[ SHOWGSD-L ] Some points on CA AB2862 that will affect pet sellers & owners (not just birds)
- From: "Ginger Cleary" <cleary1414@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Showgsd-L@Freelists. Org" <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 21:19:42 -0400
-----Original Message-----
Cross posting permitted.
I have been fielding questions on AB2862, and if any of you have also been
getting questions, I hope the following may be helpful to you. These
comments
are taken from emails I have had with people asking about specific
provisions.
I will try to touch on several of the sections of AB2862 that there are
problems with (see detailed discussion below).
To start, I will personally readily admit that some of the provisions of
AB2862 seem reasonable, and that is by design. But the bill, taken as a
whole,
and given the criminal penalties for minor violations, is far too onerous
for
me to support. Please note that the final section of the bill says that
the
provisions of the bill are "severable'. In legal jargon that basically
means "if you don't like a section, sue us, but the rest of the bill remains
in
place until you sue us on each of those other sections too". Lawsuits are
very expensive. Nobody will have the financial ability to do that. It
is
better to defeat the bill now, before it is passed, because of its many
problems.
If anyone wants to put forth a reasonable bill, that does not have the many
problems of AB2862, I am more than willing to read it, and if it is
reasonable,
support it - but ONLY IF it will ensure the welfare of animals without also
harming people who work with and deal with animals.
Philosophically I agree with the comment Lyndon Johnson made:
"You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if
properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it will do and the harms
it
will cause if improperly administered." AB2862 is a poster child for
this
quote.
I think Lyndon Johnson did many good things for the downtrodden and humans
who were being treated inhumanely, and I don't think he was paranoid or
delusional when he understood and made his statement on the potential
effects of
legislation. Even Lyndon Johnson understood that you have to look behind
the
words and purported intent of legislation to its potential effect to
determine
whether or not a particular piece of legislation is good or not.
I have done this legal analysis with AB2862, and its bad provisions, and the
harms they would cause to good people who happen to sell animals and who
make
sincere efforts to house and care for their animals in an appropriate
mannter,
are too severe for me to support.
Also remember Thomas Reed, who said "one of the greatest delusions in the
world is the hope that t the evils of the world are to be cured by
legislation".
No law will make animal abusers change their attitudes or their ways.
Our Penal Code already contains sufficient armament for the authorities to
go
after and convict willful animal abusers, or animal abusers who are so
neglectful that their neglect rises to cruelty. This is as it should be.
But a bad law such as AB2862 will harm good animal sellers who innocently
violate its provisions and get into legal trouble.
IMHO, education is where we will have the most success on addressing animal
abuse issues. That is why I oppose restrictive legislation and support
education efforts. That is why I get involved in discussions of proposed
animal
legislation. I won't accept on faith that any piece of legislation will
accomplish what its authors claim it will accomplish. I read it, and
apply it
to various scenarios to see what the effects will be. AB2862 has far too
many
harsh outcomes on animal sellers, with far too little actual benefit to any
animals, for me to support.
Now, to turn to some specifics of AB2862:
CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 597.1 ALREADY REQUIRES ALL KEEPERS OF ANIMALS
TO TREAT THEM HUMANELY
<A
HREF="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-
01000&file=594-625c">http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=p
en&group=00001-01000&
file=594-625c</A>
CA AB2862 is not necessary to ensure the welfare of any animals in
California. What it will ensure is that many pet animal sellers give up
their
businesses.
The issue is not what decent bird keepers would do. AB 2862 applies to
sellers of all kinds of animals - mammals, birds, and reptiles. It also
applies
to all sellers of animals wherever they are sold to the public, not just
brick
and mortar pet stores. The requirements of AB2862 will apply to private
bird clubs, private bird breeders who sell directly to the public, breeders
who
advertise in the newspaper and on the internet, breeders of any pet animals
who
sell privately on the internet, breeders who maintain websites for purposes
of advtersing their animals for sale, and most other sellers, as well as the
Petcos and Petsmarts. The "pet store" reference is a red herring.
