Quote: mike armstrong

"Assemblyman Lloyd Levine...
On it's face, it sounds a little better, but this is coming from the same guy who proposed a bill to ban incandescent light bulbs in California and wants to ban the use of cars for destinations less than 5 miles. "Californians will be required to walk, bicycle, take mass transit, or ride a scooter (100cc maximum engine size) when going to the grocery store, school, work, or anywhere else less than five miles from home."

This Levine guy, what a jackass. Why doesn't he go live in North Korea or China where he can make his power hungry dreams come true. They contribute nothing to the US.

This may be way off topic... but why dont they impose a mandatory chip in every dog sold or given away? The chip is automatically registerd with whoever purchased them(you cant advertise without chip numbers) and the owner(or breeder) is responsible for changing the information. That way every dog would have some sort of identification(therotically). Instead of imposing a mandatory spay/neuter which really isnt going to be enforced(or well), mandate any dog advertised is 'chipped'. When the dog is sold or given away the info is changed to the owner with the 'breeder' still being on the chip. That way if the dog ends up in the shelter the breeder can be contacted to see if they would be willing to take the dog. If the dog is found wandering the street- imposed a fine, say 150 for the first offense, or slightly lower for a altered dog. If the fine isnt paid, suspended there DL. The government has so many other ways to suspended, including here in fl failure to pay child support. Whats the difference? If the info isnt changed from the breeder, then the breeder is responsible for the dog. If for whatever reason the dog has to be turned into a shelter, then the owner should make 'boarding' payments to the shelter until the dog is adopted, if deemed adoptable. Now, I was in the car for 6 hours last night and really had nothing to think about... so it may not make any sense. It seems it would create more 'responsible' dog ownership anyway. Just my 2 cents on the matter.

Indeed, Assemblyman Levine is a legislator that should be watched. On the local early morning news shows, he said he was "going to pull the bill." Since he pulled the bill from the first Senate committee (on Monday), my suspicious nature thinks he wanted to reduce turnout at the Capitol.

During the Hearing (I was at the Capitol), he tried adding amendments "on the fly." The offers were verbal only with no time to analyze and respond before the vote. (Yikes!! The Devil is always in the details.) For example, he offered to make it secondary to contact with animal control and offered examples: loose dogs and neighbor complaints about excessive numbers of animals. (After the Hearing, one of the "No on AB1634" speakers suggested that contact might also be animal control going "door to door" to check licenses.) He only shelved the bill after this ploy did not work. He says he will be back and I believe him.

P.S. The Chairwoman joked that she needs to be reimbursed because this issue broke her fax machine. Thanks!

I love the bike Shop comment. Having just returned to CA I'm glad this bill has been defeated for now at least.