SB250 - STICKS AND STONES. . .

CDOC and our partner Save Our Dogs work so hard to be fact based, not to make statements without back-up and to be totally credible, that reading the Mancuso/Florez 'almost victory' claim for SB250 was a bit hard to take.  But we try to take comfort from the fact that SB250 fell way short of the votes necessary.  But we can't help commenting in some areas: 

Service Dogs - AFTER the amendments were filed, four state service organizations sent opposition letters to their legislator explaining all the ways in which SB250 falls short.  So to say that the bill took care of service organizations seems like more than just an exaggeration. 

Judie also claims she will continue to pursue to bill as long as we are euthanaizing 500,000 animals a year.  Since we are fat short of that number (all of the counties have now reported) and the number of 430,000.  So where does 500,000 come from?  Maybe the same place as the Senator's potential savings. 

It is easy to follow the crowd in Sacramento.  It takes time to review the materials and make an informed decision.  The people who took the time to learn the truth and resisted the pressure deserve our thanks and consideration when we make decisions about future leaders.  We need independent legislators like those who opposed SB250. 

And getting that information into their hands did not come cheaply.  But every time there was a follow up meeting, we saw that key among the materials in their 250 folder were the books printed by CDOC/SOD.  So your $25 for 250 campaign worked well.  

Beginning on Monday, we will again direct you to Easy Letter to send a follow up letter to District Office of your legislator.

We will work hard over the break and, with your help, continue to meet the challenges.  And when January 1 rolls around, there are thousands of responsible pet owners, ranchers, farmers, service organizations that will be safer for your vigilance.  And unlike the City of Los Angeles, the dogs in the rest of California will not be seized and euthanized needlessly.  Thank you.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

FROM A LONG BEACH BLOG

(Sept. 9, 2009) -- Sen. Dean Florez's office has toldLBReport.com that SB 250, authored by the Bakersfield-area Democrat, is being made a two year bill (so it can be taken up next year, the second year of the Assembly's two year legislative session).

The action comes following a lopsided vote (28-42) against SB 250 in the Assembly yesterday (Sept. 8), previously reported by LBReport.com. (The bill requires 41 "yes" votes to pass).

On the Sept. 8 vote on SB250, Assemblyman Warren Furutani (D., Carson-LB) voted "no," and Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal voted absent/abstai/not voting. A statement by her Chief of Staff Will Shuck acknowledged that the Assemblymember was present on the floor for the vote on SB250, and said:

"She supports the policy goal, but believes it will best be achieved through further refinement of this bill, and hopes the author will continue working on it through the second year of this two-year session."

SB250 proposed to restrict ownership of unsterilzed dogs and cats and require surgical sterilization of intact animals in specified circumstances.

The measure is backed by the City of LB (on Council vote) and a number number of local animal advocacy groups.

The measure is opposed by the American Kennel Club, show-dog/show-cat fanciers and breeder interests.

The measure failed passage by a wide margin -- 28 to 42 -- with 41 "yes" votes needed for passage.

These developments relate to the following LBReport.comstory: Assemblyman Furutani Votes "No," Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal Doesn't Vote...And SB250 (Pet Responsibility Act) Supported By City of LB/City Council Fails By Wide Margin In Assembly

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

SERVICE DOG SCAM

The SB250 supporters are telling people that Service Dog organizations support this legislation.  While they don't have any organizations to parade around, they have rounded up some people whose dogs are wearing jackets.

Fortunately our people in the capitol are on top of this.  This alert has gone and we urge you to forward it to people who voted no or did not vote. 

******SERVICE DOG ALERT******

SERVICE DOG ORGANIZATIONS CONTINUE TO OPPOSE SB250

Canine Companions for Independence

Paws’itive Teams Service Dogs (Assistance Dogs International)

Love Heels

These organizations have all sent letters since the August 31st amendments detailing all the reasons they still oppose SB250.  For copies of the letters, contact CDOC (818.519.2141) or Lehman, Levi, Pappas and Sadler (916.441.5333).

Service Organization Contact Information is:

Paul Mundell, Canine Companions for Independence, 866.2224.3647 

Mr. Mundell can also provide information on the opposition of Guide Dogs of America and other groups.

