http://cahealthypets.com/pdf/AB_1634_mock-up%203-27-07.pdf

This is impossible to comply with. If this passes - home hobby breeders will cease to exist in California. They will never get the business/zoning/conditional use permits they need to be legal.

The hearing is April 10th - if you aren't going to Potomac - go to Sacramento and stand up for your rights!!

This is a post from pet-law about the most likely scenario if this passes...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I don't actually think there will be a drop in shelter numbers -- not
even if such laws also pass in a number of other states.

The overall reason that the laws won't work as claimed is that demand
for pet dogs and kittens is sort of like the demand for drinking water
in the desert: If people can't get what they want at the usual price
they will pay more, even considerably more. So as one source of supply
is squeezed, another will take its place at a somewhat higher price.
However, not all sources are of equal quality and with pet dogs and
cats the buyer cannot look at what's available and pick out a good one
from a mixed bag. Thus the substitution of illegal and commercial
sources for hobbyists will lead to an overall reduction in quality.

The effects of AB 1634 will go about like this:

1. Beginning immediately when the law passes (even before it takes
effect) shelter euthanasias will go UP substantially. That's the
owners who can't afford to get their pets S/N and who comply with the
law by giving them up. This effect will fade over about two years,
depending on how strongly the ordinance is enforced -- more
enforcement means a larger number given up and over a longer time.

2. Licensing will drop dramatically, rabies shots, significantly. This
is the folks who respond with "I'll S/N him when you find him." The
size of this effect depends on enforcement -- might be 10-50%.

Oh yes, California certainly CAN cut the licensing percentage for dogs
by half.

3. Hobby breeder purebred pups will vanish from the open market
overnight as will purebred kittens. (I believe this is already
starting to happen under the influence of spreading local
anti-breeding laws and in anticipation of the passage of AB 1634.)
Most people who continue to breed in the state will sell only OUT of
state, mostly to friends and people who previously bought from them;
they will breed less often, and will stop advertising. Only a few of
the required licenses will be issued. Half the state's hobby breeders
will move out of state over a few years, most of the rest will
gradually close down. Ten years after AB 1634 passes, hobby breeding
in California will be Sunday supplement stuff -- like that TV
personality who owns and restores dozens of vintage cars.

4. With only a fraction of the present number of hobby breeders in
state and those who are, trying to hide, dog and cat shows will
vanish. Shows are a major source of support for clubs and the
combination of the loss of shows and club members will take the clubs
out, one by one.

5. Dog clubs do obedience classes for the general public, staff pet
help lines and do other volunteer work for shelters; wave goodbye to
all that. Hobby breeders are the largest single source of informal
advice on pets, helping neighbors, co-workers, and others. Wave
goodbye to that, too.

6. Commercial sales of dogs and cats -- pet shops and licensed
commercial breeders -- will increase.

7. Such laws cannot be generally enforced so accidental litters of
puppies will decline slowly; a large fraction of this decline will be
caused by a reduction in the number of low-cost owned dogs caused by
giving up of dogs that owners couldn't S/N.

8. Except with respect to the tiny number of hobby breeders of
purebred cats, enforcement against cats will be close to non-existent.
There will be no perceptible change in the shelter and feral colony
numbers and other trends for feral and unwanted cats. Purebred cats
will gradually vanish from the homes of all but the wealthy.

9. Imports from out of state will increase but purebred imports won't
increase enough to replace the lost in-state production so the
fraction of home bred purebred pets will decline. Imports of mixed
breeds from Mexico and other U.S. states will increase substantially
as will 'puppy moonshine' breeding. Although often illegal, back of
the pickup truck sales at fleamarkets will increase.

10. After a couple of years the growth of shelter intakes of dogs will
level off and then begin to decline again though not as rapidly as
before. The fraction of shelter dogs suitable for adoption will
decline faster, reflecting the poorer quality of dogs in the state.
This will cause the fraction euthanized to rise.

11. Numbers will be fudged and edited to show that the law would be a
huge success except that "people are just SO irresponsible." Within
five years there'll be a bill to provide for stronger enforcement,
probably in the form of statewide mandatory microchipping.

