April 5, 2007 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Governor Schwarzenegger: Attached please find my letter to Assemblyman Mike Eng, Chair of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee regarding Assembly Bill 1634. AB 1634, which would require every dog and cat in the state to be spayed or neutered unless the owner obtains an intact animal permit, is a major threat to dog shows and purebred dogs in California. I am forwarding you a copy of this letter so that you are aware of just how damaging this bill would be to responsible dog owners in California and also the revenue that California stands to lose if dog shows are forced out of the state as they would be under the provisions of AB 1634. I would ask that you veto AB 1634 should it be forwarded for your signature. Sincerely, April 5, 2007 The Honorable Mike Eng Chair, Assembly Business and Professions Committee ATTN: Tracy Rhine California State Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, CA 94249 Dear Mr. Chair: The American Kennel Club (AKC) is extremely concerned about Assembly Bill 1634, which would require dogs and cats over four months of age be spayed or neutered unless an intact animal permit is obtained by the owner. This legislation would be a death knell for dog shows and indeed purebred dogs in state of California. As Chairman of the Board of the American Kennel Club and on behalf of the 482 AKC- affiliated dog clubs in California and their thousands of members, and the 5,000 clubs nationwide, I urge you to oppose this bill. In 2006, and previously in 2003, we held our internationally televised AKC/Eukanuba Championship at the Long Beach Convention Center. This site was chosen in part because California has always been considered to be a dog-friendly state. As one of the premier dog events in the world, the 2006 AKC/Eukanuba Championship drew approximately 28,000 visitors to California from all fifty states as well as several foreign countries. The Long Beach Area Convention and Visitor's Bureau estimates the event's economic impact at approximately 21.7 million dollars. In fact, the bed tax alone generated $90,200 to the City of Long Beach. We would be glad to provide you with a video tape of the 2006 show. We are scheduled to return to Long Beach in December of 2007 and in 2008 for our next AKC/Eukanuba National Championship. Passage of AB 1634 would make that very difficult. The current draft of the bill does not provide an exemption from the intact animal permit requirements for those exhibitors traveling to California from other states, making it virtually impossible for the vast majority of our exhibitors to attend this event. This would mean a major loss of revenue for the state as well as the loss of such a prestigious event to another state. The American Kennel has discussed designating Long Beach as the permanent home of the AKC/Eukanuba National Championship, but passage of AB 1634 would make that highly unlikely. In 2006, almost 160,000 competitors participated in 137 all-breed dog shows in California. Three of the ten largest shows in the United States are held in California. Another 130,000 competitors participated in events such as agility, obedience and field trials. Thousands of purebred and mixed bred dogs pass AKC Canine Good Citizenship Certificate tests each year. The AKC conducts ongoing research regarding the economic benefits of our events, and our estimates conclude that these exhibitors contributed approximately $92 million to local California economies. Should AB 1634 be adopted, California would not only have the dubious distinction of being the least dog friendly state in the nation, but could also potentially suffer economic losses in the millions of dollars. The Honorable Mike Eng April 5, 2007 Page 2 The American Kennel Club is more than just dog shows. Founded in 1884, the AKC is a not-for-profit registry dedicated to promoting the sport of purebred dogs and breeding for type and function. The AKC and its affiliated organizations advocate for the purebred dog as a family companion, advance canine health and well-being, provide resources, support, funds and other assistance to not-for-profit animal shelters providing care and shelter to animals orphaned or displaced by disaster as we did with the California wildfires in 2003 and most recently with Hurricane Katrina, and work to protect the rights of all dog owners and promote responsible dog ownership. A stated goal of the proponents of AB 1634 is to reduce the animal shelter population in California. National research organizations have reported that the majority of unwanted dogs in the United States come from owners who are unable or unwilling to train, socialize and care for their dog. The American Kennel Club encourages pet owners to spay or neuter their dogs if they do not want to participate in AKC conformation events or engage in responsible breeding programs. The American Kennel Club further supports programs dedicated to teaching the pet-buying public how to find a responsible breeder and how to make well-informed decisions when buying a dog rather than buying on impulse. Such programs help to ensure that pet purchasers find a puppy or dog that is a good match for their lifestyle, at an appropriate time in their lives, thereby increasing the likelihood that the animal will stay with the owner for its entire life. We take our commitment to public education very seriously. Every September the American Kennel Club works with our local clubs to sponsor events in honor of Responsible Dog Ownership Day. At these events, club members distribute information about what it takes to appropriately care for a canine companion, conduct demonstrations of dog events, and educate children and parents about safety around dogs. In California we have almost 400 individuals who serve as AKC club public education coordinators, serving their communities by distributing free public education materials. We have produced two video and workbook series promoting responsible pet ownership and safety