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

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.

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