For anyone interested the newest version of the proposed bill can be seen at the link below...It is NO longer the California Healthy Pets Act!....This bill is very long and has more to it than just spaying a dog because it has been running at large!

If you go to the link you can access the ammended version as of August of 2008....

California Spay-Neuter Bill in Limbo

California Spay-Neuter Bill in Limbo
Responsible Pet Ownership Act, AB1634, could be brought up for another vote.
Posted: August 23, 2008, 5 a.m. EDT




A bill that, under certain conditions, would require the sterilization of cats and dogs was considered Friday by the California State Senate and was granted “reconsideration.”

California Assembly Bill 1634, formerly known as the California Healthy Pets Act and now cited as the California Responsible Pet Ownership Act, can be brought up for another vote next week as it stands.

The bill, authored by Assemblymember Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), must be voted on before Aug. 31 to stay alive. Amendments to the measure most recently added microchip rules, and also have made it so that only cats and dogs who are repeat offenders to animal control ordinances would be required to be sterilized

I understanding what you are saying, but many people were talking about that bill, and thinking that this one would do the same thing. Like I first stated it's so hard to get the facts on these things, and it's hard to know which group, if any, you can rely on to give you the truth.

I agree Nancy. Reading this thread from the beginning proves just how confusing this bill is - and how much misinformation is out there.

Here's the actual bill they are working on. AB 1634 Assembly Bill - AMENDED

Some of the confusion is because this bill started out as mandatory spay/neuter with breeder permits. It was not always an enhanced leash law with msn in place of a fine.

Why are they still fighting it?

Opposition to AB 1634, CA Healthy Pets Act

This is a very interesting link to why many people oppose this bill...Read it and then ask yourself....Will this bill make things better or create even more problems?

Why still oppose it? I think I've explained pretty well why I oppose it in my previous posts as I am well aware of the current language in the bill. I can't speak for others though. I oppose enacting legislation that will not be enforced and that that is proposed without some factual support that a new law (or amendment) will have any effect. I oppose it because I disagree with any msn legislation even if incorporated into a leash law. I oppose it because I believe it is designed to be way to get the animal rightist's foot in the door and that true msn will follow. But those are my personal issues; I don't know anyone else's reasons.

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:
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?

If you click through to see who is actually behind this link - it's another huge propagandist group who is using alarmist tactics to sell its opposition.

And, what is wrong with being "an animal rightist"? I hope we're not going to get into labeling folks as this or that. Because no matter which side you land in supporting this bill, aren't we ALL interested in the rights of our animals? I'm really tired of that being a "dirty word" when it comes to animal welfare.

Who do you think is behind this link?...What alarmist tactics do you see?...I for one am not labeling anyone!...I posted the links of the newest bill and some of the reasons why some folks oppose the bill...First we were accused of not ageeing with the bill because we must not have read the bill...This link gives everyone the opportunity to read it and make an educated decision for themselves...

Not everyone is going to agree but at least everyone has had their fair share of time to say why or why not...

Responsible breeders are ALWAYS interested in the welfare of our animals and our breed... I assume that is why all of the breed clubs have made their feelings known as well as the folks that support the bill...

If you click through, go to the bottom to see the sponsor, then go to their page - and read their propaganda, it's the usual propaganda.

Plus, I don't believe it's the actual bill - it's the organization's (or, lobbyist's perhaps) opinion about the bill. Then, if you read their "Solution" - they basically propose a solution that is similar to that which is already not working. :rolleyes:

The "animal rightist" comment was in reference to post #84.

bill
 

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

I am sorry if I used the term in an offensive way but I am at a lost to find a different word to describe those persons who support msn. I am sure that not all persons who believe animals have "rights" support it so I probably over-generalized and I apologize for that.

So much comes down to differing beliefs concerning the legal status of animals. From my viewpoint, dogs are not humans. They do not understand the concept of rights. They are creatures that rely on us for their care. This is a legal issue for me, not one of compassion or emotion. I own my dogs, and because of that, I get to make decisions concerning their care and well-being. I understand fully that some people abuse this privilege, and I support the use of anti-cruelty laws to avoid that. Those that I have admittedly stereotyped as "animal rightists" are more than entitled to have their own opinions on these issues, I don't find an evil intent behind it or anything, I just disagree.