Next week, the Appropriations Committee of the California legislature
will consider springing a bill which will require a permit and hefty fee
from local Animal Control to sell an unneutered dog or cat.
Would you cast an eye over its provisions?
www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
Are there hidden consequences here?

wrote in :

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm

that leads to a search screen, not a specific bill. got a
bill number or some way to look it up?

--
shelly (perfectly foul wench) and elliott and harriet
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette

wrote in :

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm

that leads to a search screen, not a specific bill. got a
bill number or some way to look it up?

--
shelly (perfectly foul wench) and elliott and harriet
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette

wrote in :

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm

that leads to a search screen, not a specific bill. got a
bill number or some way to look it up?

--
shelly (perfectly foul wench) and elliott and harriet
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette

Sor-ree, Shelly.
Let's try:
www.assembly.ca.gov
click on 'Legislation', then enter '2513'.
There's _something being overlooked in this, but I'm not sure what.

Sor-ree, Shelly.
Let's try:
www.assembly.ca.gov
click on 'Legislation', then enter '2513'.
There's _something being overlooked in this, but I'm not sure what.

Sor-ree, Shelly.
Let's try:
www.assembly.ca.gov
click on 'Legislation', then enter '2513'.
There's _something being overlooked in this, but I'm not sure what.

On Thu, 13 May 2004 05:47:41 -0700 Chris whittled these words:
Next week, the Appropriations Committee of the California legislature
will consider springing a bill which will require a permit and hefty fee
from local Animal Control to sell an unneutered dog or cat.
Would you cast an eye over its provisions?
www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
Are there hidden consequences here?

The puppy millers are probably lining up to support it. Get's rid of
competition from those pesky in-state responsible breeders who might
actually want to *gasp* sell a puppy to someone who wants to *gasp*
actually SHOW THE DOG.

If the ultimate goal is the eliminate dogs and cats, which is definetly
the goal for some, then getting rid of people who are breeding regardless
of how much care they use is a good start.

The eight week thing is fine for applying to pet shops, but it isn't
right or reasonable to apply it across the board. I got Tsuki what I
would say is too early to sell a puppy, six weeks, but seven weeks has
long been recognized as ideal, and even six weeks is not bad IF the
person has a clue about socialization and the means to do so.

I'm not sure how the section on "selling" will be applied. This is
JUST and example. I'm at an
agility event in a public park. I'm talking with a breeder about her
litter that I viewed last week. I say I'd like to by "the pink boy".
The breeder and I talk and I promise to show the dog in conformation
(thus requiring it to remain intact), do the health testing, report back
results, show in some performance venue ..... The breeder decides I'm a
responsible pet owner and agrees to sell the dog for the price stated.
At that point according to contract law there is very likely an
enforceable sales contract even if there is no writing. Should this
*really* be illegal?

Similarly if we come to agreement and the puppies are only four weeks old
but I'm not taking custody until it is ten weeks old we have violated the
letter of the law as written. That's ridiculous.

Sales permit of $250 per year? That's a really good way to get rid of
people who pay attention to rules and ethics and laws in breeding. It
will be worthless for dealing with those who don't pay attention.

Look this legislation couldn't be worse for the health and welfare of
dogs and cats. Stopping all the repsonsible breeders means that people
who *don't know better* won't have them to go to. So when they are
seeking an intact dog or cat they will simply get on the internet and
order a puppy from a puppy mill and then they will have it and no mentor
to assist and guide them,.

--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dog-play.com/shop2.html

On Thu, 13 May 2004 05:47:41 -0700 Chris whittled these words:
Next week, the Appropriations Committee of the California legislature
will consider springing a bill which will require a permit and hefty fee
from local Animal Control to sell an unneutered dog or cat.
Would you cast an eye over its provisions?
www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
Are there hidden consequences here?

The puppy millers are probably lining up to support it. Get's rid of
competition from those pesky in-state responsible breeders who might
actually want to *gasp* sell a puppy to someone who wants to *gasp*
actually SHOW THE DOG.

