Section - Placer County - California: Fill & Download for Free

It is all dependent upon your your individual likes and needs. North area up near Lake Shasta and the Oregon border is beautiful less populated that other areas. The second section moving south along the Nevada border you have the gold rush area of Placer County features Lake Tahoe and the Sierra Nevada Mountains with great recreation areas not so much housing tracts similar the northern portion. The mountain region remain as you continue south including great locations like Mono County Mono Lake, Mammoth Lakes areas continuing down to Porterville which the gateway city to the mountain recreation areas. More populated and and a good City to live. You continue south with the border into Inyo County with good areas to visit but not a heavily populated portion of the state, desert hills sand dunes, bristle pine forest. Continuing South you enter into San Bernardino County. This is the largest County in the United States with not great populated area until up reach the point where California, Nevada and Arizona intersect along the Colorado River. Lots of activities in this area with the river, resort hotels, entertainment and gambling in Nevada, and the desert activities. You continue south along the river into Riverside County where most of the populated are in the western most portion of the County. Last County is Imperial County which is a largely Farming County. El Centro is the large City in Imperial County. County intersect in the southern most portion with Yuma AZ near and the Mexican Border. My favorite of all Eastern portion is Lake Tahoe area. Has everything Lake for boating, snow for skiing, nightlife ant the County line areas down the backside you drive a short distance to Neveda desert recreation and Reno. Great housing areas both in the Tahoe area either North Shore or South.

I wrote this for friends and family. The first part copied from a site about the propositions, the part under ‘My Thoughts’ are just that.Proposition 23: Dialysis clinic requirementsSummary: Requires dialysis clinics to have at least one physician present while patients are being treated (except where there's a shortage), to report patient infection data to the state and to get consent from the state before closing. The measure also bans clinics from discriminating on the basis of who is paying for a patient's care.Argument for: The increased regulations will make clinics safer for patients and make sure patients with any insurance will be treated equally.Argument against: The increased regulations would make care more costly for and less available to patients.Supporters: SEIU healthcare workers unionOpponents: For-profit dialysis clinics like DaVita and Fresenius and the California Medical Association.My ThoughtsI am linking to a Los Angeles Times opinion, and they recommend a NO vote. Endorsement: No on Prop 23. It would raise costs and not improve kidney patients' careI like using the Times because it’s a liberal source and, in this case, they are bucking against the SEIU union and siding with the medical industry. This is the opposite of what I would expect from liberal source so it lends more credibility.The Times says this is the 2nd time in 2 years the SEIU has tried to get a proposition passed that would increase staffing requirements at clinics, hence raising costs, and in the Time’s view, without any appreciable increase in patient safety. The Times points out that California clinics have a lower number and rate of deaths than the national average, which argues against the need to have more staffing.Additionally, SEIU has been trying to unionize the companies that run the California Dialysis companies and have run a series of ballot measures and legislative proposals. This excerpt is from the article:Proposition 23 is opposed by a long list of patient advocates, medical professionals and other civic groups; the only endorsements its proponents tout are those from the California Labor Federation and the California Democratic Party.So, to me, this is obviously a BS proposition that will increase costs for the benefits of a union. Vote NO!I am going to post the list of groups that oppose this measure at the end of this document. Please read it.Groups opposing Prop 23Patient AdvocacyRenal Support NetworkDialysis Patient CitizensChronic Disease Coalition California Hepatitis C Task Force, Inc.HealthCalifornia Medical AssociationAmerican Nurses