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: Assembly Appropriations Committee Update

SB 250 was heard today in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Senator Florez waived his right to present his case. The Chair allowed for 2 speakers in support and 2 in opposition. NO ONE spodollar-sign-5ke in support of the bill. Cathie Turner (Concerned Dog Owners of California) and Angie Niles (NAIA) presented the opposition’s fiscal case.

Two of the Democrats on the committee expressed serious reservations about the bill.

Assemblymember Mike Davis (D-Los Angeles) showed a very short stack of support letters and and very tall stack of opposition letters. Nice job getting those letters sent, it makes a difference!

Assemblymember Charles Calderon (D-Montebello) said:

I hope that legislators will STOP bringing these bills. They don’t need the state to get involved or to intervene. This bill may be about euthanasia … but … this bill just doesn’t die!!

Right on, Assemblymember Calderon!

SB 250 was put into the Appropriations Committee “Suspense” file, a kind of holding pattern which is required for bills that are projected to have a significant fiscal impact to the California state budget. We need to keep contacting our assembly members and ask them to kill SB 250. Letting a bill die by never taking it out of the Suspense file is the easiest way for the majority party to kill an unpopular bill that originated from one of their own.

Categories
Track Record

Alley Cat Allies opposes mandatory spay/neuter

ACAAlley Cat Allies is America’s largest group that advocates for the humane treatment of stray and feral cats. They oppose mandatory spay/neuter laws. From their position statement

MSN Diverts Limited Resources Away from Spay/Neuter Programs
In addition to being ineffective, MSN imposes a financial burden on taxpayers and existing government budgets.   MSN attempts to increase the spay/neuter rate by imposing penalties on pet owners. Generally, punishment is the most costly way to accomplish any legislative goal.  In the case of MSN, government agencies – and the taxpayers who fund them – may incur the expenses of monitoring owner compliance, issuing citations, collecting fines, or participating in court proceedings for disputed citations. Tax dollars, in other words, would be used largely for administrative activities and not on actual spay/neuter programs.

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
SB 250

SB 250 Update

SB 250 passed on June 2 in the California state senate.  It required 4 separate votes over the course of two days, promises of amendments, and much heavy arm-twisting by Senate Majority Leader Florez and Senate Pro Tem Steinberg in order to get the bare minimum 21 votes needed.

It’s very important for us to thank the senators who stood with us and did not support SB 250.

All 15 of the Republican senators voted NO on SB 250.  Please take the time to call or write and thank them for their consistent opposition to irrational mandatory spay/neuter legislation.

Democratic Senator Lou Correa voted NO on SB 250, resisting very strong pressure from his leadership to vote Yes.  Please write and thank him for his courage and position on this legislation.  No phone calls please, per a request from his busy office staff.

Democratic senators Denise Moreno-Ducheny and Joe Simitian also resisted the strong pressure from their leadership and abstained on SB 250.  Abstaining is a polite way of voting No, and has exactly the same bottom line effect since in California’s state legislature, bills must have a minimum number of Yes votes to pass.  Please call or write and thank these senators for their courage and position on this legislation.

SB 250 now goes to the state Assembly, to a policy committee.  We will convey information as we learn it.

Categories
SB 250

SB 250 Passes in the State Senate

SB 250 passed today in the California state senate.  It required 4 separate votes over the course of two days, promises of amendments, and much heavy arm-twisting by Senate Majority Leader Florez in order to get the bare minimum 21 votes needed.

SB 250 now goes to the state Assembly, to a policy committee.  We will convey information as we learn it.

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 Shelter Population Track Record

Lake County MSN – worst shelter kill stats in California

Of the 58 counties in California, one of them has to have the highest euthanasia rates in their public animal shelters. That dubious honor goes to Lake County. Lake County is also one of the few counties in California that has a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance.

Here’s some comparisons (dogs+cats euthanized in 2007 in public animal shelters per 100,000 population)

  • Lake County, CA: 4560
  • USA national average: 1000-1300
  • California average: 1066
  • Nevada County, CA: 163
  • Calgary, Canada: 44

Lake County’s kill stats are more than 4 times higher than the California state average.  Most jurisdictions in California do not have mandatory spay/neuter.

Lake County’s kill stats are 28 times higher than in Nevada County. Nevada County has made tremendous strides in reducing their shelter kill rates. Nevada County does NOT have mandatory spay/neuter.

Lake County’s kill stats are 104 times higher than Calgary’s, the best animal control program in North America.  Calgary does NOT have mandatory spay/neuter, BSL, an extreme differential license fee for intact animals, or pet limit laws.

One might think that animal lovers and policy makers would take note of Lake County’s dismal track record.

Yet in late 2007, the City of Los Angeles was considering an MSN ordinance. The Los Angeles Times reported:

Smith, the veterinarian [and president of the California Veterinary Medical Association], said he supports mandatory spay/neuter legislation. “It’s worked in our county,” he said, referring to Lake County in Northern California.

“It’s worked” for whom, the purveyors of Euthasol euthanasia solution? Up is down, and right is wrong, if Lake County’s MSN ordinance “worked”.

Los Angeles followed Lake County’s terrible lead, and passed MSN in late 2007. The result? Reversing many years of steady progress, in 2008 dog deaths increased 24%, while cat deaths increased 35% in LAAS shelters. The deteriorating economy no doubt played a role. But the economy deteriorated just as much in tourism-dependent Washoe County (Reno) NV, and their public animal shelter save rates actually improved in 2008.

Sources: 2007 data from California Department of Public Health, Calgary Animal Services, US Census Bureau

Categories
Track Record

ASPCA – mandatory spay/neuter laws do not work

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals recently issued a Position Statement on Mandatory Spay/Neuter Laws, in which they state:

aspca-logo

the ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law.

and

in at least one community that enacted an MSN law, fewer pets were subsequently licensed, likely due to owners’ reluctance to pay either the high fee for keeping an unaltered animal or the fee to have the pet altered