Report-a-testicle. How about a toll-free "here's your chance to even the score with your pain in the ass neighbor" telephone number?
I'm getting a picture of public service announcements like:
"Do your part to save California! Ratting out your friends is your civic duty! Dial 1-800-CAS-TRATE turn in someone TODAY! All calls strictly confidential. Reports of gonad sightings may be made anonymously."
Miami/Dade used the tactic to locate and kill as many "pit bulls" as it could. Will California communities use Miami/Dade as a model?
"Errors" during re-write sessions. Every county and municipal animal control ordinance in the state, all 527 of them, will have to be re-written for AB 1634 compliance. Will due process violations, and other civil rights issues, slip in to the new codes? With 527 opportunities, and municipal governments working at a breakneck pace, its a distinct possibility. Pet owners have fewer civil rights than everyone else
In California under AB 1634, my dog would get the knife. I wouldn't be able to stop it. Chances are, yours would, too.
But some people--those who can afford the intact permits, and who exhibit their dogs at officially acceptable sanctioned events within the specified time frames, and who somehow manage to navigate the layers of local requirements and cross all their t's and dot all their i's . .not that I envy what they'd have to go through, because I don't. . .
It turns out they are "better" than pet owners.
They have more rights.
They get to keep their dogs in one piece if they want to. For the time being, any way.
Pet owners won't. No matter what they say. No matter how good their dogs are, no matter how well they care for them.
This is about civil rights! Not "breeder's rights."
Roughly 85% of dog owners are pet owners. Their dogs are their companions. They aren't "breeders", and they don't want to be "breeders."
Pet owners in California don't know it, but they're about to get screwed over.
Imagine being unable to make your own decisions about the pets under your roof. The pets that you feed and care for.
The pets that have zero opportunity to participate in any illicit matings because you're a responsible owner.
The pets you know better and cherish more than anyone else in the world. . . including the arrogant proponents of Levine's bill that dismiss concerns about expensive, invasive surgery with three words:
"Get another vet".
What happened to. . . "California has always been at the forefront of protecting our citizens' civil rights. . ."
"WHEREAS, the City of Palo Alto is proud of its long and distinguished law enforcement tradition of protecting the civil rights and liberties of all persons."
"WHEREAS these raids overwhelmingly target Latina/o communities such as those conducted in the Bay Area in the past several weeks, and reveal a racist intent to not only criminalize immigrants, but to also terrorize and harass Latino communities and perpetuate second-class treatment . . ."
Somehow pet owners became second class citizens in the eyes of Lloyd Levine and his supporters.
Lloyd Levine believes pet owners are mentally incompetent. They need the Nanny-State to make their decisions for them.
Freedoms just slip-sliding away in the Golden State
Freedom of choice? Civil rights? Civil liberties in California?
Fading, fading. . .
Faded away? Let's hope not. Caring pet owners are perfectly capable of making good health care decisions for their pets.
Real solutions for real problems: let's ditch the smoke and mirrors
One-size-fits-all "remedies" like mandatory castration at the age of 16 weeks, no exceptions, is as scary as it sounds.
Legislation attempting to force the removal of gonads from pre-adolescent owned kittens won't solve the problem of unowned, feral cats. Alley Cats Allies points out some of the many fallacies and pit falls of Levine's proposal as it relates to homeless cats. To sum it up: AB 1634 may very well do more harm than good.
Young adult dogs, not puppies, are typically surrendered to shelters because they bark, shed, or pee on the carpet. Or because their owners can't find pet-friendly housing. Castration won't solve those problems and unfunded mandates like Levine's proposal may do more harm than good if it forces dog owners to abandon their dogs.
Makes you wonder what "problem" Lloyd Levine & Co. is trying to solve with AB 1634, doesn't it?