Categories
CA MS/N Legislation SB 250

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

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.

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
Successes

The Calgary Model for Success

Many thanks to Janice Anderson and the California Federation of Dog Clubs for graciously allowing us to cross post this excellent summary of the “best animal control program in North America”. It is Calgary, and not the failed policy of mandatory spay/neuter, that provides the “model for the state” that California should emulate.

THE BILL BRUCE CALIFORNIA TOUR billbruce2
by Janice Kiseskey Anderson

During the month of June, 2009, National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA) in conjunction with the California Federation of Dogs Clubs (CFoDC), Orange Empire Kennel Club, Silver Bay Kennel Club and assisted by The Kennel Club of Palm Springs and CARPOC, sponsored Bill Bruce, Director of Calgary Animal Services & By-Laws (ordinances), to present his model for the most successful animal services department in North America. Janice Anderson, Susan Sholar and Ellen Yamada worked together effectively as the Steering Committee of The Bill Bruce California Tour, in an effort to bring viable solutions to communities within California that are dealing with unwarranted and excessive legislation or high rates of impounds and euthanasia of dogs and cats,

“We don’t have a pet problem. We have a people problem.” This is an opening statement Bill Bruce often uses to grab everyone’s attention. Owner responsibility is the mantra in Calgary. A three prong approach to responsible pet ownership incorporates licensing, public education and enforcement, with supporting agencies all working together to achieve the same goals. Educational programs developed for school age children through adults address responsible citizenship and responsible animal ownership. Educational programs include PAWS: Dog Bite Prevention, Dogs in Our Society, Urban Coyotes and the Junior By-Law Project, just to name a few. There is strong public support for the efforts of Bill Bruce by the citizens of Calgary, as they enjoy their pets in a community full of dog-friendly parks, paths and off-leash areas. They gain comfort knowing that their kinder friendlier Animals Services Department is there to help, not harm.

Bill Bruce, as the Director of Animal Services and Bylaws in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, took over a struggling program. He has had remarkable success, developing a program which now boasts a licensing compliance rate for dogs of 91%, a return to owner rate of 85% and a euthanasia rate of only 6%. A newly implemented licensing program for cats already has a licensing compliance rate of 54%, a return to owner rate of 56% and only an 18% euthanasia rate. A majority of those animals being humanely destroyed are for behavioral issues and poor health or injuries. Aggressive animal incidents are almost non-existent. With a population base of over 1 million people, those are staggering statistics. In addition, Calgary has no limit laws, no breed specific laws, no mandatory spay/neuter ordinances and no interference from animals rights groups.

“To encourage a safe, healthy, vibrant community for people and their pets, through the development, education and compliance of bylaws that reflect community values”, their mission statement says it all. Bruce believes people” have a right to have pets and we want to ensure they’re properly cared for, so we don’t end up with more unwanted pets.” Through the use of modern technology, a licensed animal found wandering the streets is returned directly to its home (for a small fee) whenever possible. This saves time and money for everyone. However, an unlicensed animal will be taken immediately to the shelter. Before the pet can be released to its owner, licensing requirements must be met and the owner is fined $250. Repeat offenders face penalties that increase in $250 increments per violation. While educating the public is essential, sometimes money is the strongest motivator. Bruce targets owners, rather than pets, saying “any animal that ends up in a shelter is there because the human end of the relationship failed.” It’s all part of his philosophy about animals and their owners.

This approach helps to facilitate a $5 million annual operating budget, which is generated through license and penalty revenues, with absolutely no cost to the taxpayer. Fees generated from cat licenses have provided the community of Calgary with a state of the art facility providing no-charge spay/neuter services for pets from low-income homes. The clinic, staffed by a full-time vet, may be the final feather in Bruce’s cap. “Within three to five years, we’ll be a no-kill city,” said chief Animal Control officer Bill Bruce. “No animal will be killed unless it’s in the best interest of the animal.”

With a model that is tried and true, Bill Bruce has been met everywhere he goes by enthusiastic crowds. The California Tour was a whirlwind for Bill, visiting 4 cities in 5 days; San Diego, San Bernardino, Bakersfield (Kern County) and Sacramento. In every venue, Bill expertly navigated through his Power Point presentation, explaining how Calgary has become known as the most successful Animal Services Department in North America. Each presentation was followed by lengthy Q&A sessions from his audiences, which included city and county officials; animals control officers, supervisors, police officers, breeders, rescue groups and the general public. Several officials had the opportunity to meet with Bill Bruce privately and discuss his successful program in detail, while he toured SoCal shelters. Citizens and officials of Kern County had a chance to meet Bill at a social prior to his presentation. The media attention was great, with television stations, print media and Inga Barks of KERN radio taking advantage of “By-law Bill’s” visit to the state.

The presentation in Kern County was held in conjunction with the Kern County Animal Control Commission (KCACC) meeting. The commissioners voted to move the meeting and location of their June meeting to facilitate Bruce’s appearance, which was held at the County Supervisors Chambers. This location offered a unique opportunity to have the presentation filmed by KGOV. KGOV will be airing the Bill Bruce presentation in July and August and has DVD’s available to the public for a $25.00 fee. KGOV may be reached at (661) 868-3000 or accessed at here .

Early reports from Kern County verify a keen interest in the Calgary model. At the July meeting of the KCACC, a sub-committee was formed to review the Calgary Model and bring back recommendations. In addition, CFoDC has supplied The Calgary Model to KC supervisors and officials for every city within Kern County. “I want Kern County Animal Control be a leader, not a follower.” Commissioner Janice Anderson continues, “By thinking outside the box and implementing an adaptation of Bill’s program, we will succeed! I trust other communities will follow. We do not want to waste this unique opportunity.”

Cities, counties and states are being overrun with animal related legislation, much of it under the guise of ‘pet overpopulation’. Elected officials have been approached to endorse severe and expensive ordinances to limit pets and the rights of their owners. Much of this legislation is spear-headed by special interest groups that have no stake in the effect of their actions, other than satisfying an agenda that attacks the property rights of animal owners and agriculture, forcing unwarranted expenses on citizens, businesses, communities and states.

California is truly fortunate that Calgary is so willing to allow their very popular and successful Director to travel far and wide, sharing their roadmap for the most successful Animal Service in North America. A guide shared not only with communities in the United States, but around the world. The Calgary Model is one possible solution that can enable communities to successfully run an animal control program with no cost to the taxpayer.

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.