Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Assembly Pases California healthy Pets Act!
*Press Release*
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 6, 2007
ASSEMBLY PASSES CALIFORNIA HEALTHY PETS ACT Universal spaying and neutering of dogs and cats will save taxpayers millions
In a victory for California taxpayers and animal advocates, the California State Assembly today passed the California Healthy Pets Act (AB 1634). This bill, authored by Assemblymember Lloyd Levine (D – Van Nuys) would help keep pets healthy, make communities safer, and save taxpayers millions by requiring most pets to be spayed or neutered.
Every year, more than 800,000 pets are abandoned in California. California taxpayers spend $250 million to house these abandoned cats and dogs in shelters and then euthanize the majority of them.
“Today is a great day for California’s taxpayers and animal lovers. The California Healthy Pets Act will save millions of dollars that are currently being used to shelter and euthanize unwanted animals. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this common sense solution to the growing challenge of pet overpopulation in our state,” said Assemblymember Levine. Sponsors of the California Healthy Pets Act include the California Veterinary Medical Association, California Animal Control Directors Association, and the State Humane Association of California, which represents local SPCAs and Humane Societies across the state. The bill is also supported by law enforcement agencies, elected officials, and hundreds of animal organizations from across the state.
“This is a monumental victory for anyone who cares about animals and every taxpayer in the state. The California Healthy Pets Act is the best, most humane option of reducing the growing number of unwanted animals. Status quo is not acceptable – we’ll never be able to keep up by just hoping that people do the right thing,” said Judie Mancuso, Campaign Director for the California Healthy Pets Coalition.
The California Healthy Pets Act would enact a universal spay/neuter law for California. More than 20 common sense exemptions are provided in the bill, including for show and sporting dogs, law enforcement dogs, dogs used in search and rescue, pets that are too old or in poor health, and guide, service and signal animals.
The bill is largely modeled on a successful universal spay and neuter ordinance that the County of Santa Cruz implemented in 1995. By 2005, although the county’s human population had grown by 15 percent, its shelter’s intake numbers had plummeted by more than half. This success has inspired other jurisdictions, including the City of Sacramento and City of San Bernardino, to adopt similar measures.
Dog or cat owners found to be in violation of AB 1634 would be cited, but would not pay a fine if they had their animals spayed or neutered. All funds from permits will be used to fund the administration, enforcement and outreach efforts of the program as well as free or low-cost spay and neuter efforts. For more information, please visit www.cahealthypets.com.
ASSEMBLY PASSES CALIFORNIA HEALTHY PETS ACT Universal spaying and neutering of dogs and cats will save taxpayers millions
In a victory for California taxpayers and animal advocates, the California State Assembly today passed the California Healthy Pets Act (AB 1634). This bill, authored by Assemblymember Lloyd Levine (D – Van Nuys) would help keep pets healthy, make communities safer, and save taxpayers millions by requiring most pets to be spayed or neutered.
Every year, more than 800,000 pets are abandoned in California. California taxpayers spend $250 million to house these abandoned cats and dogs in shelters and then euthanize the majority of them.
“Today is a great day for California’s taxpayers and animal lovers. The California Healthy Pets Act will save millions of dollars that are currently being used to shelter and euthanize unwanted animals. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this common sense solution to the growing challenge of pet overpopulation in our state,” said Assemblymember Levine. Sponsors of the California Healthy Pets Act include the California Veterinary Medical Association, California Animal Control Directors Association, and the State Humane Association of California, which represents local SPCAs and Humane Societies across the state. The bill is also supported by law enforcement agencies, elected officials, and hundreds of animal organizations from across the state.
“This is a monumental victory for anyone who cares about animals and every taxpayer in the state. The California Healthy Pets Act is the best, most humane option of reducing the growing number of unwanted animals. Status quo is not acceptable – we’ll never be able to keep up by just hoping that people do the right thing,” said Judie Mancuso, Campaign Director for the California Healthy Pets Coalition.
The California Healthy Pets Act would enact a universal spay/neuter law for California. More than 20 common sense exemptions are provided in the bill, including for show and sporting dogs, law enforcement dogs, dogs used in search and rescue, pets that are too old or in poor health, and guide, service and signal animals.
The bill is largely modeled on a successful universal spay and neuter ordinance that the County of Santa Cruz implemented in 1995. By 2005, although the county’s human population had grown by 15 percent, its shelter’s intake numbers had plummeted by more than half. This success has inspired other jurisdictions, including the City of Sacramento and City of San Bernardino, to adopt similar measures.