Association\CaliforniaCalifornia Hospital AssociationAmerican Academy of Nephrology Physician Assistants (AANPA)American College of Surgeons – Northern California ChapterAmerican College of Surgeons – Southern California ChapterAmerican College of Surgeons – San Diego-Imperial ChapterNetwork of Ethnic Physician Organizations (NEPO)Association of California Healthcare DistrictsRenal Physicians AssociationNational Hispanic Medical AssociationGlobal Healthy Living FoundationMinority Health InstituteIndian Physicians Association of Central CaliforniaNational Renal Administrators AssociationCalifornia Dialysis CouncilCalifornia Medical Transportation AssociationLos Angeles Wellness StationFAIR FoundationLos Angeles County Medical SocietySan Francisco Marin Medical SocietySan Diego County Medical SocietyNapa County Medical SocietyOrange County Medical AssociationImperial County Medical SocietyRiverside County Medical AssociationAlameda-Contra Costa Medical AssociationHealth (Cont.)San Joaquin Medical SocietyFresno Madera Medical SocietyPlacer Nevada Medical SocietyYuba Sutter Colusa Medical SocietyKern County Medical SocietyMerced-Mariposa County Medical Society San Mateo County Medical AssociationCommunity Health Action NetworkCommunity Health Improvement Partner's Public Policy CommitteeLong Beach Quest Dialysis CenterDaVita Kidney CareFresenius Medical CareSatellite Healthcare US Renal CareDialysis Clinic, Inc.SeniorsCalifornia Senior Advocates LeagueCommunityCalifornia State Conference NAACPLatino Diabetes AssociationDesert AIDS ProjectSacramento Valley Section-National Council of Negro Women, Inc.Hayward South Alameda County NAACPMonterey County NAACPCompton NAACP Beverly Hills/Hollywood NAACP Equity Alliance Group, Inc.Parks Chapel A.M.E ChurchVeteransAmerican Legion, Department of CaliforniaVeterans of Foreign Wars, Department of CaliforniaVeterans (Cont.)Vietnam Veterans of America, California State CouncilDisabled American Veterans, Department of CaliforniaMilitary Order of the Purple Heart, Department of CaliforniaCalifornia State Commanders Veterans CouncilCalifornia Council of the Military Officers AssociationAMVETS, Department of CaliforniaAMVETS, California Service Foundation Women Veterans AllianceAssociation of the United States Army, Northern California ChaptersAssociation of the United States Army, Southern California ChaptersReserve Organization of America Department of Golden WestMarine Corps Veterans AssociationFilipino-American United States Marine AssociationScottish American Military Society, California ChaptersJewish War Veterans, Department of California Delta Veterans GroupBusinessCalifornia Chamber of CommerceLos Angeles County Business Federation (BizFed)Bay Area CouncilValley Industry & Commerce Association (VICA)Orange County Business Council (OCBC) Southwest California Legislative CouncilLatin Business AssociationGateway Chambers AllianceOrange County Hispanic Chamber of CommerceAntelope Valley Hispanic Chamber of CommerceAnaheim Chamber of CommerceFresno Chamber of CommerceLong Beach Area Chamber of CommerceElk Grove Chamber of CommerceAfrican American Chamber of Commerce, San JoaquinBusiness (Cont.)Filipino-American Chamber of Commerce Business NetworkTulare Kings Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Oxnard Chamber of CommerceGreater Riverside Chamber of CommerceGreater Bakersfield Chamber of CommerceGreater Coachella Chamber of CommerceNorwalk Chamber of CommerceDowney Chamber of CommerceLodi District Chamber of CommerceBell Gardens Chamber of CommerceTaxpayerCalifornia Taxpayer Protection CommitteeSilicon Valley Taxpayers Association Contra Costa Taxpayers AssociationPlacer County Taxpayers AssociationVentura County Taxpayers AssociationSoCal Tax RevoltSan Diego Tax Fighters

State & local laws will vary. Here is some info I found on Animal Law: What Claims Can be Brought When a Pet Has Been Shot Unlawfully? (The section relevant to your question is listed below)Dogs who are Chasing Livestock or Wildlife“Many states have laws allowing the shooting of dogs to protect farm animals and agricultural interests. In Puckett v. Miller, 381 N.E.2d 1087 (Ind.App.,1978) , the Court of Appeals found that a farmer who had shot the plaintiff’s coon dogs as they were trying to get into defendant's chicken enclosure had a valid defense under an Indiana statute providing that any dog known to have worried livestock or fowl or found roaming unattended may be lawfully killed. In Vermont, domestic pets “found wounding, killing or worrying another domestic pet or wolf-hybrid, a domestic animal or fowl may be killed" when reasonably necessary to prevent injury to the animal.” 