CDOC Dogtalk

MOLLY'S BILL PASSES CALIFORNIA SENATE

2011-08-31T14:35:00.001-07:00

We are pleased to announce that the California Senate today passed Molly's Bill (AB 258) 38-0. It was managed on the Senate floor by Senator Leno.
This has been a long time in the making - we started this in the last legislative session - and while it is not a perfect bill, it will, if signed by Governor Brown, for the first time offer a clear path so that unhealthy dogs whose health would be further compromised by receiving the rabies vaccine can be granted an exemption from the anti-rabies vaccine.
This year the bill was co-sponsored by Concerned Dog Owners of California and the Veterinary Arm of HSUS. Assembly Member Curt Hagman and his Capitol Director Victoria Stewart did a great job of overcoming the constant hurdles. In that they were assisted by the California Veterinary Medical Association, their Sacramento representatives Mike Dillon and Christina DiCaro. Our thanks to Assembly Member Hagman, Victoria Stewart, Senator Leno, Jennifer Fearing, Scott Sadler, Val Fenstermaker, Jean Dodds, Pam Runquist and Lisa Lippman for all the time and effort on this bill.

And thanks to CDOC members and dog lovers throughout the state for their calls and letters. We are sure that Sutter, First Dog of California, will whisper in Governor Brown's ear that this is an excellent bill.

And then Molly and others like her will be safe.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

UPDATE FROM IRVINE

2011-08-17T09:20:00.001-07:00

ANIMAL WELFARE ORDINANCES TO GET SPECIAL MEETING DATE

This morning an email from Jana Ransom advised that the City Council realizes the Animal Ordinances proposed by the Council will need "discussion at some length". For that reason is tentatively scheduled for late September or early October. Irvine has committed to a 30 day notification period on its website at http://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cs/animalcare/proposed_animal_welfare_or.... CDOC will also post as soon as a date is announced.
Please continue your dialogues with members of the City Council about these ordinances, none of which make any sense for Irvine. As CDOC was told by a City staffer, Irvine wants to 'look progressive', evidently at the expense of small business and animals.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

SNIPING WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE

2011-07-03T07:50:00.001-07:00

It has often said that 'dog people' are their own worst enemy and this 2011 legislative season seems to be proving that.

First, who are the 'dog people'. For this and the following blogs in this series, 'dog people' are folks like CDOC members and supporters; individuals who are extremely knowledgeable about dogs, animal husbandry and animal behavior. Many are also dog lovers. And so our groups tend to be frustrated when we see laws and ordinances being passed that totally ignore or even refute widely accepted information on canine behavior and health issues. But in expressing our opinions, we have to be careful not to make the same mistakes ourselves.

CDOC is the sponsor of AB 1121 in the California legislature. In broad strokes this bill does three things (for details see the CDOC Web site).

It enables local animal control agencies to issue puppy licenses that are not coupled to rabies vaccinations to microchipped puppies and to offer those licenses at the altered rate. These puppy licenses would be in effect until the puppy was 12 months. If we look at dogs as a whole, we know about 77% of the dogs on the west coast are altered by 12 months of age.
It allows local governments to set their own requirements for proof of sterilization. Current law prohibits information sent electronically, via fax or even physically verifying that a dog has been altered. So a male dog at a rabies clinic cannot be licensed unless the owner has a piece of paper from the vet.
It requires pet dealers and rescues to send a monthly report to their local animal control agency so the local agency can follow up to get the dogs licensed.

We understand that different groups have different agendas. We would like to think our agenda is pretty straight forward - everything with our name on it also says "For the Dogs". But there are also groups that just oppose any rules about dogs. And we understand that.

So we are not surprised that the California Federation of Dog Clubs opposes AB 1121; they are a 'just say no' group. And sometimes, as with MSN, that is the right course of action. And perhaps they feel all intact puppies under 12 months should pay the higher licensing rate. But we were stunned to see them give as a primary reason that all vets are already required to report rabies vaccinations to all local governments. From their letter:

Currently, veterinarians are already required to report any dogs vaccinated for rabies to licensing authorities.

THERE IS NO SUCH STATE LAW. And we don't want such a state law.

Rabies compliance and licensing is already at record lows; can you imagine if every vet in the state was reporting? But, without some alternative ways to encourage licensing, CDOC could see this happening in the future. So it is important that 'dog people' who really get the issues step up and take the lead in ways that protect dogs and do no harm.

