Irish Orinda, CA 7/1/2009 6:05:52 AM This bill is simply a new tax, and potentially a very high tax, on pets. It is intended to reduce pet ownership by making ownership more expensive and complicated. Just a "small" tax... to start. Just let the camel get its nose into the tent a little bit... The impact on backyard breeders will be nil. The law will be ignored. Do you REALLY think this will have any significant impact on backyard breeders? Of course not! But the state will have new tax revenues paid by law-abiding pet owners. And what will the state do with the money they collect? Use it to dream up more nanny laws that raise more taxes and further restrict individual freedoms. When un-neutered pets are criminalized, only criminals will have un-neutered pets.
lala Salinas, CA 6/29/2009 11:22:35 AM I am trying to understand this bill. I have read these commets and all I get out of it is money. What about all these pets that have to die. This is the fault of the back yard breeder I am so sick of seeing all these poor dogs having puppies just to be sold at an outrageus amount.
Ben San Francisco, CA 6/8/2009 9:20:06 PM If you can't pay the fee Hon, you shouldn't even have the dogs in the first place! You spend about $1,000 going to like two shows (gas, food, lodging, etc.) That really is NOT that much money. Also, PETA and the HSUS do NOT want to get rid of all pets- they want to improve the LIVING conditions of ALL PETS. DUH!
Mary San Mateo, CA 6/5/2009 6:13:30 AM For all of you people who think that all you have to do is pay a "small" fee to get an un-altered dog permit, you are sadly mistaken. The Hayden Act already mandates that an intact dog license be at least twice that of the license for an altered dog. I pay just shy of 3x the amount in my county. What this bill does is make it possible for the local government to assess an additional unspecified fee for a person to submit an intact dog permit application. Then this bill makes it legal for the local government to turn down your application for an intact dog permit and keep the fee. It also makes it illegal for some one with an intact dog to sell or give away that intact dog without an intact dog license. If you have an award winning show dog and this bill passes, it is very likely that the place where you live decides that an intact permit will be $1000.00 or more a year. Or they may decide that no such applications will even be approved no matter how much they can charge. That is what the bill says and allows. That is why so many people are upset about this bill. I am scared because my intact show dogs are licensed, ie are known. If this bill passes, I believe that my vindictive neighbor will be calling AC on me because I have complained about HIS spayed and neutered dogs roaming the neighborhood and crapping in my yard. I can't even walk my own dogs in my own neighborhood because his spayed and neutered dogs maybe out there and they are dog aggressive. BTW, AC hasn't done a darn thing about his dogs. But the thought of fining me huge amounts on bogus claims and make me endanger the health of my dogs by requiring me to spay or neuter all of my dogs is going to be more then my cash strapped government is going to be able to resist. The days that I can continue to have my intact show dogs are going to be limited to less then a week after this becomes law. I already pay huge amounts to license my dogs and that is without any services. My dogs are not a burden to the community, but this law will make punishment for not even wearing a license tag grounds for spay and neuter. Show dogs don't wear license tags at shows.
maryann romulus, NY 6/4/2009 6:17:04 PM Ben, you are in for a rude awakening!! If these H$U$/PETA backed bills are all passed they will have achieved their ultimate goal. That being the total elimination of all pets/animals as we now know them.
Ben San Francisco, CA 6/4/2009 5:28:42 PM Oh and Mike, this bill will not make it a crime to show a dog in the state of California. It will just make people spay and neuter their dogs, unless they purchase an unaltered dog liscense for a small fee. Plus, when you think about it, the government spends millions of dollars just containing and euthanizing dogs in shelters alone. The bill will NOT MAKE IT A CRIME TO SHOW DOGS IN CALIFORNIA. Best of luck to you and your dogs.