Dog or cat owners found to be in violation of AB 1634 would be cited, but would not pay a fine if they had their animals spayed or neutered. All funds from permits will be used to fund the administration, enforcement and outreach efforts of the program as well as free or low-cost spay and neuter efforts. For more information, please visit www.cahealthypets.com.
For more information:
http://cahealthypets.com
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
" California Healthy Pets Act"
Assures unintended consequences:
Elimination of
California 's Healthy pets!
For Immediate Release: June 4, 2007
For more information contact: Patti Strand, NAIA National Director
naia [at] naiaonline.org http://www.naiaonline.org 503-761-8962
SACRAMENTO , CA -- The anti-pet movement has found a sponsor in the California legislature for a bill that strips pet owners of their traditional rights and, in the process, sharply reduces both the quantity and quality of purpose-bred dogs and cats -- including those bred for assistance to the disabled, and for search & rescue operations.
AB 1634 is backed by the extremist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and sponsored by Assembly Member Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys). If it passes, most California pet owners will have to sterilize their pets.
"This bill comes with a noble-sounding name but AB 1634, the so-called California Healthy Pets Act, will not improve the health of California pets," says Patti Strand, National Director of the National Animal Interests Alliance, one of the nation's most respected animal welfare groups.
The bill is fraught with unintended consequences. Among them: a predictable flood of unregulated -- and typically unhealthy -- dogs from Mexico, already the proven source of up to 10,000 illegal dogs sent to California each year according to US Customs and Border Protection: "In a global marketplace," according to Strand , "over-regulating the AKC and CFA hobby breeders who are the best source of healthy, well-socialized, home-raised puppies and kittens, creates a vacuum, effectively ‘outsourcing' pet production to other countries that don't come close to reaching US standards of animal health, care or quality." The increasing demand for puppies has also led to the importation of strays rescued from foreign countries that are being marketed through non-profit organizations like The Animal Place and Compassion Without Borders . This influx harms California consumers and poses a significant public health threat.
Despite the claims of the bill's supporters, many respected California veterinarians oppose AB 1634, including one the state's most distinguished vets. Dr. John Hamil is past president of the California Veterinary Medical Association, founder of the California Council of Companion Animal Advocates that sponsored biannual Pet Overpopulation Symposia (now the Animal Care Conference), member of the American Veterinary Medical Association's Animal Welfare Committee and the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy and author of the CVMA and AVMA positions on early spay/neuter.
Dr. Hamil, a leader in spay/neuter programs, terms AB 1634 "divisive legislation [that] will not help and may aggravate the situation." Noting that young puppies and kittens are not biologically mature enough for spaying and neutering in many cases, Dr. Hamil states: "It is inappropriate to mandate a controversial and possibly life-threatening surgical procedure."
Also strongly opposed to AB 1634 is Sharon Vanderlip, DVM, former shelter animal veterinary clinician and surgeon, a longtime advocate of voluntary spaying and neutering. "This bill is not a ‘healthy' pet act," said Dr. Vanderlip. "It will not help animals or improve their health. It will not reduce the shelter animal population. It will not reduce the number of animal euthanasias. To the contrary, the number of animals in shelters and the number of euthanasias will increase as people who cannot afford to alter their pets, or pay fines associated with non-compliance, will abandon their animals, relinquish them to shelters, or have them euthanized. This has already happened in municipalities that attempted similar legislation."
Christian Osmond, DVM, board-certified veterinary surgeon, opposes the bill on similar grounds. Dr. Osmond says he cannot reconcile his professional oath to "above all else…do no harm" with programs that place political agendas above sound veterinary practice, a priority that could put pets at risk.
Canine Companions for Independence , an organization supporting assistance dogs for the disabled, opposes AB 1634 because even with exemptions for today's carefully supervised dogs, the bill's long-term effects would greatly reduce genetic diversity and threaten the existence of their breeding program.
Law enforcement groups -- representing tens of thousands of uniformed officers -- oppose AB 1634 because it will drastically reduce the future supply of dogs suitable for apprehending criminal suspects and performing vital Homeland Security tasks. The U.S. Congress has recognized the critical need to breed more dogs for Homeland Security work with pending legislation HR 659. AB 1634 would send this important bipartisan effort into a tailspin.
"AB 1634 would shrink the pool of dogs that are suitable for search and rescue, undermining our ability to do this life-saving work," says Laura Sanborn, California K9 search and rescue volunteer.