The bill imposes requirements on all animal sellers that have the real
potential of making it so expensive on the sellers to comply with the law
that they
"elect" to go out of business rather than risk jail time for violating minor
provisions of the law.
AB 2862 affects sellers of all animals (including mammals, reptiles, and
fish). In the big picture, the husbandry requirements are so detailed that
a
small deviation is tecnically a violation of the law.
Here's a link to the latest amended version of the bill (AB 2862).
<A
HREF="http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2851-2900/ab_2862_bill_20060
419_amended_asm.html">http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_2851-2900/ab
_2862_bill_20060419_amen
ded_asm.html</A>
AB2862 DEFINITION OF "PET STORE" MEANS ANY ANIMAL SELLER WHO SELLS PETS TO
THE PUBLIC
AB2862 defines pet store as:
" 122340 (j) "Pet store"means any establishment or marketplace whereanimals
are bought, sold, exchanged, or offered for sale to the general public with
the intent of making a profit where the animals are intended as companions
or
household animals. This term includes the keeping for transfer or the
transfer
of animals at temporary facilities, such as flea markets, mobile facilities,
department stores, merchandise outlets, discount outlets, animal shows
conducting a sale, and other types of retail outlets where the animals are
intended as
companions or household animals."
Under this definition bird clubs, swap mets, bird shows where birds are
available to be purchased (even if not on the premises), and even people who
sell
birds to the public from their homes, and people who are transport animals
for
sale to the public, are all includable in the term "pet store", and subject
to
all of the requirements of the bill.
UNDER AB2862 ANIMALS (INCLUDING BIRDS) "IN TRANSIT" (I.E. BEING SHIPPED OR
DRIVEN TO ANOTHER DESTINATION) MUST BE PROVIDED WATER IF THE TRANSIT TIME
IS
MORE THAN 4 HOURS
" 122341 (b) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), each pet store
operator shall ensure that clean, potable water in sufficient quantity to
satisfy the
animal's needs is accessible to the animal at all times. Snow or ice is
not
an adequate water source.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply in the following circumstances:
(A) Withholding water is otherwise required to provide adequatehealth care
to
the animal on the advice in writing of the attendingCalifornia licensed
veterinarian.
(B) The animal is in transit for less than four hours."
Anyone familiar with shipping birds knows that you don't put a water bowl in
a bird's shipping container - it is guaranteed to spill and the result is
the
bird will have NO water at all. The long accepted and very appropriate
alternative is to put fruit into the shipping box that will provide a water
source
for the bird. This practice is not allowed under AB2862.
UNDER AB2862 NO ANIMAL UNDER THE AGE OF 8 WEEKS MAY BE SOLD BY A "PET STORE"
" 122347. .(b) A pet store shall not sell, offer for sale, trade, or
barteran animal that is under the age of eight weeks.
NotwithstandingSections
122320 and 122321, an animal that is over the age of eight weeks may be
sold,
offered for sale, traded, or bartered only if the animal is weaned."
Sounds useful, but there are many animals under the age of 8 weeks sold as
pets that are weaned and perfectly able to maintain their health if sold
into a
pet home. For example, finches, canaries, budgies, mice, hamsters, rats,
snakes, turtles, and many others. These small animals generally sell for a
relatively small amount of money. It is unreasonable to demand that pet
sellers
hold onto these weaned animals until they are 8 weeks old - thus making them
into a financial burden on the "pet store" for no acceptable reason other
than to
further the no-pets agenda.
While the 8 weeks requirement is reasonable for dogs and cats and larger
mammals that must nurse until they are weaned, and may be reasonable for
larger
psittacines who must be hand fed by a qualified hand feeder until weaned, it
is
not reasonable to apply the 8 weeks requirement to all animals. Anyone
who
deals with a variety of animals and species knows this. The writers of
this bill know this. The 8 week requirement is simply another
unnecessary
burden placed on all sellers of all animals sold as pets.
