Archive for April, 2007
Please read the previous entry regarding the LOBBYIST.
This fellow, Bill Hemby, seems to really know what to do. And, he is doing it. Check out http://www.petpac.net . At this web site you will find a mailing address to contribute funds. These fund will be accounted for by a professional accounting firm, hired for the purpose. These funds will be under the oversight of a legal firm, hired to prevent violations of the laws which trip up so many of us novices. That is a huge start in arming for this showdown.
May I suggest that each California resident dog fancier, and those friends of ours who can be persuaded, contribute the equivalent of one dog show entry or $25.00 to this fund? And that we reach out to our counterparts in all the other states to ask each of them to contribute a mere $10.00 each to the cause of stopping this now? Do it, NOW!
The logical extension of this action is to assume that the purveyors of this evil action will not stop their efforts, if defeated in California. Terrorists do not give up their religous zeal upon defeat, but move to more defenseless territory. So there will be new areas in need of the same defense. That being the case, Californians will then need to kick in $10.00 for those folks, who then contribute their own $25.00. Ultimately extended, this means that over the war each of us will probably give a total of $25.00 + $10.00 X $49.00 or about $515.00 . Most of this will be in $10.00 contributions as battles foment in various locations. Not so expensive as losing one freedom at a time to these despots, is it?
Write that check and mail it to Sacramento NOW! Get on the internet and rally your friends in other States, NOW!
Meanwhile, keep watching this BLOG for actual statistics from actual California figures which will prove that these folks are lying! Will they quit when exposed as liars? Heck, no. They will just lie bigger! And cry harder, and accuse us of lying. That is their way, and always will be.
Now there is a very important point for all dog fanciers, lovers and anti AB1634 people to realize. That point is UNITY! we want to defeat AB1634 and retain our freedoms to show our responsibility, rather than have no freedom of decision at all. To this effect, we are all the same, whether we are a commercial dog breeding operation, a dog club member hobby breeder, or a breed at home for money breeder. No divisivness is acceptable.
Perhaps the only source of dogs that we all can agree should be eliminated is the “accidental” unplanned breeding that occurs when dogs are allowed to run loose and breed indiscriminately. These dogs are said to amount to about 32% of the pound populations of dogs. Cats compose a much larger percentage. But reducing the pound poulations by this amount would be a feather in any body’s cap.
Stay tuned. visit www.activistcash.com find links ther for other educational sites.
PERMISSION TO CROSSPOST AND FORWARD IS GRANTED BY ORIGINAL SENDER
I have been speaking with a number of dog fanciers, working dog breeders and such. I have been involved in Borzoi for 30 years and before that I have shown German Shephards.
My day job of course is the Director of Legislative Affairs for the California Organiation of Police and Sheriffs, COPS. I am what is known as a Contract Lobbyist. I have been a lobbyist for about 25 years. In my time I have sponsord, written and shepherded at least 200 bills through the legislature. I have participated in at least 1000 bills dealing with crime, workers compensation, insurance, retirement, public safety, taxes, traffic, film industry, elections, health insurance, animals and a host of other issues.
I was involved in rewriting the first breed specific bill into a more sane vicious dog law that protected breeders. I fought against several other anti-dog bills after that. I was involved in the running of the Responsible Dog Owners of the Golden State (RDOGS) which, by the way, is still a viable non profit California Corporation. I am the only remaining officer of that Corporation. I am in the process of resurrecting this organization.
My experience in the last 30 years has abeen with non profit associations, I run two non-profit 501(c)3 corporations which I created in the years 2000 and 2002. I have been closely involved in at least three gubernatorial campaigns and half a dozen state-wide initiatives, the last being Jessica’s Law. I know how to set up and run a political action committee. I know how to run a state wide campaign, I know how to get someone elected and how to get someone unelected. In short, for the past 30 years I have been steeped in politics both in California and nationally. I have close contact with professionals who run political campaigns, set up PACs, put together grass roots political campaigns and raise large amounts of funding.
Why all this background stuff? Because, I am truly convinced dog owners, not just the fancy, need a political action committee to protect their interests. I know the only thing that will save dog owner’s rights to own, show and love their dogs is joining the political action fight. I am convinced with the millions of dog owners in California, the internet and with enough volunteers from outraged dog owners we can develop one of the most powerful lobbies in this state. However, I also know if we break up into factions who have separate agendas, as has happened in the past, we are doomed to fail.
