Join the Crusade Against H$U$ ANTI-PET LAWS +PASS IT FORWARD!
H$U$ has sponsored many versions of mandated spay neuter (MSN) and despite ‘not claiming’ they sponsored CA AB250, which was just another VERSION of AB1634 in disguise, but worse, H$U$ and cronies, including Peta and ASPCA and others like Mancuso’s Social Compassion, LOST their bid yet again to get MSN statewide. For welfarists that keep saying H$U$ didn’t sponsor SB250, take off your dummy hats. That’s just plain idiotic.
Of course H$U$ sponsored it, by giving the OTHER groups money!! $10,000 (minimum) to Social compassion (Mancuso) and ($250,000 minimum) to ASPCA, etc, etc. Just remember, whatever H$U$ CLAIMS, it’s likely the OPPOSITE is true. Anyone in the animal business LOW enough to hire someone who tortures dogs, while claiming they protect animals, is very sick. VERY VERY SICK. H$U$ HIRED Vick as spokesperson for H$U$. If that doesn’t take the cake, what does? Outside of Katrina?
Proponents attempted to pretend it was NOT MSN but the facts were clear that if a dog was accidentally let out a gate by the cable repairman, or if a dog was taken and let loose by an unidentified person, or if a dog was alleged to have jumped up on another dog, all of these things could cause your dog or intact dogs to become neutered/spayed. It might have also caused you to never own another intact dog.
Tons and tons of protest and factual data was sent in over 5 months time, from owners, advocates, groups, breeders, kennels, clubs, associations, groomers, police, handlers, and far more………………….ALL OF THEM OPPOSING SB250, THE AB1634 IN DISGUISE BILL.
Finally, in the legislature, Calderon and Davis spoke out against both proposed bills.
“Finally, good news has emerged from the State Capitol here in California.
This morning the controversial spay/neuter bill SB 250 went into suspense.
According to my assemblyman contact, its highly unlikely this bill will see
the light of day again. Much praise must be given to Assemblyman Mike Davis,
a democrat from Los Angeles, who gave an eloquent speech against SB 250. He
even went through the effort of bringing a HUGE stack our protest letters
and compared it to a flimsy little stack of support letters.
After his speech we applauded. We were out of order but our emotions took over. The
legislators totally understood. We packed the hearing room to capacity and
made a very impressive showing. Many thanks to everyone who could afford to
take time out to show support. I visited Mike Davis office later to thank
him and he told me that the letters really do count, especially when there
are soooooooo many. Many thanks to those of you who take the time to write.
You really do make a difference!!!!” Quoted from Pet Extinction.
OK–it is possible that they could take 250 out of suspense, BUT would Arnold NOT veto it? It is believed Arnold would veto it due to the cost. He would probably veto anything that cost too much and he’s not exactly being friendly with a lot of groups, not even educators. Proponents may still try to amend it and pull a fast one like they did on 241 (intact limit on animals)…
AB1437 is a bill that H$U$ brought forward, in conjunction with Proposition 2, which was passed by voters to enlarge the cage sizes of chickens, etc. Pretty much, AB1437 was drafted to say that all shelled EGGS entering CA must comply with the same law that CA farmers in egg production must comply with. That brought up an interstate commerce issue, so H$U$ had a severability clause in the bill.
Over objection, the carrying legislator amended the bill to say that both Health Services and Dept. of Agriculture would weigh in on the provisions of the specifications for Prop 2. H$U$ hated that idea, and the farmers were not so happy with it either. H$U$ dropped the bill for now but will return with a differently worded bill likely next year. The bottom line is that H$U$ has for profit companies that it wants to use to enforce the regulations—and it would have difficulty using those companies unless H$U$ gets to design ALL of the specs for the Proposition, which was PURPOSELY drafted without specification (vague) so H$U$ could end up designing all the specs themselves.
This issue is FAR from over on the eggs. Very far.
Unfortunately, there is a long history behind the bill, which includes H$U$ losing the lawsuit in San Francisco, where H$U$ attempted to get chickens under the AWA, when the chickens are specifically covered in the Federal PPIA (Poulty Products Inspection Act) which promotes humane slaughter. Let’s face it folks, there is no beautiful way to slaughter anything, including food products. But H$U$ is consistently trying, year after year, to do that.