JAIL TIME REQUIRED BY AB2862
With respect to comments about jail time not being required - Please read
Section 122351 (see below). Each violation of the chapter is a separate
offense. A second offense is a misdemeanor and requires jail time. The
words
used are "is punishable" not "may be punishable".
Depending on the political bent of the enforcing officer, a "pet store"
(read
that "pet animal seller") can be required to fix any "violation" withing 24
hours. If the fix is not made within 24 hours, bingo, another offense and
upon conviction for that second offense, mandatory jail time. These
criminal
consequences are very serious, and not something that most pet animal
sellers
will be willing to, or able to, face. Given this actual threat of jail,
even
the innocent who provide appropriate care to every one of their animals who
come into contact with over-zealous enforcement officers will fold up shop.
In animal cases that are taken to prosecution, jail time is usually on the
table, and if the defendant doesn't plea, is almost guaranteed. It is the
"big stick" used to get the animal users to plead guilty in exchange for a
reduced penalty. Almost always that penalty includes giving up animals and
agreeing not to have animals in the future for a specified period of time.
For a
pet seller this is guaranteed to put them out of business.
" 122351. (a) Animal control officers exercising their authority
under Section 830.9 of the Penal Code, law enforcement officers, and
humane officers qualified pursuant to Section 14502 or 14503 of the
Corporations Code, may conduct investigations to ensure compliance
with this chapter.
(b) A violation of any provision of this chapter is punishable as
either an infraction or a misdemeanor at the discretion of the
prosecutor. In determining the penalty, the degree and extent of harm
caused to the public and to the affected animals as a result of the
violation shall be considered. A second or subsequent conviction is
punishable as a misdemeanor. Each violation of this chapter with
respect to each animal constitutes a separate offense. An infraction
under this chapter is punishable upon conviction by a fine of up to
two hundred fifty dollars ($250) as to each animal with respect to
which a violation occurs. A misdemeanor under this chapter is
punishable upon conviction by a fine of up to one thousand dollars
($1,000) as to each animal with respect to which a violation occurs,
and imprisonment in a county jail for not more than six months.
(c) Notwithstanding any other penalty imposed, the enforcing
officer may issue a correction notice requiring the violation to be
remedied within 14 days. However, if the violation endangers the
immediate health or safety of an animal in the custody of the
licensee, the correction may be required within 24 hours. Nothing in
this subdivision affects the authority of the enforcing officer to
seize and impound an animal pursuant to Section 597.1 of the Penal
Code.
(d) Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted to limit or
authorize any act or omission that violates the state's anticruelty
laws."
MINOR VIOLATIONS OF AB2862 CAN BE PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE
Now, lets say that a seller of zebra finches (a popular pet bird) has 10
finches in a flight that is determined to be a few inches too small under
the
regulations, but which may be actually more than big enough to house the
finches
in a healthy environment. Or say the seller houses 10 pet mice in a cage
that is a few inches too small.....
Zebra finches sell for $20 if you're lucky. Pet mice sell for a few
dollars each if you're lucky.
The cage size violation would be a separate offense with respect to EACH of
those 10 finches. Simple measurements would prove in court that the cage
is
too small under the regulations. Thus, on conviction, the seller would
face
a fine of $250 for each finch (10 X $250 - $2500). If the finches were
sold, the seller would gross $200, then deduct his expenses, leaving him
with a
profit of perhaps $100. The mouse seller would gross perhaps $30 on his 10
mice, and after expense net perhaps $15 on his 10 mice. How many finch
sellers
(or mice sellers) are financially prepared to buy new cages to re-cage all
of
their birds (or their mice) to comply with the strict requirements of
AB2862,
and how many would continue to sell finches (or mice) with this threat
hanging over them?
