Ab 1634 Has Been Withdrawn!!!!!!!!!!

[Linda Hettich]

From the San Jose Mercury News this morning. WHOO HOO!!! Levine is expected to do interviews, so we are trying to track him down and have him on our air this morning, between now and noon. We're not definite since EVERYONE is trying to get a hold of him. But, you can click on the station website at knx1070.com, and follow the links to streaming online to monitor. But this is GREAT NEWS!!
-----------------------------------------------------

Lawmaker plans to withdraw controversial spay-neuter bill
By Mike Zapler
MediaNews Sacramento Bureau
San Jose Mercury News
Article Launched:07/11/2007 07:31:26 AM PDT


SACRAMENTO - The state lawmaker pushing a bill requiring most pet owners in California to get their animals fixed will withdraw the measure today in the face of intense opposition, an aide said this morning.

Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, realized that the Senate Local Government Committee would probably have killed the bill for the year after a hearing today, so he is opting to withdraw it in the hopes of reviving it later, said Levine spokesman Alex Traverso.

Testimony scheduled for this morning will still take place, but Levine will withdraw the measure before the committee votes, he said.

"Ultiumately the votes weren't there to get the bill through this morning," Traverso said. "Rather than have it go to defeat, we wanted to keep it live and keep working on it."

The bill would prohibit anyone from owning a cat or dog older than 6 months that hasn't been spayed or neutered. Exceptions would be made for licensed breeders, show animals, police dogs and a few others.

Under the bill, AB 1634, people caught with unaltered pets would first receive a citation, then have 30 days to have their pet fixed. They would face a $500 fine - per animal - if they still fail to comply.

The measure set off one of the Capitol's fiercest political battles this year.

One side has enlisted an iconic TV game show host to promote legislation, hired a high-powered lobbying firm and conducted extensive opposition research. The other has set up a political action committee and launched a TV ad warning that loved ones could be exterminated if proponents have their way.

"There were 2,800 bills introduced in the Legislature this year," said state Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, "and if you were to ask me which one I've received the most reaction to, this is at the top of the list."

While the goal of Levine's bill may seem non-controversial - reducing the hundreds of thousands of animals euthanized in California each year - the reaction has been anything but. Proponents see the law as essential in controlling the pet population and preventing deaths in shelters, but opponents argue the bill punishes pet owners and would result in more dogs and cats being left at shelters by people wanting to avoid fines.

The battle over the legislation, which narrowly passed the Assembly and faces a key vote in a Senate committee today, has many of the trappings of a bare-knuckle political campaign.

The proponents have hired Nielsen Merksamer, one of the state's top lobbying and political law firms, to press their case with legislators. This week, they held a news conference with Bob Barker, the longtime host of "The Price is Right" and a spay-and-neuter advocate. Their leader, Judie Mancuso of Laguna Beach, labels some of her foes "Petpac monsters" (a reference to the political action committee opponents created) and "liars" who are "all about making a buck."

Opponents, many of them pet breeders, are playing their own political hardball. One leader, a longtime lobbyist and dog breeder named Bill Hemby, accuses adversaries of engaging in "character assassination" and suggests that spay-neuter leaders are serving as proxies for animal rights extremists.

"We're convinced their ultimate goal is the elimination of all animals," he said in an interview, before clarifying that, on the whole, he believes proponents are well-meaning.

The political action committee Hemby formed has raised about $200,000 and began running TV ads this week in the Sacramento area. "AB 1634 will get rid of pets like Betty, and that's not right," a woman holding her mixed-breed dog warns in the spot. (Opponents believe the bill targets mutts because breeders who would be exempt raise mostly purebreds.)

And, of course, both sides are using the Web to advance their causes. Bill proponents have put up two sites - one touting the legislation (http://www.cahealthypets.

com) and another (http://www.petpac

nonsense.com) to debunk the opponents' site (http://www.petpac.net).

"It is crazy," Mancuso conceded of the lobbying frenzy, before adding that it is opponents who are being unreasonable.

The debate has thrust California into the national, even international, spotlight. The BBC, CNN, Fox News and NPR, among others, have weighed in.

Lawmakers are feeling the heat. Simitian said the deluge of letters on the issues jammed his office fax machine recently. He said he has received thousands of calls, e-mails and faxes.

"It may not be global warming, but it's very real and very personal to the people who would be affected by it," said the senator, who hosted a town hall meeting on the bill last month that drew about 300 people. He has not yet taken a position.

Despite the bad blood on both sides, there is one thing they seem to agree on: their love of pets. Mancuso, who once led a mission to rescue 135 abandoned cats, now is the owner of 17 cats and two rabbits, "Cutesy" and "Bun Bun." Hemby, who breeds borzois, or Russian wolfhounds, currently has eight dogs and two horses on his five-acre property in Grass Valley.

Capitol observers say today's vote in the Senate Local Government Committee could go either way. The stakes are high: A "no" vote would kill the bill for this year.

Asked what he expects from today's meeting, Levine, the bill's sponsor, answered flatly.

"Chaos."

[Sassy Girl]

AWESOME! Thanks for the update!

[Linda Hettich]

Okay, our webmistress will provide a link to any interview with Levine that we may get. I'll pass that along so you don't have to worry about monitoring.

[Chase]

Linda, that is great news!!!!! Let's keep the government out if this one!

BUT, we still need to stay on top of it, because Levine (the sponsor fo the bill-who by the way does NOT even own a dog!) has stated that he intends to rework the bill and REINTRODUCE it in the Fall 2007. I assume he will change the neutering date from 4 months to 6 months and some other minor revisions to appease some critics. But, he is missing the whole point, that the governnment should use the already existing laws to punish IRRESPONSIBLE owners NOT this drastic new bill that would punish ALL owners and virtually ELIMINATE dog ownership in the State of California.

