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



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.



Please don't let this happen! We need to generate hundreds of phone calls and emails to the Committee Members



Click here to read AB1122



Click here for Email Campaign against AB1122!!







Phone List:



Kevin de Leon - Chair Dem-45 (916) 319-2045
Jim Nielsen - Vice Chair Rep-2 (916) 319-
Tom Ammiano Dem-13 (916) 319-2013
Charles M. Calderon Dem-58 (916) 319-2058
Mike Davis Dem-48 (916) 319-2048
Michael D. Duvall Rep-72 (916) 319-2072
Felipe Fuentes Dem-39 (916) 319-2039
Isadore Hall III Dem-52 (916) 319-2052
Diane L. Harkey Rep-73 916) 319-2073
Jeff Miller Rep-71 (916) 319-2071
John A. P?rez Dem-46 (916) 319-2046
Curren D. Price Jr. Dem-51 (916) 319-2051
Nancy Skinner Dem-14 (916) 319-2014
Jose Solorio Dem-69 (916) 319-2069
Audra Strickland Rep-37 (916) 319-2037
Tom Torlakson Dem-11 (916) 319-2011




***Make your Calls... Send your Emails!!!!!



USARK is here for the Reptile Nation! We are giving you the tools. Now use them!




usark.org Unsubscribe Become a Member Donate Developed by
Site Control 24/7

i just got that in an email

i just got that in an email

Just got it that way and wanted to get it here as well

Just got it that way and wanted to get it here as well

i was going to post it but you did it first

i was going to post it but you did it first

Cool great minds think alike

sent email in and got back 8 automated responses withing 2 minutes lol. now its time to make some calls =)

Thanks for posting this...

Quite honestly I don't see how this bill would apply to reptile shows -- most are held on private property that would not be considered a 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 someone retrieve the email list on this? Thanks!

im on it thanks for posting this

I just got done making a few phone calls backed with a couple emails...

I think that the issue is legally a reptile show can be considered a "swap meet".
Also any seller that meets a buyer somewhere(McD's parking lot?) to exchange a snake, even if it's already been paid for, would be breaking the law. The law as written uses plenty of versions of "sell" to cover that.
Also, all pet stores in flea markets(even indoor ones) would be gone, as would any sellers of any animals at any outdoor event, or swap meet.
I'm not certain it would actually shut down all reptile shows, but I think depending on who is enforcing it(California remember??) it could concievably shut down reptiles shows as "swap meets".

If the hearing was on 4-6-09, isn't it already over?

I believe it is 5-6-09, Tomorrow.

Quite honestly I don't see how this bill would apply to reptile shows -- most are held on private property that would not be considered a 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.
The state of California considers indoor shows the same as outdoor swap meets.
This bill has the potential to do real harm. I'm just going to cut and past some of my posts from other forums.

I have meet people to conclude 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.


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 I offered to trade you something and we agreed to meet outside of StarBucks to make the exchange, we would be in violation.

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

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:


Hmm, look at that again.

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.


Here is some more.

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>
There is no exemption to the law for expos at all. If there were you would also need what a “expo” is clearly stated.

Some have mistakenly seen this part and have stated that expos aren’t included.

(2) California Exposition and State Fair or county fairs.

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

California Exposition and State Fair defined by the state of California.

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.


This bill needs to go down as written.

Quite honestly I don't see how this bill would apply to reptile shows -- most are held on private property that would not be considered a 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.

I have meet people to conclude 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.
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 I offered to trade you something and we agreed to meet outside of Starbucks to make the exchange, we would be in violation.

LOL, and I drink a lot of coffee. I have finished many online transactions outside my local Starbucks.

..........

UPDATE: California AB1122 Hearing Canceled

Yesterday there was a hearing scheduled for AB 1122 in the California Assembly in front of the Appropriations Committee. It was canceled at the last minute by the bill's author. This was likely due to the efforts of USARK, The Reptile Nation and many other groups opposed to the bill. USARK and the Reptile Nation were responsible for 5,127 emails and hundreds of phone calls to the Assembly Members on the Appropriations Committee over a 24 hour period. There were many other animal interests that mobilized against AB 1122 as well... but USARK is not able to track their efforts as we are able to do for our own members. This is not over! This bill will probably be scheduled for a new hearing in the near future. Stay Vigilante!
__________________

Good news!

