Author: Webmaste

Categories
CA MS/N Legislation SB 250

Response to SB 250 Misinformation

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(3) Any unaltered dog license held by the applicant has been
revoked for violating a state law, or a city, county, or other local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.
Categories
CA

AB 2689 passes California state legislature

California AB 2689, sponsored by Assemblymember Cameron Smyth, has passed in both the Assembly and state Senate.  Next step is the governor’s desk for his consideration.  All votes for this bill in both the Assembly and Senate, in committee and floor votes, were unanimous.  This bill will modernize California’s rabies vaccination law, and is a win for California dog owners.

Categories
CA

AB 2243 would improve California’s emergency response system

pelemarkSave Our Dogs supports California Assembly Bill 2243 (Smyth) .

When emergencies strike, search-and-rescue handler-dog teams that provide life-saving services often need to travel considerable distances with no advance notice.  While traveling as part of their official duties, these teams often require access to lodging, public transportation, and other travel services.  And yet this access is often impeded or denied by policies that discriminate against those who bring their dogs.

Existing California state law provides protections against discrimination when peace officer and firefighter handler-dog teams travel on official business with their dogs.   AB 2243 would extend these protections to search-and-rescue handler-dog teams.

At no cost to the taxpayers, AB 2243 would improve California’s emergency response system.

AB 2243 passed the state Assembly unanimously, 76-0.   It now awaits action by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Categories
CA

AB 2689 to modernize California rabies law

Save Our Dogs supports Assembly Bill 2689 (amended 4/22/2010), sponsored by Assemblymember Cameron Smyth. This bill would modernize existing California state law as it pertains to rabies vaccination paperwork.

Current California state law requires dog owners to provide proof to their local dog licensing authority that their dogs have been vaccinated for rabies. But the law is archaic and has been interpreted to require that the actual rabies vaccination paperwork be delivered or snail mailed to the dog owner’s local licensing authority.

Modern methods of providing proof of rabies vaccination include: fax, email, telephone, and online forms on the Internet. Current California state law does not allow for any of these options. AB 2689 would fix that, and dog owners would benefit.

AB 2689 would pave the way for the user-friendly dog licensing options that helped create the best animal control program in North America in Calgary Canada.

The modest change AB 2689 makes to state law would enable these benefits:

  • make it easier for dog owners to license their dogs
  • by removing the hassle, increase the number of licensed dogs
  • because more dogs picked up stray will be licensed, increase return-to-owner rates for dogs that get loose
  • decrease the number of dogs euthanized in animal shelters – saving dogs’ lives
  • improve the efficiency of local governments’ rabies compliance and licensing programs
  • increase dog licensing revenue for local governments

AB 2689 is a win-win for all stakeholders.   An earlier version of the bill contained provisions that dog owners objected to, so Assemblymember Smyth amended the bill to remove those provisions.

AB 2689 is a good bill and Save Our Dogs supports it.

AB 2689 is scheduled for a hearing and vote in the Assembly Local Government Committee on April 21.

California dog owners can phone their support to the Committee at (916) 319-2038 or (916) 319-3958 .

On May 6, AB 2689 passed the Assembly unanimously, 74-0.

On June 10, AB 2689 passed the Senate Heath Committee unanimously, 5-0.

[Update] A section of current California law (Health & Safety Code Section 121690) was copied and pasted into AB 2689 (as amended 4/15/2010) and this has generated some confusion.

AB 2689 would NOT  change anything in current state law pertaining to how frequently rabies vaccinations need to given or how frequently dog licenses need to be renewed.

AB 2689 would NOT impose a requirement for annual rabies vaccinations.

The purpose of copying the current law into AB 2689 was to clean up some awkward wording:

121690(e)
“It shall be the duty of the governing body of each city, city and county, or county…”

becomes

“The governing body of each city, city and county, or county shall…”

121690(f)
“It shall be the responsibility of each city, county, or city and county to…”

becomes

“Each city, county, or city and county shall…”

It’s minor wordsmithing.

Categories
CA MS/N Legislation SB 250

SB250 Stopped—for now

The California Legislature is winding down for the year and SB250 has been placed on the inactive file. That means no further action until next year. With your help we stopped SB250, but it’s not dead, yet. When the Legislature reconvenes next year Senator Florez can bring the bill back and pick up right where we left off, at the Assembly floor vote. Or he may just let it die.

It was your letters and faxes and phone calls that stopped this bad bill. We heard over and over at the Capitol that polite, well reasoned statements were greatly appreciated and made a real difference. Thank you for your support. Take a rest for a few weeks. We’re going to.

