Registration papers should be proof, but without DNA confirmation one can never be positive. I know a breeder (in another breed) who was getting old and a bit confused and I am sure some of her pups' parents were not accurately attributed, but the pups were purebred, just possibly from different sire. Coat colour can vary tremendously and it's more likely when it isn't a disqualification in the breed. If you are buying a dog described as purebred then there should be registration papers given to you. A DNA test should tell you whether the dog is Basenji or mixed with something else, if you really want to know.
tanza last edited by
If you don't think this can happen in your state, and note the "new" clause revision that now says breeders can get an exemption (still no price noted on that cost) and breed ONE litter from the male and ONE litter from the bitch and then they must be spay/neutered… not to mention the other things now added to this bill.... THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING, nor will it fix the over population or shelter "throw away" problem....
This now is what I believe was really wanted by PETA... limit the in-tact dogs to one per household and limit to one litter either sired by or whelped by.... in a house....
AB 1634 has been amended again. Please read this carefully, for if this bill passes, it will mean the end of dogs in this state. A breeding permit is now available for an unspecified price for one single lifetime litter for male and female dogs but once that litter is born, both parents must be sterilized. Puppies born from this litter cannot be sold and must be given away without charge. If this does not sound like the future you envision with your dogs, please help to fight this bill by sending letters to your state Senator and the Governor and attending the rally in Sacramento on July 9. We're fighting for our lives here...
BILL NUMBER: AB 1634 AMENDED
AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 27, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 31, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 9, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 30, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 17, 2007
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 9, 2007
INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Levine
(Principal coauthor: Senator Padilla)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Nava and Solorio)
FEBRUARY 23, 2007
An act to add Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 122336) to Part 6
of Division 105 of , and to repeal Section 122336.21 the
Health and Safety Code, relating to pets.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 1634, as amended, Levine. California Healthy Pets Act.
Exis ting law sets forth provisions relating to veterinary public
health and safety and provides for or regulates spay, neuter, and
breeding programs for animals.
This bill would prohibit any person from owning or possessing any
cat or dog over the age of 4 6 months
that has not been spayed or neutered, unless that person possesses an
intact permit, as defined. The bill would establish an intact permit
fee in an amount to be determined by a local jurisdiction, and would
require the revenue from these fees to be used for the
administration of the local jurisdiction's permit program. The bill
would make a violation of these provisions , as
specified, punishable by a prescribed civil penalty. It would
require all revenues derived from these civil penalties to be used
for funding the outreach efforts in connection with, and the
administration and enforcement of, these provisions, and, to the
ex tent funding is available, free and low-cost spay and neuter
programs, and outreach efforts for those programs, which would be
required to be established by each local animal control agency.
By increasing the enforcement responsibility of local agencies,
this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
This bill would, until January 1, 2012, authorize a local
jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency to allow
for issuance of an intact permit for one male and one female dog per
household in order to allow the dogs to produce a single litter of
offspring, subject to specified criteria. It would authorize the
imposition of an intact permit fee for these purposes in an amount
determined by the local jurisdiction, to be used for funding the
administration of the local jurisdiction's permit program.
The bill would become operative on April 1, 2008. T he Cal ifornia Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
tanza last edited by
By the way, if you read this bill, it also says that you can NOT sell your puppies from that "one" breeding, you have to give them away among other requirements….
Please folks I urge you regardless if you are in California or not, write a letter against this bill, what happens in California is the "poster child" for the rest of the country...