I am suggesting that we set up a meeting in the very near future and invite anyone who wants to show up to discuss whether there is enough support to move ahead with this idea. I ask that you and others on dog lists please circulate this email and see if there is interest.
Thanks for your help!
Director of Legislative Affairs, COPS
This day, after dog and cat ownership by the citizens of California suffered the greatest loss ever, has turned into a regrouping of resources by the fancies for those animals. AB1634 now goes to the appropriations committee of the Assembly, to see if Californians can afford the cost. Trouble is, the cost will only be measured in dollars and cents. It may actually cost millions of dollars to enforce and there is actually no sense involved. It will actually be a de-stabilizing factor in the government of California, building mistrust, suspicion, and even hatred. It has been said that hatred is a form of fear. If that is the case, 67% of California homes may come to fear their state government.
That may be the goal of this bill.
We have many forces at work in our world. Some work in the background in a totally different manner than their avowed public purpose. Even when called to task about public utterances stating what does seem to be their hidden agenda, these glib organizations with educated Svengalis deny any maliscious intent. And go on to perpetuate some hideous comparisons to get their point across.
It is known that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) is against pet ownership. Pet ownership is the same as enslaving the animal for human gratification. But they had the gall to come out with a campaign called “Holocaust on your Plate”, comparing eating chicken to be as bad as the actual Holocaust perpetuated during WWII. And , recently two of their employees were convicted of killing and dumping bodies of pets obtained from people under questionable pretenses, giving the owners the impression they would be cared for and found homes. This came to light after many bodies of killed pets were dumped on more than one occasion in dumpsters not owned or leased to PETA. During the investigation it was published that these workers seemed to be in possession of drugs only authorized to veterinarians, which were used to kill the animals. The ultimate crime for which they were convicted-”Littering.” Lawyers! Lawyers paid with tax free donations from well wishing citizens got that lesser conviction for those PETA employees.
PETA takes in over $100 million of those tax free dolars a year. Their classification is the same as your church and the American Red Cross. Should that Classification be changed?
Another group that deserves scrutiny now is the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States). This organization does not operate a shelter anywhere. But they gladly solicit and accept your tax free dollars, which they use to influence elections. Last general election in the US, they spent more money than the National Rifle Association. At least the NRA has the second amendment, which the makers of the constitution thought important enough to include, and which they fervently support. HSUS has no traditional legal stance, other than emotion filled presentations used to pry money from the pockets of people. Lately HSUS has shown all of the attribute of corporate empire builders by absorbing the organizations of The Fund for Animals, when Cleveland Amory passed on, and more recently swallowing the Doris Day Animal league. The combined charitable, non taxable contributions to HSUS now near $300 million. And they have formed a political wing to influence our government in their direction. It is all legal, but is it moral?
It is unknown at this time to this author, if Assemblymember Levine has received any money from HSUS or PETA in this campaign to force AB1634 upon the people of California. But this Bill has all the attributes they would like to see enforced.
Meanwhile, both sides are gearing up to face the next challenges in this fight to retain traditional rights of animal ownership and joys of life.
Stay tuned for updates and opinions. Be sure to leave yours in the remarks section available to you.
This morning the Business and Professions Committee of our Assembly cleared the way for a full Assembly vote on AB1634, the misnamed “Healthy Pets Act”. by Assemblymember Lloyd Levine, inheritor of the animal rights Assembly throne of retired Assemblymember Rosenthal.Our own Shirley Horton sided with the traditional side, properly stating that the San Diego area had rejected such measures in the past. Assemblymember Horton has had direct contact with dog fanciers in the past, and understands the fact that dog clubs do support shelters with time and money and materials. She also is very aware of the commerce generated by non-dog-selling activities such as dog shows. We owe her some gratitude for this courageous vote. Assemblymember Horton deserves further support at home and in the Assembly for this and other efforts to preserve our freedoms.
Now there is a lot to be done, if we are to preserve our freedom to have the dog of our choice. There will be a vote of the full Assembly. It is doubtful that this bill can be stopped there. Just take a look at what the people of California have elected Think about that, dog lovers.
Following the Assembly, the bill goes to the Senate for their version to pass or fail. The Senate will also have committees to analyze and give it a pass/fail grade. Proper education of all Senators is now paramount. And we must educate ourselves to the best way to present this set of facts. But we must also present a set of probable outcomes, should it pass there. And there is much to learn on both sides.
