Category: CA

California SB 250 – Mandatory Spay/Neuter – immediate action required

Post author By
Post date August 18, 2010

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.

ASSEMBLY MEMBERS	PHONE (All 916 )	FAX (All 916 )
NO VOTES
Joel Anderson	319-2077	319-2177
Tom Berryhill	319-2025	319-2125
Sam Blakeslee	319-2033	319-2133
Marty Block	319-2078	319-2178
Joan Buchanen	319-2015	319-2115
Anna Caballero	319-2028	319-2128
Charles Calderon	319-2058	319-2158
Wesley Chesbro	319-2001	319-2101
Connie Conway	319-2034	319-2134
Mike Davis	319-2048	319-2148
Chuck Devore	319-2070	319-2170
Noreen Evans	319-2007	319-2107
Nathan Fletcher	319-2075	319-2175
Jean Fuller	319-2032	319-2132
Warren Furutani	319-2055	319-2155
Ted Gaines	319-2004	319-2104
Martin Garrick	319-2074	319-2174
Danny Gilmore	319-2030	319-2130
Curt Hagman	319-2060	319-2160
Diane Harkey	319-2073	319-2173
Alyson Huber	319-2010	319-2110
Kevin Jeffries	319-2066	319-2166
Steve Knight	319-2036	319-2136
Dan Logue	319-2003	319-2103
Jeff Miller	319-2071	319-2171
Brian Nestande	319-2064	319-2164
Roger Niello	319-2005	319-2105
Jim Nielson	319-2002	319-2102
John Perez	319-2046	319-2146
V. Manual Perez	319-2080	319-2180
Mary Salas	319-2079	319-2179
Jim Silva	319-2067	319-2167
Nancy Skinner	319-2014	319-2114
Cameron Smyth	319-2038	319-2138
Audra Strickland	319-2037	319-2137
Swanson	319-2016	319-2116
Torres	319-2061	319-2161
Tran	319-2068	319-2168
Villines	319-2029	319-2129
Yamada	319-2008	319-2108
ABSTAIN
Anthony Adams	319-2059	319-2159
Bill Berryhill	319-2026	319-2126
Paul Cook	319-2065	319-2165
Cathleen Galgiani	319-2017	319-2117
Isadore Hall	319-2052	319-2152
Bonnie Lowenthal	319-2054	319-2154
Fiona Ma	319-2012	319-2112
Bill Monning	319-2027	319-2127
Lori Saldana	319-2076	319-2176

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

Tags High

AB 2689 passes California state legislature

Post author By Webmaste
Post date June 18, 2010

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.

AB 2243 would improve California’s emergency response system

Post author By Webmaste
Post date May 11, 2010

pelemark Save 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.

Tags High

AB 2689 to modernize California rabies law

Post author By Webmaste
Post date April 17, 2010

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.

Tags High

CA MS/N Legislation SB 250

SB250 Stopped—for now

Post author By Webmaste
Post date September 11, 2009

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.

Tags High

CA MS/N Legislation SB 250

SB250 as amended August 31, 2009

Post author By Webmaste
Post date September 1, 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.