If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Cali anti-crop bill
Information on what happened is below. I'm not writing anything of my own
below the URL, so it should be easy to cut and paste it when you want to. A history of the hearings/updates are at the site as well. natalie http://naiatrust.org/Action%20Alert.ca.AB.418.htm Hearing update: 4-5-05 At the April 5, 2005 hearing of the Public Safety Committee, AB 418, the anti-cropping bill failed to get the number of votes necessary to pass out of committee, but was put "on call" meaning that the sponsor can bring it back for a vote when he believes he has the number of votes necessary to pass it. This could happen by the end of today. AB 418 is NOT dead, and dog fanciers should continue contacting committee members. Please note that Rebecca Cohn, a democrat, was in the committee session but did not cast a vote. Several others were not present including Goldberg and Dymally. About 25 well-trained animal rights spokespeople attended to represent the anti-cropping side of the bill and passed out horrific examples of cropping. The 16 dedicated dog fanciers that showed up to defend cropping were outmatched by animal rights vets who offered up a misleading picture of cropping and presented themselves as mainstream veterinarians. The mainstream veterinary community was not represented. Please focus your efforts on the committee members below and ask them politely not to support this bill. They need to understand that the material they are seeing is not representative of cropping, that dog fanciers also oppose the methods shown by the activists, but that those methods are not the ones used by trained veterinarians. Animal activists are brilliant at making their numbers look enormously bigger than they are. Our community is much bigger, but because we are not zealous and because many fanciers don't take the time to contact their representatives, legislators don't recognize how much bigger we are. Animal activists are also good at making the other side (us) look like monsters. It is common to learn after a session that intimidating letters were sent to members pretending to be from our side, which turned out to be phony. Please keep these tactics in mind when you make contact and understand how critically important it is to represent your views as politely and tactfully as possible. Jay La Suer, Vice Chair Rep - 77 (916) 319-2077 Rebecca Cohn, Dem - 24 (916) 319-2024 Mervyn M. Dymally, Dem - 52 (916) 319-2052 Jackie Goldberg, Dem - 45 (916) Todd Spitzer, Rep - 71 (916) 319-2071 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Natalie Rigertas wrote:
Information on what happened is below. I'm not writing anything of my own below the URL, so it should be easy to cut and paste it when you want to. A history of the hearings/updates are at the site as well. natalie May I ask what the concern about ear-cropping is? I was under the impression it was primarily a matter of asthetics, with some minor improvement in the frequency of ear infections with dogs that have cropped ears. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Miedvied wrote:
May I ask what the concern about ear-cropping is? I was under the impression it was primarily a matter of asthetics, with some minor improvement in the frequency of ear infections with dogs that have cropped ears. Those who are against it consider it an unnecessary mutilation. Statistically, it doesn't make that much of a difference on ear infections from what I understand. That is, it might make a difference for dogs who are prone to infections, but those who aren't it probably doesn't make any difference. Those who want them usually want it out of historical reasons. Some breeds more than others use the cropping. Dobermans, for instance, were bred solely for personal protection and the ear crop makes them look more intimidating. It's very closely linked to the reason that they were bred. I say historical reasons, because there aren't any reasons to crop like there are to dock (dock to prevent damage to tails from working. ear cropping doesn't have something similar). I don't know if historical is the right term for it though. One of the things that the anti-crop people are using to bolster their argument are photos of real mutilations, which stem from home cropping attempts by inexperienced people. You know, pit bull owners who take a knife and slice off the ear, don't sew it up, don't use anesthetic, let it get infected, and also cut too much off. That, I consider a mutilation. A properly done ear cropping I don't. natalie -- What fresh hell is this? --- Dorothy Parker |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|