WARNING-California AB1122 Hearing on Wednesday 4/6/09

[LizMarie]

"It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully sell,
display , or offer for sale or give away as part
of a commercial transaction , a live animal on any street,
highway, public right-of-way, commercial parking lot, or at any
outdoor special sale, swap meet, flea market, parking lot sale,
carnival, or boardwalk."

Now who is to say what defines a "Swap Meet, Flea Market, or Special Sale". I guess the NARBC, HerpWorld Expo, Reptile Super Shows, etc, etc could be defined as a special sale, or as a Flea Market or swap meet. All I can say is if this does pass, it just opens up a whole can of worms for the rest of the nation to deal with... Whether you agree with this legislation 1% or 100% all I ask is that you just submit a letter, it will take two seconds out of your day to put your name at the bottom of a TEMPLATED letter...

Maybe I`m ignorant, but if this was happening in FL, NY/PA/NJ, or any other major reptile breeders "haven", I would hope you guys would be up in arms...

My 2 cents.

Nigel you make a valid point! :blank: It's almost a double edged sword. Because most of us complain about those flea market, street corner, etc. reptiles all the time. I cringe each time I see RES's being sold in critter keepers in the middle of winter in chinatown, because that is just plain cruel. Then again passing such a law I can see how it can infringe on the rights of those that are responsible owners, breeders, etc. like most of us here.

 

[Nigel4less]

Nigel you make a valid point! :blank: It's almost a double edged sword. Because most of us complain about those flea market, street corner, etc. reptiles all the time. I cringe each time I see RES's being sold in critter keepers in the middle of winter in chinatown, because that is just plain cruel. Then again passing such a law I can see how it can infringe on the rights of those that are responsible owners, breeders, etc. like most of us here.

Again all I can ask of you guys is just to submit a letter, maybe even make a phone call or two

 

[DarthGekko]

No Offense but if that's the case I hope your not one of the one's that gets angry or annoyed about leos that are being sold sick and half dead and are being kept in crappy conditions before being sold and the neglectful and ignorant owners that only take the advice that they receive from those sellers that sell on street corners, flea markets, etc and are just trying to make a quick buck by telling you that they WILL be able to live in that critter keeper w/o heat, etc. Shouldn't those people be punished for cruelty to animals and taking advantage of people, mostly children that are naive to believe everything that they are told?

Maybe I'm wrong and not reading as far into it as I should but thats just my opinion.

This bill is another blanket approach that doesn't set forth a specific plan to address neglect issues in the pet trade. You have to read into this because it's so vague that it could encompass and infringe on reputable breeder's rights to sell healthy animals as well. Don't assume the Humane Society or the Gov't will make exceptions unless those exceptions are specifically addressed. The powers that be want a blanket approach bill passed so they can just say goodbye to the reptile trade. If the Humane Society has soooo much money that they can do the research and set forth an educated plan, why don't they? It's because they have an alternate agenda that revolves around money. Nigel posted a link to a site that explains what they are all about. I wish I could remember that post but I think it was on Kathy Love's site....

 

[Nigel4less]

This bill is another blanket approach that doesn't set forth a specific plan to address neglect issues in the pet trade. You have to read into this because it's so vague that it could encompass and infringe on reputable breeder's rights to sell healthy animals as well. Don't assume the Humane Society or the Gov't will make exceptions unless those exceptions are specifically addressed. The powers that be want a blanket approach bill passed so they can just say goodbye to the reptile trade. If the Humane Society has soooo much money that they can do the research and set forth an educated plan, why don't they? It's because they have an alternate agenda that revolves around money. Nigel posted a link to a site that explains what they are all about. I wish I could remember that post but I think it was on Kathy Love's site....

http://cornutopia.com/Corn Utopia on the Web/- LURKING ENEMY Cornutopia corn snakes cornsnakes.htm
:main_thumbsup:

 

[DarthGekko]

By the way, I do care that pets are mistreated and not taken care of properly. All I am saying is that there has to be a specific plan set forth so it doesn't destroy the pet trade. This bill is assuming that all private breeders are selling sick animals and that only petstores sell healthy ones. I'm sorry but most chain petstores sell sick animals more often than private breeders do. Go into your local Pet***** whatever and look at the herps they keep. At the very least this bill is insulting to responsible and reputable breeders who would be lumped in with the scumbags that sell sick animals on street corners. I hope this clears up my stance on this issue.