If the ultimate goal is the eliminate dogs and cats, which is definetly
the goal for some, then getting rid of people who are breeding regardless
of how much care they use is a good start.

The eight week thing is fine for applying to pet shops, but it isn't
right or reasonable to apply it across the board. I got Tsuki what I
would say is too early to sell a puppy, six weeks, but seven weeks has
long been recognized as ideal, and even six weeks is not bad IF the
person has a clue about socialization and the means to do so.

I'm not sure how the section on "selling" will be applied. This is
JUST and example. I'm at an
agility event in a public park. I'm talking with a breeder about her
litter that I viewed last week. I say I'd like to by "the pink boy".
The breeder and I talk and I promise to show the dog in conformation
(thus requiring it to remain intact), do the health testing, report back
results, show in some performance venue ..... The breeder decides I'm a
responsible pet owner and agrees to sell the dog for the price stated.
At that point according to contract law there is very likely an
enforceable sales contract even if there is no writing. Should this
*really* be illegal?

Similarly if we come to agreement and the puppies are only four weeks old
but I'm not taking custody until it is ten weeks old we have violated the
letter of the law as written. That's ridiculous.

Sales permit of $250 per year? That's a really good way to get rid of
people who pay attention to rules and ethics and laws in breeding. It
will be worthless for dealing with those who don't pay attention.

Look this legislation couldn't be worse for the health and welfare of
dogs and cats. Stopping all the repsonsible breeders means that people
who *don't know better* won't have them to go to. So when they are
seeking an intact dog or cat they will simply get on the internet and
order a puppy from a puppy mill and then they will have it and no mentor
to assist and guide them,.

--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dog-play.com/shop2.html

On Thu, 13 May 2004 05:47:41 -0700 Chris whittled these words:
Next week, the Appropriations Committee of the California legislature
will consider springing a bill which will require a permit and hefty fee
from local Animal Control to sell an unneutered dog or cat.
Would you cast an eye over its provisions?
www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm
Are there hidden consequences here?

The puppy millers are probably lining up to support it. Get's rid of
competition from those pesky in-state responsible breeders who might
actually want to *gasp* sell a puppy to someone who wants to *gasp*
actually SHOW THE DOG.

If the ultimate goal is the eliminate dogs and cats, which is definetly
the goal for some, then getting rid of people who are breeding regardless
of how much care they use is a good start.

The eight week thing is fine for applying to pet shops, but it isn't
right or reasonable to apply it across the board. I got Tsuki what I
would say is too early to sell a puppy, six weeks, but seven weeks has
long been recognized as ideal, and even six weeks is not bad IF the
person has a clue about socialization and the means to do so.

I'm not sure how the section on "selling" will be applied. This is
JUST and example. I'm at an
agility event in a public park. I'm talking with a breeder about her
litter that I viewed last week. I say I'd like to by "the pink boy".
The breeder and I talk and I promise to show the dog in conformation
(thus requiring it to remain intact), do the health testing, report back
results, show in some performance venue ..... The breeder decides I'm a
responsible pet owner and agrees to sell the dog for the price stated.
At that point according to contract law there is very likely an
enforceable sales contract even if there is no writing. Should this
*really* be illegal?

Similarly if we come to agreement and the puppies are only four weeks old
but I'm not taking custody until it is ten weeks old we have violated the
letter of the law as written. That's ridiculous.

Sales permit of $250 per year? That's a really good way to get rid of
people who pay attention to rules and ethics and laws in breeding. It
will be worthless for dealing with those who don't pay attention.

Look this legislation couldn't be worse for the health and welfare of
dogs and cats. Stopping all the repsonsible breeders means that people
who *don't know better* won't have them to go to. So when they are
seeking an intact dog or cat they will simply get on the internet and
order a puppy from a puppy mill and then they will have it and no mentor
to assist and guide them,.

--
Diane Blackman
http://dog-play.com/
http://dog-play.com/shop2.html