The Mixed Breed Dog Clubs of America supports spay and neuter programs and in fact requires compliance for all MBDCA registered dogs. But president Cindy Leung said that AB 1634 will not solve the problem it claims to address. Instead, she said, the bill "punishes organizations, animal shelters, businesses and responsible breeders that have been among the few sources of education in regard to responsible pet ownership and breeding. Over 87% of animals relinquished to shelters are there due to behavioral problems; if California truly wants to solve the pet overpopulation problem it should promote training and behavior education rather than mandatory spay and neuter."
Animal shelter statistics demonstrate that pet owners are well on their way to solving the pet population problems of yesterday. Today, California 's largest animal problem is feral cats (cats without owners); but AB 1634 establishes no programs for these cats. Worse yet, it imposes penalties on cat breeders who breed and place their kittens with care.
NAIA director Strand notes that AB 1634's chief advocates claim they have "no relationship to animal extremists." However, PETA operatives play key roles in Social Compassion, a sister group to the bill's public supporter, CA Healthy Pets Coalition.
"Beyond AB 1634 itself, the issue at stake is responsible political process," NAIA's Strand concludes. "Will the California Assembly rely on the expertise of the state's animal professionals – including leading veterinarians, experts in law enforcement and service dog breeding programs, dedicated breed enthusiasts, animal welfare groups, the leading organizations for cats and dogs like Cat Fanciers Association (CFA) and the American Kennel Club ( AKC ), county Boards of Supervisors, and other respected individuals and organizations – or will they listen to groups that oppose all pets, healthy or not?"
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
-- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
Assures unintended consequences:
Elimination of
California 's Healthy pets!
For Immediate Release: June 4, 2007
For more information contact: Patti Strand, NAIA National Director
naia [at] naiaonline.org http://www.naiaonline.org 503-761-8962
SACRAMENTO , CA -- The anti-pet movement has found a sponsor in the California legislature for a bill that strips pet owners of their traditional rights and, in the process, sharply reduces both the quantity and quality of purpose-bred dogs and cats -- including those bred for assistance to the disabled, and for search & rescue operations.
AB 1634 is backed by the extremist group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and sponsored by Assembly Member Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys). If it passes, most California pet owners will have to sterilize their pets.
"This bill comes with a noble-sounding name but AB 1634, the so-called California Healthy Pets Act, will not improve the health of California pets," says Patti Strand, National Director of the National Animal Interests Alliance, one of the nation's most respected animal welfare groups.
The bill is fraught with unintended consequences. Among them: a predictable flood of unregulated -- and typically unhealthy -- dogs from Mexico, already the proven source of up to 10,000 illegal dogs sent to California each year according to US Customs and Border Protection: "In a global marketplace," according to Strand , "over-regulating the AKC and CFA hobby breeders who are the best source of healthy, well-socialized, home-raised puppies and kittens, creates a vacuum, effectively ‘outsourcing' pet production to other countries that don't come close to reaching US standards of animal health, care or quality." The increasing demand for puppies has also led to the importation of strays rescued from foreign countries that are being marketed through non-profit organizations like The Animal Place and Compassion Without Borders . This influx harms California consumers and poses a significant public health threat.
Despite the claims of the bill's supporters, many respected California veterinarians oppose AB 1634, including one the state's most distinguished vets. Dr. John Hamil is past president of the California Veterinary Medical Association, founder of the California Council of Companion Animal Advocates that sponsored biannual Pet Overpopulation Symposia (now the Animal Care Conference), member of the American Veterinary Medical Association's Animal Welfare Committee and the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy and author of the CVMA and AVMA positions on early spay/neuter.
Dr. Hamil, a leader in spay/neuter programs, terms AB 1634 "divisive legislation [that] will not help and may aggravate the situation." Noting that young puppies and kittens are not biologically mature enough for spaying and neutering in many cases, Dr. Hamil states: "It is inappropriate to mandate a controversial and possibly life-threatening surgical procedure."
Also strongly opposed to AB 1634 is Sharon Vanderlip, DVM, former shelter animal veterinary clinician and surgeon, a longtime advocate of voluntary spaying and neutering. "This bill is not a ‘healthy' pet act," said Dr. Vanderlip. "It will not help animals or improve their health. It will not reduce the shelter animal population. It will not reduce the number of animal euthanasias. To the contrary, the number of animals in shelters and the number of euthanasias will increase as people who cannot afford to alter their pets, or pay fines associated with non-compliance, will abandon their animals, relinquish them to shelters, or have them euthanized. This has already happened in municipalities that attempted similar legislation."
