Looks like you said that difference in your second post, so we are on the same page.
Ceasar Milan and California AB1634
-
Quote:
"Ceasar Milan is one of the backers for the California ANTI-BREEDER
AB1634 and I would hope that no breeder would support him, his
foundation or similar based upon that FACT. Check it out yourself and
STOP SUPPORTING his antibreeding activities through stopping
supporting him!"While I know there are people on this forum that "condone" his training methods… this is so totally unacceptable... it stinks.... California AB1634 will drive all responsible breeders of all breeds out of this state... and all pups will be either "black market" or puppymill/BYB over the internet...
Do NOT support Ceasar Milan!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
What is Cal AB1634?
-
It is a bill that was presented to spay/neuter everything in the state.. and to limit breeders including responsible breeders to ONE litter per bitch for its life time and one litter to a sire for its lifetime… after which they must be spay/neutered... and that is after you would have to pay to even have an "intact" dog or bitch. Just go to www.petpac http://www.petpac.net/ and read about it… and you can search the archives of this forum for infomation about AB1634 in California
-
AB 1634 is a MANDATORY spay/neuter for all dogs and cats at 4 months of age in California. Exemptions granted for law enforcement dogs and service dogs; original penalty for non compliance was a felony charge (I think it was changed to a misdemeanor before the last committee received the bill, but I'm not sure) Initially there was no exemption even for visiting show dogs, I think they changed that too… It was withdrawn from consideration after massive protests, but the sponsor plans to reintroduce it in January. AKC even threatened to quit putting on shows in CA if it is passed. There are some cities with mandatory spay neuter (Santa Cruz) and lo and behold, no reduction in animals in shelters! But the original bill was modeled on the Santa Cruz law.
AKC site has info on the bill.
Terry
-
I understand the idea of the bill and think the initial idea was a good thing, but to say that breeders can only only have one litter per the life time of a dog is ridiculous.
And what about people like me, who aren't breeders but have a dog that (in Jan starts) is going to be shown? In short that means I couldn't live in the state of California?
Also, are they going to charge for the military/police/service dogs to stay intact, IMO I doubt it? Ends up to be a double standard.
So the state has pretty much ended all dog showing events.
-
Exactly….
-
Maybe it's just me, but I have no problem supporting Milan's training center and methods while at the same time disagreeing with his stance on this issue. Just as I can support the multitude of animal rescue facilities in CA that also lend their support to the bill. {have you looked at the list of supporters?}
It's a ridiculous law, although I understand the "why" of it and why it appeals to many people – it's seen as a way to eliminate the byb's {a wrong way,but still.....}. I think education-- TV/radio/print ads, etc.--- about the issue is the key; I think that will accomplish much.
-
It seems to me that the original post is being a little unfair in singling out Millan. I started doing a little research on who was supporting the bill and found the cahealthypets website (it looks like it is cosponsored by the state and other organizations). They have a partial list of supporters including the SPCA, numerous humane societies, and a long list of purebred rescue organizations. So I hope your not limiting your castigation to Millan for his apparent support of the bill. As for me, I have learned a lot about pack behavior from watching his show.
Now as for the bill itself. I've read the actual text of the bill (as it stands now with modifications), and really is very invasive on a pet owners rights. I realize that unwanted pets in CA (and everywhere really) is a huge problem, but there's got to be a better way than this bill. Though with as much support as this bill has had (it has already passed in the house and is moving to the senate) it seems like the most likely scenario to save the reputable California basenji breeders is to find a compromise that will allow responsible breeders to continue. That means licensing breeders and having a process whereby an irresponsible breeder can have their license revoked. This would resolve a lot of the back-yard breeder issues, but let the serious/responsible breeders maintain the breed. If you have to have a license to cut someones hair, it seems reasonable to require a license to breed animals.
-
The bill was pulled from the Senate before a vote in July because it most likely would have been defeated at that time. It will be reintroduced in January with "revisions". The people who are behind this bill have an ultimate goal of eliminating all pet ownership in this country. They do not want to work with breeders and are unwilling to look at studies that recommend a course of action in line with what responsible breeders have been saying and doing all along, education of perspective buyer with life long support to help owners through the challenges of dog ownership.
http://www.petpopulation.org/reasonsfor.pdf
This bill also will not effect the major source of impulse bought animals, out of state puppy mills that supply pet stores and out of state internet retailers who sell to anyone willing to submit payment.
It is also seems to ignore how many of the dogs that come into shelter do so without vaccinations, without ID of any kind, and no identifiable owner. If people are unwilling to spend $5-10 for low cost vaccinations and a simple tag ID, there is no way they are going to spend 10 times that amount to spay/neuter their pet. The only thing this bill would accomplish is to make responsible breeders criminals. It will have no effect on the people who are already breaking local laws.
