Collectible Dolls: Fw: [petlaw] Fighting the 50 pet limit argument see report attached

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Tamara Burnett <tamara@tamaraburnett.com>
To: pet-law@yahoogroups.com; uaoa@yahoogroups.com; NVPetLaw@yahoogroups.com; watchdogs1@yahoogroups..com
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 11:31:12 AM
Subject: [petlaw] Fighting the 50 pet limit argument see report attached

Regarding California AB 241:

Subject: Are our Assembly Members listening?

Are your Assembly Members listening? I don't think so! They passed this
ludicrous bill today overwhelmingly regardless of its invasion on our
property rights AND its cost to the State of California .

Are you listening, Assembly Members? Will you listen to your constituents
who told you on May 19th, just days ago, exactly how they feel about
spending more $$$$?

* If AB241 becomes law, what will shoddy puppy mills that are only in
it for the bucks do if they see Animal Control coming down the road to
inspect their facility?

* Which dogs are no longer producing? Take 'em out back.
* Which dogs are very sick? Take 'em out back.
* Which dogs are too old? Take 'em out back.

* What will it cost for each of these raids? Nava says $2.2 million if
all 5 USDA facilities in California are raided. All costs are originally
paid by local animal control agencies - but those costs ultimately will go
back to the state for reimbursement. CAN CALIFORNIA AFFORD THIS? Think
about yesterday's vote and what the PEOPLE said!

* AB241 shows no difference between show dog kennels, show cat
catteries, hunting dog kennels, herding dog kennels, working dog kennels ...
and USDA facilities, or those that legally fall under those definitions.

WHY? And WHY are SPCAs, Humane Societies and 501(c)3 rescues not included
in this bill? Even if it's been the practice in the past, why??? Should
they be allowed by law to give shoddy or horrible care to animals with zero
repercussions - as is often the case in Los Angeles (see recent expose) and
certain other counties?

AB241 is kind of like AB135, the docked dairy cattle tails bill. What are
dairies going to do to docked cattle? Take 'em out back... well, off to the
slaughterhouse.

* If AB241 becomes law, goodbye rescues and breeders taking back every
animal for its' lifetime if something happens to the new owner. They will
no longer be able to guarantee in writing that there will always be room
with 'grandma.'

* What if a feral cat has kittens in the barn?
* What if someone dumps a pregnant dog or cat on their property?

* What if ... as is the law in Sacramento city and county -

* 10 people gather on someone's large property for a private dog show,
and
* each brings 5 dogs (all intact of course) for 50 intact breeding
dogs, and
* the owner of the property has a breeding kennel with 15 dogs? - and
has a litter of feral kittens in the barn!

In Sacramento city and county, the law says property owners are fined if
they care for one too many dogs - say, a neighbor's dog when he's working
one day. Or fines can be levied if they have a BBQ, invite the
neighborhood, and someone brings one extra dog for the feast.. Yea. Found
that out last year.

Where in AB241 does it say that private get-togethers with fanciers and
their intact dogs on private property - dog shows, once-a-year- training
events, whatever - are exempt from this bill? I can see it now: AC knows
the show is coming. They prepare. Around 11am when everyone's showing in
the single ring in the middle of a 20 acre show site....

NO on AB241 - $2.2 million to destroy the validity of 5 USDA licenses is too
much for California . And all the rest. You think California cares about
chickens? What does yesterday's vote say about our POCKETBOOKS? ??

An AKC Judge testified that the author of the bill, Assembly Member Nava,
had said that it might cost $400,000 to shut down a commercial breeder and
that Mr. Nava's staff had indicated that there were five commercial breeders
that they had identified that might be affected by AB 241. That looks like
about $2.0 million of potential cost. Mr. Nava testified that he had never
said that it would cost $400,000 to shut down a "puppy mill." His response,
which I will be faxing through out the Assembly is below:

Mr. Nava, I believe you are wrong.

That day, in front of the Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing on AB
241, Assembly Member Nava claimed that he had never said that closing a
"Puppy Mill" might cost $400,000. Well, maybe his claim is true if you live
in the world that debates what the definition of "is" is. Here are the facts
- you decide.

In the Bill Analysis for the Assembly Committee on Public Safety, Mr. Nava
is quoted,

"A criminal bust of a single puppy mill can yield massive expenses to the
state and local jurisdictions due to the cost of shelter, food, and
veterinary care. A puppy mill bust last year in which 249 animals were
rescued in Buxton , Maine cost the state $440,000."

The same language is included verbatim in the Bill Analysis for the
Committee on Business and Professions, but is interestingly absent from Bill
Analysis for the Committee on Appropriations.

Wow, $440,000 to close a single "Puppy Mill" is a lot of potential exposure
for the state. How big is the total exposure? According to information
disclosed in private conversations, Mr. Nava's staff have identified five
dog and cat breeders, all licensed under the federal Animal Welfare Act,
that might be affected by AB 241.

5 breeders x $440,000 = $2.2 million

According to information supplied by the author of AB 241, this bill could
cost jurisdictions a bunch of money. Why are we considering AB 241?

The reason is this bill is part of an agenda to end companion animal
breeding and ownership by radical animal rights individuals and their pseudo
organizations with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
spearheading this agenda. On February 24th, 2009, Patrick Kwan the HSUS
Coordinator for New York held a seminar in Rochester , New York , to
promote their legislation agenda.

There details were given as to the strategy:

The initial HSUS bill will set a cap of 50 intact animals per location, but
once this cap is in place, HSUS will strengthen this in the future by
lowering the cap each year. Kwan likened it to getting something
criminalized as a misdemeanor at first and then increasing it to a felony.
He also agreed with an attendee who pointed out that, currently, people in
New York can have as many animals as they want, but that HSUS will crack
down in later sessions.

AB 241 and many similar bills all introduced this year in other states do
exactly this.

First, AB 241 and it's sister bills creates a NEW CRIME. That means
presently law abiding citizens will now become criminals. It will be a CRIME
to breed companion animals. It will not just be an infraction, or a fine, to
violate an animal limit law, it will be a CRIME. For the first time ever,
those breeding companion animals can be accused of a CRIME. The social and
economic costs of putting into place such a law will have far reaching
implications too numerous to mention in a few paragraphs. What it would cost
for more jailed inmates for what is NOT PRESENTLY A CRIME and never has
been in the history of California could easily cost the local and state
penal budget many millions of dollars not to mention the local and state
court systems. In fact, it could fill 100 pages. However, the question is
asked again:

Are our Assembly Members listening?

We, their constituents, have sent a message to the legislature and our
individual representatives elected to REPRESENT OUR WISHES, not those of
special interest groups which have cost this State billions of dollars. It
is long overdue for the legislature to stop catering to special interests
groups at the demise of the State budget and its people.

Thank you,

Diane Amble

We the People Pets

www.wethepeopleusa. <http://www.wethepeo pleusa.us/> us

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]