Christian Osmond, DVM, board-certified veterinary surgeon, opposes the bill on similar grounds. Dr. Osmond says he cannot reconcile his professional oath to "above all else…do no harm" with programs that place political agendas above sound veterinary practice, a priority that could put pets at risk.
Canine Companions for Independence , an organization supporting assistance dogs for the disabled, opposes AB 1634 because even with exemptions for today's carefully supervised dogs, the bill's long-term effects would greatly reduce genetic diversity and threaten the existence of their breeding program.
Law enforcement groups -- representing tens of thousands of uniformed officers -- oppose AB 1634 because it will drastically reduce the future supply of dogs suitable for apprehending criminal suspects and performing vital Homeland Security tasks. The U.S. Congress has recognized the critical need to breed more dogs for Homeland Security work with pending legislation HR 659. AB 1634 would send this important bipartisan effort into a tailspin.
"AB 1634 would shrink the pool of dogs that are suitable for search and rescue, undermining our ability to do this life-saving work," says Laura Sanborn, California K9 search and rescue volunteer.
The Mixed Breed Dog Clubs of America supports spay and neuter programs and in fact requires compliance for all MBDCA registered dogs. But president Cindy Leung said that AB 1634 will not solve the problem it claims to address. Instead, she said, the bill "punishes organizations, animal shelters, businesses and responsible breeders that have been among the few sources of education in regard to responsible pet ownership and breeding. Over 87% of animals relinquished to shelters are there due to behavioral problems; if California truly wants to solve the pet overpopulation problem it should promote training and behavior education rather than mandatory spay and neuter."
Animal shelter statistics demonstrate that pet owners are well on their way to solving the pet population problems of yesterday. Today, California 's largest animal problem is feral cats (cats without owners); but AB 1634 establishes no programs for these cats. Worse yet, it imposes penalties on cat breeders who breed and place their kittens with care.
NAIA director Strand notes that AB 1634's chief advocates claim they have "no relationship to animal extremists." However, PETA operatives play key roles in Social Compassion, a sister group to the bill's public supporter, CA Healthy Pets Coalition.
"Beyond AB 1634 itself, the issue at stake is responsible political process," NAIA's Strand concludes. "Will the California Assembly rely on the expertise of the state's animal professionals – including leading veterinarians, experts in law enforcement and service dog breeding programs, dedicated breed enthusiasts, animal welfare groups, the leading organizations for cats and dogs like Cat Fanciers Association (CFA) and the American Kennel Club ( AKC ), county Boards of Supervisors, and other respected individuals and organizations – or will they listen to groups that oppose all pets, healthy or not?"
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
-- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis
More non-fact based fearmongering...
A "predictable flood" of Mexican dogs? Illegal immigrant dogs overrunning our good state?? Call the Minutemen! I *predict* the anti-AB1634 people who flout this bizarre rational will be eating their words after the law passes.
"possibly life-threatening surgical procedure"
Really now? How about some statistics on the number of animals that are spayed/neutered that actually die. It's infinitessimally small. Yet hundreds of thousands of unfixed animals keep breeding and are euthanized every year in California.
"It will not reduce the shelter animal population. It will not reduce the number of animal euthanasias. To the contrary, the number of animals in shelters and the number of euthanasias will increase..."
Time will tell, but common sense dictates otherwise. And that's not what happened in Santa Cruz after they passed a similar law which is really the only guage to predict by at this point: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/06/09/18426466.php
"political agendas above sound veterinary practice, a priority that could put pets at risk"
*Could* being the key word here, nothing more than unsubstantiated fearmongering. Sound veterinary practice includes spaying/neutering, by the way. Anyone can do their own web searches to find out how safe the procedures are.
"Law enforcement groups -- representing tens of thousands of uniformed officers -- oppose AB 1634"
Which law enforcement groups? Which tens of thousands of uniformed officers? Without documentation, this claim seems like more meaningless hearsay. Does California K9, a private Texas for-profit dog vendor count as a "law enforcement group" that should matter to Californians?
AB1634 will send Homeland Security related law HR 659 "into a tailspin"?
Of course, things like this are thrown in without any evidence at all just to add to the hyperbolic fearmongering. Not only will AB1634 lead to Mexican illegal immigrant dogs flooding our state, it will increase the likelihood that Al Qaeda will kill your children. How about using imagery of mushroom clouds over our cities? Total armageddon!! Maybe that would help make your case.
