
PetData.

Insurance companies, landlords, breed bigots, pet supply marketers. .
.Gonad Nazis

PetData is building itself one hell of a marketable databank. Not just
for California, either. Check out the website. Albuquerque signed a
five year contract with PetData.

But in a world where greed is good. . . who cares? Its the American
way. Plus, your dog or cat is already neutered. You're not breaking any
laws. Life is good. Right?

Wrong.

The New York Times reports that its virtually impossible to find
housing in Manhattan--where housing vacancy rates hover in the very low
single digits-- if your household includes a dog that weighs over 20 lbs. If
you've got more than one dog or cat? Fuhgeddaboutit.

Gawd knows insurance companies are itching to drop dog owners. They
just have to find 'em.

But Gonad Nazis on a mission ? Oooh, baby! PetData is marketing the
reports it can run from the data it collects. Need a list of households
with intact dogs or cats in Riverside, California? Shazaam!

Not paranoia. Not a conspiracy theory. They are coming for you. And
certain sensitive parts of your pets.

The Humane Society of the United States, the largest, wealthiest animal
extremist organization in the country--one that is dedicated to
eliminating pet ownership-- is already using PetData as a mouthpiece.

Will municipalities increasingly outsource law enforcement
responsibilities to profit-motivated private organizations? Ones with no public
accountability?

As a private corporation, PetData's employees are responsible to their
own Board of Directors. We the People don't get to vote on what they
do, or how they do it.

Meanwhile, back at the Nanny-State nursery

Poor, clueless Lloyd Levine.

Levine -- the pro-choice Democrat, representing a pro-choice
constituency in a pro-choice state -- who wants to deny pet owners any choices.

Levine-the-liberal -- now turned animal extremist poop-boy-- intent on
bringing fascism to the homes of California dog and cat owners.

Maybe freedom of choice and the right to privacy really don't matter to
Lloyd Levine. Or maybe he thinks its okay to deny these liberties to
"certain people", like pet-owning Californians.

But I'm thinking the 60+ percent of Californians that own cats and dogs
would kick his butt from one end of the state to the other if they knew
what AB 1634 really means to them, and to the pets they love.

Why would you say that The Humane Society of the United States is dedicated to eliminating pet ownership?
They find homes for unwanted pets every day. I truly feel that the Humane Society is a God send. They are the only ones that I know of trying to stop puppy mills. I will forever be thankful to them for the difference they have made for ALL animals. In fact, it really bothers me when anyone puts them down or says false things about them.
I think most will agree that more needs to be done to protect all dogs, purebred or not.
The mixed breeds are being put to death because no one wants them and the purebreds are under attack by greedy people who want to make a quick buck, so they'll get like 200 hundred yorkies ( I have even heard up to 500, in a kennel in Texas) and put them all in rabbit cages and breed the heck out of them. Not to mention that puppies are being imported from all over the world ( In my experience, mostly in Korea) and sold here in the US, I dont even want to think about the parents living conditions out of the country were there are no regulations.
So I say again, These dogs need protection from the filth of this world. Dogs are supposed to be mans best friend, right. So how can we let these things happen to them?
Something needs to be done. This law may or maynot be the solution. But who knows it could be the start. I find it hard not to support something that is supposedly for the animals.

[bellaismybaby]

Sorry ... I know this is long, but I thought you might want to read the exact bill...
UPDATES FROM THE ANIMAL COUNCIL 

June 6, 2007
(Last publication date5/30/07
Appropriate forwarding encouraged.)
Preserving Our Right ToOwn And Breed Animals Is Your Responsibility

IN THIS ISSUE:
* CA AB1634 (LEVINE/NAVA/PADILLA/SOLARIO) PASSES ASSEMBLY 41-38
* CA AB 1634MAY 31 AMENDED TEXT

THE ANIMAL COUNCIL'S web site athttp://www.theanimalcouncil.com is 
updated frequently supplementingadvocacy information through these 
Updates with new and expandedfeatures. 2007 California bill 
information for each bill we trackwith links to key documents, 
contact information for legislators andmore: 
http://www.theanimalcouncil.com/CA20...YNOTED

SB 969 authored by Senator Sam Aanestad (R-3) of Grass Valleyand 
sponsored by the California Veterinary Medical Association wasamended again on May 30 to only allow until January 1, 2012, aRegistered Veterinary Technician or unregistered assistant toadminister drugs, including controlled substances but not anesthesia,under either direct or indirect supervision of a licensedveterinarian when done pursuant to the order, control, and fullprofessional responsibility of a licensed veterinarian. The originalbill would have relaxed the licensing standards for out-of-stateveterinarians but these provisions were opposed by the CaliforniaVeterinary Medical Board. SB 969 passed the Senate on consent andmoves on to the Assembly.
*****