Ben San Francisco, CA 6/4/2009 5:25:02 PM Actually Ellen, even if the bill is passed, you will still TOTALLY be able to show your dogs in California- no worries. California residents can still get an unaltered dog liscense- they just have to pay a fee. This will allow them to own unaltered animals. They aren't treating the dogs like criminals... this is to end breeding of unwanted animals by backyard breeders ( people who breed dogs for income only.), who will be less likely to breed if they have to pay. This will actually HELP the AKC and all wonderful, responsible breeders like you because there will be less breedings of animals who are not health tested. :) This will also help to keep the mixed breed and unwanted pet population down. Also, the bill does not state anything whatsoever about out-of-state owners/breeders having to have regulations on showing their animals in California. :) At first I was against this bill too, but now I hope it is passed. I am an AKC junior handler, and I volunteer at my local animal shelter, so I see dozens of dogs weekly having to be put to sleep due to backyard breeders. :) Best of luck to you and your dogs. This bill will not harm responsible breeders and will still ALLOW people to breed their dogs--- just for a small fee. :)
Ellen Birmingham, AL 6/4/2009 4:40:01 PM I have formerly sent my intact showdogs to CA and traveled there to shows myself. This added to my handler's income, and I paid hotel bills, restaurant bills, rental car bills and shopped while there. Trust me, it won't happen again if SB 250 passes. So if Californians want to be stupid, pass this bill which will restrict some people's livelihoods, curtail travel and tourist dollars and generally treat people owning an intact dog like criminals. Are you Americans?
Mike Beverly Hills, CA 6/4/2009 12:13:09 PM If SB 250 is signed into law, it will be a crime to own a showable dog in the state of California. AKC shows will have to be held out of state or in secret locations. This means that the State of California will lose all the tax from these events. The bill is expected to cost local governments a minimum of hundreds of millions of dollars, thereby bankrupting them and, in turn, the state. Schools and hospitals will close and there will be massive layoffs. We should investigate the source of campaign contributions received by Dean Florez. Thank you to Lou Correa for standing up against Florez and for the dog owners.
Gail San Diego, CA, CA 6/4/2009 11:28:36 AM There are over 1000 AKC events alone in California every year. Each event brings between $300,000 and $1,000,000 into the economy. California has already lost $65,000,000 when the AKC moved the Eukanuba show to Florida. Can this state really afford to lose the rest of the money? I think not!
Mary Lewis, CA 6/4/2009 10:22:58 AM Unfortunately the article does not give all the information. SB250 is just another form of SB1634 introduced about 3-4 yrs prior. These bills are funded by highly financially supported groups like H$U$ and PETA. (Look up your article on the Michael Vick dogs in Sports Illustrated.) SB250 was defeated on June 2nd after enormous response from the community, but allowed to be reintroduced the following day. This gave Sen Flores the chance to do some behind the scenes handshaking/dealmaking to get his bill pushed through. These are the facts.
janet Pittsburg, CA 6/4/2009 7:41:56 AM This bill is really messed up. California will loose more money in revenue if it imposes on our freedom! The dog AKC shows will leave Ca which create alot of revenue for the state and cities that they are showing dog and cats. With people out of work and no money, they will relinquish their pets to the pounds which will kill the animals and cost Ca more money. The only people that will abide by this act will be responsible breeders. The people that breed in their back yards will ignor and keep on breeding. It will also make the gene pool smaller for those who want quality dog and cats. What a shame to loose more freedom! You are doing exactly what PETA and HSUS want you to do.
Cindy Sacramento, CA 6/4/2009 7:13:59 AM WOW!!! Can the state of CA get any more messed up?? Law makers should focus on the states financial disaster. SB 250 will cost the state more money to enforce than it currently spends. If Levine wants attention he should work on the budget issues. Get real paid officials and do your jobs!!
Belle Phoenix, AR 6/4/2009 6:25:35 AM why the governement tells us all the time what we have to do.shouldn't it be out decision if we want neuter or spay or pets?my dog is 4 month old and i don't know if i wanna do it yet.we have to fight those laws/they already been telling us to much what we have to do and what we can do.