 

[Nigel4less]

By the way, I do care that pets are mistreated and not taken care of properly. All I am saying is that there has to be a specific plan set forth so it doesn't destroy the pet trade. This bill is assuming that all private breeders are selling sick animals and that only petstores sell healthy ones. I'm sorry but most chain petstores sell sick animals more often than private breeders do. Go into your local Pet***** whatever and look at the herps they keep. At the very least this bill is insulting to responsible and reputable breeders who would be lumped in with the scumbags that sell sick animals on street corners. I hope this clears up my stance on this issue.

Another point to bring up is these Petstores are not producing the animals themselves... They are all supplied by large breeders out of Texas and Florida :main_yes:

 

[DarthGekko]

Nigel is there a statistic that is out there that outlines how many of the animals arrive at the Pet Store DOA? The pet stores must have records of these events so they don't overpay for their "shipments". Penn and Teller did a show on PETA that proved that PETA kills over 80% of their animals that they take in. They had depreciated assets on their tax records for giant refrigerators for all the bodies! This isn't posted on PETA's website and I bet the Pet store chains don't tell the committees that decide on these bills the entire process of aquistion and sale of these animals. You also have to wonder..... Pet store chains have lobbyists working for them to partner with these bills since this proposal greatly helps drive more business to them huh?

 

[Nigel4less]

Nigel is there a statistic that is out there that outlines how many of the animals arrive at the Pet Store DOA? The pet stores must have records of these events so they don't overpay for their "shipments". Penn and Teller did a show on PETA that proved that PETA kills over 80% of their animals that they take in. They had depreciated assets on their tax records for giant refrigerators for all the bodies! This isn't posted on PETA's website and I bet the Pet store chains don't tell the committees that decide on these bills the entire process of aquistion and sale of these animals. You also have to wonder..... Pet store chains have lobbyists working for them to partner with these bills since this proposal greatly helps drive more business to them huh?

I wish I knew off the top of my head, I`ll try to get some research in and see what I can dig up... :main_thumbsup:

 

[DarthGekko]

cool man

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Can someone explain how this hurts the animals? They're banning the sale of them at street fairs and flea markets. I think it would reduce "impulse buying" of pets. It sounds reasonable, it even makes exceptions for livestock and "live animal" expos.

Did I read the text wrong?

Yes, you did.

No Offense but if that's the case I hope your not one of the one's that gets angry or annoyed about leos that are being sold sick and half dead and are being kept in crappy conditions before being sold and the neglectful and ignorant owners that only take the advice that they receive from those sellers that sell on street corners, flea markets, etc and are just trying to make a quick buck by telling you that they WILL be able to live in that critter keeper w/o heat, etc. Shouldn't those people be punished for cruelty to animals and taking advantage of people, mostly children that are naive to believe everything that they are told?

Maybe I'm wrong and not reading as far into it as I should but thats just my opinion.

I have meet people to concluded a transaction from an online ad so many times I couldn't give you an accurate number. If this passed as is, that would make me a criminal to continue.

Assembly Member Lieu introduced Assembly Bill AB 1122 which, as amended, would make it a crime
"to willfully sell, display, or offer for sale, or give away as part of a commercial transaction, a live animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, commercial parking lot, or at any outdoor special sale, swap meet, flea market, parking lot sale, carnival, or boardwalk."

As is, the bill is to poorly written.

The bill fails to define a swap meet or flea market and could inadvertently encompass bird shows, reptile shows, cat shows, and aquarium shows.

Originally Posted by DarthGekko
No offense, but once you let the goverment know that we will live with a little less freedom then they will try to narrow our existing freedoms even more. You can never budge on an issue like this. Today it's flea markets and tomorrow it's shows and breeders. Thanks for posting this Brittney. I already sent my email in...

Amen, don't give anymore. Animal cruelty laws already exist. There are laws on the books to cover most of the concerns already mentioned. This is just another feel good law that does nothing but chip away at pet owner rights and individual freedoms.

Enough is enough.

 

[cassadaga]

I have meet people to concluded a transaction from an online ad so many times I couldn't give you an accurate number. If this passed as is, that would make me a criminal to continue.

Would you mind qouting the section of the bill that gives even a slight hint that online transactions would be effected at all?