The task is to prove that this law will hurt far more people than dogs it will help.
Can that be done? Yes, if lawmakers will listen to facts and reason.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007 is a time of big decision for the California Assembly Business and Profession Committee. This date they will hear testimony both to approve and to deny further advancement of AB1634 the so-called Healthy Pets Act. The results will either have a calming effect or a long term devastating effect on the personal futures of many Californians and the state economy.
I wonder why it is called the “Healthy Pets Act”? There is a lot of information on both sides of this question. The main aim of the act is to render sterile all dogs and cats over four months of age. If 100% successful, this would eliminate all California born dogs and cats within a short time. What is healthy about extinction? Even if only partially successful, the most visible and vulnerable group of people to enforce this upon are perhaps the most conscientious group doing any breeding- the members of dog clubs who have the other members breathing down their necks enforcing a strong code of ethics. These people breed to refine and improve their dogs, based upon the purpose and history of the breed. They cannot stay hidden, if they are to compare their art in animal husbandry to that of others. They have to show their dogs against the others and see who wins. Not enough wins-no breeding for those that do not bear up to the near ideal. This in itself limits their output. But they will be the first descended upon with the full force of the law. They are an easy target to use to intimidate the general population.
And speaking of general population: California LOST 700,000 people last year. You would think that with all the southern border jumpers coming in, it would be a net gain. But no, it was a large loss. My guess is that a large number of Boomers that could get out, got out in a hurry. And that means that California lost some very experienced and fairly highly paid people. I bet the average income in the state has already decreased.
That 700,000 person loss will be a drop in the bucket compared to the rush away, should AB1634 pass. Many dog fanciers are already up to their eyebrows in the muck of local laws passed in the last two years. And now, this will pile on every dog owner that thinks they still own rights in their personal property or in their pets. Well, maybe they do, everything but their reproductive organs, that is. I figure that Oregon, Washington, Utah, Nevada and Arizona will profit tremendously from the brain drain as attorneys, doctors, teachers, mechanics, physicists, scientists, nurses, technicians and many other professionals I know from the dog shows start packing up and moving out. That’s OK, I guess, the profits and taxes from undocumented workers will keep the state afloat. Won’t it?
This has been going on since some lazy but clever city attorney came up with the pet limit laws-you know, the ones that state you can have three dogs or three cats or any three mixture you want. The same guy invented homeowner associations that put the screws to everything but Chihuahuas and Pomeranians. No pet over 15 pounds allowed, right?
So the bigger dog lovers worked harder and got property, but the limit laws got to them. So they moved to a more reasonable area-and the limit laws followed. Now the ultimate choice is confronting them-To leave the grandkids and go to the freedom to be responsible, in an area that still recognizes personal responsibility and gives the freedom to be so. Tuesday, the 24th may be their decision day.
And, Sunday night, I watched a PBS program on the 15,000 years that man has been closely associated with dogs. They made a pretty convincing case that this is the amount of time that man began finding ways to utilize the special talents of dogs. It all began with some of the wolves being less fearful of man, and those wolves then seeking each other as mates. This was an extremely interesting program, with an equally interesting second half to air this coming weekend. And both halves can be had for $19.95 in CD format. And this brings me to another thought.
It was brought out in this PBS program that dogs are hard wired with certain behaviour and the knowledge it takes to employ it. Yes, look around, it seems that other species, such as cats, may be also hard wired to their specie-specific behaviour, also. Perhaps some of it was learned at first, but became genetically programed through generations. Do you think that maybe us humans have the same capabilities of learning something and through generations of such learning then finding some propensities to do things just some ways, or just to do some things, may be part of our genetic make-up?
If being with dogs is part of the genetic make up of humans, even one tenth as much as being with humans is the genetic make up of dogs, then how in the world is a made up law going to affect a population when it goes against the basic instincts of that population? And how in Hell does some dictating lawmaker think it will ever work except among the most meek of constituents?
And how in the world did this guy ever get elected?
C’mon Honey, let’s go out.
Where are we going, Mommy?
We are going to the dog park, Honey.
What’s a dog, Mommy?
A dog was an animal that people before us kept as a pet, a companion, an alarm system or as a co-worker, Honey. They looked like those wolves in the hills, and the coyotes and foxes that we see in the streets.
