Month: May 2009

SB 250 has been amended one more time. You can read our analysis of the previous versions of the bill if you want to follow along. There are only two substantive changes: bird dogs are now included in the meaningless “hunting dog exemption”, and your local government can charge you a fee if they deny or revoke your intact license. Yes, that’s right. Your local government not only can revoke your intact licenses, they can make money in the process.

There is some language that purports to exempt hunting dogs some of the time. If you have a hunting license and you are using your dog to legally hunt mammals or birds, your dog cannot be considered running at large under section (f) [was section (e) in the previous version]. This does not cover most working dogs. It doesn’t cover hunting dogs when they are training, at home, or when doing anything else. What is so special about hunting dogs while actually in the act of hunting that makes it necessary to exempt them in this special way? We know a fair bit about hunting dogs and we can’t think of a thing. If this bill is bad for those dogs (and it is) then it is equally bad for many other dogs like hunting dogs in training, search and rescue dogs, police dogs, bomb detection dogs, ranch and farm dogs, guide dogs, service dogs,  performance dogs, etc.

Save Our Dogs opposes forced sterilization of dogs. We speak from the perspective of working dogs but we do not seek and will not support exemptions for working dogs.  Exemptions do not work.

The hunting dog “exemption” in SB 250 is in practice meaningless because you are still subject to having your intact permits revoked. A dog running at large is a violation of various local animal control laws. The “exemption” only applies to section (f)(1)(A) of SB 250. It does not apply to local leash laws. Say you are out hunting with your dog. Through a combination of circumstances your dog is picked up for running at large. Section (f)(1)(A) doesn’t exempt you from the local leash law so you are found guilty. You have violated a local animal control law so your local animal control agency revokes your intact permits under section (b)(2) of SB 250 and you must surgically sterilize your dogs.  Yes, SB 250 is so badly written that the only exemption specified is contradicted by another section of the bill.

Section (b), the core provisions of the bill, is unchanged. Violate an animal control law even once and you may never be allowed to own an intact dog ever again. One violation and your intact licenses can be denied or revoked at any time, forever. No one can have intact dogs under those conditions. Suppose your county unknowingly hires a PETA member as head of animal control. In an effort to balance the budget, this person revokes and denies all intact licenses, including yours, generating millions of dollars in fines. He/She is fired six months later but it’s too late, your dogs have already been surgically sterilized. It’s not possible to reattach the parts even if they decide to give you back your licenses.

This will cost local jurisdictions money. Say you get a citation for some minor animal control infraction. No longer can you just pay the ticket.  You have to fight tooth and nail every step of the way to preserve your future right to own intact dogs. If you lose you either get out of dogs or leave the state. Instead of getting a check for $50 in the mail, the county will have to hold a hearing, and maybe an appeal hearing, go to court, etc. In the end the county will pay thousands in staff costs to collect one $50 fine. It’s only $50 to the county, but it is your life with your dogs to you so you’ll do whatever it takes.

The new fees for having intact licenses denied or revoked almost seem designed to drive dog owners underground. The state has a poor licensing compliance rate already, 10-30% compared to over 90% in Calgary. If you apply for a license and it is denied, you can be charged an additional fee for having the license denied. Maybe the local agency doesn’t charge such a fee now, but they may when it is time for renewal. Just one more thing to drive people away. And of course what will they do if you don’t pay the fee? Impound and kill your dogs, of course. You can’t even sell your dogs or give them away. You have to have a intact license to do that.

All these new fees and punishments will be enforced with the threat of impounding your dog. Any law that impounds owned dogs or increases the cost of redeeming impounded dogs will kill dogs. Most owned dogs that are forcibly impounded are ultimately killed. Taking dogs from their owners is usually a death sentence. Increasing the costs to redeem a dog, especially with an 11% statewide unemployment rate, will kill dogs. Before they are killed, the impounded dogs will sit in the shelter for the state mandated waiting period. The state is required by the existing Hayden Act reimbursement mandate to pay local governments for this cost. The state already pays over $20 million a year for this reimbursement. How many more fire fighters, police officers, teachers, and nurses will have to be laid off to cover the addition reimbursement the state will have to pay out if SB 250 passes?

We fail to see the point of this bill. There is no action that is currently legal that SB 250 makes illegal. All it appears to accomplish is give local animal control the power to forcibly spay/neuter as many dogs as possible. What it does do is make responsible pet owners afraid of their local animal control agency. This will reduce licensing compliance and licensing fee income. It will increase the cost of enforcement. Fewer dogs will be adopted because the public will avoid contact with the shelters. More dogs will be impounded. More dogs will be killed.

SB 250, The Pet Owner Punishment Act, just kills dogs.

