Is selling a horse illegal? Bill in CA legislature

[poltroon]

Another possible explanation which does not require one to wear a tinfoil hat is this.

Some poor schmuck in legislative services got stuck writing this bill and called around trying to find people to give him language. Hey Suzie - what's that guys name that you used to date over at HSUS? Hey Barney - you know anyone over at the shelter - I don't know what the word "spay" means.

Having had this sort of adventure through the California legislature, I guarantee that this bill was written by the PETA/HSUS group that is advocating it. The senator did not initiate it personally.

[JanM]

There's another alternative to neutering. A friend's son want to neuter his two males dogs, but he didn't want them to suffer the humiliation, so he got them neutered but replaced the missing pieces with neuticals. Yes, they make fake replacement testicles for dogs-and it isn't cheap either. So if this law passes they could conceivably reneuter a dog with plastic nuts. And maybe for those humans that don't want to visibly geld or neuter anything this could be a solution-fake replacement parts for their animals.

[Brookes]

Here's another one being shoved through here in California. Remember breeders often co-own the show dogs they place in other homes. Therefore they could be said to have 50 or more dogs. Please read below from Bill Hemby:

Assembly Bill 241, authored by Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara, and sponsored by HSUS, sets a cap on dog breeders of fifty intact dogs. It sounds logical. Many breeders can’t even fathom why anyone would want to own fifty dogs. Many claim that would be a so-called puppy mill. So why would PetPAC oppose such a bill?

The answer is: What does the number 50, have to do with a good or bad kennel? Nothing. Whether you have 10 or 200, it is not the number, it is the condition in which the animals are kept that is pertinent. Conditions can be terrible or excellent. Proponents testify having that many dogs is, in itself, the reason they are mistreated, sick, diseased, kept in horrible wire cages, and die when they are transported. But proponents couldn’t identify one kennel in California that kept dogs in that condition. They did talk about horrible conditions in out of state “mills”. They couldn’t explain why having a state law limiting dog breeders to fifty was needed. That’s why I testified AB 241 was an exercise in smoke and mirrors.

There are a plethora of anti-cruelty laws on the books. Local cities already have limit laws. How can you enforce this law? How can you tell a spayed bitch from one in her natural state without an expensive ultra sound? Most puppy farms are controlled by the Federal Department of Agriculture Animal Welfare Act. Only five puppy farms were identified in California. Not one of them failed a Dept. of Agriculture Inspection. According to proponents, closing just one puppy farm back East cost around $400,000. Is the state willing to undertake this task, and cover the $2 million it would cost to police these farms? If AB 241 passes, the State of California will be mandated to pay this price.

The real reason to oppose AB 241 is fifty dogs and cats is not, and never has been the issue. The issue is allowing HSUS and animal rights wackos' to set the bar and write the laws regarding pets and breeding, until eventually it becomes illegal to have pets.

In fact, at a HSUS seminar last February in Rochester, the HSUS Executive Director for the state of New York stated their plan is to introduce legislation that will set a 50 dog cap, then revisit it every year and lower it. He likened it to making a crime a misdemeanor first, then continually increasing the penalty until it is a felony.

When pressed by Senator Rod Wright, D- L.A., the HSUS spokesperson couldn't justify the number 50. He stammered and said that it’s what other states have set. What baloney. AB 241 failed to get enough votes to pass the committee, but the next day our Senate Pro Tem, Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, waived the rules of the Senate, called a special “Vote Only” meeting of the committee and got the bill passed by a Democratic only 4 – 0 vote. Senator Wright abstained, and Republican members boycotted the meeting. AB 242 is next scheduled for Senate Appropriations.

[JSwan]

JSwan, I don't disagree with a lot of what you just said. But the problem is that, much like the wrongly hyped death panels , there is a lot being bandied about here that just isn't in the bill.

Of course, I'm one of the overwhelming number of people who voted for the chicken initiative, because I actually read it and realized that OMG! it does not actually require every chicken in the state to be turned loose to run riot and crap freely throughout the nation as a way to escape its God-mandated edict to deliver eggs to all humankind and we're all gonna starve to death because eggs will go up two cents!!

Plus, I live here. There ain't no way the state has the time, money or inclination to enforce this bill.

I am so glad to know that your state is not full of dead granny's and maniacal chickens running amok. Think of the smell!

Yeah - I know what you mean. On the one hand, it's not unreasonable to want a standard that folks have to meet. A standard that balances the right to own and use animals; against the responsibility (moral and legal) to be humane.

(I'm assuming that a reasonable person includes vegans, vegetarians, anti-hunters, pro-hunters, meat eaters, who will tolerate each other even if they can't accept each other.)

If that was the ultimate goal, honestly I doubt many folks would have a problem with most animal related legislation.

But it's not the ultimate goal - and that's where (in my experience) things start getting shaky.

People don't seem to be very reasonable these days. It's all about emotion - feelings become facts. Beliefs become facts. Folks don't bother to read past a headline, and focus on buzzwords, hyperbole, just the superficial emotional stuff.

If you shout - they're going to pull the plug on Granny - that's a powerful, and irresponsible statement that gets people whipped into a lather. Poor Granny! They hate old people and want them to die!

Wow.

Then you get some folks - who say - hey - wait a minute. That's a pretty bold statement - let's read the legislation and place that legislation into context with current legislation and regulations, and even explore any possible ethical issues in the legislation. Look at numbers. Try and find objective source material.

3 days, 4 pots of coffee, 22 trips to the bathroom, and a roll of Tums later..........

Those folks have educated themselves.

They may still be against the bill (or portions of it). But they'll probably be able to explain why they're against the bill, and be able to support their position with facts, figures, and a different perspective.

Then it will be your turn to sit there for 3 days, 4 pots of coffee, 22 trips to the bathroom, and eat a roll of Tums. And listen.

You may come to a different conclusion and support the bill - but we will both be educated, informed people and neither of us believe that granny is being euthanized.

If more people did that - rather than holler and scream and be overly dramatic.... bad legislation might not get through so easily.

And I don't mean to start a debate on health care - I just am in full agreement that the death panel analogy is perfect.

What is interesting about enforcement is that HSUS takes care of that for government. When I mentioned "private security force" I meant it literally.

Legislation that outsources ACO functions to contractors - contractors being groups like HSUS. The services can be paid for - or volunteers can be used.

[Whisper]

Since both bills seem to have been passed up to the California Senate, I contacted my senator by voicemail and e-mail about them. Here's a link to find your California senator, if you live here: http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/districtmaps.HTP I passionately disagree with the people who say not to vote against them since they won't be enforced anyway! Bad laws that are unenforceable should *not* be passed in the first place, and enforcement tends to be spotty, biased, and turn people unwittingly into criminals (how widely would the implications be advertised throughout the state)?