But the bill’s not dead yet either. If it comes back we’ll be ready with something you can do. So check back every so often, sign up for our RSS feed or follow us on Twitter. We’ll keep you up to date.

[Update] If you are looking for our Easy Letter, we have given it a rest as well. If SB250 comes back, so will the Easy Letter, shinier than ever.

Categories
CA MS/N Legislation SB 250

SB250 as amended August 31, 2009

The latest amendments are up. The most significant thing about these amendments is that they require the bill to go back to the Senate. Prior to these amendments, the bill only needed to pass in the Assembly before going to the Governor’s desk.

There are some minor changes, but nothing that makes the bill any better. Save Our Dogs opposes this latest version.

What is important however, is that this version contains language that purports to exempt a few classes of working dogs. As we have written before, exemptions for working dogs do not protect those dogs. This is no exception.

(l)  Nothing in this section shall apply to any of the following,
provided the subject dog is licensed pursuant to Section 30801,
Section 121690 of the Health and Safety Code, or as required by
the local licensing agency:

(2) Any owner or breeder of a dog used in the business of
cultivating agricultural products.

This “exemption” was added specifically to cover insect detection dogs used to detect insect pests in vineyards. Let us consider the hypothetical case of an insect detection dog, Rita.

This is a new-ish use for dogs, so although Rita is the most experienced dog in the State, she is just two years old. She is intact and her owner/handler plans on breeding her someday, but this has nothing to do with Rita’s ability to do her job. This exemption covers Rita. But what about Rita’s parents?

Neither of Rita’s parents were insect detection dogs. Nor were they police dogs, service dogs, hunting dogs or any of the other “exempt” categories. Nor are the owners of Rita’s parents involved in any of the special businesses that would qualify them for exemptions. So Rita’s parents would suffer the full weight of the law. And if either of them had been spayed/neutered then Rita would never have been born. The exemption does not protect Rita.

Let us suppose, though that Rita’s father, Rex, was owned by a police dog trainer. Under another section, Rex would be exempt when he was bred to Rita’s mother. But Rex was purchased at 18 months of age from a private individual. Rex’s first owner bought him as a pet, but then discovered that Rex was too much dog and found a place where Rex could do what he was born to do. But for the first 18 months of his life Rex was not owned by a police dog trainer and so was not exempt. If Rex’s first owner had neutered him at 6 months old as the law requires, then there would be no Rita and insects would overrun the California vineyards.

The problem with the specific exemption language in this version of SB250, and with all attempts to exempt working dogs, is that there is no bright line between the parents of working dogs and pets. Further this law requires that this non-existent bright line be drawn when the dog is 6 months old. It is simply impossible to protect the breeding stock for future working dogs without exempting all dogs. It is only when the dogs are five and eight years old and their offspring are working that you can say, “this dog is breeding stock for working dogs”, These laws require that the dog be identified at six months and that is impossible.

The only thing that this language does is perhaps mislead some people into believing that police dogs, service dogs, herding dogs and others are protected. We need to do everything in our power to explain that these so-called exemptions do nothing. Please contact your representative and explain this to them. All California working dogs need your help.

Categories
SB 250

SB 250 Clears Assembly Business and Professions Committee

SB 250 was passed out of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee. Six for, four against. Once again the bill seems to have passed on “courtesy” votes. The state is about to start paying its bills with IOUs and the Legislature is passing an expensive dog killing bill on “courtesy” votes? What happened to actually voting based on the merits of the bill?

Next the bill goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Given that the California Department of Finance came down hard against the bill, it really should die in Appropriations. We’ll have information up on contacting the Committee soon. Thanks for your help so far and keep up the good work. You may not see it in the votes, but your calls and letters do have an impact.

Categories
Working Dogs

Impact of Mandatory Spay/Neuter on Working Dogs

Mandatory spay/neuter laws are devastating to working dogs. No exemptions can prevent the damage. There is no bright line between working dogs to be exempted and pet dogs that must be spayed or neutered. The traits that make a working dog are genetically fragile. It takes constant effort by experienced, thoughtful breeders to protect these traits. Mandatory spay/neuter laws remove so many dogs from the pool of potential breeding stock that it is impossible to preserve the traits that make a good working dog. In the end the dogs will loose the ability to do their jobs.

pelemark
Though we often think of dogs today only as pets, in California tens of thousands of dogs are employed to do useful work. No matter how crafted, mandatory spay/neuter laws affect working dogs as well as pets.

Working dog breeding requires selection for the specific traits required to do a job, in every generation. Otherwise, working abilities will gradually diminish over successive generations until they fall below the level required to do the work.

To produce useful working dogs, breeders must selectively breed from among the dogs with the best demonstrated working abilities. “You need to breed to the extreme [workers] to produce good workers” is a commonly understood maxim of working dog breeding.