Can anyone qoute a section of this bill that as written will effect us?

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Would you mind qouting the section of the bill that gives even a slight hint that online transactions would be effected at all?

Can anyone qoute a section of this bill that as written will effect us?

If I meet someone in the parking lot of a grocery store, outside a fast food restaurant or anywhere in the public domain to conclude a transaction from an online ad, I could be in violation of this law. If offered to trade you something and we agreed to meet outside of StarBucks to make the exchange, we would be in violation.


"to willfully sell, display, or offer for sale, or give away as part of a commercial transaction, a live animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, commercial parking lot, or at any outdoor special sale, swap meet, flea market, parking lot sale, carnival, or boardwalk."

Can anyone qoute a section of this bill that as written will effect us?

I already did quote it and the letter from USARK expresses my same concern.

Time to get back to work and flex a little Grass Roots Muscle. The Humane Society of the United States has a bill, AB1122, up for hearing before the CA General Assembly Appropriations Committee this Wednesday. This bill seeks to BAN the sale of animals that are NOT "traditionally" sold through pet shops. This would include many different animals INCLUDING Herps. This is an attempt to end ALL Reptile Shows and "face to face" sales that are the basis for much of how the middle and high end of our market distributes animals. It would eliminate almost ALL sales except from pet shops. Reptile Shows and open air auctions/sales would come to an end in CA.

The bill in its current form.

SECTION 1. Section 597.4 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
597.4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully sell,
display , or offer for sale or give away as part
of a commercial transaction , a live animal on any street,
highway, public right-of-way, commercial parking lot, or at any
outdoor special sale, swap meet, flea market, parking lot sale,
carnival, or boardwalk.
(b) (1) A person who violates this section for the first time
shall be guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed
two hundred fifty dollars ($250).
(2) A person who violates this section for the first time and by
that violation either causes or permits any animal to suffer or be
injured, or causes or permits any animal to be placed in a situation
in which its life or health may be endangered, shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor.
(3) A person who violates this section for a second or subsequent
time shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(c) A person who is guilty of a misdemeanor violation of this
section shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand
dollars ($1,000) per violation; the court shall weigh the gravity of
the violation in setting the fine.
(d) A notice describing the charge and the penalty for a violation
of this section may be issued by any peace officer; animal control
officer, as defined in Section 830.9; or humane officer qualified
pursuant to Section 14502 or 14503 of the Corporations Code.
(e) This section shall not apply to the following:
(1) Events held by 4-H Clubs, Junior Farmers Clubs, or Future
Farmers Clubs.
(2) California Exposition and State Fair or county fairs.
(3) Stockyards with respect to which the Secretary of the United
States Department of Agriculture has posted notice that the
stockyards are regulated by the federal Packers and Stockyards Act (7
U.S.C. Sec. 181 et seq.).
(4) The sale of cattle on consignment at any public cattle sales
market; the sale of sheep on consignment at any public sheep sales
market; the sale of swine on consignment at any public swine sales
market; the sale of goats on consignment at any public goat sales
market; and the sale of equine on consignment at any public equine
sales market.
(5) Live animal markets regulated under Section 597.3.
(6) A public animal control agency or shelter, society for the
prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or
rescue group regulated under Division 14 (commencing with Section
30501) of the Food and Agricultural Code. For purposes of this
section, "rescue group" is a not-for-profit entity whose primary
purpose is the placement of dogs, cats, or other animals that have
been removed from a public animal control agency or shelter, society
for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane society
shelter, or that have been surrendered or relinquished to the entity
by the previous owner.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to in any way limit
or affect the application or enforcement of any other law that
protects animals or the rights of consumers, including, but not
limited to, the Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act contained in
Article 2 (commencing with Section 122125) of Chapter 5 of Part 6 of
Division 105 of the Health and Safety Code, or Sections 597 and 597l
of this code.
(g) Nothing in this section limits or authorizes any act or
omission that violates Section 597 or 597l of this code, or any other
local, state, or federal law. The procedures set forth in this
section shall not apply to any civil violation of any other local,
state, or federal law that protects animals or the rights of
consumers, or to a violation of Section 597 or 597l of this code,
which is cited or prosecuted pursuant to one or both of those
sections, or to a violation of any other local, state, or federal law
that is cited or prosecuted pursuant to that law.
SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California

There is no specific exemption for shows. With no exemption it leaves it open to devastating interpretations.

