[ Post a Response | Dog Chat Message Board - Get advice on dogs here ]
Posted by Karen on November 25, 2007, 10:36 pm, in reply to "Article in the Sacramento Bee"
76.21.226.117
It all came together in a Capitol cafeteria, where opponents of a bill to require mandatory sterilization of puppies and kittens gathered to lick their wounds after a contentious hearing.
They were upset at what they believed to be misrepresentations made by supporters of the bill, said Diane Amble, one of the participants.
But they also were heartened to see that the bill had mobilized pet owners.
"Everybody said, 'The sleeping giant has awoken,' " Amble recalled.
That "sleeping giant" is now trying to throw around some of its newfound heft.
Opponents of Assembly Bill 1634 are collecting signatures for seven initiatives that would address a wide range of pet issues.
The initiatives would ban mandatory sterilization and laws requiring pets to be embedded with microchips, curtail euthanasia at shelters, cap license fees and lift restrictions on the number of pets a person can own.
"We want to reclaim our rights and freedom," Amble said.
The loose confederation of dog and cat show clubs and others say that AB 1634 got them off their couches to counter what they see as threats to that freedom.
"What we found from that is that our Legislature does not seem to be listening to us," said Jill Holt, a Riverside County Akita breeder listed as the official proponent of an initiative to recognize pets as property.
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, said the opponents of his sterilization bill now backing the initiatives are mostly dog breeders worried about profits.
"It concerns me that a narrow group of people are trying to use the initiative process to protect their special interests," he said.
Levine said the group doesn't have the broad support it claims, and he doubts it will muster the nearly 700,000 signatures needed to qualify the initiatives for the ballot.
"I don't know where their financial backing comes from," Levine said.
The group is depending on a grass-roots effort to qualify the initiatives for the ballot, much like the one that inundated legislative offices with faxes to oppose the sterilization bill.
Levine, meanwhile, plans to pursue his bill when the Legislature reconvenes in January. He hopes his opponents will realize the initiatives aren't going anywhere, and will sit down with him to work out a bill everyone can live with.
"I'm not anti-dog," Levine said.
If the initiatives were to pass, Levine said, "it would set us back" by wiping out local spay-and-neuter laws that have succeeded in reducing shelter populations.
But proponents tout their initiatives as a way to improve operations at shelters, while treating stray animals more humanely.
Among other measures, the initiative would forbid the killing of animals unless seven conditions were met, such as lack of empty cages or kennels and the determination that the animal is not a feral cat that could be sterilized and released.
The initiative backers oppose mandatory sterilization as a threat to animals too sick or old to withstand the operation. Because it often is done when animals are young, it may also stunt growth and immune response, they say.
The initiative also would ban mandatory sterilization of humans, a practice that Amble said occurred all too recently in California history.
"We know the state has a long history of eugenics," she said.
The group opposes the embedding of microchips because of evidence that it can cause cancer, Amble said.
And it claims that limits on the number of pets a person can own may prevent some animals from being saved.
Amble said that she would like to adopt dogs from the shelter, work out any behavior or health problems, and find homes for them.
"I don't have that option because I'm already at my limit with three dogs," she said.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread