LET'S CUT TO THE CHASE.

The Pet Industry is a $39-$41 billion dollar business. To give one an example of how

large that is, last year Walmart did about $41 billion.  The pet industry has been growing

every year as more people do not have children and instead have pets. 

We work to change anti-pet laws and hopefully to stave them off from becoming law.

Although many people oppose the proposed CA AB1634 (proposed again for 2008) 

most of them point out several of the flaws in the proposed law.  The bottom

line is that all of the reasons stated by many opponents are valid, but they are not 

all necessarily reasons which would cause the law to be unconstitutional.

In California, Los Angeles and several other counties have passed local ordinances

which mandate altering of all dogs/cats at 4 months. There was a federal

lawsuit filed for the Los Angeles case, which was included within the objection to

SB861, allowing breed specific laws in response to a dog mauling case in SF.

Despite an outpouring of objection from the public and canine experts, a specific

lawmaker actually lied when she explained a "story" to the legislature claiming that

a certain breed dog was responsible for snatching a baby from the mother's arms.

It was untrue, but people hear what they want to hear, and SB861 passed.

Proposed law AB1634 (CA) by Lloyd Levine, alleges that the state of California

can "save money on shelters"  by altering 98% of all dogs/cats. Lloyd Levine is a

firm believer in the animal extremist agenda (such as Peta), and would like to see

all animals and all animal products done away with. [See hidden agenda nagivation]

Whether the state would 'save money' or not, the question is, does the law

have a rational basis using the methods it employs, in order to effect a certain

result?  That is a complicated thing to answer, as the proposed law has so many

elements wrong with it, it is one of the worst proposed laws ever seen.

Who drafted or devised the law?  Allegedly Judie Mancuso and Ed Boks of Los

Angeles, and Mancuso is a fairly recent, known animal rights extremist.

NO MATTER what anyone says, the proposed law is actually "not" about

shelter animals.

HOWEVER--the pitch of "saving poor shelter animals" is an emotional one that

many will fall for, especially if they don't understand the full ramifications of the

law.

That is just the excuse they are using to say the state can "save money" by

altering every single dog/cat that can't conform to their so-called "exemptions",

which just HAPPENS to leave out around 98% of all dogs and cats!!

*picture is copyrighted and not to be used without direct permission by attorney

If you figure that it was just "shelter animals" they were actually concerned about,

then why not do something that actually directly impacted the animals? 

Like work to adopt animals off the premises? Increase your marketing of older

adoptables? Not tell people that all dogs over 30lb are dangerous? Gain new foster

families?  Increase rescue groups who want to help?

Follow the marketing advice of those who have succeeded? Not expect to

kill every animal that comes in? Help teach new adopters instead of just letting

them take the dogs? Be open on both weekend days when people can visit?

Get the low cost spay going where it is available all the time, not just once a

year.

Or, they could have suggested to just mandate altering in the counties having

the highest kill shelters. (Certain counties are considered "high kill" shelter areas.)

Why would one need to target or eliminate 98% of dogs/cats, in order to

save shelter animals?  (Especially when shelter animals euthanized probably

comprise only about 2% of the entire number of animals owned in the United

States.)  Of course another huge problem with the proposed law is that it

only focuses on the purebred, registered, titled/or shown dogs. If a dog or

even a cat is not a purebred, registered, shown/or titled animal, it has to go.

Only the ultra dogs/cats can have babies. There goes all the small white mixed

breed dogs that so many people buy.  They keep trying to amend the law to make it

seem reasonable but the law's premise is completely without merit--no amount of

modification will make it either reasonable, workable, or constitutional (in our opinion.)

The reasoning behind the proposed law to us is not only asinine, but it's just

downright ludicrous.  And yet, we see people who bought right into the pitch,

brainwashed and all.  Bob Barker has retired, thank God. Now we don't have to

hear him talk about spay/neuter on TV at least, but still have to hear him

parroting the animal rights agenda on news clips.  What the hell does Bob

Barker know about the animal rights agenda? Nothing! Which is why he

supports an agenda he knows little about.

Oprah isn't far behind after saying that she will only obtain a "shelter"

animal rather than buying a dog.

The day Oprah adopts a male pitbull mix or rottie mixed juvenile from

a shelter, and trains it, I will give up my own dogs.  It will never happen

because Oprah doesn't know anything about canines or the shelters.

She is given topics to comment on. She had the so-called "rescue"

on her show which BUYS puppy milled dogs and then sells them, with

the purpose being that it was "great"--yet now she says she will only

adopt a dog from a shelter--and would NOT buy a dog.

We all know that any small frou frou dog, any small white long hair dog,

any small popular breed (pug, westie, maltese, pom, list goes on) will

quickly find a home AND is not considered an endangered dog in a

shelter, unless it is sick, old, or has expensive medical problems.

So for Oprah to say she would get a shelter dog, unless she plans on

taking a pitbull or a large breed used for flock guarding, she won't be

doing anyone a favor by taking a small dog, or an extremely popular

breed dog which everyone is dying to get for almost nothing.

Anyone that knows about rescuing dogs--

would never advocate for the Bichon rescue that BUYS puppy milled

dogs and then SELLS them, calling it a "rescue."  That is a joke.