SB 250 - status: still to be heard TODAY 6/30 Tuesday - new Assembly Business and Professions Committee Analysis Read it. Strangely, there's no mention at all of the Department of Finance Analysis from last week. Hmm....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ *** Change: AB241, AB242, AB243 - all to be heard on Thursday July 2nd in SEN Public Safety Hearing
While pondering the implications of special interest groups like HSUS steamrolling over various legislatures, a word occurred to me: buffalo.
Think about it.
Buffalo used to roam the American plains by the millions - one herd in the mid-1800s was estimated to contain 12 million animals:
"Of all the quadrupeds that have lived upon the earth, no other species has ever numbered as many as the American bison. Even in South Central Africa, which has always had great herds of game, it is probable that all its quadrupeds taken together on an equal area would never have equaled the total number of buffalo on the plains of North America."
But consider: if this were true ... would not the dairy cow's cousin, which natives of the American Plains relied upon for so much, have caused great environmental turmoil and clouds of noxious gas? Would not the far greater numbers of Plains bovines have wrought horrific damage to air, land and water wherever they roamed?
Instead, almost impossibly massive buffalo herds provided the foundation for many Plains nations' survival. Their very existence enabled people to live and thrive, generation after generation.
If HSUS' statements were true ... how is it that people who lived through those times on the Plains remembered sweet air and climes, and an environment conducive to prosperity? A land well suited for producing both livestock and the grass it required to thrive? Suited for raising families and taking full, deep breaths on a summer's day?
HSUS and other radical animal rights groups actively seek to mislead our elected officials with half-truths and prevarication. They are trying to buffalo our leaders, to lead them down paths from which they - and we as a nation - cannot return.
5 will be heard Tuesday (in three different committees), and
1 will be heard Wednesday.
SB762 is on the Governor's desk pending a signature. Please call, email and fax Governor Schwarzenegger and ask him to sign this law which protects a licensed veterinarian's right to care for his patients. Licensed chiropractors, licensed acupuncturists, and other practitioners of the healing arts also are protected by this law.
Be aware: I read somewhere that Sen. Florez performed a gut-and-amend to get his failed antibiotics bill tucked into one or two other unrelated bills last week. I don't remember the bill numbers, but when I do I'll let you know.
CA AB1122 (Lieu; Coauthors: Eng and Jones)
- Animal abuse: sale of live animals
Tuesday 07/07/2009 - SEN Public Safety Committee
Last amended: 05/14/2009
CA SB 135 (Florez; coauthors Senators DeSaulnier and Hancock)
- Animal abuse: cattle: tail docking
Wednesday 07/01/2009 - ASM Agriculture Committee
CA AB1437 (Huffman; Principal coauthors: Florez, Tom Berryhill)
- Shelled eggs: sale for human consumption: compliance ...
Wednesday 07/08/2009 - SEN Health Committee
Never amended - still as introduced 02/27/2009
CA SB250 (Florez)
- Dogs and cats: spaying and neutering
Tuesday 06/30/2009 - ASM Business and Professions Committee
CA SB762 (Aanestad)
- Professions and vocations: healing arts
In Senate. To enrollment - i.e., pending the Governor's signature
** Please call/fax/email the Governor today and ask him to sign this legislation allowing licensed veterinarians to continue providing ear crops, declaws, dewclaw removal, tail docking etc if their city/county allows this by Jan 1st, 2010.
** This is another important one for the future with many implications for today: **
CA ACR74 (Portantino)
- Animal shelters: No Kill movement policies
Referred to ASM Business and Professions Committee
AB241, AB242 and AB243 will also be heard next Tuesday in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
Every one of these bills - plus AB1122 & SB135, heard today in SEN Public Safety - are of major importance. How important is your ability - your right - to own the cat or dog you want to own? How important are the decades of love you've put into developing your bloodlines? How important is it that your line - your breed - remains alive and well far into the future?
If we do nothing, radical animal rights groups including HSUS, PeTA, Farm Sanctuary and others WIN. Who are we? Are our pets, our animals, our friends ... worthy of being saved? That's what it comes down to. Are they worth pushing yourself and sticking your neck out?
Contractors, Direct Sales ... and animal rights???
The California legislature is once again thinking about taxing direct sales and contractors up front for each sale or contract rather than once a year as is the current procedure. I just got word about this a few days ago.
Direct sales businesses include Amway, Mary Kay, Pampered Chef, PrePaid Legal, Party Lite, etc. Contractors typically make $200. or more per month to supplement their regular job income.
Contractors can include independent computer techs and consultants, in-home veterinarians and doctors, roofers, independent pest control companies, dog trainers, wedding planners... peole who can earn a lot or a little per job.
If you are concerned about this potential new tax, please contact the Governor and your Senate and Assembly representatives NOW. Thanks!
This statement opposing CA AB1437 was presented yesterday to the California Senate Food and Agriculture Committee; I've been asked to post it here. Bold and italics are mine. All I can say is BRAVO! Now the Senate knows - yet this committee STILL passed the bill along by a 4 to 1 vote. What can I say.
Ag folk were there asking for clear guidance on how to legally continue producing shelled eggs for California families. They don't want to be jailed for violating Proposition 2 requirements in 2015, nor do they want to give up egg farming because Prop 2 and AB1437 are incurably vague.