Working abilities in dogs are generally not apparent until dogs are about 1 – 2 years of age, and sometimes even older. Dogs need to mentally and physically mature into adults before their working abilities are established. It’s also necessary to wait until a dog is an adult to do many important genetic health screening tests for breeding purposes, including orthopedic tests of hip soundness.

Because of the need to selectively breed from among the best working dogs, and because there’s no reliable way to select dogs for working dog breeding when they are puppies, it’s critical to keep many more working dogs sexually intact into adulthood than end up being bred. These intact dogs are for the most part owned by working dog handlers, not breeders. This way, there is an adequate pool of intact working dogs from which to select the best breeding candidates. This time-proven process cannot work if only a tiny percentage of dog owners are allowed to keep intact dogs on account of mandatory spay/neuter laws and limited access to “intact permits”.

Here’s some examples of how mandatory spay/neuter laws affect working dogs:

Police Service Dogs

Exemptions for working dogs are totally inadequate to protect law enforcement:

Most of the breeding dogs that create working police dogs are not themselves police dogs, but are bred and used in the protection dog sports where their working abilities are tested. Because they are not themselves police dogs, most would not be eligible under any exemption for police service dogs and so would have to be spayed or neutered.

finneganExemptions only protect the current generation of working police dogs from mandatory spay/neuter. Future  generations would have to qualify for an exemption prior to some very young age to avoid mandatory sterilization. But there is no such thing as a six month old puppy who is being trained for or used by law enforcement. A dog has to mature into early adulthood before meeting those criteria. Future generations of police dogs would be spay/neutered before they even became eligible for an exemption. Spay/neuter cannot be undone, so an exemption doesn’t help police dogs at all.

Many working police dogs were once somebody’s pet dog. They were bought by a pet owner as a young pup, but were rehomed as young adults. If they pass all the working and health tests, eventually they may end up with a police department. Few of these dogs come with registration papers. Because working police dogs spent their first year or two of life as somebody’s pet dog, there’s no way to create a bright line in the law between the future supply of police dogs and other pet dogs. Most of these future police dogs, perhaps nearly all, would be sterilized before even making it into police work, under any mandatory spay/neuter law.

A few breeding dogs or potential future police dogs might qualify for an exemption. The increased cost and bureaucratic hassle will cause many pet owners not to bother, further reducing the availability of these dogs. Remember, before a dog becomes a police dog, he’s a pet. For police service work, nearly all of the dogs are intact males. There may be no other K9 work where testosterone plays such an important role in the development of the dog’s working abilities. Because of the demonstrated benefit of testosterone in the working ability of Law Enforcement dogs, leaving even non-breeding males intact plays an important role in the success of these dogs. The lives of police officers and citizens may be put at risk by the reduced working ability resulting from early neuter. Neuter these dogs when they are six months old, and it will massively reduce their odds of growing up to be police service dogs. Few would make it.

It is already very difficult for law enforcement to find dogs who are suitable for police work. A very large majority of dogs who are evaluated fail to pass the screening tests. Dogs have to be imported from all over the world just to supply the need in California. Any mandatory spay/neuter law would make an already difficult task many times more difficult. Mandatory spay/neutrer would increase costs to the taxpayers to purchase dogs from a shrinking supply of suitable dogs. Crime could increase as there would not be enough dogs to fill all the law enforcement jobs. There’s really no way to create a mandatory spay/neuter law that would not do serious harm to law enforcement in the state of California.

Guide Dogs and Assistance Dogs

Yellow Labrador Retreiver assistance dog with handlerAmong the greatest services that working dogs perform is assisting people who need help in their everyday lives. The most well known of these are the Guide Dogs for the Blind, but there are many other kinds of assistance dogs. As with all other working dogs, mandatory spay/neuter laws would destroy the breeding programs for Guide Dogs and other assistance dogs.

Guide Dogs for the Blind of San Rafael, CA has their own breeding program. Those dogs could be made exempt, but this would not save the Guide Dogs. The Guide Dogs program regularly breeds to dogs outside of their program. This is vital for the genetic health and success of their program. These outside dogs belong to private individuals; they are pets and so would not be exempt. While an exemption would slow the decline, the end would be the same. Without a wide range of intact breeding stock from which to select, decline is inevitable.

Guide Dogs for the Blind is not the only assistance dog program in California, only the most well known. There are at least sixteen other accredited assistance dog programs in the State. Some of these programs train very carefully selected shelter dogs, but most get their candidates from the same working dog breeders that supply police dogs, search and rescue dogs, herding dogs, and other working dogs. Any mandatory spay/neuter law no matter what exemptions it included would in the end destroy these invaluable dogs.