CA AB 1634 (LEVINE, NAVA; SEN.PADILLA), the "California Healthy Pets 
Act" passed the Assembly Floorwith the bare minimum 41 affirmative 
votes and 38 noes after the callwas lifted tonight at 10:15 p.m. 
following a morning vote of only 37ayes and 34 noes. Author Levine 
had promised objecting Democratsadditional amendments in the Senate 
this morning and continuedlobbying efforts throughout the day to 
secure the additional 4 votesneeded for passage. There is still no 
indication of provision forfuture review or sunset, standards of 
local accountability or dueprocess provision for appeal of local 
agency denial of intactpermits. 

AB 1634 will move on to the Senate and then to the SenateRules 
Committee for assignment to a policy committee. 

AB 1634 waslast amended on May 31 in the Assembly to read currently:

THE PEOPLEOF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. This actshall be known and may be cited as the
California Healthy Pets Act.SEC. 2. Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 122336) is added to
Part 6of Division 105 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:
CHAPTER 9.SPAY AND NEUTER PROGRAM FOR CATS AND DOGS

Article 1. Definitions122336. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions 
shallapply:
(a) "Intact permit" means a document issued annually by a local
jurisdiction or its local animal control agency if authorized toissue these permits, that authorizes a person to own or possesswithin that locality an unaltered cat or dog and meets therequirements of subdivision (a) of Section 122336.2. A dog or catlicense that meets the requirements of subdivision (a) of Section122336.2 shall be considered a permit for purposes of this chapter.(b) "Local animal control agency" means the municipal or countyanimal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcinganimal-related laws.
(c) "Local jurisdiction" means any city, county,or city and 
county.
(d) "Spay or neuter" means any procedure, asperformed by a duly 
licensed veterinarian, that permanentlysterilizes an animal and 
makes it incapable of reproduction.

Article2. General Provisions
122336.1. (a) Subject to subdivision (c), aperson shall not own 
or possess within the state any cat or dog overthe age of four 
months that has not been spayed or neutered, unlessthat person 
possesses an intact permit, as defined in subdivision (a)of Section 
122336.
(b) Subject to subdivision (c), any person whoviolates 
subdivision (a) shall, for each animal for which a violationhas 
occurred, be subject to a civil penalty of five hundred dollars($500). This penalty shall be imposed in addition to any other civilor criminal penalties imposed by the local jurisdiction.
(c) If anowner of a cat or dog provides a letter from a 
California licensedveterinarian indicating that due to age, poor 
health, or illness, itis unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog and 
that arrangements havebeen made to spay or neuter the cat or dog 
within 75 days from thedate the cat or dog reaches the age of four 
months, and the owner hashis or her cat or dog spayed or neutered 
within that 75 day period,the owner shall not be in violation of 
this act.
(d) Any civilpenalty imposed under subdivision (b) may be 
waived, in whole or inpart, by the local jurisdiction if the person 
in violation providesverification that his or her cat or dog has 
been spayed or neutered.(e) Any person who is in possession of any document issued by thelocal jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency thatpermits the owner to possess an unaltered cat or dog shall be deemedin compliance with this act until the document expires or January 1,2009, whichever occurs first.