Repeat the above for all of the other birds and animals sold by animal
sellers, and you will see that the financial consequences of minor
violations of
AB2862 on all animal sellers (whether or not those minor violations actually
harm
the animals in question) are quite onerous.
SPECIFIC ANIMAL HOUSING REQUIREMENTS UNDER AB2862 ARE NOT REASONABLE IN THE
BIG PICTURE
As for the housing requirements:
The problem I have with the cage and husbandry requirements for animals in
the bill is that it applies far too "broad a brush" requirement on all kinds
of
animals sold in pet stores that may, or may not, be appropriate for
particular
kinds of animals being housed and sold.
I believe (as do many others, including the USDA for the last 40 years),
that
rather than requiring "engineering standards" to be met for any kind of
animal (i.e. requiring that a specific genus of animals be kept in a
specific cage
size), a much more appropriate requirement is a "performance standard" (i.e.
a
requirement that the cage be large enough for the animal to move about and
demonstrate normal behaviors and be maintained in health - that allows
variation
for the various genus and species and for the variation of habits of the
animals within those many genus and species). Performance standards have
worked under the federal Animal Welfare Act for decades. Moving to
engineering
standards is not necessary, and in many cases, can be detrimental to the
animals
involved (I will discuss that more below with respect to rodents and
snakes).
Under AB2862's engineering standards the violations would be quite easy to
prove in court. Either a cage is XYZ inches or its not. Either the
snake
is fed once daily or its not (and note - snakes are not fed daily for a very
good reason - they must digest and metabolize their last meal before they
can
eat again, and this often takes many days - if you put a live rodent in the
cage
of a snake that just ate, the snake will just sit there and do nothing, but
the rodent will bite and likely kill the snake - not a particularly bright
provision of AB2862 to require ALL animals to be fed once daily - but I
digress....). Either a concrete perch is in the cage or its not.
Either there are
4 adult dogs in a pen or there are not. Etc.
My problem is with the engineering standards themselves being restrictive
when they don't need to be to ensure the wellbeing of animals in the hands
of all
pet sellers.
WITH RESPECT TO HOUSING OF BIRDS UNDER AB2862:
I agree that some of the bird care requirements in the bill are not that
problematic - although some of the provisions are:
I have a problem with Section 122345 (c) (1) and (2) with respect to birds:
" (1) A shelter or cage for a bird shall be constructed of materials
that are impervious to moisture and can be readily cleaned."
This will make straw nests and wooden nest boxes (even for birds who aren't
breeding but who use them as sleeping areas), and cloth happy huts, illegal.
" (2) Sandpaper-covered perches or perches covered in an abrasive
material are not permitted."
I have a problem with outlawing rough perches such as sandy perches, and
concrete perches designed to trim nails - if they are not the only perch in
the
cage, and other appropriate perches are provided for exercise and chewing
for
parrots, they can be very useful for the birds.
I also have a problem with the mandatory cage size requirements for birds in
Section 122345 (c) (6), subsections (B), (C) and (D). Subsection (A) could
have been left alone and been acceptable, without the additional restrictive
language of the other sections:
" (6) (A) Sufficient space shall be provided for each bird to obtain
exercise to maintain itself in good health. Each bird shall be
housed in a cage of sufficient size and dimensions as to allow an
amount of perch space to enable it to fully extend its wings in every
direction while all birds are simultaneously perched without having
to touch another bird, obstacle, or the side of the cage.
(B) For medium-sized psittacines, including lories, conures,
Amazons, and African greys, each cage shall measure at least 24
inches wide, 18 inches deep, and 24 inches high.
(C) For small-sized psittacines, including cockatiels and
parakeets, each cage shall measure at least 18 inches by 18 inches,
and 18 inches high.
(D) For passerines, including canaries and finches, each cage
shall measure 12 inches by 17 inches and be at least 7 inches high."
I have housed happy "buddy" pairs of birds in reasonably sized cages that
allow them full freedom of movement, they don't touch each other or the
sides,
they can flap and move around and play, but the cages that I have used would
be
illegal under the requirements of AB2862. The cage size requirements
force
a "one size fits all" cage on all kinds of birds, and are not suitable for
all situations.
