ANIMAL EXTREMISTS, AB1634 LOSE BIG IN CALIFORNIA-NO MSN!

AB1634, the proposed statewide CA mandated, forced “sterilization” bill of 98% of pets, pushed by animal extremists (see below) and other misled animal groups who mistakenly believed the misrepresentations pushed by Mancuso and her group–HAS COMPLETELY FAILED NOW, AS A 3 TIME LOSER IN THE LEGISLATURE. 

However–in an attempt to revive a 1998 push, the AB1634 has again attempted to push MSN by doing 2 things: (1) using an immunity clause that would prevent ANY city/county from liability on civil claims and (2) adding MSN to pets that are the “subjects” of “complaints” by 3rd parties–BUT with NO way to contest such complaints by dog owner.  When coupled together (the no liability and the no complaint process) what do we end up with? Complaints that end up altering pets w/o any proof that such complaints are VALID AND–a provision in the law that the city/county are immune from civil liability. So even if the county altered dog owner’s dog, where dog owner was innocent, dog OWNER has NO recourse against the city/or county! And if they kill the dog via negligence through bad vet procedures or anything else which amounts to negligence, the dog owner is screwed over!  

 Most of the push for MSN (mandatory spay-neuter) came as a result of the animal radicals (see pic below) and their relentless harassment and  tertiary targeting of the Los Angeles animal control, the mayor, and Ed Boks……see http://www.baddoglaws.com  [click on AB1634 navi button] for the picture of the actual ADL-Los Angeles web site (Animal Defense League, Los Angeles) which clearly admits they are a militant grassroots animal extremist group who will take matters into their own hands to get change. They admit they will not concede nor take any pleas to get out of jail. Ever.

In an effort to capitalize on these actions,  extremists like Mancuso (Peta indoctrinated) decided to propose MSN for the entire state, WITH ED BOKS helping to propose statewide MSN.  Why?  So Ed Boks could be relieved of the harassment of the radicals!!  This is not a secret, but has been the story in Los Angeles for several years, and they even allowed an AR (Charlotte Laws) to come in and devise the “master plan” for no kill in which she admitted that she will label all pitbull type dogs as “unadoptable” and then banish them from Los Angeles forever. [Talk about misuse of the no-kill philosophy!)

There is no Hidden Agenda with these Extremists, (see pic below)…… it is believed to be a photo of the Los Angeles demonstrators against the shelter…. they clearly want dogs and cats to stop being killed, but they are not interested in using conventional methods, therefore they plotted to get each and every person involved with the shelters in Los Angeles either fired, out on stress leave, give up the job or otherwise quit working or transferred out for whatever reason. They then put a list of all these employees with their pictures online, and put a large red X on top of the person’s face after he/she quit or were fired, etc. Recently it appears that the pictures may have been removed from their website.

This went on for months and  now years, Los Angeles mayor was targeted, and Ed Boks was called the puppy killer and worse names; the group and followers would hold marches and demonstrations carrying a huge stuffed animal dog which was being crucified on a cross, held up high by two male supporters.  There were also times when they would go to the employees’ homes, and use smoke bombs and other methods of gaining widespread attention. 

It was said that Ed Boks was targeted and possibly afraid for his life, but Ed Boks decided to get with a PeTa person and introduce “no-kill” whereby if that would pass (and it did pass in the city of Los Angeles, but is being challenged in court)–  they figured getting AB1634 for MSN in the entire state should be a piece of cake.

Maybe they didn’t exactly think that the general public or pet owners in general would object to the piece of cake they wanted…..  However, not only did they object, most of the public was against AB1634  as proposed, even though many do not actually understand the reasoning behind MSN and why it would not work the way the extremists claim it would work.

AB1634 WAS COMPLETELY GUTTED  by the CA legislature—AND MANDATED ALTERING FOR 98% OF THE PETS IN CALIFORNIA IS NOW A DEAD ISSUE UNTIL THE EXTREMISTS TRY AND BRING IT BACK!!

See this article in Capitol Weekly, the newspaper of California Government  

and politics…………………… 

http://www.capitolweekly.net/article.php?_adctlid=v%7Cjq2q43wvsl855o%7Cx78zacvza80m0r&issueId=x781twtlblc4pt&xid=x78y8aosvmshcp

Spay-neuter bill gets gutted in committee (published Thursday, June 19, 2008) One of the most controversial bills of the year looks like it will finally get to the Senate floor soon–though is a very altered form.   AB 1634, from Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, originally called for spaying or neutering of any dog or cat over six months of age, with exceptions for breeders, working animals and some others. As amended in the Senate Local Government Committee, the new version calls for the sterilization only of a dog that has been taken into the shelter system three times or a cat that has been in twice.  Levine met on Monday with Senator Gloria Negrete-McLeod, D-Chino, according to both offices. She said changes needed to be made to get the votes to get the bill out of committee and onto the Senate floor, and Levine agreed. Negrete-McLeod now appears as a principal coauthor on the bill.   “I don’t think this will satisfy the extremists on either side of the, but this is better policy,” Negrete-McLeon said. She added, “You have a bad dog, snip-snip.”  Titled the California Healthy Pets Act, it was one of the most talked-about bills of last year. Legislative offices reported getting huge amounts of mail, phone calls, emails and faxes on the bill. Levine made several amendments last year, mainly around creating exemptions for particular classes of dogs and cats, as he tried to placate the opponents. But he said he was not disappointed over moving forward with a much less sweeping bill, noting that it will result in the spaying/neutering of some of the most problematic animals.  ”It’s the legislative process,” Levine said. “You never get everything you want. The purpose of my legislation was to address the serious problem of cat and dog overpopulation. I feel that this will help us accomplish that goal. I’m not unhappy with it. One of the first things they tell you when you come to work in the Capitol is ‘never fall in love with your bills.’”  Judie Mancuso, the campaign director behind the effort to pass AB 1634, was less positive about the changes. For one thing, she said, the home foreclosure crisis is worsening the overpopulation problem at shelters as people give up pets when they move out of owned houses into rented apartments. For all of 2006, she said, California shelters took in 375,000 dogs, euthanizing 146,000. For 2007, shelters took in 419,000 dogs-but 10 counties have not yet reported all their numbers for last year, compared to only one that hasn’t reported 2006 numbers. The 2008 numbers, she said, are looking even worse.  She also pointed to numerous other governments around the country-including the state legislatures of Arizona and Rhode Island-that have modeled bills on AB 1634.  ”The rest of the country has long looked to our lead,” Mancuso said. “The thing that concerns me is the message we’re sending out is this is all we can do.”  *Note: the pic above was not and is not shown in Capitol Weekly. It is shown here to let people know what kind of people are pushing change in Los Angeles, where such change is not fast enough for them. When they do not get what they want, they seek to take things into their own hands. If they were protesting like most people, they wouldn’t need to wear a mask. What has happened in major large cities is that animal extremists want to push the saving of all animals. While there is nothing wrong with saving animals, one has to have some common sense to realize that AB1634 was nothing but a nightmare with so many pitfalls it was simply ludicrous. And no amount of changing it would create a bill that would work. which explains why it was gutted. Am glad to see that someone in government finally did something rather intelligent.  The completely new, AB1634 now supposedly deals with public complaints re a cat/dog, subsequent fines,and mandated altering. Although there is no procedure noted in the bill for a hearing, opponents intend to oppose the bill if it will purposely exclude andy type of admin hearing. Because the bill does not have a specific provision concerning the determination of “guilty” re a complaint, it is conceivable that complaints made purposely without cause could create a problem if no proof/or evidence is shown.