Article 3. Permits
122336.2. (a) Alocal jurisdiction shall issue an intact permit, 
as defined insubdivision (a) of Section 122336, if the owner 
provides sufficientproof, as determined by the local jurisdiction or 
its authorizedlocal animal control agency, that any of the 
following conditions aremet:
(1) The owner demonstrates, by providing a copy of his or herbusiness license and federal and state tax number, or by other proof,as required by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animalcontrol agency, that he or she is doing business and is licensed as abreeder at a location for which the local jurisdiction or itsauthorized local animal control agency has issued a breeder license.(2) The owner's cat or dog is a valid breed that is recognized 
by anapproved registry or association, and complies with at least 
one ofthe following:
(A) His or her cat or dog is used to show or competeand has 
competed in at least one legitimate show or sportingcompetition 
hosted by, or under the approval of, a recognizedregistry or 
association within the last two years, or by whateverproof is 
requested by the local jurisdiction or its authorized localanimal 
control agency that the cat or dog is being trained to show or
compete and is too young to have yet competed.
(B) The cat or dog hasearned, or if under three years old, is in 
the process of earning, aconformation, obedience, agility, carting, 
herding, protection,rally, sporting, working, or other title from an 
approved purebredregistry or association. 
(3) The owner is a legitimate breeder ofworking dogs, or is 
supplying dogs for training as working dogs tolaw enforcement, fire 
agencies, or legitimate professional orvolunteer private sector 
working dog organizations. 
(4) The dog isbeing raised, groomed, socialized, or otherwise 
prepared for dutiesas a legitimate working dog. 
(5) The dog is being actively used bylaw enforcement, fire 
agencies, or legitimate professional orvolunteer private sector 
working dog organizations for lawenforcement, fire service, search 
and rescue, or medical serviceactivities. 
(6) The owner of a cat or dog provides a letter to thelocal 
jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency froma 
California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poorhealth, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the cat or dog.This letter shall include the veterinarian's license number andshall, if this information is available, include the duration of thecondition of the dog or cat, and the date by which the dog or cat maybe safely spayed or neutered.
(b) An unaltered cat or dog for which anintact permit was issued 
who ceases to meet the requirements ofsubdivision (a) is subject to 
the spay and neuter requirements setforth in Section 122336.1.
(c) (1) The amount of the fee for an intactpermit shall be 
determined by the local jurisdiction, and shall be nomore than what 
is reasonably necessary to fund the administration ofthat 
jurisdiction's intact permit program.
(2) A local jurisdictionshall waive the intact permit fee for an 
unaltered cat or dog thatmeets any of the requirements described in 
paragraphs (3) to (5),inclusive, of subdivision (a), and the 
provisions of subdivision (f)and may waive all or part of the intact 
permit fee for an unalteredcat or dog meeting the requirements of 
paragraph (6) of subdivision(a). 
(3) Any fee assessed by a local jurisdiction pursuant to thischapter shall not be duplicative of any other local fee in thatjurisdiction. 
(d) Nothing in this section shall prohibit a localjurisdiction 
from adopting or enforcing a more restrictive spay orneuter program 
pursuant to Section 122331, provided that the programallows for a 
cat or dog to be temporarily or permanently exemptedfrom a spay or 
neuter requirement for the reasons set forth inparagraphs (3) to 
(6), inclusive, of subdivision (a), or theprovisions of subdivision 
(f).
(e) Any owner of a cat or dog who isnot a resident of California 
shall be exempted from the permitrequirements set forth in this 
chapter if the owner provides proof,as determined by the local 
jurisdiction or its authorized localanimal control agency, that the 
cat or dog is temporarily inCalifornia for training, showing, or any 
other legitimate reason

[bellaismybaby]

Sorry..I had to split it...too long.
.(f) (1) Any individual or organization breeding animals for 
servicesprovided by guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs, as 
defined insubparagraph (C) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (b) of 
Section 54.1of the Civil Code, shall be presumptively entitled to an 
intactpermit issued pursuant to this chapter. 
(2) Any animal possessed byany individual with a disability 
protected by the federal Americanswith Disabilities Act shall be 
exempt from the provisions of thischapter if the animal is providing 
guide dog, service dog, or signaldog services, as defined in 
subparagraph (C) of paragraph (6) ofsubdivision (b) of Section 54.1 
of the Civil Code. 
(3) Guide dog,signal dog, and service dog programs licensed by 
the State ofCalifornia are exempt from all of the provisions of this 
chapter.Article 4. Funding
122336.3. (a) (1) Any civil penalty collectedpursuant to 
subdivision (b) of Section 122336.1 shall be used forfunding the 
administration, outreach, and enforcement activities setforth in 
Article 5 (commencing with Section 122336.4).
(2) To theextent that funding is available pursuant to this 
chapter, a localanimal control agency shall establish a free and low-
cost spay andneuter program for low-income individuals. The agency 
shall undertakeoutreach efforts to inform qualified persons about 
these programs.(b) All permit fees collected pursuant to subdivision (c) of 
Section122336.2, shall be used for funding the administration of the 
permitprogram in the local jurisdiction in which the permits are 
issued.Article 5. Enforcement
122336.4. A local animal control agency shallbe responsible for 
enforcing, conducting outreach efforts inconnection with, and 
administering, this chapter.
SEC. 3. Noreimbursement is required by this act pursuant to 
Section 6 ofArticle XIII B of the California Constitution because a 
local agencyor school district has the authority to levy service 
charges, fees,or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or 
level of servicemandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 
17556 of theGovernment Code.
SEC. 4. This act shall become operative on April 1,2008.
*****

*a service of THE ANIMAL COUNCIL, P.O. BOX 168, MILLBRAECA 94030
Contact us at <TheAnimalCouncil@aol.com>
URL<http://www.theanimalcouncil.com>
Incorporated 1991, tax exempt underIRC Section 501(c)(4)
Online news updates published sporadically since1997. 
Legislative tracking subject to change. 
Find your own CAlegislators 
http://192.234.213.69/lmapsearch/framepage.asp-- Diane JonesLegislative Liaison Channel City Kennel Club and Dachshund Club of California

[pea496]

My vet would not neuter Conner until he was 6 months. I also would have paid the fine until it was safe for him.

[candybaby]

Vote NO, NO, NO, NO, NO

[Yorkiedaze]

FINALLY, we are getting some protection for our dogs, especially when it comes to BYB and millers. I just hope we can now hire enough people to enforce it. It all looks good on paper, but unfortunately it won't stop the excess and unethical breeding practices. We all now can do our part and report anyone we see with a backyard full of cages with dogs in them.

[Mardelin]

Not as simple as that. The BYBers and puppy millers can afford to pay the fine. The bill was pulled.

What it will affect is small hobby ethical breeders....as well as dog shows, etc. AKC had an alternative venue for Eukanuba that is scheduled for Long Beach, CA. Eventually this bill will do away with pets as we know them today.

[cindy0721]

My biggest CON would be what if the puppy is too small in weight to get fixed? Then it goes under and doesnt come out... what then? I guess I am partial to this because of my Gizmo he is soo little at 2 yrs old and barely 4lbs I am too scared to put him under and him not come out... nothing in life can be guaranteed but this is just unfair in this sense...

[candybaby]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

Not as simple as that. The BYBers and puppy millers can afford to pay the fine. The bill was pulled.

What it will affect is small hobby ethical breeders....as well as dog shows, etc. AKC had an alternative venue for Eukanuba that is scheduled for Long Beach, CA. Eventually this bill will do away with pets as we know them today.

[bren]

Originally Posted by pea496

My vet would not neuter Conner until he was 6 months. I also would have paid the fine until it was safe for him.

My vet wouldn't spay Abbie or neuter Max until they were at least 6 months old. He's been practicing for over 40 years so I believe he KNOWS what he is talking about. Fortunately, I have teapots so they were not ultra tiny when they were spayed/neutered at 6 months.

[Yorkiedaze]

Originally Posted by cindy0721

My biggest CON would be what if the puppy is too small in weight to get fixed? Then it goes under and doesnt come out... what then? I guess I am partial to this because of my Gizmo he is soo little at 2 yrs old and barely 4lbs I am too scared to put him under and him not come out... nothing in life can be guaranteed but this is just unfair in this sense...

I'm sure all that would be needed is a letter from the Vet. if for any reason a dog cannot be spayed or neutered.

We do need to lobby against the NUMBER of non-spayed female dogs so we can shut the millers down.

[Mardelin]

Kennel Clubs and others have put together a new orginization PetPac to contribute against this bill. The bill in itself had many holes in it. Numbers within the bill were incorrect, as far as number of dogs euthinized....the number was based on stray cats. Similar laws have gone into affect in other parts of California and statistics reveal the $$$$$ & euthinization numbers have gone up. So, AB 1634 as it stands today would not accomplish what it says it suppose. AB 1634 had PETA and other Animal Rights Activist behind it all with a hidden agenda.

[candybaby]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

Kennel Clubs and others have put together a new orginization PetPac to contribute against this bill. The bill in itself had many holes in it. Numbers within the bill were incorrect, as far as number of dogs euthinized....the number was based on stray cats. Similar laws have gone into affect in other parts of California and statistics reveal the $$$$$ & euthinization numbers have gone up. So, AB 1634 as it stands today would not accomplish what it says it suppose. AB 1634 had PETA and other Animal Rights Activist behind it all with a hidden agenda.

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by candybaby

I've just moved back to California and intrestingly enough this being a progressive state. The land of high tech, higher income, etc. I've witness more people here that haven't a clue about pet responsibility. I see dogs running the streets, being unfed, full of fleas and ticks. Just the basics not being taken care of. These are the people that bills should be aimed at. Do todays laws cover this, they should. But, if you report an animal cruelty act to the right departments, do the act upon it, NO! So, a bill such of this isn't going to solve the problem.

BY the way HSUS is different from the local Humane Societies. They are not devoted to saving animals, they do not own or contribute to Animal Shelters. They are Animal Rights Activists not Animal Welfare.

[Yorkiekids]

I think it's a good idea if they can enforce it. There are too many dogs in shetlers that land up PTS. Maybe we will be charged for pups, but maybe not, because breeders are still wanting to sell their pups.