around dogs. These are distributed free of charge to schools, libraries and civic groups. We would be happy to share copies of these materials with you and to work with communities to help promote responsible dog ownership. The American Kennel Club works to support sound, enforceable animal control laws that promote responsible pet ownership. We oppose laws, such as AB 1634, which penalize responsible owners and breeders simply for keeping their animals intact and providing the public with healthy, well socialized pets. An appropriate response to shelter population issues is an increased emphasis on promoting responsible pet ownership, rather than imposing potentially outrageous intact animal permit fees for responsible owners and breeders. I strongly urge you to reject AB 1634 and to work with the American Kennel Club, our California clubs, and responsible owners across the state to educate the public about responsible pet ownership. Sincerely, cc: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Members of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee Assemblymember Lloyd Levine
Sprung's letter
March 30, 2007 The Honorable Mike Eng Chair, Assembly Business and Professions Committee ATTN: Tracy Rhine California State Assembly State Capitol Sacramento, CA 94249 Dear Mr. Chair: The American Kennel Club (AKC) is extremely concerned about Assembly Bill 1634, which would require dogs and cats over four months of age be spayed or neutered unless an intact animal permit is obtained by the owner. On behalf of the 482 AKC-affiliated dog clubs in California, over 5,000 clubs nationwide, and the millions of dogs who call California home, AKC urges you to oppose this bill. As a not-for-profit organization founded in 1884, the American Kennel Club has been devoted to the advancement and welfare of dogs for 123 years. The AKC supports sound, enforceable, non- discriminatory legislation to govern dog ownership. The American Kennel Club also conducts outreach and education for breeders to ensure that they are engaging in responsible breeding programs. Local responsible breeders should be viewed as assets to their communities. These breeders make serious commitments to their animals by raising healthy, well cared-for dogs and by working to ensure that puppies are placed with responsible owners. These breeders are in a unique position to support new pet owners and exemplify responsible animal ownership. Responsible dog breeders and owners are models for their communities and should not be penalized by being required to purchase potentially expensive intact animal permits, as AB 1634 would mandate. The "exemption" in AB 1634, allowing issuance of an intact animal permit, requires that a cat or dog be registered as a purebred with a pedigree from the American Kennel Club, the United Kennel Club, the American Dog Breeders Association, the International Cat Association, or a recognized registry approved by the local animal control agency to qualify for the permit. This provision, however, is not really an exemption as much as it is a potentially onerous assessment targeting responsible breeders, as local jurisdictions are given free reign to set the amount of the intact animal permit, so long as it complies with AB 1634's requirement that the fee be "reasonably necessary" : Article 3. 122336.2. (c) states "the amount of the fee for an intact permit shall be determined by the local jurisdiction, and shall be no more than what is reasonably necessary to fund the administration, enforcement and outreach efforts of that jurisdiction' s intact permit program" By not specifying a set fee for the intact permit, there is the possibility that intact permit fees could easily be set at hundreds of dollars per exemption. If a jurisdiction sets an intact permit fee that is excessively high, punitive, and unreasonable, the proposed law will provide no redress to local constituents for excessive fees other than costly litigation to seek relief from unwarranted intact animal permit costs. Existing California law (Food and Agriculture Code, 33804.5) already requires that a fee for dog licenses issued by a locality for intact animals cost twice as much as those issued to spayed or neutered dogs. Requiring responsible dog owners and breeders who choose to keep their animals intact to purchase an additional permit serves no justifiable purpose while imposing a significant additional financial burden on responsible citizens who are not part of the problem. Additionally, allowing local jurisdictions the right to approve registries as acceptable qualifications for granting the intact animal permit will be impossible to consistently enforce. There are more than 35 for-profit all-breed dog registries in the United States, not counting numerous specialty and rare breed registries. This will result in a great variance of acceptable registries across local governmental entities. Failure to recognize some registries could subject municipalities to litigation. AKC-approved events positively impact state and local economies. AB 1634 jeopardizes that significant impact. The AKC conducts ongoing research regarding the economic benefits of our events, and our most recent survey data of January 2006 identifies that 1,395 AKC- approved events were conducted in California, with 342,020 dogs entered by 290,566 owners. Based on that data, those owners contributed approximately $92 million to local California economies. This figure rises quickly when one adds the additional thousands of dollars AKC clubs spend on bringing judges to California by paying their transportation, hotel, restaurant, and other expenses; and judges' personal spending when visiting the state. AKC-affiliated clubs also rent hundreds of venues throughout California to conduct events. As dog shows are a family sport, large spectator admission fees generate additional revenues for cities and towns statewide. Further affecting the financial impact of AKC events, AB 1634 does not exempt dogs brought into the state for exhibition from the mandatory