Arthur Brauner, Executive Director, Paws’itive , 858-279-7296

Patricia Dibsle, Director, LOVE HEELS Canine Partners, 619.283.8817

Carol Davis, Service Dog Program Director, Paws’itive, 858.279.9697

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

FROM MANCUSO'S WEBSITE

If you were planning on taking it easy today; this should alarm you.  In her own words.

Last Attempt for SB 250!

SB 250 had an initial vote in the Assembly on Tuesday, but did not get enough votes to pass.

We have 24 hours to change 13 of the following member's votes to YES. If ever there has been an SB 250 email to respond to with calls and to forward to other animal lovers, this is the one.

We can do this, we have changed minds in the past. Many of these members cast their initial vote based on misinformation from the opposition to the bill, and can be changed if we can clarify for them how critical it is to pass SB 250. The members who vote YES on SB 250 understand how important it is that we finally take action at the state level to address the tragic pet overpopulation problem in our state. Thank you for your help.

Member     Phone    Initial vote
Wesley Chesbro    916-319-2001    No
Noreen Evans    916-319-2007    No
Mariko Yamada    916-319-2008    No
Alyson Huber    916-319-2010    No
Fiona Ma    916-319-2012    Didn't vote
Nancy Skinner    916-319-2014    No
Joan Buchanan    916-319-2015    No
Sandré Swanson    916-319-2016    No
Cathleen Galgiani    916-319-2017    Didn't vote
William Monning    916-319-2027    Didn't vote
Anna Marie Caballero    916-319-2028    No
John Pérez    916-319-2046    No
Mike Davis    916-319-2048    No
Isadore Hall    916-319-2052    Didn't vote
Bonnie Lowenthal    916-319-2054    Didn't vote
Warren Furutani    916-319-2055    No
Charles Calderon    916-319-2058    No
Norma Torres    916-319-2061    No
Lori Saldaña    916-319-2076    Didn't vote
Marty Block    916-319-2078    Didn't vote
Mary Salas    916-319-2079    No
V. Manuel Pérez    916-319-2080    No
This is the most critical point ever for this bill, but we can do this. We have moved the bill in the past with your help.

You have brought us this far with your determination to help animals in California, THANK YOU. Please forward this email.

Judie

Judie knows the battle is not over and her supporters are not going away.  And those supporters have deep pockets and are not above talking about political opposition.  So if you are pleased with these legislators, if you plan to support them in the future, if these are the kinds of leaders you want in California, call and let them know.

CDOC and Save Our Dogs people are up in Sacramento walking the halls.  If you are making your calls, their job will be much easier.  Thank you.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

SB 250CHANGE IN VOTING

The "official" vote can change until the session ends and so here are the changes from yesterday.

 Mike Eng finally voted and he is a 'YES'.
Carter changed her vote from 'NO' to 'YES'
Galgiani changed her vote from 'YES' to 'ABSTAIN'

 The first was expected.

 The second is not a shock based on conversations with Carter's staff in Sacramento yesterday. It is a repudiation of her constituents and the events held in San Bernardino. But Allan Drusys has been actively working Riverside and San Bernardino folks. It's interesting the City Council he is on repudiated SB250 but he has influence where he is less well known.

 Galgiani makes more sense as an Abstain. Farm Bureau, Cattlemen's Association and the Outdoor Heritage Alliance are all opposed to SB250. They represent her constituents. In a very depressed part of the state, she has dog events of all types that bring in a great deal of money. If she stays as an abstain, she will be truly representing her constituents.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

FOLLOW UP TO FIRST VOTE

Today Senator Dean Florez had his Floor Manager, Assembly Member Bob Blumenfield call the bill, SB250, in the Assembly for a vote.  (Mr. Blumenfield was Lloyd Levine's handpicked successor - Mr. Levine's father even managed Blumenfield's campaign, so it's appropriate that Blumenfield is the floor manager for this bill.)  The first vote was at 5:36 pm, the second at 5:49 pm.  In the Senate, there could only be two calls a day; we assume the same in true in the Assembly but will verify that point.
 
Senator Florez needs to get 41 Yes votes; the responsibility is his.  So from our perspective an abstention is as good as a No.  But a No means we have done a better job in educating the Assembly Members about the many flaws in SB250. 
 