Should the California Assembly in its wisdom take that next step,
there'll be a replay of all the effects above, starting from the new
base numbers.

Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets

Article

http://sandiegodog.wordpress.com/2007/04/05/owning-the-dog-or-your-choice-in-
california/_
(http://sandiegodog.wordpress.com/2007/04/05/owning-the-dog-or-your-choice-in-california/)

The California Legislature, specifically the Assembly, is poised to snatch
from California citizens the right to own the dog of their choice. The measure
is AB1634 which is to be heard by the Business and Professions Committee on
May 10, in Sacramento. If the bill gets out of this committee, it will have
passed another hurdle toward complete passage, and the loss of all California
citizens to own the dog of their choice.
This bill, AB1634, would mandate the spaying /neutering of all dogs over the
age of 4 months-that's it. Period.

To appease certain groups, such as the folks who occasionally breed a litter
of hopeful show dogs and who compete in dog shows, and who belong to dog
clubs, the bill makes a provision for licensing intact dogs - for a fee decided
by their local community. There is also a litter breeding fee described. The
intact license fee would only apply to dogs registered to an "approved
registry" (also decided at a local level) and who had competed in at least one
competition sanctioned by that registry in the past year. There is no provision
made for the progeny of that dog to be licensed as intact. So the competition
stops with that dog. Apparently all the subsequent offspring must be spayed or
neutered, leaving the owner with nothing to compete in future shows.

Dog shows are important. Independent judges give their opinions on the
quality of each dog by giving them scoring placements in shows. The winners are
considered to be breeding material by the embodiment of the official standard
for their breed. The losers are not so considered, and are rarely bred by the
owners. This is what keep Labradors looking and acting like Labradors and is
so for each and every breed.

Dog shows are important for other reasons, one being economical. A dog show
with around 1,000 entries brings about $750,000 dollars daily to the
community in which it is held. Some dog shows have about 5,000 entries, which may
bring in close to $4 million a day. The communities which host these shows work
very hard to keep the shows in place for the benefit of the community. An
example of this is the community of Brawley, CA. which lost the Imperial Valley
Kennel Club show a few years ago due to an inadequate show site. Several of
the community service clubs which catered breakfast and other services at the
show lost most of their annual budgets. And the surrounding communities of El
Centro and Holtville lost heavily on the motel occupancy as well as the
motels in Brawley.

Altogether the economy of dog shows goes quite far. A retired veterinarian
from the University of Michigan is deeply researching the annual expenditure
regarding dog shows in that state. When I talked with him in early March, he
had practically concluded verified figures of close to $4 billion . California
has more dog shows than Michigan,more miles to travel to them and more
people to go to them. I can easliy imagine that a greater amount than $4 Billion
is spent on this practical sport in California.

Now, how will this bill affect the casual dog owner? First, the competitive
dog owner only breeds about 8 to 10% of the pups born in the state, if
national statistics hold true. The pet stores and the breeding farms that service
them may provide 12-14% of the puppies bought in the state. The rest are
provided by amateurs commonly called "back-yard breeders" by the other breeders.
These folks may produce one or more litters in a lifetime. These litters are
produced for a variety of reasons-from acquainting children with mammalian
reproduction and birth, to adding a few dollars to the family income. Usually,
quality of pet does not enter into the process. But this class of breeder
does create about 74-80% of all puppies sold in the country and probably in
California, too.

The problem with this law and the "back-yard breeder" is enforcement. How
does one get such a law enforced without; 1. spying on folks, 2. neighbor
turning in neighbor, 3. hiring a gang of enforcers to trample neighborhoods
seeking intact dogs, 4. brandishing government power, 5. making criminals out of
the people who A. own a 7 year old intact female who has never had pups but
would cost around $600.00 to spay now, B. own a 12 year old male who has never
jumped a fence and bred any other dog but would cost $200.00 to neuter now, C.
the owner of a young show dog who is too young to enter in any proper event
due to health risks and rules, but is now 4 months old. The examples could go
on and on. This is a bad law. It is too vague, it is too controlling, it is
too demanding , and it is too unconstitutional.