Well, if dogs did all that stuff, why don’t we have any here? If they looked like those animals, why did they do all those good things for us? Those animals are wild and mean, Mommy!
Well, dogs were different. There was something in them that let them understand people, and made them want to be with people and help people.
What happened to them, Mommy?
Some people did not take proper care of some of them and other people said we didn’t deserve the ones we did take care of. So those people made a law that said nobody could have them, and nobody stopped it when they could. And all the dogs got old and died, and no more could be born. So now we have no more dogs.
Why do we have dog parks, Mommy?
Before that law, people thought it would be good to have places where the dogs could run and play with their people. So cities and counties set aside places where they could enjoy time with their people and each other.
But why do we have dog parks NOW, Mommy?
This is where we all come to mourn, Honey. There are those people who remember, or read books and just know how good life was to have a dog who thought the world of it’s owner. We come here to remember what we never had, because when all the dogs were gone there was no way to bring them back. They are extinct.
This is the saddest place on Earth now, Honey.
The governments in the United States are supposed to exist for the governed, the people. That is why we are supposed to have elected representatives, elected by the people to represent their best interest. These representatives, Assembly Members, State Senators, Governor, U.S. Representatives, U.S. Senators, President are all supposed to be deciding things according to the will of the people. All that is necessary is to make that will known. Those who make their will seem to represent the majority will have their sway. They get their wish.
What does this have to do with dogs and other pets?
Sixty-seven percent of the households across the United States of America have pets. More of those homes have dogs than have cats. However, cats being smaller and more easily managed, more cats are homed than dogs. Still, this together is a majority of households, and seemingly, a majority of voters. But, it also seems to be a very silent majority, content in the happiness of having the comfort of pets to care for and to respond positively to the care. There is hardly a strident voice in the group.
Now, pet ownership in California is severely threatened by Assembly Bill 1634, introduced by Assemblymember Lloyd Levine, protege of retired Assemblymember Rosenthal who also opposed responsible pet ownership. This bill rips away the most important decisions of a pet’s life and grants them to local authorities, who may make decisions based upon erroneous data or just their own opinion.
Coincidentally, today is the historical birthday of Adolph Hitler (1889-1945), one of the greatest propaganders of all time. how about some Hitler quotes and some questions pertinent to this pet struggle today:
1. “I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few.” This fits the proponents of this bill perfectly. They generally are involved in rescues, and shelter operations. They see the very worst of the situation-and that is all they see. They do not have time to count, from year to year, the decreasing numbers of animals passing their way. They do not have time to read the success stories of no-kill operations elsewhere. They just have time for the daily frustration and horror of their work. Strident, desperate, they petition to destroy all good relationships with dogs and cats so that their daily grief can be diminished.
2. “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” The numbers used to illustrate the shelter populations are big, so total numbers are used. They are not broken out as to feral cats (unowned, semi-wild creatures that multiply well and help keep rodents under control,cause problems and constitute a large percentage of the animals euthanized as unadoptable, diseased and otherwise unsalvageable), dogs surrendered by owners for euthanasia due to age, illness, or incorrigible bad behavior, abandoned dogs and cats that are truly victims of human lack of caring or human insufficiencies to maintain care. The numbers quoted then become a lie by omission, especially when there is no comparison to previous years. It is a lie big enough to be believed by everybody with a kind heart, repeated often enough to have some sort of credibility and accepted by anyone who simply doesn’t care enough to dig deeper.
3.”How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.” Often the thinking starts when the effects of government are realized in a most uncomfortable way. The realization that certain rights have become denied privileges, except for the chosen few, hits hard, embitters the people and creates frustration. The people then suffer increased crime among themselves. Acts of brutality increase, murder, assaults, rapes, divorce and general discontent occur in previously sedate communities. Government then responds with heavier force to simply maintain peace. Essential slavery begins.
4. “Thus inwardly armed with the confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the ‘remaking of the Reich as they call it.” It is with religous ferver that the proponents of AB1634 strke out on this mission to ban all breeding of dogs and cats in California. Just look up the sayings of Ingrid Newkirk and David Pacelle to verify this.
Car pools are forming in southern California to transport folks to Sacramento for the second hearing in the Business and Prefessions Committee of the Assembly. Last hearing there was one less opponent than proponents. That one could make the difference. Where will you be.
And dog parks, while needed for exercise areas for those spayed and neutered survivors of AB1634, may become memorials to what used to be, unless the voice of thinking Californians can be heard.
