The final vote – at 11:47 pm — was 28 27 Yes, 40 39 No, 10 12 abstain.   41 Yes votes were required for SB 250 to pass.

SB 250 – mandatory spay-neuter for dogs and cats – is finally and truly defeated.*

Congratulations to the tens of thousands of Californians who made this victory possible.   Your immense outpouring of opposition to SB 250 in the form of phone calls and faxes to legislators made the difference.

Thank you, for Saving our Dogs.

*According to Article IV, Sec 10(c) of the California state Constitution, SB 250 cannot be voted on again after midnight Tuesday night.

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

After passing unanimously in the Assembly, AB 2000 is stuck in the Senate Appropriations Committee for reasons that make no sense.  The CDPH is claiming they would need to hire additional staff for 18 months to update their regulations related to canine rabies vaccinations.   The cost associated with this is causing the committee to hold the bill.   Nonsense, this is just not that complicated.  Key details were already hashed out during the legislative process as a result of discussions between the CDPH, veterinary groups, and other stakeholders.

Please contact members of the Senate Appropriations Committee and ask them to pass AB 2000 “Molly’s Bill”

Senate Appropriations Committee contact information

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.

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.

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.

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.