spay/neuter or intact animal permit requirements. If the proposed legislation becomes law, AKC event participants would abandon California shows for venues in other states, necessitated by the draconian measures contained in AB 1634. This would result in enormous loss of revenue for hotels, restaurants, gasoline stations, and retailers of every description in California. In fact, the AKC hosts the AKC/Eukanuba National Championship in Long Beach, California. This primetime television event is simulcast on the Animal Planet and Discovery channels for three hours on two consecutive nights. Along with the AKC Agility Invitational and the AKC National Obedience Invitational, these events bring almost 4,000 dogs, plus tens of thousands of exhibitors, fanciers, and spectators from all 50 states and 20 foreign countries, to California. With such an impact, I cannot believe that the California State Legislature would decide that AKC events are not welcome within the state of California. The passage of AB 1634 would clearly send that message. The American Kennel Club strongly urges the Business and Professions Committee to not report AB 1634 out of committee. Sincerely, Dennis B. Sprung cc: Members of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee Assemblymember Lloyd Levine
similar law is already in effect in LA county. it has been in effect for almost a year. I do not notice any changed in shelter population or available pups in the classified. which tells me that it is not being enforced. Since I am exempt from it, I was hopping that they will enforce this law and eliminate the competition for me, but a year later, it did not make a dent. this proposed law will most likely not be enforced either. I actually hope it will be, but in all likelihood it wont.
Norma, you never cease to amaze me with your selfish attitude. UNBELIEVABLE!
Some are here because they hope to make a difference, others like to roll around in the feces. You'll be able to "sniff them out" in no time. -DJ's Doxies,
What you call selfish, I call poetic justice. Misery loves company.
For years I had to pay for a kennel license, spend a small fortune building and maintaining kennels and be scrutinized by the AC while many other high and mighty breeders stayed under the radar and pretty much did what ever they wanted. Many of them tried to shut me down because they did not like the competition. Well, those breeders are the first one who will be affected. Those who live in residential areas that will never qualify for a kennel license, and will only be allowed 1 litter a year per household for qualified dogs, regardless of how many dogs they have. If I have to put up with this bureaucratic crap, then everyone else should be as well. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
If properly enforced, and that is a big if, this may affect many people, but it will do nothing for most of the real breeders who already follow the laws and have the necessary permits and the proper supervision to breed. It will not affect the show dog breeders that much since they will be able to get a permit for their dogs. In LA County, a kennel license exempts you from all of these laws. Most likely it still will with the new state law. Those breeders who qualify for one will pick up the slack left by those breeders that will be affected to fill in the demand for dogs, not to mention the out of state breeders who would love to get the extra business.
The argument the AKC have about not being able to have dog shows in the state is BS. It only applies to California residents. Not tourists who only come for few days and leave with their dogs. The only reason the AKC is concern about it is because it will severely cut in to its profit. Since California is by far the most populated state in the country, they have a lot to lose. Can’t make money off a fixed dog, and most people do not bother registering a fixed dog they got from an intact dog, which is why they whine about it. They got their priorities screwed up. They supported PAWS which had the potential to devastate many serious show dog breeders, but are against a law that will mainly affect the bybs that breed indiscriminately, keep the shelters full and do most of the damage to their breeds. This has the potential to actually do some good. It will make sure that only qualified breeders with pure bred dogs will be able to breed. What is wrong with that? I thought that is what you all want.
The future looks bright for breeders like me in California. Too bad I am getting out of the breeding business.
Many years ago I was state licensed, inspected and I too spent many $$ to maintain there ever changing ideas. While raising Rottweilers I visited many kennels and found it interesting they did not have to follow the rules because they were already established. So it was ok if they had pea gravel on their runs while I had to pour concrete and dig a septic. I was not impressed with the inspections and felt like everything else it was just a job to create money for the state. I certainly would not wish this type of control on anyone JMO as always. MM
For fun go to Pet Lovers and check out some of the pictures of my Rotties on memory lane. PW I not trying to take anything away from your post as always great info. MM
For years I had to pay for a kennel license, spend a small fortune building and maintaining kennels and be scrutinized by the AC while many other high and mighty breeders stayed under the radar and pretty much did what ever they wanted. Many of them tried to shut me down because they did not like the competition. Well, those breeders are the first one who will be affected. Those who live in residential areas that will never qualify for a kennel license, and will only be allowed 1 liter a year per household for qualified dogs, regardless of how many dogs they have. If I have to put up with this bureaucratic crap, then everyone else should be as well. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander
one liter per house? We talking dogs here Norma, or Pepsi?
