Other SB 250 Applications

I would like to address Senator Florez and the committee members of the Senate Local Government Committee who voted in favor of SB 250. Throughout the discussions of SB 250 and AB 1634 was the comparison of vehicular code and the enforcement and logic of using the reproductive status of an animal as a violation whether it is secondary or primary. Using the logic behind SB 250, I would like to propose the following:

Millions of taxpayer and private monies are spent every year to cover the expenses and damages caused by irresponsible drivers. Thousands of hours are spent in our court system on various driving citations from speeding to going through a red light to "fix-it" tickets and driving without a seat belt to more serious infractions such as reckless driving and driving under the influence. One does not need an overly active imagination to determine that the first responders on some of the accident scenes must suffer dearly. It is an outrage!

SB 250 provides us with a way we can deal with the loss of monies, time, and the emotional stress caused by irresponsible drivers. Anyone who receives a citation for a traffic violation of any existing policy and procedure could have their license to drive revoke. There would be no way to obtain another license. By the mere fact that a infraction was cited, one would lose their "privilege" to drive for the rest of their lives. There would be no more traffic court because just the citation would be enough to have your license revoked. Instead of traffic court, a senior law enforcement officer would hear cases.

Even if we amend that line of thought to only the most severe infractions, we could remove the most irresponsible drivers from the roadway and make our roads safer for everyone. And there would be no second chances-- one strike and you are through with the ability to drive forever.

Frankly, I would be scared if we ever applied the logic of SB 250 to other infractions. In fact, I am very scared that our government in California is actually willing to apply the logic of SB 250 to "crimes committed by dogs." Everyone has moments when we break the law whether we realize it or not. We speed. We jaywalk. We don't fix the broken tail light. Some people do drive after having a drink. Other violations are much more severe and do deserve to be treated DIFFERENTLY and after the full extent of their rights in the judicial system are applied.

In SB 250, one citation and the owner can be penalized forever. If I get a speeding ticket, I can go to the courts and be heard and then the judge can decide if I should pay the fine, go to traffic school, or worse if I have multiple violations in a short period of time. In SB 250, if my intact dog gets out I have no other option but to have it sterilized even if it was a mistake. There are no second chances. There is no day in court.

To be honest, even those prosecuted for DUI or reckless driving have second and third chances. The first time someone is CONVICTED in court for a DUI, they serve a sentence (usually a special sort of traffic school), pay a fine, and have their license suspended. It isn't until someone proves themselves a nuisance or habitual offender that the more severe and permanent penalties are enacted.

I am appealing to the common sense thinking of the California Senate-- SB 250 is too over reaching and too severe. Current law provides local agencies with the tools to function without creating the new crime of intact pet ownership. Nuisance laws, animal cruelty laws, and even current leash laws and impound requirements, if properly utilized, can encourage an even greater downward trend of the statewide euthanasia rates. SB 250 runs the risk of turning back the forward progress achieved to date by common sense laws that have been enacted and community partnerships. Let's not go backwards when we have come so far!