Search and Rescue Dogs

Search and rescue (SAR) dogs use the dog’s greatest asset, her nose, to work saving human lives. It takes a special dog to work for hours in bad weather, nasty terrain searching the air for even the tiniest hint of scent. Each time the dog detects a fragment of scent she must track down the source. Only the very best dogs can do this just as well at the end of a grueling day as they did fresh out of the truck. SAR trailing dogs do what is possibly the most demanding job we ask of any dog, following days old scent trails across miles of varied terrain. It looks like a miracle every time you see it. Yet to well bred and trained SAR trailing dogs, it is just all in a days work.

The nose, the intelligence, the work ethic, the trainability required to make a SAR dog are genetically fragile traits. Breeders must select the best breeding stock in each generation to produce the next. The best SAR dogs don’t show their real quality until they are several years old. If these dogs are spayed or neutered at an early age they are lost to the breeding program. And as with all other working dogs, most of the breeding stock for SAR dogs are not themselves SAR dogs. They are family pets used for tracking, protection sports, agility, hunting. Any mandatory spay/neuter law that tries to carve out an exemption for SAR dogs will miss the majority of the breeding stock that should produce the next generation. Within a few years there will not be any SAR dogs in the woods looking for lost children.

Stock Dogs

Stock dogs are used to herd livestock or protect them from threats such as predators. California has thousands of working stock dogs. The dogs are bred from lines that have been used and proven in demanding stock work for decades, sometimes centuries.

honey2Typically none of the working stock dogs in California would qualify for a spay/neuter exemption under a mandatory spay/neuter law. Most of these dogs are unregistered, and many are mixed breeds. Of those that are registered few working stock dogs are trained for or compete in trials. As a result almost none would qualify an exemption. Mandatory spay/neuter would destroy working stock dog breeding in California.

A number of stock dog breeds would simply go extinct in California. They would not be eligible for an exemption. Ironically, this includes the McNab, a working stock dog developed in California over 100 years ago. This unique part of our state heritage, handed down from generation to generation for over a century, would disappear in just over a decade if mandatory spay/neuter becomes law.

As with police service dogs, there would be no future generations of California-bred stock dogs under mandatory spay/neuter, because very few of them are used for herding or guarding livestock when they are puppies. Almost all of the future generation of working stock dogs would be subject to mandatory sterilization before they would be eligible for an exemption. This destroys the breeding population. There is really no way to write an exemption to a mandatory spay/neuter law to adequately protect the livestock industry.

Other Working Dogs

It might be tempting to try to carve out more exemptions in any mandatory spay/neuter law for working dogs to try to address the obvious harm they do. This approach cannot protect working dog breeding. One reason is that there is no way to write a law that can distinguish working dog breeding programs from pet dog breeding. There is no bright line that can separate them, as we see most obviously in the example of police dogs (above).

Another reason is that there are so many types of working dogs, that it’s impossible to list them all in a law. New roles for working dogs are being developed all the time, as we learn more about the amazing talents of man’s best friend. For example, cancer detection is a brand new working role for dogs.

Some of the many roles that working dogs are used for include those listed below. Mandatory spay/neuter laws harm all working dog breeding programs in California, and harm the citizens in California who depend on their working dogs.

  • Tracking/trailing Search & Rescue dog
  • Airscent Search & Rescue dog
  • Urban Search & Rescue dog
  • Water search dog (drowning victims)
  • Water rescue dog (retrieve swimmers in distress)
  • Avalanche dog
  • Guide dog for the blind
  • Signal dog for the deaf
  • Mobility assistance dog
  • Service dog for the disabled
  • teal3Police service dog
  • Police trailing dog
  • Dual purpose police dog
  • Evidence dog
  • Narcotics detection dog
  • Explosives detection dog
  • Guard dog
  • Watch dog
  • Accelerant (Arson) detection dog
  • Military working dog
  • Cadaver dog / Human remains detection dog
  • Termite detection dog
  • Mine detection dog
  • Natural gas detection dog
  • Lost pet search dog
  • Sled dog
  • Sighthound
  • Wildlife detection dog
  • Cancer detection dog
  • Seizure alert dog
  • Livestock herding dog
  • Livestock guardian dog
  • Multipurpose farm dog
  • Agricultural produce detection dog
  • Terrier
  • Upland hunting dog – pointer
  • Upland hunting dog – spaniel
  • Hunting retriever
Categories
SB 250

Analysis of SB 250 as Amended May 28, 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.

Categories
SB 250

Analysis of SB250 as Amended May 5, 2009

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.