Please also note that there are no cage size reguirements for large
psittacines included in AB2862 - which is intentional. This is because API
(the
drafter of the bill) and its philosophical allies in the Animal Rights
movement do
not believe large parrots should be kept as pets. The next step in the
legislative agenda is to prohibit the selling of large parrots in pet
stores - if
they establish an "acceptable" cage size in this bill, they can't take that
next step.
REQUIRED CAGING FOR RODENTS UNDER AB2862 IS UNREASONABLE IN MANY SITUATIONS:
The term "rodent" includes babies in the nests and "pinkies" (newborns
intended as food for reptiles). While I don't keep snakes that eat mice,
I know
folks who do. It is a natural behavior for snakes to eat rodents.
Expecting animal sellers who sell rodents to keep newborn rodents and
pinkies in what
I consider "rodent mansions" is ridiculous. Newborns and pinkies don't
chew, they don't play with balls, they don't climb or play in PVC tubing,
they
don't require socialization other than what their mother gives them, they
don't
gnaw at their cages, they don't escape.
Remember, while some provisions of the bill may seem reasonable, a violation
of ANY provision is punishable on a second conviction with jail time.
Rodent sellers are going to face serious problems under this bill.
" (d) (1) Each enclosure housing one or more rodents must include
materials that allow necessary chewing to prevent detrimental
overgrowth of the animals' teeth. Each enclosure shall also include
at least one enrichment, which may include a climbing box, ball, or
PVC tubing. Each enclosure shall also include shelters or nest boxes
that are of sufficient size to accommodate all animals in the
enclosure simultaneously.
(2) The materials used to construct a rodent enclosure shall be of
sufficient strength to prevent escape and injury from gnawing or
chewing and to protect the animals housed inside from predators.
(3) A rodent enclosure with a solid bottom shall be constructed of
material that is impervious to moisture. An enclosure with a wire or
mesh bottom shall be constructed to allow excreta to pass through
the spaces in the wire or mesh. However, the wire or mesh floor shall
be constructed to prevent injury to the feet and legs of any animal
in the enclosure.
(4) (A) There shall be sufficient height and floorspace for caged
rodents to obtain proper exercise and maintain good health.
(B) Enclosures that house up to four small rodents shall measure
at least one square foot wide and nine inches high. For each
additional animal, the cage space shall be increased by 25 percent of
original floor area. Each enclosure shall have one gnawing item and
an exercise wheel per each four animals.
(C) Enclosures housing medium-sized rodents, including rats and
guinea pigs, shall measure at least one square foot, 12 inches high,
per animal. For each additional animal, the cage size shall be
increased by 25 percent of original floor area. Each enclosure shall
have one gnawing item and a nest box per four animals. Each enclosure
that houses one or more rats also shall include a climbing
apparatus."
REQUIRED HOUSING FOR DOGS UNDER AB2862 IS IMPRACTICABLE AND UNREASONABLE IN
THE BIG PICTURE
122345. Notwithstanding Section 597l of the Penal Code and
Section 122155, a pet store operator shall ensure that all the
following housing requirements are met:
(a) (1) Each confined dog shall be provided a minimum square
footage of floorspace. The minimum square footage of floor space is
equal to the mathematical square of the sum of the length of the dog
in inches, as measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its
tail, plus six inches as represented by the following formula. The
calculation is: (length of dog in inches plus six) multiplied by
(length of dog in inches plus six) equals the required floorspace in
square inches. Required floorspace in inches divided by 144 equals
required floorspace in square feet.
(2) The interior height of a primary enclosure must be at least
six inches higher than the head of the tallest dog in the enclosure
when the dog is in a normal standing position.
(3) Not more than four adult dogs may be housed in the same
primary enclosure.