20 V.S.A. § 3545(b) . Ohio provides that “a dog that is chasing or approaching in a menacing fashion” or that “attempts to bite or otherwise endanger, or that kills or injures” a person, livestock, poultry, domestic animal, or other animal, that is the property of another person, except a cat or another dog, can be killed at the time of that chasing, approaching, attempt, killing, or injury. OH ST § 955.28 . If the requirement of imminent threat is not explicitly stated in the statute, as it is in Ohio, courts often will often incorporate it through interpretation. In Propes v. Griffith , 25 S.W.3d 544 (Mo.App. W.D., 2000) , for example, the court held that "it would be logical to conclude that the legislature did not intend for MO ST § 273.030 to allow a sheep owner to have an unlimited time frame in which to kill a dog found on his property.” Rather, the landowner could only kill the dog immediately while in the act of chasing to protect his sheep. Thus, defendants were liable for taking the dogs to two different veterinarians over a three hour time span to have them euthanized. In fact, the court even found the award of punitive damages was justified, given that this type of conduct had to be deterred.While Ohio precludes attacks on cats and dogs as defenses to dog shooting, other statutes simply require that the animal being attacked is domesticated as opposed to wild. In Bueckner v. Hamel, 886 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. App. 1994) , a court interpreted a Texas law that allows people to kill dogs which are attacking domestic animals as not applicable to wild animals, such as deer. In contrast, states like Alaska, which declare that any dog who “habitually annoys any wild deer, reindeer, sheep, cattle, horse, or other animal or bird either domestic or wild” may be lawfully killed, extend protection to all species. AK ST § 03.55.030 . However, Alaska also includes the caveat that the owner, “if known or reasonably identifiable, shall be notified and given reasonable opportunity to restrain the dog before it is lawful to kill it,” and that the dog must be “at large.” AK ST § 03.55.030 .The extreme approach of Wyoming provides that any person owning a dog, which to “his knowledge has killed sheep or other livestock, shall exterminate and destroy the dog.” WY ST § 11-31-106 . Thus, Wyoming does not require an imminent threat to justify the killing, although it is not clear whether people other than the owner can lawfully kill the dog.Finally, at least one California court has held that whether homeowners raise domesticated animals, such as pigeons, for consumption or other purposes such as breeding or enjoyment, they “may properly claim the privilege accorded an owner of ‘poultry’ or livestock pursuant to Food and Agricultural Code section 31103.” Thus, dog shooters may have a defense even if the animals they were protecting were pets and not agricultural commodities. Harrington v. Hovanec Decision on Motion in Limine California Superior Court, Placer County (April 2006) .To rebut the defendant’s assertion that the dog was threatening livestock, consider whether the facts would support a reasonable person’s conclusion the dog was a danger to the animals, whether the statute covers the type of animal the dog was attacking, whether the threat was imminent, and whether there was a statutory caveat that the owner should be notified and given a chance to restrain his pet.”I would like to end this with a small plea to anyone who considers shooting a dog that is trespassing on their private property. Please exercise your legal rights with the discretion to know the difference between a dog that is playing and a dog that is showing signs of aggression. Herding dogs enjoy herding because they are programmed to herd livestock from centuries of humans doing selective breeding to enhance such traits in the animal. They herd instinctively so they will attempt to herd anything that moves quickly enough to grab their attention. So if the dog isn’t injuring your livestock PLEASE consider calling animal control before you kill someone’s pet. Hold the dog’s owner accountable for their dereliction. Dogs will roam wherever they have access, it’s not the animals fault, so don’t punish them.