Month: August 2010

Tuesday Aug 31 8:15 pm Update The motion to reconsider SB 250 is being voted on, but a number of members are voting against what is usually a courtesy vote (even members who oppose a bill vote for these motions).   This is not a vote on the actual bill itself.  It is a vote on a motion to allow yet another vote on the bill.  The motion to reconsider has been voted on twice so far but has not yet reached the 41 vote threshold to allow another vote on SB 250.   As more members enter the chamber we expect the call will be lifted again on the motion.

Tuesday Aug 31 7:00 pm Update Our sources in the Capitol are hearing that Senator Florez will bring back SB 250 for another vote tonight.  Supporters are flooding assembly member offices with calls and faxes.   We need to do the same to counter them.

Monday Aug 30 9:35 pm Update: The Assembly adjourned until 10 AM Tuesday.  No vote for SB 250 occurred today.  Tuesday is the last day the legislature can deal with SB 250.

Monday Aug 30 6:22 pm Update : The Assembly is in session today and will work until late tonight.  They are trying to get through the pending bills before the 2009-2010  session ends tomorrow.   SB 250 is on the schedule but has not been dealt with yet.

Friday Aug 27 Update:  The Assembly adjourned until 1 pm Monday Aug 30.  There were no votes on SB 250 today.  Your calls and faxes are really helping.

*********************

SB 250 was voted on four times today, and each time it failed to pass. The last vote tally was 33 34 Yes, 40 No, 5 4 Not voting. The vote tabulation can be found here.

But it’s not over yet, because reconsideration was requested granted again.

This means that the Assembly might vote on SB 250 once again on Friday, or perhaps Monday or Tuesday if when the Assembly reconvenes next week. Tuesday is the last day the legislature can vote on bills according to the state Constitution.

Your calls and faxes are making a huge difference.

The Sacramento Bee reported today

An immense outpouring of opposition from dog and cat owners had an impact today when the Assembly rejected a bill aimed at forcing more pet sterilizations as an alternative to euthanizing hundreds of thousands of strays.

Legislators’ office had been inundated with protests, as several mentioned during the emotion-tinged floor debate that preceded the vote on Senate Bill 250.

Assemblymember Conway said during floor debate on SB 250 that her fax machine has been jammed with opposition faxes, and her office has received more calls and letters about SB 250 than all other bills combined.

Unfortunately, because there can be yet another vote on this bill, we have to ask you once again to make calls and send  faxes.   We know that pressure will be put on many members who voted with us to switch their votes to Yes.  They need to hear from us that their votes are appreciated by California voters.   Please THANK these members for not voting for SB 250 (remember that an “abstain” is just as good as a NO vote for us).

Also, please call the office of Speaker John Perez and ask him to please vote against this bill: (916) 319-2046

California SB 250 – mandatory sterilization for dogs and cats – is eligible for a vote in the Assembly at any time.   If it passes the Assembly it may be moved very quickly to a final vote in the Senate.   Additional polite No on SB 250 calls and faxes are needed from Californians to these legislators:

The lobbying firm retained by SB 250 supporters has been giving a “Background Sheet” of misinformation about this bill to legislators.

CLAIM: SB 250 DOES NOT APPLY to an owner of a licensed dog or cat.

FACT: SB 250 DOES APPLY to the owner of a licensed dog.

SECTION 1. 30804.6 (b) of SB 250 reads:

(b) The licensing agency shall utilize its existing procedures or
may establish procedures for the denial or revocation of an
unaltered dog license and may deny or revoke a license for one or more of the following reasons:
(1) The owner, custodian, applicant or licensee is not in
compliance with all of the requirements of this section.
(2) The owner, custodian, applicant, or licensee has violated a
state law, or a city, county, or other local governmental provision
relating to the care and control of animals.
(3) Any unaltered dog license held by the applicant has been
revoked for violating a state law, or a city, county, or other local
government provision relating to the care or control of animals.
(4) The license application is discovered to contain a material
misrepresentation or omission of fact.
(5) In any case in which the owner or custodian of a dog with
an unaltered dog license is cited for permitting the dog to roam at
large, the license of the dog shall not be subject to revocation for
a first violation, if at the time the dog roams at large the dog
possesses a current license pursuant to Section 30801, Section
121690 of the Health and Safety Code, or as required by the local
licensing agency.

