[ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: Fw: CA AB1634 Opposition Strategy and Funding
- From: "Sue Mazzeo" <Sue.Mazzeo@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <CarolHDD@xxxxxxx>,<DOGSRLUV@xxxxxxx>, <ELG440@xxxxxxx>, <Gsdjudge@xxxxxxx>, <HearingDoctor@xxxxxxx>, <InquestGSD@xxxxxxx>, <LEWIEB@xxxxxxx>, <LIG1950@xxxxxxx>, <MOblanquet@xxxxxxx>, <Rocknolgsd@xxxxxxx>, <Stormy435@xxxxxxx>, <Frontiergsd@xxxxxxx>, <irrenhaus4@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <BADBOB_2003@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <Pmick12@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <rob-n-dine@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <Windwalkergsds@xxxxxx>, <Sharlen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <glowhirl@xxxxxxxxx>, <Solari@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <D_Frische@xxxxxxxxxx>, <Theresaroyer@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <Bradfield@xxxxxxx>, <EdChar@xxxxxxx>, <marhaven@xxxxxxx>, <emazzeo@xxxxxxxxxx>, <Kansten@xxxxxxxxxx>, <arelee_1020@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <isamay@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <LBattist@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <LindaKury@xxxxxxxxx>, <alma_gsd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <gracefield@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Rivendellj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <t.m.Obrien@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <caraland@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <sherrybyrd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Starline@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Ctellefsen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <KBKaneda@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <Larsenc@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <Nadine@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <grandin46@xxxxxxxxx>, <Rachels_mommy97@xxxxxxxxx>, <Wilshargsd@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 08:36:42 -0700
Take a look at the letter that the Elkhound Parent Club sent to CA to
protest CA1634. Maybe the GSDCA can do something similar?
Sue
>>> <Windwalkergsds@xxxxxx> 5/3/2007 8:26:44 AM >>>
In a message dated 5/3/2007 12:29:22 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
marhaven@xxxxxxx writes:
Proponents of this bill, including its sponsor, have said that purebred
=
dog breeders are not interested in being part of the solution to =
California's purported pet population issues.
And that is exactly why, in my proposal to the Board on the new
Breeders Code, that language is in there to include spay/neuter
agreements on all of our PETS sold by our breeders. Also taking full
responsibility for dogs created by us.
I know that the terms "spay/neuter" engender ideas of legislation
and are becoming terms we do not want to hear, however, keeping our GSD
pet population down is not a bad thing. And it may keep us from
specific breed legislation. This is merely a baby-step in the scheme of
all of this, but it IS something positive we can do. We MUST govern
ourselves lest we be governed by others.
Yet I still get opposition for including those terms; perhaps
because AKC needs those numbers of dog registrations coming? Is this why
the revised Breeders Code was once again shelved?
Regards,
Jamie Walker
Breeders Code Chair
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain
confidential and/or legally privileged information. It is solely for the
use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use
or disclosure is prohibited and may violate applicable laws including
the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the
communication.
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2007. 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 - www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