How many dog sellers do you think can even understand what the mathematical
formula is, much less comply? As is done under the federal AWA, it would
be
appropriate to say the enclosure must allow the dog to comfortably move
around,
stand, sit, lie down, without touching the sides or top of its enclosure and
without tipping over its food and water bowls. The strict inches formula
is
overkill, designed to trap the uneducated or mathematically challenged
animal
seller.
Also, what is the justification for forbidding more than 4 adult dogs in the
same primary enclosure? If they get along, what is the problem? The
answer is - it simply makes it again more difficult for a pet animal seller
to
maintain its animals.
THE REQUIRED DISPOSITION OF SICK OR INJURED ANIMALS UNDER AB2862 IS
PROBLEMATIC
Section 122343 is problematic -
"122343 (b): .....
(2) Animals that become seriously ill or seriously injured shall
be diagnosed by a California licensed veterinarian in a timely manner
and the prescribed therapy followed. Sick or injured animals shall
be treated as follows, as appropriate:
(A) Provided with timely veterinary care as is needed for the
health and well-being of the animals.
(B) Euthanized humanely and promptly by the pet store's attending
veterinarian.
(C) Surrendered, with the express consent of the recipient, to a
local public or private animal shelter."
You may not know rescues who are looking for expensive birds (or dogs, or
cats, or horses), but I do. This provision will allow them to allege that
(for
example) a hyacinth macaw in XYZ "pet store" (whatever or whoever that "pet
store" is, or whatever owner has an ad for the bird in the paper or on the
net)
is "ill" when it is not. They can demand that the bird be examined and
treated (all at the owner's expense - as required by the bill), and if the
owner
refuses to submit the bird to expensive examination and treatment, what do
you
know - the law requires that the bird be euthanized (not an option) or
surrendered to the "private animal shelter". This is just not an
acceptable
requirement to impose on the innocent animal seller. It opens the door to
abuse
by over-zealous animal "rescuers" - rescuers who don't believe animals
should
be sold at all, and who are looking to confiscate animals from the animal
sellers they disagree with philosophically. Remember the slogans they use
to
oppose selling of animals in general - "better dead than bred" - "don't
breed or
buy while shelter animals die" - "until there are none, adopt one".
UNDER AB2862 NO ANIMALS SHALL BE RAFFLED OR USED FOR ADVERTISING
" 122347. (a) Notwithstanding Section 599 of the Penal Code, a petstore
shall not offer any live animal as a raffle, prize,advertising device, or
promotional consideration."
There go most bird clubs' (and other animal clubs') raffle tables.
Also, why should it be illegal to use any animal in advertising? Again,
to
promote the AR agenda of "no use of animals by man, not for food, fiber,
research, entertainment, or as pets".
There are many more issues with AB2862, but that's about all I am prepared
to
put out right now <g>. If you would like to discuss any of these issue
further, please feel free to contact me directly.
For those California residents who want to use the NAIA capwiz tool to write
an automated email to your legislators to OPPOSE AB2862, here's the link
http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/issues/alert/?alertid=8724156&type=ST&show_alert
=1
For non-California residents who want to compose their own letters, feel
free
to use any points in this post, or use some NAIA points, or write your own
email. Send your email to the California assembly members listed below.
Sign your name (no address required).
Genny Wall
Email addresses for members of the California Assembly:
(to avoid being treated as spam, send in these groups - send the original to
yourself, and BCC the assembly members):
<A
HREF="mailto:Assemblymember.Baca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Bass@assembl
y.ca.gov,Assemblymember.Bass@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.benoit@assembly.
ca.gov,assemblymember.berg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.bermudez@assembly.
ca.gov,assemblymember.blakeslee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Bogh@assembly
.ca.gov,Assemblymember.ron.calderon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Canciamil
la@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Chan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Chavez
@assembly.ca.gov,assemblymember.chu@xxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Cogdill@assemb
ly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.Cohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,assemblymember.coto@xxxxxxxxxx
a.gov">Assemblymember.Baca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Bass@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
ov,Assemb
lymember.Bass@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.benoit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,assembly
me
mber.berg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.bermudez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,assemblyme
mb
er.blakeslee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Bogh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymem
be
r.ron.calderon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Canciamilla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,As
se
mblymember.Chan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Chavez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,assemb
ly
member.chu@xxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Cogdill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.