For CDOC the issue is dogs. Not just our dogs but all the dogs in California. Local governments in California are still euthanizing dogs for time and space. Until that is resolved, 'dog people' need to be working for solutions. Because it is the right thing to do. And because if we do not, we will not like the solutions that are proposed! So if you are looking at AB 1121 through the dark colored glasses that says every vet reports every rabies vaccination, please check the law.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

COSTA MESA HAS NO MONEY SO DOGS AND PEOPLE WILL SUFFER

2011-03-21T10:39:00.001-07:00

According to the New York Times, The City Costa Mesa has fired half of its city employees, including some in the Animal Control section of the Police Department.

It seems to us that both the fired employees, and Costa Mesa dogs would be well served if the City brought back the terminated employees and had them work on getting the dogs in Costa Mesa licensed. Using the AVMA US Pet Ownership Calculator, Costa Mesa has about 28,000 dogs. If Costa Mesa's licensing compliance rate is at the state average, only about 5600 of those dogs are licensed.

Why does it matter? It matters because licensed and positively permanently identified dogs get home. They do not end up in shelters long-term; they are returned to their owners. They do not become a tax-payer burden. We know they have had rabies vaccinations. It matters because those of us fortunate enough to own dogs should contribute to the infrastructure which takes care of lost dogs. It should matter to everyone who opposes mandatory spay and neuter because when the lost dogs are returned to their owners, 80% of the shelter population does away and the cry for MSN looks silly.

What is at stake here? Licensing 10,000 of the more than 22,000 unlicensed dogs in Costa Mesa would generate $250,000. Not one time, every single year. It would be money well spent for the City to institute a program to bring back staff to work on this. If pensions are the issue, then hire people as part-timers initially. Los Angeles County has a canvassing program with full-time staff with benefits and that program generates more than it costs - and their base licensing fee is less than the base fee in Costa Mesa.

We hate to see anyone lose jobs in this economy. But with animal control, the City has an opportunity to increase income, get the animals onto the database so they can be returned home and provide jobs all at the same time.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

test

2010-11-13T19:40:00.001-08:00

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

PUPPY DEFEATS ALLAN DRUSYS - MSN ADVOCATE

2010-11-04T08:13:00.001-07:00

If you are a responsible and knowledgeable dog owner who opposes Mandatory Spay and Neuter, you probably have some not so fond memories of Allan Drusys*. He is the veterinarian in Riverside County who traveled all over the state with Judie Mancuso talking about why MSN was such a great policy. He spoke to local governments and was a speaker for Lloyd Levine and Dean Florez. And Drusys prefaced all his talks by stating that he was an elected official - he was on the Yucaipa City Council.

Well no more. PUPPY - People Understand Pet Population in Yucaipa decided they had had enough of Drusys. So PUPPY (a) supported the candidates who are reasonable and (b) got the word out in Yucaipa about Drusys including his repressive animal policies in Riverside. And the two candidates supported by PUPPY - Masner and Bogh were elected to the Yucaipa City Council. So congratulations to all the people across the state who had finally had enough and who joined forces with good candidates.

As Edmond Burke said "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Responsible dog owners are taking action all over California. Thank you.

*A personal favorite was when Drusys was asked by Council Member Bill Rosendahl at an LA City Council Meeting about the failure of MSN in so many places across the country, Drusys got up and said that actually none of those municipalities had ever implemented it - they just passed it.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

NO MSN FOR SANTA BARBARA

2010-10-09T08:45:00.001-07:00

Congratulations to the responsible dog owners of Santa Barbara and their reasonable elected officials. This is from Ginny White and Janet Lee Vining.

On October 5, 2010, the City of Santa Barbara, California, passed an ordinance amending the existing City pet licensing law. Although the original proposal was to make the City ordinance consistent with the County of Santa Barbara's recently passed spay/neuter ordinance, the City significantly changed the language and did not support a mandatory spay/neuter approach. The City designed an ordinance based on education of pet owners regarding spaying/neutering options and responsible pet ownership.

A veterinary certificate will be required to license an unaltered dog or unaltered cat, but unlike the County ordinance, it does not require the veterinarian's authorization to keep the dog or cat intact. The City's certificate would state only that the veterinarian has counseled the owner on the concerns and responsibilities associated with owning an unaltered pet and has provided educational material on responsible pet ownership. The intent is that this discussion would take place during the visit for rabies vaccination so there would be no additional cost to the owner. To make it easier to have licensing coincide with rabies vaccination, license options were expanded to 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, or 3 years. This is the first time licenses will be required for cats.