"if California truly wants to solve the pet overpopulation problem it should promote training and behavior education rather than mandatory spay and neuter"
So, a spay/neuter program it just too invasive to you people but mandatory training is not? This argument is a pure red herring. Just imagine the howls (pun intended) if the law pending now forced people to devote time and money to training programs. Would we throw those who refused to train their dogs into jail?
"Animal shelter statistics demonstrate that pet owners are well on their way to solving the pet population problems of yesterday. Today, California 's largest animal problem is feral cats..."
How can you be on your way to solving yesterday's issue? That's just physically impossible. And the feral cat comment is merely the author's opinion. Many would disagree and say that the warehousing and euthanization of hundreds of thousands of animals every year is California's largest animal problem.
"Will the California Assembly rely on the expertise of the state's animal professionals – including leading veterinarians, experts in law enforcement and service dog breeding programs, dedicated breed enthusiasts, animal welfare groups, the leading organizations for cats and dogs like Cat Fanciers Association (CFA) and the American Kennel Club ( AKC ), county Boards of Supervisors, and other respected individuals and organizations..."
Funny that the "anti" people primarily cite breeding groups, many of whom are FOR-profit, a handful of vets, make-believe "county Boards of Supervisors," and overstate their law enforcement support, if there is any real such support at all, BUT the PRO-AB1634 folks can claim support from most of the shelters and animal control agencies that are stuck with dealing with the gross waste of hundreds of thousands of animals every year in this state. And throwing around the PETA boogeyman is just bogus. I could just as easily point out that the NRA and the California Federation of Republican Women (who?) supports the "anti" side of the argument: http://www.ab1634.com/Supporters.htm. Why in the hell should anyone care what they say on this pending bill?!?
Here's a real list of who supports AB1634:
Supporters
The California Healthy Pets Act was developed by a diverse coalition of veterinarians, animal control officers, government officials, and animal advocates.
An overview of supporting groups and individuals is listed below, and logos for some of these groups are shown to the left. Supporters are being added daily, with the full list of organizations and individuals available to Legislators on request. For more information about the current supporter's list or to add your name / organization please contact us.
Sponsors
* California Animal Control Directors Association
* California Veterinary Medical Association
* City of Los Angeles
* Social Compassion in Legislation
* State Humane Association of California
Elected Officials
* Over 25 Mayors and Councilmembers from across the state
Law Enforcement
* Over 20 Police Departments and Sherrifs from across the state
City and County Agencies
* A long list of Animal Control and Animal Services agencies from across California, with new agencies added almost daily
Humane Societies and SPCA's
* 40+ Humane Societies and SPCA's including virtually every major group in the state
Veterinarians & Veterinary Hospitals
* The California Veterinary Medical Association and a myriad of individual veterinarians and vet clinics
National Animal Welfare Organizations
* Virtually all the major animal welfare organizations involved in California, including:
- American Humane Association
- Animal Legal Defense Fund
- Animal Protection Institute
- Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
- Doris Day Animal League
- Humane Society of the United States
- In Defense of Animals
- International Fund for Animal Welfare
- ast Chance for Animals
- National Cat Protection
- United Animal Nations
CA State Rescue Organizations
* Over 220 California based animals rescue organizations including virutally every major rescue group.
The logos to the left represent only a fraction of the participating groups.
Individuals & Other Organizations
* Over 40 "Celebrity" endorsements
* Over 100 other organizations across California
* Over 10,000 individual Californians have written their Legislators so far, a volume of support described as "unprecedented" by lawmakers.
'Nuff said.
A "predictable flood" of Mexican dogs? Illegal immigrant dogs overrunning our good state?? Call the Minutemen! I *predict* the anti-AB1634 people who flout this bizarre rational will be eating their words after the law passes.
"possibly life-threatening surgical procedure"
Really now? How about some statistics on the number of animals that are spayed/neutered that actually die. It's infinitessimally small. Yet hundreds of thousands of unfixed animals keep breeding and are euthanized every year in California.
"It will not reduce the shelter animal population. It will not reduce the number of animal euthanasias. To the contrary, the number of animals in shelters and the number of euthanasias will increase..."
Time will tell, but common sense dictates otherwise. And that's not what happened in Santa Cruz after they passed a similar law which is really the only guage to predict by at this point: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/06/09/18426466.php
"political agendas above sound veterinary practice, a priority that could put pets at risk"
*Could* being the key word here, nothing more than unsubstantiated fearmongering. Sound veterinary practice includes spaying/neutering, by the way. Anyone can do their own web searches to find out how safe the procedures are.
