Afternoon, Y'all... One of my biggest issues with the controversy surrounding AB 1634 is that many seem to forget this is a LOCAL issue, brought about by concerned CALIFORNIAN citizens and is to be decided by CALIFORIAN LEGISLATORS who were be voted into office by REGISTERED CALIFORNIAN VOTERS.

This should not be decided by outside big business interests... Or what really puts a burr underneath my saddle - when I read large organizations screaming to high heaven that no one should be telling anyone what to do with their dogs....

And yet?????

Who's been flooding my email boxes, trying to tell me what to do and how I should think about this issue BUT national organizations?

This really annoys me... More than you can imagine...

Now, if these national organizations want to each be willing to start helping to pay towards the cost, upkeep, health care and eventual euthanasia of the unwanted overpopulation problem, I might think more kindly towards their positions and stuffing my email box...

In fact, I'm starting to believe I should be sending each one a bill for their portion of the $250,000,000 we California taxpayers are putting out each year with our tax dollars in return for the email they send me...

Let's see (pulling out my handy dandy calculator here)... We Californians pay $250,000,000 in our taxpayer dollars to currently handle this overpopulation problem... There is 36.5 million residents in California and 8-10 million dogs, so for every 4 or 5 people living here, someone has a dog...

If everyone living in California paid their taxes (yeah, right), that would mean $7.00 per person, whether you owned a dog or not... Or at least three people pay for this problem who doesn't own a dog... Doesn't quite seem fair, does it?

There are 16 million registered voters here in California - and in my opinion if you want to complain about our system or how things work, you have to be a registered voter... You might have your rights, but you can't just be part of the problem if you're not willing to be part of the solution by voting...

Basically, only 44% of our California population is even registered to vote!

Lot of squawking going on out there for such a small minority of registered voters... Wondering to myself just how many squawkers are even registered or live here in California...

Because for sure, many of these national organizations have absolutely no business telling me as a Californian how I should feel about AB 1634... Norshould they be using their vast amounts of dollars in their spin doctoring media campaigns about the issue either!...

Just whose community and state is it anyway???

One particular organization has been bombarding my email box almost on a daily basis now with their media campaign against AB 1634... Prior to that, I got an email maybe once a week (if that)...

They're located in New York, by the way - ADOA (American Dog Owners Association)... I joined the organization because I thought their ideas and mine would be similar... I viewed their website, found they had been formed to fight illegal dog fighting in 1970 and seemed to be an organization I would want to be a part of...

Until today... When yet ANOTHER one of their inflammatory emails arrived in my email box...

And this was my response to them:

To quote from your editorial, "Is the bill enforceable? Maybe in the dream world of Karnette and Richardson. And maybe in the dream world of the bill's sponsor, Lloyd "Lightbulb" Levine, D-Van Nuys."

One only has to look at the success of 'America's Most Wanted' for a boilerplate of how one determined individual can change the fate of many and especially children, for the better. The general public is responsible for the majority of solving our nation's crimes - either through anomymous tips - or through tip lines. That's why there are officers in full uniform visible to everyone and detectives in plain clothes - because criminals don't walk around with rap sheets on their backs. It takes citizens who believe criminals should be locked up who are willing to come forth and report them - even if it takes anonymous tips. And detectives who can blend in among the general public to investigate the tips, build a case and then get the criminal arrested for their crimes along with officers in uniform.

When AB 1634 is passed, it will be no different.

We have laws against drunk driving and murder here in the state of California - there will always be someone who is going to violate the laws. The laws themselves don't stop the crimes, although the '3 strike law' might deter some criminals. When AB 1634 passes, we will still have people who try and circumvent the law, but we have empowered the general public by this law to report backyard breeders to authorities.

California has the highest population - also the greatest number of adults, people over 65, school age children and those in high school (source: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/001703.html).

Each and every one of these segments of population have great strengths to lend to AB 1634. For example, many programs are in place now to educate the younger children in regards to caring and the kind treatment of animals. As child abuse and domestic violence is strongly connected to animal abuse, these programs show tender aged children what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Teenagers have the unique ability to move around our communities without adult pressures and stress - they see a LOT what we adults miss and AB 1634 gives them the ability to pick up their cell phone and call someone in authority that can actually do something to slow down the unwanted overpopulation. They are great 'eyes and ears' to what's going on in one's community - more so sometimes than we adults are in fact.

