[ SHOWGSD-L ] California AB2862 needs to be stopped - we need your help NOW - hearing 5-3
- From: "Ginger Cleary" <cleary1414@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Showgsd-L@Freelists. Org" <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 09:39:17 -0400
Wide cross posting requested to all pet lists and all breeder lists.
A hearing on CA AB2862 is scheduled for May 3rd.
If AB 2862 is passed, pet stores in California may no longer be able to sell
pets because the regulations being imposed upon them by AB2862 make it
virtually impossible to comply with the law and still operate as a pet
store.
California pet owners - do you want to continue to be able to buy pets from
pet stores? If you do, then AB2862 needs to be defeated.
Non-Californians - Why should non-Californians care? Because, unlike Las
Vegas, "What happens in California doesn't stay in California".
California
laws are often used as templates for laws in other states. This won't
just
affect pet stores and pet owners in California. This will eventually
affect
all pet stores and all pet owners. Let the California legislators hear
from you that this is a bad bill.
Copied below is an alert about California AB 2862 from NAIA (National Animal
Interest Alliance).
http://www.capwiz.com/naiatrust/home/
Go to the State Officials link, click on CA, hit "Go" - it will take you to
the California page. Click on the link for AB 2862 "take action"
Read the alert. Then read the points from the NAIA "capwiz" page that can
be included in the "capwiz" tool provided on the NAIA "capwiz" webpage - you
can send your email to your legislator using that tool - very easy, very
quick.
If you want pet stores to be able to continue to be able to sell pets,
AB2862 needs to be defeated. The NAIA "capwiz" tool almost does it all
for you.
You just need to click on some points and fill in your name, address, and
email.
Also copied below are some of the points that can be included in the
"capwiz"
tool provided on the NAIA "capwiz" webpage - you can send your email to your
legislator using that tool - very easy, very quick. If you want pet stores
to be able to continue to be able to sell pets, AB2862 needs to be defeated.
You are sitting at your computer reading email RIGHT NOW. What is stopping
you from sending that email to stop AB 2862 RIGHT NOW?
Please send that email RIGHT NOW.
Thank you.
Genny Wall
http://www.capwiz.com/naiatrust/
Action Alert
California AB 2862...Sale of Animals At Pet Stores...
This bill specifically targets animal shows, marts, and temporary
facilities.
California AB 2862, "Sale of animals at pet stores", was introduced by
Assembly Member Mark Ridley-Thomas (D-48) of Los Angeles. Since the bill
defines
animal sales as being made "with the intent of making a profit", then any
sale
of an animal by anyone at any location could be defined as sale at a "pet
store". The bill specifically includes animal shows, flea markets, and
temporary
facilities "...where the animals are intended as companions or household
animals." This bill is a discriminatory measure that imposes excessive
requirements on pet stores which in some cases are completely unrelated to
the welfare
of animals and in other cases would be impossible to comply with. However,
this bill also presents privacy problems for animal breeders and brokers,
because it requires that those sellers' contact information be posted in the
pet
store. This legislation, presently in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee,
is gaining momentum. It is imperative that those concerned contact their
legislators to voice their concerns about this bill.
AB 2862 defines animal sales as being made "with the intent of making a
profit". Therefore, any sale of an animal at any location could be defined
as
sale at a "pet store". This bill imposes excessive record keeping
requirements on pet stores and mandates husbandry practices which will not
improve the
welfare of animals. AB 2862 creates privacy problems for animal breeders
and
brokers, because it requires that their contact information be posted in the
pet store. Please take action on this bill!
The Animal Protection Institute (API) is widely promoting AB 2862, with
unsubstantiated allegations about "abundant evidence of animal suffering" in
California pet stores. This animal advocacy group claims that its
"undercover
investigation" revealed most pet stores failed to meet its view of adequate
care
standards, with nearly half of the stores having animals that were "sick,
injured or showing signs of neglect. Yet, no supporting documents have
been
provided by the API to indicate that there are problems in retail pet
stores. It
is understood that the API's agenda is basically anti-pet, and aimed at
restricting and controlling animal ownership, rather than to promote animal
welfare.
Provisions of AB 2862 are drawn from a draft prepared by API. As amended,
the bill applies to any pet store, defined as an establishment where animals
are bought, sold, exchanged or offered for sale to the general public "with
the
intent of making a profit" and where the animals are intended as companion
household animals. This broad definition could easily be argued to apply
to
anyone who sells an animal for profit from any location.