This means that if a licensed dog is not wearing its collar and the owner is citied for the dog not wearing its license or rabies tag, the owner may have the unaltered dog licenses revoked for all dogs he then owns and also be forbidden from licensing any unaltered dogs ever again. Since dog licensing is mandatory under existing state law, the owner would not be allowed to own an intact dog ever again.

This means that if a licensed dog gets loose from its owner’s property twice within 15 years and the owner is cited for violating the leash law / at large law, the owner may have the unaltered dog licenses revoked for all dogs he then owns and also be forbidden from licensing any unaltered dogs ever again. Since dog licensing is mandatory under existing state law, the owner would not be allowed to own an intact dog ever again.

This does not encourage dog licensing. It is mandatory spay-neuter for all dogs a person owns now and into the future due to minor infractions already subject to appropriate fines. It is an excessive penalty, comparable to forbidding a person from registering a car due to a broken taillight.

CLAIM: SB 250 DOES NOT APPLY to an owner or breeder of any licensed dog used for shepherding, herding, guarding livestock, cultivating agricultural products, hunting or the purposes of field trials, or to any owner or trainer of a guide dog, signal dog, service dog, peace officer’s dog, or firefighter’s dog.

FACT: SB 250 DOES NOT adequately protect these dogs or other working dogs because:

• Before they become guide dogs for the blind, signal dogs for the deaf, or service dogs for the disabled – or breeding dogs used to produce the future generation these dogs — they spend the first year of their lives
  unaltered and in the homes of volunteer puppy raisers. Puppy raisers are not legally the “owner or trainer” and these dogs are not yet “guide dogs, signal dogs, or service dogs”. While they are with puppy raisers,
  these dogs are not exempt from the provisions in SB 250.
• Search-and-rescue dogs have no exemption at all in SB 250. Search-and-rescue area search and cadaver dogs work and train off leash and without their collars for safety reasons. Many local ordinances make no exceptions for search-and-rescue dogs in their leash laws / at large laws or in their requirements that dogs wear their license or rabies tags. SB 250 increases penalties for search-and-rescue dog owners to include revocation or denial of unaltered dog licenses.
• Before they become peace officer’s dogs for police service work, drug sniffing, or bomb sniffing, these dogs are in pet homes. Most of the time neither the dog owner nor anyone else has any idea he is raising a
  future law enforcement dog. These are dogs bred for work that may grow up into adults that are “too much dog” for the pet owner to handle. If this happens the dogs are rehomed back to the breeder or other intermediary, and if suitable end up in being sold to law enforcement. But before this happens these dogs are subject to all of the same provisions in the law as any other pet. SB 250 does not have an exemption during that time, and cannot do so because no one – not even the pet owner – knows he is raising a future law enforcement dog. Dogs that a spayed or neutered before they are 18 to 24 months of age rarely grow up to be suitable for police service work.
• Dogs used for shepherding, herding, guarding livestock, and cultivating agricultural products are not protected from the provisions of SB 250 because the bill allows local ordinances to override the exemption.
• Dogs used for hunting and field trials are not protected from the provisions of SB 250 because the bill allows local ordinances to override the exemption.
• The breeding populations that produce the next generation of working dogs are largely unprotected. With or without exemptions for the working dogs themselves, or those owned by today’s breeders, there is no way to craft exemption language to protect the breeding populations required to supply future working dogs because a large percentage of future breeding dogs for work are not in the homes of today’s breeders or working dog handlers. They are not legally distinguishable from pet dogs.

Today Senator Florez pushed through amendments to SB 250.  The amendments, which can be found here, are not yet in print.  The amendments are very minor, and do nothing to address the reasons to oppose this bill.

Senator Florez may push for an Assembly vote as early as tomorrow or Friday.

If you do not want mandatory sterilization for dogs and cats in California, it is critical that you call or fax the office of your Assembly member today.   It takes less than 1 minute to politely tell the person who answers the phone — or leave a polite message — along the lines of:

“Hello, my name is [your name  ] and I live in [ name of city  ] California.  I am calling to ask Assemblymember [  ] to continue to oppose Senate Bill 250 – mandatory spay-neuter for dogs and cats – when it comes up for a vote.  The recent amendments do nothing to change any of the reasons for opposing this bill.  Thank you.”

You can find your California Assembly member here

Listed below are the members who voted no or abstained on SB 250 in 2009.

This is as critical as it gets.  Please take action today.