It took 13 amendments to kill AB1634, so I guess we are making progress. SB250 has been amended yet again. Either someone is reading our analysis or is reaching some of the same conclusions. The bill is still ridiculously punitive, but the most ridiculous part has been deleted.

Under previous versions of the bill your intact licenses could be denied or revoked at any time, forever, at the whim of local animal control for just being cited for violation of an animal control law or “being neglectful” of your animals. Just get a ticket, even if you are later found not guilty, and you can never have an intact dog again. Under the latest amendments, you at least have to be found guilty and the vague “neglectful” clause has been struck.

Still, be found guilty even once and you can never confidently own an intact dog ever again. One violation and forever after your local animal control can deny or revoke your intact dog permits at any time. No one can have intact dogs under those conditions. Suppose your county unknowingly hires an animal rights whacko as head of animal control. The ARista revokes and denies all intact licenses, including yours. Maybe he/she is fired six months later but it’s too late, your dogs have already been surgically sterilized. It’s not possible to reattach the parts even if they decide to give you back your licenses.

This will cost local jurisdictions money. If you get a citation for some minor infraction, you won’t just pay the ticket. You’ll hire an attorney and appeal any adverse decision all the way to the Supreme Court. One ticket is a death sentence. Rather than pay the ticket and go on, you have to fight tooth and nail every step of the way. If you loose you either get out of dogs or leave the state.

Older dogs sometimes lose control of their anal sphincter and unknowingly have accidents. So you are taking your senior dog for a walk in the park. He accidentally poops without you seeing it. An animal control officer sees you walk away from a poop on the sidewalk and gives you a citation. Prior to SB250 you’d just pay the ticket. You are probably guilty. You didn’t actually see the dog poop so you don’t know for sure, but it’s $50 or whatever so you just pay. After SB250 you hire an attorney. If the county can’t prove via DNA testing that the poop came from your dog, you won’t pay and you’ll fight to show the DNA test was invalid. You will spend whatever it takes because the alternative is forever being at the mercy of whoever is in charge at animal control that day. One violation and your intact permits can be denied or revoked forever.

Instead of getting a check for $50 in the mail, the county will have to hold a hearing, and maybe an appeal hearing, and go to court, and appellate court, etc. In the end the county will pay thousands in staff costs to collect one $50 fine. It’s only $50 to the county, but it is your life with your dogs to you so you’ll do whatever it takes.

There is some language that partially exempts some hunting dogs. If you have a hunting license and you are using your dog to legally hunt mammals, your dog cannot be considered running at large under section (e). This is disappointing. It doesn’t cover all working dogs. It doesn’t even cover all hunting dogs. What is so special about dogs hunting mammals that makes it necessary to exempt them in this special way? We know a fair bit about hunting dogs and we can’t think of a thing that is unique to dogs hunting mammals. If this bill is bad for those dogs (and it is) then it is equally bad for many other dogs. Save Our Dogs opposes forced sterilization for all dogs. We speak from the perspective of working dogs but we do not seek and will not support exemptions for working dogs.

The hunting dog “exemption” is in practice meaningless because you are still subject to having their intact permits revoked for any animal control law violation. A dog running at large is a violation of various local animal control laws. The “exemption” only applies to section (e)(1)(A) of SB250. It does not apply to local leash laws. So you are out hunting mammals. Through a combination of circumstances your dog is picked up for running at large. Section (e)(1)(A) doesn’t exempt you from the local leash law so you are found guilty. You have violated a local animal control law so your local animal control agency revokes your intact permits under section (b)(2) and you must surgically sterilize your dogs.

Section (g) of previous versions of the bill specifically stated that the owner of an impounded dog had to pay all sorts of costs to get the dog back. These amendments try to disguise that dog killing provision with vague language.

The owner or custodian shall comply with any additional impoundment procedures.

Of course what this means in practice is that the owner must pay to get the dog back. Any law that impounds owned dogs or increases the cost of redeeming impounded dogs will kill dogs. Around 80% of owned dogs that are forcibly impounded are ultimately killed. Taking dogs from their owners is a death sentence. Increasing the costs to redeem a dog, especially with an 11% statewide unemployment rate, will kill dogs.

We fail to see the point of this bill. There is no action that is currently legal that SB250 makes illegal. All it appears to accomplish is give local animal control the power to forcibly spay/neuter as many dogs as possible. What it does do is make responsible pet owners afraid of their local animal control agency. This will reduce licensing compliance. It will increase the cost of enforcement. Fewer dogs will be adopted because the public will avoid contact with the shelters. More dogs will be impounded. More dogs will be killed. SB250, The Pet Owner Punishment Act, just kills dogs.