The fee for licenses for unaltered dogs and unaltered cats will include a small surcharge which will be used to fund educational outreach programs and activities on responsible pet ownership including spaying/neutering.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

PUPPY (People Understand Pet Population in Yucaipa)

2010-09-18T11:40:00.001-07:00

This is looking out for dogs at the local level. There is an election in November for the Yucaipa City Council (there are two openings) and Dr. Allen Drusys is running for re-election along with some current members and some new faces. The two candidates receiving the highest number of votes will take seats on the Council. The candidates being endorsed by PUPPY are current council member Tom Masner and Tom Bogh.
To provide a refresher on Allan Drusys, he came to the Los Angeles City Council in 2007 and worked hand-in-hand with Judie Mancuso to get MSN pushed through in Los Angeles. In fact, when he was asked about all the places where MSN had been unsuccessful, he told the City Council it had never been implemented in those places. And that was just a starting place for this ambitious politician.

Drusys testified for AB1634 in Sacramento, lobbied for SB250, drove through MSN in Riverside and is active as an advocate in other places. Because Drusys is an "elected" official, other electeds tend to pay attention. The community in Yucaipa has joined together so that Drysus cannot continue raising kill rates and costs around the state.

The PUPPY website is here - https://sites.google.com/site/250puppy/. To find out how you can contribute to PUPPY contact terraglo@aol.com. PUPPY will also be contacting Yucaipa voters. Please be sure to see the story of Hannah. It was only through CDOC bringing pressure from Sacramento and through Hannah's Supervisor that her owner was able to avoid charges by Drusys. Please pass this along so dog people across California realize Yucaipa is taking action. A politician who loses a local election is less likely to end up in Sacramento and that is where Drusys aims to go.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

LOS ANGELES CONSIDERS REVISING PET LIMITS

2010-09-18T09:07:00.001-07:00

The first of two Town Hall Meetings was held on Thursday, September 16th to consider raising pet limits. The sense of the crowd was overwhelmingly in favor of raising the limits. The audience was divided between rescue people and, for want of a better work, dog activity people - those who compete and sometimes breed, with the rescue people being in a majority. Everyone makes the case that if it were possible to have more animals, there would be more adoptions from the shelter and more income for the City of Los Angeles.
Opposition for the plan was led by Phyllis Dougherty who has been working hard to drum up support to defeat this idea. In her press interview Dougherty called the plan a disaster for the animals and said it would result in Los Angeles being called the "barking city". She also sniped at General Manager Brenda Barnette for her past association with purebred dogs. Dougherty led a local campaign against the hiring of Barnette. Also lukewarm was Laura Beth Heisen who was not only Judie Mancuso's hand-picked candidate for the Spay/Neuter Advisory Board but who was also gunning for the job Barnette has.

The meeting, which was described by someone as a "love fest" showed great unanimity among those attending. And it was quite clear that the community embraces Ms. Barnette and welcomes her openness and attention.
The next meeting will be Wednesday, September 22nd at 6:30 pm at the West Los Angeles Animal Care Center, 11361 W. Pico Boulevard. With more time for Ms. Dougherty and Ms. Heisen will be able to drum up opposition it will be interesting to hear the tenor of that meeting. This change in limits was sponsored by Los Angeles City Council Member Bill Rosendahl and seconded by Council Member Paul Koretz

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

IF YOU CARE ABOUT DOGS, GET INVOLVED

2010-09-09T15:57:00.000-07:00

This is the time to get to know who is running in your local district. Unfortunately, this is often tied into making political contributions - California does run on money. But Toni Atkins is doing this a little differently, she is having a Friend Raiser, no need to make a contribution.

Anyone who lives in her district and does not attend and get to know her and express their views will have no ability to complain. We say we want them to listen. They can't listen if we are not there to talk.

Reminder:

Ruth Rollins

and the

Point Loma Democratic Club

Invite You to a

Friend-Raiser

For

Toni Atkins

For

State Assembly

Sunday, September 12, 2010

10:00 am - 12:00 pm

At the Rollins Home in Point Loma

1268 Savoy Street

San Diego, CA 92107

For more information, contact Ruth at (619) 222-9344.

Come enjoy a continental breakfast and join Toni Atkins, former San Diego City Councilmember and candidate for the 76th Assembly District, for a conversation about California's future.

HOW DID THEY VOTE

2010-09-09T15:55:00.000-07:00

(Phone number is 916.319.20XX - xx is the district number)

Bold indicates termed out or not running although several are running for the Senate.