Batter up! Who's next?

That's great news.:wamma:

Great news!

Great news! And also, the AKC dog shows are OFTEN held outside, so we need to keep that fact in mind for any further fights against similar wording.
Use the AKC for our side.
Good that they backed off. and yeah.. Who's next?

Awesome news

California can't balance its budget but the state has time to have hearing on this tomorrow.

CURRENT BILL STATUS


MEASURE : A.B. No. 1122
AUTHOR(S) : Lieu (Coauthors: Eng and Jones).
TOPIC : Animal abuse: sale of live animals.
HOUSE LOCATION : ASM
+LAST AMENDED DATE : 05/14/2009


TYPE OF BILL :
Active
Non-Urgency
Non-Appropriations
Majority Vote Required
State-Mandated Local Program
Fiscal
Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE: 05/18/2009
LAST HIST. ACTION : Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
COMM. LOCATION : ASM APPROPRIATIONS
HEARING DATE : 05/20/2009

TITLE : An act to add Section 597.4 to the Penal Code, relating

Sneaky! They're tagging in on as animal abuse! Since WHEN? PITA lawmakers. Hears hoping it gets turned down again.

Ugh!!

Here is the video on the hearing. It passed with some revisions.

Flea Markets and shows were no longer included as targets and it was passed.

My scenario posted earlier about meeting to conclude a deal was discussed by the only person to stand up against this bill at the hearing. No more meeting at Starbucks.

The portion of the video that pertains to this bill starts at about 51 minutes and only last for five or six minutes.

http://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/393

Sincere thanks for developing this thread Dennis.
It was kinda long so I don´t have time to read it now but maybe next year if I have time... Right now I´m building this cool terrarium and it´s coming along very nicely.
It´s more fun to build terrariums than to play amateur lobbyist, don´t you think?

No more meeting at Starbucks.

This is exactly what I used to do, too. I guess meeting a customer half-way is out now, too.

This is exactly what I used to do, too. I guess meeting a customer half-way is out now, too.

How could anyone possibly enforce this? Unless you are moving a large group of animals in a public place, how is anyone gonna know you are meeting someone in a parking lot halfway to sell a snake/reptile. Unless you are being set up in a sting, which seems rediculous with all the cutbacks and problems in CA how they are gonna set up the randon meeting for snake halfway patrol?


They make it sound like people hanging out in parking lots selling amimals? I mean I have seen people with a litter of kitten giving them away in front of the supermarket, hardly a business.

Now how does this prevent animal cruelty again?

How could anyone possibly enforce this? Unless you are moving a large group of animals in a public place, how is anyone gonna know you are meeting someone in a parking lot halfway to sell a snake/reptile. Unless you are being set up in a sting, which seems rediculous with all the cutbacks and problems in CA how they are gonna set up the randon meeting for snake halfway patrol?



Exactly....

If they've taken out the shows then that is good. I'm always seeing people with animals out in front of a store or selling them out the back of a van at the mall and on street corners, etc. so - I'm not entirely against stopping that - as hot as it gets around here that is animal cruelty.

That being said.... Find a corner you like and exchange the animal on the lawn of some random stranger or exchange the money and animal inside of Starbucks or McDonalds or whatever your place is and you've bypassed the issue entirely. Or if you're going to do a parking lot a vets office or pet store parking lot were an animal would be a lot less obvious. :dunno:

You can't take animals INTO those businesses.
I doubt that the highway patrol is going to be watching with eagle eyes to see if a tupperware dish changes hands in a parking lot, but it's sort of the principle of the thing too.

If they manage to outlaw most of the selling except at stores and shows, then it'll be easier for them to target the stores and shows to get rid of all sales.

Selling animals out of a hot van in high summer is ALREADY illegil under cruelty to animals by confining them in dangerous conditions. There's no real need for a law restricting exchanges in general. I don't see why this law was even remotely necasary. If someone has a litter of puppies and it's 100F outside, the cop can tell them to stop and take the pups to proper shelter under the existing laws.

I'm glad that they got the shows out of it, but it's just another restricting law that wasn't needed.