SB250 was amended April 21, 2009. This version of the bill is not fundamentally different from the bill as introduced or as amended April 21. There is some minor rewording and reorganization but no important changes. The most notable change is that the language about dogs and the language about cats have been separated. The sections of the bill pertaining to cats is now consolidated at the end.

In the April 15 hearing, Senator Wiggins stated that there were serious problems with the bill and forced Senator Florez to accept some amendments. Those amendments are reflected in this new version of the bill. Unfortunately Senator Wiggins’s amendments did not make any meaningful changes in the impact of the bill if it becomes law. She (or her staff) did not recognize the enormous harm contained in section (c). The amendments changed section (e) (formerly section (g)) to restrict it to five specific offenses. This doesn’t matter as section (c) still gives Animal Control the power to force you to spay or neuter your dogs almost without limit.

The following is repeated from our analysis of the April 2 version of the bill.

In spite of the all the complex language, the bill is really very simple.

SB250 is the Pet Owner Punishment Act

There may be some odd corner cases, but overall no new infractions are imposed on dog owners. But the new penalties for existing infractions. Holy Cow! One misstep and for the rest of your life, your dogs are subject to mandatory spay/neuter at the whims of your local animal control agency. Get cited for a barking dog, even if you were out of town and the dog was with you, then for the rest of your life, at any time, AC can swoop in and force you to spay/neuter your dogs. You can’t even sell your dogs or give them away. You must shell out $300 plus to have each and every one spayed or neutered. Or turn them over to the pound to kill. The only new legal requirement is that an unlicensed intact dog that is impounded, must be spayed or neutered, at the owner’s expense, before the dog can be released. And of course that additional $300 plus cost of spay/neuter wouldn’t prevent anyone from reclaiming their dog would it? SB250 will kill dogs.

Here are the two critical points:

First: The bill requires that every dog be licensed “pursuant to Section 121690” or as required by the local jurisdiction. That’s just the normal dog license you are already required to get. State law requires that the license for an intact dog cost at least twice as much as for a spayed or neutered dog.

Second:

(c) An unaltered dog license may be denied or revoked for one or more of the following reasons:
[omitted]
(c)(2) The licensing agency has issued one citation verified by the agency
pursuant to existing policies and procedures that the owner,
custodian, applicant, or licensee has allowed a dog to be stray or
run at large or has otherwise been found to be neglectful of his or
her or other animals.
(c)(3) The owner, custodian, applicant, or licensee has been
previously cited for violating a state law, or a city, county, or other
local governmental provision relating to the care and control of
animals.

That pretty much covers it. You have to have an intact license and if you have ever been cited for an animal violation or “been found to be neglectful of [your] other animals” your intact licenses can be denied or revoked. At any time. For all of your dogs. Forever.

If that weren’t bad enough here’s the real horror. You don’t even have to be found guilty of the violation you were cited for. Just receiving the citation alone is enough to drop the ax. Here’s the definition of “citation”.

citation

n. 1) a notice to appear in court due to the probable commission of a minor crime such as a traffic violation, drinking liquor in a park where prohibited, letting a dog loose without a leash, and in some states for possession of a small amount of marijuana. Failure to appear can result in a warrant for the citee’s arrest.

A citation is just a notice to appear in court. No requirement that you were ever found to have actually been in violation of any law. So even if you were found innocent of the charges in a citation, you are still guilty under SB250. And you have to have an intact license to sell or give away a dog. So your only choices are to pay to spay/neuter or dump the dog at the pound.

The other disaster in the bill is this:

(h) If an unlicensed unaltered dog or cat is impounded pursuant
to state or local law, in addition to satisfying applicable
requirements for the release of the animal, including, but not
limited to, payment of impound fees pursuant to this section, the
owner or custodian shall also do one of the following:
[omitted]
(2) Have the dog or cat spayed or neutered by a veterinarian
associated with the licensing agency at the expense of the owner
or custodian. That expense may include additional fees due to any
extraordinary care required.
(3) Arrange to have the dog or cat spayed or neutered by another
veterinarian licensed in this state.

So when an unlicensed, intact dog ends up in the shelter, and the owner comes to pick him up, not only does he get to pay all the existing fees. He must pay to have the dog spayed or neutered. In this economy a lot of people may not be able to afford that additional $300 plus. They might just tell the shelter to keep the dog. Now that’s another dog ripped from his home to either be adopted or killed.

This bill is just about punishing people and killing dogs. Nothing more. As dog trainers we know that rewards work far better than punishment. Too bad the backers of this bill are still in the jerk and choke era of training. Punishment builds resentment and fear. Rewards build cooperation and confidence. In both dogs and people.