Archive for Monday, April 23, 2007
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?