Wow it is heartbreaking that you had to spend a small fortune on Sundowners. Man, that must have really ripped into profits eh?
__________________________ Excuse me, I am having a blonde moment.
Originally posted by Norma: What you call selfish, I call poetic justice. Misery loves company.
For years I had to pay for a kennel license, spend a small fortune building and maintaining kennels and be scrutinized by the AC while many other high and mighty breeders stayed under the radar and pretty much did what ever they wanted. Many of them tried to shut me down because they did not like the competition. Well, those breeders are the first one who will be affected. Those who live in residential areas that will never qualify for a kennel license, and will only be allowed 1 litter a year per household for qualified dogs, regardless of how many dogs they have. If I have to put up with this bureaucratic crap, then everyone else should be as well. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
If properly enforced, and that is a big if, this may affect many people, but it will do nothing for most of the real breeders who already follow the laws and have the necessary permits and the proper supervision to breed. It will not affect the show dog breeders that much since they will be able to get a permit for their dogs. In LA County, a kennel license exempts you from all of these laws. Most likely it still will with the new state law. Those breeders who qualify for one will pick up the slack left by those breeders that will be affected to fill in the demand for dogs, not to mention the out of state breeders who would love to get the extra business.
The argument the AKC have about not being able to have dog shows in the state is BS. It only applies to California residents. Not tourists who only come for few days and leave with their dogs. The only reason the AKC is concern about it is because it will severely cut in to its profit. Since California is by far the most populated state in the country, they have a lot to lose. Can’t make money off a fixed dog, and most people do not bother registering a fixed dog they got from an intact dog, which is why they whine about it. They got their priorities screwed up. They supported PAWS which had the potential to devastate many serious show dog breeders, but are against a law that will mainly affect the bybs that breed indiscriminately, keep the shelters full and do most of the damage to their breeds. This has the potential to actually do some good. It will make sure that only qualified breeders with pure bred dogs will be able to breed. What is wrong with that? I thought that is what you all want.
The future looks bright for breeders like me in California. Too bad I am getting out of the breeding business.
You can call it what you want, but I don't call protecting commercial breeders, while infringing on the small, high quality, show breeders' rights, poetic justice. I call it INSANE!
Glad to hear you're going out of dog production.
Some are here because they hope to make a difference, others like to roll around in the feces. You'll be able to "sniff them out" in no time. -DJ's Doxies,
Originally posted by Hu-Dare: You can call it what you want, but I don't call protecting commercial breeders, while infringing on the small, high quality, show breeders' rights, poetic justice. I call it INSANE!
If you can't beat them, join them.
If breeders are that passionate about breeding their dogs, they can always get a permit, move to the right zone or to a friendlier state.
quote:
Glad to hear you're going out of dog production.
Well, with this law, I might reconsider that decision in a year or two. If it passes, as I am sure it will, and if it will be successfully enforced, which I doubt it will, I may be tempted to come out of retirement. With no competition, it will be easy money.
Some are here because they hope to make a difference, others like to roll around in the feces. You'll be able to "sniff them out" in no time. -DJ's Doxies,
Some are here because they hope to make a difference, others like to roll around in the feces. You'll be able to "sniff them out" in no time. -DJ's Doxies,
Actually, I was just having fun with you, stirring the pot a bit while presenting a different, yet valid positive point of view of this bill. Depending on your perspective, it is not all bad.
Although I meant everything I said, I don't really care about this bill one way or another. Had I still been breeding, then yes, I would definitely benifit from it. But what ever happens, I am out of the dog business for good. Just have to sell the few remaining pups I have, place all the adults, and I am done.
Come July, you won't have me to worry about any more. I'll be out of the country, sunbathing at a Mediterranean beach and enjoying early retirement.
Actually, I was just having fun with you, stirring the pot a bit while presenting a different, yet valid positive point of view of this bill. Depending on your perspective, it is not all bad.
Although I meant everything I said, I don't really care about this bill one way or another. Had I still been breeding, then yes, I would definitely benifit from it. But what ever happens, I am out of the dog business for good. Just have to sell the few remaining pups I have, place all the adults, and I am done.
Come July, you won't have me to worry about any more. I'll be out of the country, sunbathing at a Mediterranean beach and enjoying early retirement.
No offense, but I am sure many here hope you get sunburnt to a crisp and laden wtih mosquito bites.
Ya know, kind of like some small solace to the dogs.
__________________________ Excuse me, I am having a blonde moment.
Back to Pluba.com 