Co
hn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,assemblymember.coto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>,
<A
HREF="mailto:Assemblymember.Daucher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,assemblymember.DeLaTorre
@assembly.ca.gov,assemblymember.devore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.dymall
y@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,assemblymember.emmerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Eva
ns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Frommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblywoman.garc
ia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Goldberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.ha
ncock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Harman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.h
aynes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Jerome.Horton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblym
ember.Shirley.Horton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Houston@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Assemblymember.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx">Assemblymember.Daucher@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
,assemblymember.DeLaTorre@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
v,assemblymember.devore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.dymally@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
ov
,assemblymember.emmerson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Evans@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
v,
Assemblymember.Frommer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblywoman.garcia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
As
semblymember.Goldberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.hancock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
,A
ssemblymember.Harman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.haynes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,A
ss
emblymember.Jerome.Horton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Shirley.Horton@asse
mb
ly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.Houston@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.jones@assemb
ly
.ca.gov</A>,
<A
HREF="mailto:Assemblymember.Karnette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.keene@as
sembly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.Koretz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.lamalfa@a
ssembly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.Lasuer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.laird@as
sembly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.leno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Leslie@asse
mbly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.levine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblywoman.lieber@assem
bly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.Lieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,assemblymember.liu@xxxxxxxxxx
a.gov,Assemblymember.matthews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.maze@xxxxxxxxxx
a.gov,Assemblymember.mccarthy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.montanez@assemb
ly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.Mountjoy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.mullin@asse
mbly.ca.gov">Assemblymember.Karnette@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.keene@as
sembly.ca.gov,A
ssemblymember.Koretz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.lamalfa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
As
semblymember.Lasuer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.laird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Ass
em
blymember.leno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Leslie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assembl
ym
ember.levine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblywoman.lieber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblyme
mb
er.Lieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,assemblymember.liu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.ma
tt
hews@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.maze@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.mcca
rt
hy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.montanez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Mo
un
tjoy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.mullin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>
<A
HREF="mailto:Assemblymember.nunez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.nakanishi@a
ssembly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.nava@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.McLeod@ass
embly.ca.gov,assemblymember.niello@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Oropeza@as
sembly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.Parra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Pavley@ass
embly.ca.gov,Assemblymember.plescia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Richman@a
ssembly.ca.gov">Assemblymember.nunez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.nakanish
i@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Assemblymember.nava@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.McLeod@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,as
se
mblymember.niello@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Oropeza@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Ass
em
blymember.Parra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Pavley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemb
ly
member.plescia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Richman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>
<A
HREF="mailto:Assemblymember.ridley-thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblywoman.Runn
er@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Ruskin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Sali
nas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.spitzer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,assemblymember.st
rickland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,assemblymember.tran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.
Vargas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,assemblymember.villines@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymembe
r.wolk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Wyland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.
yee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx">Assemblymember.ridley-thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblywo
man.Runner@xxxxxxxxxxxx
gov,Assemblymember.Ruskin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Salinas@xxxxxxxxxxx
.g
ov,Assemblymember.spitzer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,assemblymember.strickland@assembly
.c
a.gov,assemblymember.tran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.Vargas@xxxxxxxxxxxx
go
v,assemblymember.villines@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.wolk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
v,
Assemblymember.Wyland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,Assemblymember.yee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>
Ginger Cleary, Rome, GA
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the
most oppressive. C.S.Lewis
www.rihadin.com
My Ebay site
============================================================================
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 ] Some points on CA AB2862 that will affect pet sellers & owners (not just birds)