At the end of the voting, (Ayes - 27; Noes - 42; Not Voting - 10) Member Blumenfield asked for and was granted reconsideration.  That means Florez and Blumenfield can (and probably will) call the bill for voting tomorrow, presumably two times; and if they do not get 41 Yes votes, again on Thursday and again on Friday.  Each day they do not have success, Mr. Blumenfield will ask for and be granted reconsideration.  If they have no had success by the end of Friday, he will ask for reconsideration again and that will carry over to when the Assembly has its first floor session in January 2010.  So thoretically the first vote of 2010 COULD BE SB250.  
 
Now that the Assembly Members have made their positions clear, Senator Florez will be bring pressure to bear on them to change their vote.  He must pull 14 more votes from those Democrats who are abstaining or voting No.
 
They are 
Block (A)
Buchanen (N) 
Caballero (N)
Calderon (N)
Carter (N)
Chesbro (N)
Davis (N)
Evans (N)
Furutani (N)
Hall (A)
Huber (N)
Lowenthal (A)
Ma (A) 
Monning (A)
J. Perez (N)
M. Perez (N)
Saldana (A)
Salas (N)
Skinner (N)
Swanson (N)
Torres (N)
Yamada (N)
Eng did not vote; he may have been out of the capitol. 
 
Please take the time to send a short fax (it can be handwritten) to as many of these people as you can.  Please assure them that you appreciate their vote and that groups like CDOC and Save Our Dogs will be working on legislation to can help resolve some problems but will not kill more dogs and hurt dog owners.  Explain that you are part of responsible groups.
 
If Arambula, Galgiani or Mendoza are your Assembly Members, let them know how disappointed you are that they chose to vote this way; these are people who understood the problems with the bill and are just going along.
 
Until we start issuing bulletins through the new group (CDOCDogPAC - yes, a real PAC) we cannot talk politics.  But we know California dog people to be focused and loyal and it's important to remember the people who stepped forward here.
 
So please understand that we need to participate each and every day of the session.  But then we get a break.  Now it is 72 more hours. 
 
A comment of the opposition statements of Members Calderon, J. Perez, Smyth and Swanson.   We need to let them know they are greatly appreciated.  We could not help but think that Blumenfield's continuing to pretend that the portion of animal control allocated to impounding and managing animals is $250,000,000 was a little silly.  And his refuting of Perez's remarks was just wrong.  Almost no one in the City of Los Angeles can get an unaltered license; it is only offered to a very few who can jump through silly hoops.  Mr. Perez is exactly correct.
 
Other things we heard during the day; our numbers are wrong (we continue to point out that we didn't make them up; they are what the cities and counties reported to the state), that animal control is not allowed on private property (absolutely untrue), that MSN saves money (again, the Santa Cruz budget). 
 
But you have made a good start here.  CDOC is proud to be associated with all the special people who are responsible, who have made trips to Sacramento, phone calls, sent faxes, and helped with expenses.  We think Cole Massie, and all the other people, disabled or healthy, who rely on dogs to enrich their lives would be proud.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

THE HALLS IN SACRAMENTO

The Animal Control people are here from Santa Cruz walking the halls to get support. Since they already have MSN one wonders why they feel the need to press it and the costs and killing onto the rest of the state. The Director remains dour while the staff person with him is pleasant as always - a reminder we can disagree without being disagreeable.

 Florez has been, according to the offices I have been in, coming in to talk to Dems about voting his way. Two of his bills have already died int he Assembly; don't know if that makes him more determined to get this one passed.

 Your calls and letter are the only way we make a dent. And don't forget your senators. They have to vote again as well.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

COLE MASSIE NEEDS YOUR HELP

This is Cole Massie and he needs your help.  If SB250 is passed  by the Assembly, there is a real question as to where Cole Massie and other disabled people, who reply on their dogs for some independence, will get their dogs.  You can hear Cole talk about this at .  Senator Florez and the bill sponsors feel there is no need to protect the people who produce these service dogs or the people who raise them as puppies. 

If you oppose SB250, be sure to contact your legislator with a letter at www.saveourdogs.net as well as phone calls to as many legislators as possible.   You can look here (http://www.cdoca.org/downloads/servicedogs/servicedogs.html) and see what the service dog organizations themselves are saying about what SB250 will go to them.

When you talk to your legislator, please remind them

SB250 will kill even more dogs than we kill now.

SB250 will cost the State of California more than we pay now. 

Cole Massie and his dog are not protected. 

Search and Rescue dogs are not protected.

Performance dogs are not protected.

Send a letter and make a call for all the dogs that will die if this bill passes.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk