Quote:
Originally Posted by gardenyorkies  |
That link you gave bothers me, I read it when you first posted it, and I'm very suspicious of some of the names of clubs that say they oppose this bill. I know the sporting dog groups stick very close together when some of this legislation tries to passes, and I wonder how many actual member there are in some of these groups, whether or not they are legitimate groups, and if they are, do there members actually oppose this? If they do oppose it, is it because they've been fed a bunch of lies?
Here's one of the quotes:
Quote:
|
A police service dog works with his human partner to search for and apprehend criminal suspects. AB 1634 allows an intact permit for a dog trained and actively used by law enforcement. This only exempts the current generation of police dogs. Young dogs would still have to be spayed/neutered at six months. The breeding stock that produces the next generation of police dogs would also have to be spayed/neutered meaning no more police dogs. Under any mandatory spay/neuter law, future California police dogs would have to be imported fully trained at great expense. This would reduce the number of police dogs, reduce the money available for other purposes, or both. Certainly it would hurt California law enforcement.
|
This just doesn't sound true to me at all, and I'm wondering if it really was ever true, and this is the sort of scare tactic these people have used to make certain groups oppose this bill. Few people check things out, and just seem to go along with whoever's advising them. Regardless, this has no relevance to the way the bill been written for a long time. I haven't read old copies of it. I guess I feel like the average person really wants about the same thing. However, special interest groups are misleading everyone, and the average person has no group that they trust. I certainly don't want a law passed that would punish good breeders or harm them in any way, but I wonder how many of them have the time to study all this?