The below was written by someone else but I would have to agree.

The vague and undefined terms in AB 1122 serve to only breed fear that many longtime traditions and hobbies will fall prey to misinterpretation. These include but are not limited to: transport and transfer of rescued animals by volunteer good Samaritans, animal shows and exhibitions such as dog shows, equestrian trials, cat shows, reptile exhibitions, agility events, herding and hunting trials. It is often a common practice that animals be transferred, sold or placed at such events. AB 1122 could make simply the act of participation in such events a criminal act.

As written AB 1122 will cause more problems than it solves -

SECTION 1. Section 597.4 is added to the Penal Code, to read:

597.4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully sell,

trade, barter, display, or offer for sale, trade, or barter, or give away as part of a

commercial transaction a live animal on any street, highway, public

right-of-way, commercial parking lot, or at any outdoor special sale,

swap meet, flea market, parking lot sale, carnival, or boardwalk.

Under California law a dog show with supply vendors is considered a "swap meet" and this would put all dog show exhibitors at risk of breaking the law. This could have a negative impact in the millions of dollars on the California budget as exhibitors from other States will not want to take the risk of being charged under the Penal code and/or having their dogs impounded. The famous and highly successful Eukanuba Dog Show, once a $65 million dollar windfall for Long Beach, has now been moved to Florida due to concerns with punitive laws in California that could jeopardize the exhibited dogs. Should this bill pass in its current form, thousands of other animal shows, expos, exhibitions, and trials will be forced to follow suit. The resulting economic impact on California would have been avoidable, especially during this recession.

Just the mere inclusion of the word "display" can certainly be interpreted to include exhibition events such as dog shows. Is the intent of this bill to make criminals of those exhibitors who display their animals? Is it the intent of this bill to include exhibitors that display their animals that are for sale at these events which in many cases is a longtime tradition? Kittens, rabbits, birds and reptiles are often offered for sale at these shows.

"It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully display a live animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, commercial parking lot, or…"

This phrase as written means no:

•walking the animal (a sidewalk is a public right-of-way)

•driving the animal (seen in the car window is a display on a street, highway, or public right-of-way)

•taking the animal to the vet or ***** (display in commercial parking lot)

It means animals shall be housebound and can’t even be taken to the vet or exercised by walking.

The Committee Analysis does recommend removing the comma after "display" and adding one after "transaction", but that’s insufficient. The words "trade, barter," were stuck from the bill bet ween the words "sell," and "display,". They struck the wrong words:

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Under California law a dog show with supply vendors is considered a "swap meet" and this would put all dog show exhibitors at risk of breaking the law. This could have a negative impact in the millions of dollars on the California budget as exhibitors from other States will not want to take the risk of being charged under the Penal code and/or having their dogs impounded. The famous and highly successful Eukanuba Dog Show, once a $65 million dollar windfall for Long Beach, has now been moved to Florida due to concerns with punitive laws in California that could jeopardize the exhibited dogs. Should this bill pass in its current form, thousands of other animal shows, expos, exhibitions, and trials will be forced to follow suit. The resulting economic impact on California would have been avoidable, especially during this recession.

Cassadaga, So what do think a reptile show is considered as under California law?

 

[Dennis Hultman]

I think we're all just a bit paranoid after a bill as ridiculous as HR669!

Your right but it for good reason. There has been an assaulted on pet owner rights at the local, state, and federal level every year. Last year it was AB 1634 in California and there will be another next year. It will not stop.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

http://www.petproductnews.com/headl...pet-trade-and-consumer-shows-pijac-warns.aspx

The bill does not define “swap meet” or “flea market.” In a PetAlert, issued May 5, PIJAC stated that it has received comments from several show sponsors who questioned whether they fall within the non-defined terms.

According to PIJAC, the proposal could be interpreted as a ban on reptile shows, bird shows, fish shows, cat shows and dog shows. The poor definition, according to PIJAC, could also prohibit pet fairs, such as the annual America’s Family Pet Expo held in Orange County, pet industry trade shows or other specialty shows that would not fall within the general perception of a “swap meet” or “flea market.”