It would have had less inpact on all of us in Splashdogs who can afford to pay a higher cost to obtain and own a dog within the state of California. But, it would have made it almost impossible for those without a lot of money to locate and afford a dog. Dogs are not just for the rich, they are for anyone who can give them them the love and care they deserve.

And, it would have eliminated the mixed breed dog, something I personally find very sad. I grew up owning mutts "Bruno", "Inspector Sherlock Bones", and "Dog" before I ever got a pure breed Lab. I loved everyone of them. I cannot imagine what it would have been like without them.

So, GOOD NEWS today, but still need to keep a close eye on this Wolf in Sheep's clothing.

Brooke & Chase

[Linda Hettich]

Here's the article in the Daily News:


Pet-spaying bill neutered
Levine, short of votes, withdraws measure
BY MIKE ZAPLER, Sacramento Bureau
LA Daily News
Article Last Updated:07/11/2007 10:34:39 PM PDT

SACRAMENTO - Faced with an onslaught of passionate opposition, a San Fernando Valley lawmaker withdrew a bill Wednesday that would have forced most California pet owners to spay or neuter their dogs and cats.

State Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, pulled AB 1634 just hours before a key Senate committee vote he was certain to lose.

While the measure is dead for this year, Levine vowed to revive it next year, but in what could be a vastly scaled-back form.

"While I'm disappointed," he said, "I'm optimistic ... we're going to be able to solve the problem."

The move was a clear setback for spay-and-neuter advocates who say a statewide law is the only way to reduce the hundreds of thousands of pets euthanized at shelters each year.

But vocal critics and opponents - led by the well-organized breeder community - howled that it was too broad, would punish responsible pet owners and was a stark example of government overreaching into people's lives.

The debate escalated into one of the Capitol's fiercest battles this year, with each side hiring lobbyists, creating Web sites and bombarding legislators' offices with faxes and e-mails.

Levine said he remains committed to pursuing the measure and said it helped spotlight that too many cats and dogs are being killed in California.

Still, he expressed frustration with opponents, whom he said showed no willingness to compromise.

"Every time we put an exemption in the bill," he said, "they tell me it's not good enough."

Levine's bill would have barred anyone from owning a cat or dog older than 6 months that hasn't been spayed or neutered. Exceptions were carved out for animals handled by licensed breeders, show animals, police dogs and a few others.

People caught with "intact" pets would receive a citation and have 30 days to prove that their pet had been fixed. Violators would have faced a $500 fine per animal.

Revisions offered

As it became clear that a majority of committee members were prepared to vote against his bill, Levine offered drastic revisions.

One suggestion was to amend it to apply only to people cited for other pet-related offenses, such as letting their dogs run loose or illegally housing too many of them.

Other pet owners who keep their dogs and cats confined, but choose not to have them spayed or neutered, would not be affected.

Senators said they were encouraged by the offer but balked at adopting last-minute changes, so Levine dropped the bill.

Supporters of the bill were disappointed, although they acknowledged that it was better to withdraw it than have it voted down.

"It is a shame," said Woodland Hills resident Charlotte Laws, president of Directors of Animal Welfare, which represents animal issues on the city's neighborhood councils.

"I'm sad to hear it's been shelved, but I'd rather it be shelved than die. I don't understand why there was so much passion behind defeating this legislation. It's just mind-boggling."

Cathie Turner, director of the Woodland Hills-based Concerned Dog Owners of California, which opposed Levine's bill, said many pet owners would be willing to work with Levine next year on alternatives to controlling the pet population.

She said the state, for example, should do more to encourage pet owners to microchip their animals to cut down on the number of lost or abandoned pets.

The state also should take a more voluntary, incentive-based approach such as reduced or free licensing fees for owners who microchip and spay or neuter their animals.

"Positive reinforcement works better than negative punishment," said Turner, a Sylmar resident who owns three golden retrievers. "We need to apply that across the board."

She said mandatory spay/neutering often fails or causes negative consequences because some pet owners who oppose the practice will then stop licensing and vaccinating their animals.

Opponents staged a rally after the bill was withdrawn - dogs in tow - outside the Capitol.

Like Patriot Act?

One foe called Levine's bill more far-reaching than the Patriot Act, the controversial law that expanded federal powers to combat terrorism.

"People are screaming that's intrusive, and here they want to check under Fido's tail," said Kathy Cress of Campbell, whose pet beagle, Lou, sported a "No on AB 1634" T-shirt. "How far are you going to take it?"

But supporters of the measure also promised they'd be back next year.

"I'm very happy it didn't go away," said Mary Catalano, who rescues cats and dogs in Los Angeles. "If you're a human being and have compassion, a heart, this is something that is good."

[Linda Hettich]

Also, here's a link to the interview we did live with Lloyd Levine, right after he pulled the bill:



http://www.knx1070.com/episode_download.php?contentType=36&contentId=861371

[LindaG]

Hey All!
This may have already been said but........
One of my biggest problems with this law is, there are so many people out there that don't abide by the law regardless!
They don't lic. there dogs and they let them run loose even though there are leash laws in place! So what happens when their dog running loose gets pregnant?
They can't put out adds for free pups, or let there kids sit at the local store with a box full of pups for free! That would be an admission to guilt! So what happens to the pups? Do they dump them in a rural area? Bucket them? They sure can't give them away for fear of the law!
There has to be a better way!
Oh! I know!! How about enforcing the laws already in place!!!