Testimony given to California Senate Agricultural Committee
June 16, 2009
What AB 1437 represents is legislation cloaked in the guise of animal welfare while in actuality it is a racketeering scheme and artifice to follow-up on the damage already being felt by consumers and farmers by Prop 2. Who will determine what is proper hen welfare? There is no governmental agency that lawfully inspects other than the USDA.
This bill would not only violate the Interstate Commerce Act, but would open the door for a slick form of old style mob "protectionism". Funny how the animal rights group that is sponsoring this bill, HSUS, has board members including the CEO invested in the For-Profit Company, Humane USA, that purports to do just this - certifying humane animal welfare for a price.
This bill does not address the international importation of eggs and the standards by which hens are kept in other countries like Mexico and China, nor does it address liquid eggs, sold by the bucket, or powdered eggs.
We ask why is the more expensive and best quality egg form, the shelled egg, under attack by our own legislature and this special interest group (HSUS)? The clear answer is there is more money to be made controlling its distribution- which also violates Title 18, the RICO section of the Fed Code, which specifically prohibits the regulation of eggs.
There's just one status change for radical animal rights bills in Sacramento today - at least this early in the morning:
SB 135 (Florez - Coauthors: Senators DeSaulnier and Hancock) - Animal abuse: cattle: tail docking - Assigned to the Assembly Committees on Public Safety and Agriculture
All other bills are holding steady. Things may change later today, of course.
Why do I call this a radical AR bill? Tell me: why are HSUS, PeTA, Farm Sanctuary and other animal rights industry giants so adamant that this bill become law - when dairy cow tail docking is a practice already fading into history? Docking is a failed experiment which has not resulted in better cow health nor farmer profits from safer, more hygenic milk.
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the first version of this bill referred to 'animals' being docked, not cows. Good thing the dog and cat show breeders caught that little problem, hm?
Below is a comment I attempted to post in response to an online article regarding SB 250 for the L.A. Times. For some reason it wasn't accepted... and I did reword and try again. Oh well.
SB 250 is a clear taking of private property, supposedly (according to Sen. Florez yesterday in his Senate Floor testimony) in the interest of saving the state money.
Is it ever legal in California or the United States to take someone's private property with the stated intent of saving the government money at some nebulous future time?
The essence of SB 250 is this: get one valid animal code infraction - just ONE - and for the rest of your life you will never be able to own OR CARE FOR a cat or dog, puppy or kitten, that has not been castrated or undergone an ovariohysterectomy.
This bill screams OVERKILL.
Since when is it in the best interests of the PUBLIC, which our legislators are elected to serve, to mandate the destruction of property they already own ... with the stated purpose of saving the state money at some future hypothetical date?
Over 80% of dogs and over 90% of all owned cats in California are ALREADY spayed or neutered. SB 250 makes it ILLEGAL to own a dog in California that is not sterilized. What if you're visiting the state? Nope, no provisions for that.
SB 250 makes it ILLEGAL to own *or care for* an outdoor cat in California if it's not ALREADY sterilized. What if you're caring for a feral cat colony and haven't been able to trap all of them in a TRN (trap-neuter-release) program? What if someone dumps a couple of pregnant kitties - and the property owner complains to animal control, who discovers YOU feeding them?
Nope, no provisions for that either.
Alley Cat Allies is right - SB 250 is one nasty piece of work if you care about feral cats.
If you're a dog or cat breeder, anyone who has read the dozens of RECENT veterinary research articles showing spay/neuter carries great risk, or a regular dog owner who loves their animal as it naturally is ... SB 250 should be a greater wake up call than last year's spay-every-cat-and-dog-in-
California bill, AB 1634.
Do not let radical animal rights groups like HSUS and PeTA legislate away your pet's health. Do not let people who spew hate towards families who have one litter of puppies or kittens destroy your legal rights. Get involved - get your neighbors involved - get your school, church and synagogue friends involved. Stop the insanity.
It's not over yet. Now we educate the Assembly on HSUS' true agenda, on PeTA's true agenda, on the animal right movement's true agenda. Again.
The Senate was groaning under faxes and calls today and yesterday. Let's keep at 'em about the other incoming AR-backed legislation. This time let's let the Assembly experience the same joy.. starting today, hm?
If money's important ... why is the $130 MILLION or so generated by dog and cat shows every year being ignored?
If money's important ... why isn't No Kill the law of the state?
If shelter animals are important ... why pass legislation which financial analysis said will result in more animals being killed, and
If money's important ... why pass legislation which will result in more local costs being passed on to the state?
The above senators will be getting a LOT of pressure from Sen. Florez — SB 250 author and Senate Majority Leader — to change to a Yes.
If you haven't already called, Californians should call the offices above and politely say:
"Hello, my name is [your name]. I live in [your city's name] California. I'm calling to thank the Senator for abstaining on SB 250, mandatory spay/neuter for dogs and cats. I'm asking the senator to continue abstaining when it comes up for a reconsideration vote later this week."
This will make them understand that we are still watching, and that we are also appreciative of their position.
Understand the process in the California state legislature: Abstaining is JUST AS GOOD for our side as a No vote, but is politically easier for a senator to do on a bill that he/she opposes but is sponsored by a member of his/her own party.
All dogs and cats go to Heaven ... but here on Earth there are legal and other challenges to pet ownership rights and responsibilities.
What I say here is my opinion. Freedom of speech, opinion and belief are all rights guaranteed to US citizens by our Constitution. If you don't like what I post, well, it's a free country. Create your own blog.