Some facts about why this law has been proposed: 1. About the late sixties
and early seventies there was a huge increase in the popularity of owning
purebred dogs. Many people actively bred all the market would buy. 2. Many people
acquired these dogs without due consideration for the consequences to
themselves and the dog. 3. this was a time of radical changes in our society, with
the end of the vietnam conflict and the economic movement of people around
the country. 3. These facts and the availability of dogs generally led to the
devaluation of the pets, which caused an oversupply of animals in local
shelters nationwide. That was then, but the workers at the shelters have never
forgotten it. It was a bad time for them, and everybody else, too.

During this time a couple of organizations made great headway. These are
PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) and HSUS (Humane Society of
the United States). These are animal rights organizations, as opposed to the
animal welfare organizations caring for the animals and trying to place them
in caring homes. Lately these animal rights organizations have become very
political, with HSUS spending considerably more during the last national
election that the NRA (NAtional Rifle Association). PETA and HSUS are charitable
organizations, meaning that you can deduct contributions to the from your
taxes-and they do not pay taxes on the money you donate - just like a church that
you give money. For more on these organizations you can access the opposing
website www.activistcash.com and read a really goo book account The
Hijacking of the Humane movement available through www.amazon.com (The book is out
of print, but they probably have used copies)

Since that awful period of time when the shelters were bursting at the seams
and the workers spent most of their time killing healthy animals to make
room for more the American response has come into full bloom. Many dog clubs
(for those purebred dog folks who show dogs) started their own rescue
organization-primarily for dogs of their chosen breed, but many of those members have
now personally adopted mixed breed dogs which share their homes with the
purebreds. Many independent rescue organizations have also come into being. And
communities have advertized the plight of dogs everywhere. This has resulted in
actual shortages of dogs in some shelters. WHAT! shouldn't shelters be
generally devoid of poor canine inmates looking for caring homes? Ideally, yes.
But let us not forget that the shelters are in the adopt-a-dog business just as
much as a pet shop and even more so than the occasional purebred breeder
that just wants to have the best winner in the dog show. Now what?

Some American shelters have even resorted to importing dogs from shelters
with "surpluses". Some have even imported dogs from American Samoa, Guam,
Taiwan China, Hawaiin Islands (and this is an American state) and resorted to
smuggling dogs in from Mexico. All this is documented and traceable.

In the meantime, those shelter people are still screaming about shelter
overpopulation and the need to control breeding. At a recent meeting on the
subject in Phoenix , Arizona, the figure of 50,000 animals annually going through
the shelters at both Animal Care and Control (government) and Arizona Humane
(Private, charitable, actual humane association as opposed to PETA and HSUS).
Then a civilian participant questioned a previous meeting just 8 years prior
where the figures given were 98,000. This illustrated almost 50% reduction
of numbers in merely 8 years. ACC and Arizona Humane had little to say
following that, but the civilian invitees said,"Looks like we are doing something
right, so why not keep doing it?" ACC said,"No, we need more laws."

This Arizona example actually typifies a national trend. Shelter populations
have been falling steadily at an annual rate of 5% to 11%, depending on
circumstances in each community. It is not the need to reduce shelter populations
that drives laws like the proposed AB1634. Shelter populations are reducing
and it is the volunteer work of the rescue organizations that is doing it,
not laws. In addition, the population has educated itself regarding pet
ownership, and fewer people are acquiring pets in a turbulent employment situation,
or in cases where thay may not be able to keep it for it's entire natural
life.

However, remember I said that those two organizations had grown a lot? Well,
between them they took in over $350 million of your dollars in tax free mode
last year. And one of them outspent the NRA, remember? It is these
organizations that really push these laws of dominance over households in California
and elsewhere. Sixty-seven percent of American households have pets. Most have
dog and cat pets. It is these household that are the targets of these
organizations.

How will your household feel, if this law is passed? How will you be
affected? You have a couple of sources of information. Those will lead you to
others. But study quickly, as this thing is rolling right along. Will you let it
roll over you?