California law already establishes a number of requirements for pet store
animals, rendering this bill completely unnecessary. Should it pass,
however,
AB 2862 would all but insure pet stores, as defined, are out of compliance
with
the law by imposing impractical and excessive mandates, especially in the
area of record keeping. Several of the terms or provisions of the bill are
subjective and ambiguous, meaning there is no way someone can be sure he or
she is
in compliance. Please contact your Assemblymember to voice your opinion.
["talking points" from the NAIA webpage]
Please oppose AB2862. Although the aim and content of this bill sounds noble
and good, the provisions are written without a clear understanding of the
negative impact they will have on the animals in pet stores, or on the
retail pet
industry in the state of California, or on residents of our great state,
most
of whom keep pets.
I urge you to oppose AB2862 because it imposes an undue burden on pet store
owners and it is an unwarranted criminalization of standard husbandry
practices. Existing law is adequate for prosecution of harmful conduct
regarding animal
care.
The definition of "pet store" could include anyone who sells an animal with
the intent to make a profit. This casts a huge net. Anyone who sells an
animal
could be considered a pet store since it is easily argued that any time a
transaction involves money, there is intent to make a profit.
Section 122350 (a) 1 provides that retail animal outlets post the source of
each animal. This is unreasonable. Sources of animals are proprietary
information for retail establishments. Retail establishments must be allowed
to protect
their proprietary sources of animals from the general public and from
competitors.
If the source of each animal is posted, this will allow the public to bypass
the retail establishment and go direct to the supplier. This would create an
invasion of privacy for animal suppliers who do not want to sell directly to
the public. Wholesale suppliers often sell at wholesale because they do not
have
the infrastructure or interest in dealing directly with the public.
The record keeping requirements under section 122348 add overly burdensome
paperwork to an already burdensome aspect of running a business. It would
create
a paperwork nightmare to track each individual animal in order to comply
with
this provision. The welfare of the animals will not be improved by knowing
the name, address, phone number and drivers license or tax ID number of
every
person who purchases a mouse or parakeet from a retail pet store.
The outlawing of the use of abrasive perches for birds in section 122345(c)2
may seem like a reasonable requirement without the background knowledge of
their proper use. There is no factual data indicating the use of abrasive
perches
is harmful or rampant enough to warrant making it criminally outlawed. This
sets a dangerous precedent for identifying specific husbandry practices as
criminal when these husbandry practices do have beneficial applications when
used
appropriately. Decisions about husbandry practices are best left to animal
specialists and veterinarians, not legislators and proponents of the
anti-pet
agenda.
AB 2862 is written as a detailed set of regulations regarding animal
husbandry practices. The legislature lacks the necessary animal husbandry
knowledge to
properly determine the rationale and necessity for many of the detailed,
prescriptive requirements of this measure.
The space requirements under section 122345. (c) 6 (D) for birds and 122345
(d) 4 (B-C) rodents are far too lar for certain circumstances and were
clearly
written with little understanding of what husbandry requirements are
suitable
for these animals. Specific husbandry options should not be outlawed when
they
do have beneficial applications. Husbandry practices should be determined by
animal specialists and veterinarians, not mandated by law.
The detailed nature of the animal husbandry requirements under AB2862
unnecessarily sets up the need for huge volumes of Engineering Standards for
each and
every type of animal. Researching and establishing these standards would be
ill considered due to extreme costs to the state. This bill attempts to
specify
how birds and animals can and cannot be managed, which is an impossible task
given the large and varied needs of the many types of animals it aims to
cover.
California state law does not need to embark upon a road that will lead to
massive volumes of regulations requiring extensive man hours to create,
resulting in huge costs to the state and providing no direct improvement to
the
welfare of the animals in question.
Existing Performance Standards for animal care under Penal Code 597 are all
that is necessary to apply to animal welfare in retail animal outlets. If
the
animal is unharmed and healthy then it is receiving adequate care. If an
item
in an enclosure is harming an animal, then it should be removed. Existing
laws
should be enforced instead of creating an additional, more confusing, and
unnecessary layer of legal requirements on California businesses.
AB2862 is sponsored by the Animal Protection Institute, an organization that
openly opposes pet ownership and regularly supports legislation to curtail
the
ability of retail pet stores to continue doing business. Please oppose their
anti-pet agenda. Please oppose AB2862.
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2006. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - URL temporarily deleted due to AOL issues
============================================================================
Other related posts:
- » [ SHOWGSD-L ] California AB2862 needs to be stopped - we need your help NOW - hearing 5-3