Isn’t it interesting how all the dog parks in San Diego County are concentrated in some areas, while other areas lack places to turn out your pooch. Take the South Bay, for example. Aside from dog beach in Coronado, there is nothing along the coast, south of the Coronado Bridge. Chula Vista has three dog parks in the Eastlake area and none in the older part of the city to the west or along the coast. I did find 7 1/2 fenced acres owned by the City of Chula Vista, located behind the old Rohr facility between J street and E street, close to the bay. It’s all grass and aside from the need to fix the fence in a couple of places, where it appears cars have knocked it over, it is ready to go and would be an ideal dog turnout place, even if only on a temporary basis. Guess I will have to do a little footwork and contact the city. I will try to get some pictures of the area and post them here for others to see. Would be nice is a community effort could be started to give those dogs that reside on the west side of town a place to run, even if it is just temporary.
With the awful incident and circumstances at Virginia Tech dominating the news, I just felt that taking a day off was quite appropriate. But I could not help but wonder whether having the comfort of a dog might have mellowed the stress the shooter felt and kept this from happening. What do you think? Somehow I do not think this is the same type of criminal that tortures animals and graduates to humans. Maybe the non-discriminating response of a faithful dog could have changed this twisted man into an acceptable person.
On to another subject- The Pet Food Recall. Now our own US FDA is investigating if it is possible that the melamine was added to boost the protein count in the food. It seems to have turned up in wheat gluten, rice, and now corn. The mystery deepens. There does not seem to be any use of the corn products in the United States. The involvement of rice products seems to be quite limited and applies only to a venison and rice product made by Natural balance, who issued their own recall. This applies to a very limited production series by Natural Balance, who is acting superbly responsible. Kudos to them.
And, as usual, the dangers to dog ownership plow forward in the California Assembly. AB1634 is still sitting there festering, building to a boil on the face of the state. It has been amended as of April 17, making it the third time amendments have been attempted-”to clarify provisions of the bill”.
What is startlingly clear is that this bill would deprive many Californian of constitutional property rights. Others would be deprived of the results of decades of carefully planned animal husbandry. Others would have their entertainment ripped away. All of California would suffer economically. And as California and New York go-so goes the nation, sooner or later.
The way I would like to see California go is this: I would like to see the voters all go to vote, and take back government by the people, of the people and for the people. What do you people say?
Assemblyman Lloyd Levine saw he did not have the votes to win this early battle in the passage of AB1634-the bill that would harm lots of older intact dogs, cause untold expense by responsible citizens, destroy the honorable works of many years by responsible dog fanciers, remove dog shows as an educational tool and measure of effort by dog breeders, and remove a very significant part of the California tourism industry.
I am sure that he is wondering why, with all that going for it, he couldn’t just ram it down the throats of the citizens of California.
So, he asked for a two week recess that he could pay more reliable volunteers to appear on his bill’s behalf. The last showing, by general account, had 115 showing up for him, and 114 showing up opposing the bill. It has to be a wider count than that for any committee to give serious thought to passage. The purpose of the recess , continuance, delay is simply for Assemblyman Levine to marshall more bodies, collect thoughts, gather some empty headed celebrities to wow the Busines and Profession Committee into rolling over and giving this terribly conceived bill the go-ahead.
Those opposed must do the same thing, only better! NOW!
There are serious constitutional issues here! There is far more at stake than just dog ownership. How about your right to decide what medical procedures get performed upon your dog, by who, and when? Do you own the dog,or cat, except for it’s reproductive capacity? Or does the state, county or city own that? They would take even your right to say “I will never breed my dog.” And just force the point.
And since the most strident supporters of this bill are indeed vegetarians, would they then expand it to farm livestock? What would happen to the food supply then? You may think this is an exaggeration of the potential danger, but it is a simple extension of the goals of the groups providing the greatest impetus for this bill. Visit www.activistcash.com for better proof than I have space for here.
April 24 is D-Day for dog and cat lovers in California. That is the date next scheduled to re-hear AB1634 in the California Assembly Business and Professions Committee. Where will you be counted? Does you Assemblyperson know where you stand? Do you know who your Assemblyperson is? Do you know their Phone, and FAX numbers? Do you have their email address? If they don’t have your opinion, and you do not know how to reach them, and you oppose this bill, start learning those things or start packing for a state with some semblance of sense remaining.