The definition of “swap meet” under the Business and Professions Code makes it clear that the terms “swap meet” and “flea market” are interchangeable and apply to both “outdoor” and “indoor” events whether or not the event is “inside a building or outside in the open" according to PIJAC. In addition, the PetAlert states that sponsors intended for this bill to apply to outdoor events only.

The California Assembly Appropriations Committee is scheduled to hear the bill on May 6 at 9 a.m. PIJAC recommends those who support the ability to host, promote and participate in such shows where animals are displayed and/or sold and/or funds are raised to support the organization’s members to immediately contact members of the committee. PIJAC suggested pointing out the need for an exemption for such activities or a clear definition of a “swap meet” or a “flea market.”

Click here for more information. <HOME>

 

[PacHerp]

Your right but it for good reason. There has been an assaulted on pet owner rights at the local, state, and federal level every year. Last year it was AB 1634 in California and there will be another next year. It will not stop.

AMEN! THANK YOU DENNIS!

I greatly appreciate your support and concern regarding this vague bill - I'm anxiously awaiting to hear how the hearing went this morning - please let us know if you hear anything... i'll be keeping my eyes and ears open as well.

 

[cassadaga]

It seems more threatening now that you say that a dog show with vendors is considered a swap meet, but reptile "shows" are expos and it states that expos will not be effected. Your point about meeting in a public place instead of shipping is good, I didn't think of that aspect. I only thought of the people selling their puppies and kittens, which disgusts me. The bill is more flawed than I originally thought in that, and a few other aspects you mentioned, but the general idea they're going for I feel is good. Definatly needs to be rewritten from scratch.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

It seems more threatening now that you say that a dog show with vendors is considered a swap meet, but reptile "shows" are expos and it states that expos will not be effected. Your point about meeting in a public place instead of shipping is good, I didn't think of that aspect. I only thought of the people selling their puppies and kittens, which disgusts me. The bill is more flawed than I originally thought in that, and a few other aspects you mentioned, but the general idea they're going for I feel is good. Definatly needs to be rewritten from scratch.

Actually, No, it doesn't state that expos are excluded. Even if it did, what is the definition of a reptile show to the state of California? Since Dog shows with vendor supplies for sale are considered swap meets why would a reptile show be considered in expo?

No, what it states is

(e) This section shall not apply to the following:
(1) Events held by 4-H Clubs, Junior Farmers Clubs, or Future
Farmers Clubs.
(2) California Exposition and State Fair or county fairs.
(3) Stockyards with respect to which the Secretary of the United
States Department of Agriculture has posted notice that the
stockyards are regulated by the federal Packers and Stockyards Act (7
U.S.C. Sec. 181 et seq.).
(4) The sale of cattle on consignment at any public cattle sales
market; the sale of sheep on consignment at any public sheep sales
market; the sale of swine on consignment at any public swine sales
market; the sale of goats on consignment at any public goat sales
market; and the sale of equine on consignment at any public equine
sales market.

The California Exposition and State Fair is the annual state fair for the State of California. The annual event is commonly known as the California State Fair and the current site in Sacramento is commonly known as Cal Expo.

It clearly states " California Exposition and State Fair or county fairs." Completely different than expos in general.

 

[Nigel4less]

Actually, No, it doesn't state that expos are excluded. Even if it did, what is the definition of a reptile show to the state of California? Since Dog shows with vendor supplies for sale are considered swap meets why would a reptile show be considered in expo?

No, what it states is


The California Exposition and State Fair is the annual state fair for the State of California. The annual event is commonly known as the California State Fair and the current site in Sacramento is commonly known as Cal Expo.

It clearly states " California Exposition and State Fair or county fairs." Completely different than expos in general.

North American Reptile Breeder's Conference doesn't sound like its excluded

 

[Dennis Hultman]

North American Reptile Breeder's Conference doesn't sound like its excluded

No it doesn't. Nor the San Diego show, the shows in the Bay Area or in any other part of the state.

I only thought of the people selling their puppies and kittens, which disgusts me. The bill is more flawed than I originally thought in that, and a few other aspects you mentioned, but the general idea they're going for I feel is good. Definatly needs to be rewritten from scratch.

I understand the concern but there is a big difference between animal rights groups that push this type of legislation and animal welfare groups.

They can’t get them all (animals) in one full sweep so they target what you might be willing to give up. Tug on your heart a little and tell you it is for the best interest of the animal. Make no mistake they want your geckos too.