"Law enforcement groups -- representing tens of thousands of uniformed officers -- oppose AB 1634"
Which law enforcement groups? Which tens of thousands of uniformed officers? Without documentation, this claim seems like more meaningless hearsay. Does California K9, a private Texas for-profit dog vendor count as a "law enforcement group" that should matter to Californians?
AB1634 will send Homeland Security related law HR 659 "into a tailspin"?
Of course, things like this are thrown in without any evidence at all just to add to the hyperbolic fearmongering. Not only will AB1634 lead to Mexican illegal immigrant dogs flooding our state, it will increase the likelihood that Al Qaeda will kill your children. How about using imagery of mushroom clouds over our cities? Total armageddon!! Maybe that would help make your case.
"if California truly wants to solve the pet overpopulation problem it should promote training and behavior education rather than mandatory spay and neuter"
So, a spay/neuter program it just too invasive to you people but mandatory training is not? This argument is a pure red herring. Just imagine the howls (pun intended) if the law pending now forced people to devote time and money to training programs. Would we throw those who refused to train their dogs into jail?
"Animal shelter statistics demonstrate that pet owners are well on their way to solving the pet population problems of yesterday. Today, California 's largest animal problem is feral cats..."
How can you be on your way to solving yesterday's issue? That's just physically impossible. And the feral cat comment is merely the author's opinion. Many would disagree and say that the warehousing and euthanization of hundreds of thousands of animals every year is California's largest animal problem.
"Will the California Assembly rely on the expertise of the state's animal professionals – including leading veterinarians, experts in law enforcement and service dog breeding programs, dedicated breed enthusiasts, animal welfare groups, the leading organizations for cats and dogs like Cat Fanciers Association (CFA) and the American Kennel Club ( AKC ), county Boards of Supervisors, and other respected individuals and organizations..."
Funny that the "anti" people primarily cite breeding groups, many of whom are FOR-profit, a handful of vets, make-believe "county Boards of Supervisors," and overstate their law enforcement support, if there is any real such support at all, BUT the PRO-AB1634 folks can claim support from most of the shelters and animal control agencies that are stuck with dealing with the gross waste of hundreds of thousands of animals every year in this state. And throwing around the PETA boogeyman is just bogus. I could just as easily point out that the NRA and the California Federation of Republican Women (who?) supports the "anti" side of the argument: http://www.ab1634.com/Supporters.htm. Why in the hell should anyone care what they say on this pending bill?!?
Here's a real list of who supports AB1634:
Supporters
The California Healthy Pets Act was developed by a diverse coalition of veterinarians, animal control officers, government officials, and animal advocates.
An overview of supporting groups and individuals is listed below, and logos for some of these groups are shown to the left. Supporters are being added daily, with the full list of organizations and individuals available to Legislators on request. For more information about the current supporter's list or to add your name / organization please contact us.
Sponsors
* California Animal Control Directors Association
* California Veterinary Medical Association
* City of Los Angeles
* Social Compassion in Legislation
* State Humane Association of California
Elected Officials
* Over 25 Mayors and Councilmembers from across the state
Law Enforcement
* Over 20 Police Departments and Sherrifs from across the state
City and County Agencies
* A long list of Animal Control and Animal Services agencies from across California, with new agencies added almost daily
Humane Societies and SPCA's
* 40+ Humane Societies and SPCA's including virtually every major group in the state
Veterinarians & Veterinary Hospitals
* The California Veterinary Medical Association and a myriad of individual veterinarians and vet clinics
National Animal Welfare Organizations
* Virtually all the major animal welfare organizations involved in California, including:
- American Humane Association
- Animal Legal Defense Fund
- Animal Protection Institute
- Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
- Doris Day Animal League
- Humane Society of the United States
- In Defense of Animals
- International Fund for Animal Welfare
- ast Chance for Animals
- National Cat Protection
- United Animal Nations
CA State Rescue Organizations
* Over 220 California based animals rescue organizations including virutally every major rescue group.
The logos to the left represent only a fraction of the participating groups.
Individuals & Other Organizations
* Over 40 "Celebrity" endorsements
* Over 100 other organizations across California
* Over 10,000 individual Californians have written their Legislators so far, a volume of support described as "unprecedented" by lawmakers.
'Nuff said.
For more information:
http://www.cahealthypets.com
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$50.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network