I see many folks over the age of 65 around my community. Most are out walking their dog - many with their spouse - at least once or twice a day. Again, they can take the time to sit in a local park and can probably tell you immediately what dog is constantly loose and off their leash, who are the backyard breeders in their neighborhood, etc. AB 1634 dramatically empowers adults and those over 65 in the general public who are civic minded and tired of paying the taxes for irresponsible dog breeders for profit.

I'm not against reputable breeders - not in any way, shape nor form. I've seen both sides of this issue because I've been on both sides. But I am indeed tired of paying the expenses of businesses that don't pay their share of taxes, don't collect nor pay sales taxes on their sales, and dump their problems into our local shelters for ALL Californian taxpayers to bear the burden of bad breeding, sick dogs and breeding stock that is now too old to produce more litters and profits for them.

I don't expect my local animal control agency to hire on more officers to enforce AB 1634 - in fact, I'd rather they spend their current budgets improving their facilities, being able to take even better care of the animals currently in their custody and offering free or reduced speuter programs to my community. I welcome the opportunity to step up to this new civic-minded empowerment AB 1634 will render to me... the ability to call someone and advise them a backyard breeder is breeding for profit (usually they also don't care much for the animals beyond what the money will bring in) and ask if they have registered for intact permits. I would do the same thing (and do) if I see someone suspicious hanging around our park and watching children go back and forth to school.

I recently had the opportunity to talk to an animal control officer who works on a licensing team in our area that goes house to house, making sure people have licensed their dogs (in our area, the license "drives" the rabies program - something I'm very supportive of because I took rabies shots in the stomach as a kid). I asked how the licensing was going and he responded that a few weekends ago, he knocked on someone's door to discover the citizen had 4 dogs (allowed by that locality's codes). None of the dogs were licensed and hadn't been since 2003 (loss to the local spay/neuter program of $1,000), all were purebreds (1 male, 3 females) and 2 were obviously very pregnant. Interim licenses were issued (cost - licenses $200, fines $600 - total cost $800).

Comment made as the citizen was writing out his check?

"I'd figured I'd get away with this as long as I could. That's OK, I'll make this back on that *itch's litter alone as her puppies sell for over a $1,000 and she always has at least 6 or more".

It is this type of mentality that goes directly to the heart of what AB 1634 is addressing. Once a puppy is born and sold, no breeder has much control over what happens to that puppy and subsequent offspring. Reputable breeders will follow their dogs and the offspring because they worked hard at establishing a great breeding line and reputation. Backyard breeders are here today and gone tomorrow. If this citizen did not care to license his dogs, what safeguard does the buying public have that those pups and their parents will all be current and up to date on shots, there are the appropriate health tests and certificates issued, or the backyard breeder will even 'be in the business' when that pup has reached the age when the genetic illnesses for breeds start showing?

Currently reputable breeders in California can't even compete with the Internet sales, the puppy millers and the backyard breeders! Reputable breeders can't 'breed for profit' because there isn't profit to be had with all those either breeding for production numbers (pushing down the price for purebreds) or those undercutting the marketplace with inferior dogs! The profit margin for reputable breeders is disgusting and in any other business, they'd have given it up in fact. I think you would find (if you did an unbiased survey), reputable breeders already have their dogs licensed, micro chipped and probably even have themselves registered as a kennel. The reputable breeders aren't the ones fighting against AB 1634 because they can get an intact permit if they're registered with an official registry, their dogs are showing or in agility, etc. Their dogs registered (once AB 1634 goes into effect) gives them one more point in their favor with the general public - they show they are reputable and law abiding citizens... they'll be around if a puppy develops problems, unlike the backyard breeder.

It's those that can't get this intact permit because their dogs don't qualify - or they don't want to cut into their enormous profit margins - that are fighting passage of AB 1634. Reputable breeders already speuter their stock when there's a known illness in the line, don't breed at every heat and speuter their dogs before they find good homes for them at the end of the breeding career... their reputations as reputable breeders, their lines and their breeding business depends on this sound practice.

Enforcement shouldn't be the issue for ADOA being so against AB 1634... Instead I would be asking exactly what are the hidden agendas for those fighting this bill in your editorials - and asking it with an open mind. You might be surprised at the answers you receive.

Sincerely,
Linda Nelson