NO VOTES

Adams (R) - 59, Anderson (R) - 77, B. Berryhill (R) - 26, T. Berryhill (R) - 25, Block (D) - 78, Buchanen (D) - 15, Caballero (D) - 28, C. Calderon (D) - 58, Chesbro (D) - 01, Conway (R) - 34, Coto (D) - 23, DeVore (R) - 70, Evans (D) - 07, Fletcher (R) - 75, Fuller (R) - 32, Gaines (R) - 04, Galgiani (D) - 17, Garrick (R) - 74, Gilmore (R) - 30, Hagman (R) - 60, Harkey (R) - 73, Huber (D) - 10, Jeffries (R) - 66, Knight (R) - 36, Logue (R) - 03, Miller (R) - 71, Nestande (R) - 64, Niello (R) - 05, Nielsen (R) - 02, Norby (R)- 72, V. Perez (D) - 80, Salas (D) - 79, Silva (R) - 67, Smyth (R) - 38, Swanson (D) - 16, Torres (D) - 61, Torrico (D) - 20, Tran (R) - 68, Villines (R) - 29

Yamada (D) - 08

ABSENT/ABSTAIN/NOT VOTING (Any are fine)

Bradford (D) - 51, Carter (D) - 62, Cook (R) - 65, De La Torre (D) - 50, Ma (D) - 12, Mendoza (D) - 56, Monning (D) - 27, Saldana (D) - 76, Skinner (D) - 14, Strickland (R) - 37

YES VOTES - All D

Ammiano (13), Arambula (31), Bass (47), Beall (24), Blumenfeld (40), Brownley (41), Davis (48), De Leon (45), Eng (49), Feuer (42), Fong (22), Fuentes (39), Furutani (55), Gatto (43), Hall (52), Hayashi (18), Hernandez (57), Hill (19), Hollingsworth (36), Huffman (06), Jones (09), Lieu (53), Lowenthal (54), Nava (35), Portantino (44), Ruskin (21), Solario (69), Torlakson (11), J. Perez (46)

SB250 DEFEATED

2010-09-09T15:54:00.000-07:00

Defeating SB250 was the culmination of four years of work by CDOC, Save Our Dogs, Canine Companions for Independence and other groups to protect dogs and responsible dog owners. Our continued presence in Sacramento all during the year has paid off. But CDOC would not have been able to maintain that presence without two important pieces; the guidance and assistance of Scott Sadler, who represents CDOC and responsible dog owners in California and financial support to engage a well-respected firm. Sadler is the face of 'the dog people' in Sacramento on a daily basis and it is a good face to have.

We need to expand our work in Sacramento and through the League of Cities and the California State Association of Counties. This will mean upping the ante but it will also mean we will be able to be more effective at the local level. And we will get more information out about this.

But today is a day to look at your dogs, know they will not be arbitrarily sterilized because they got out one time and relax -- to an extent. It is also a day to take 10 more minutes and write to your legislator. If they were a Yes vote, let them know how unhappy you are with their performance - they should not get a free pass just because we have been concentrating on others. This is important. It's not OK to vote for a bill that would have killed more dogs. If they were a No vote or an abstention thank them for not voting for a bad bill.

Last year CDOC presented every legislator who was not a Yes vote with a Best of Breed Rosette with their name and the statement Dog's Best Friend. We will make sure we acknowledge them on your behalf again this year.

One Worth Fighting For

2010-06-20T22:25:00.000-07:00

Too often in the dog fancy, we are accused of only opposing legislation. Unfortunately, the truth is we do seem to come out in force when we feel threatened by legislation such as mandatory spay/neuter bills but are not as fast to act if we are not directly affected. Such is the case with AB 2000, a bill that is intended to save dogs' lives which would otherwise be compromised. Called Molly's Bill after a dog with a life threatening reaction to the rabies vaccine, AB 2000 would allow a medical waiver for the required rabies vaccination without facility quarantine. California is a rabies state but it is rarely found in domesticated dogs. Dogs living in California are required to be vaccinated every three years. For dogs with lethal reactions, compromised immune systems, or those suffering from cancer or other illnesses it is consider contraindicated to vaccinate for rabies. This leaves owners in a difficult quandary-- violate the law or potentially kill your loving pet.

AB 2000 provides the fix by allowing a veterinarian to provide medical proof that a dog should be exempt from the rabies vaccine mandate. Dogs under four months of age are exempt, provided owners do not allow the puppy to wander freely or publicly. It would seem reasonable to assume that dogs medically exempt from the rabies vaccine would voluntarily follow similar guidelines, primarily so as not to expose their pet to diseases from other dogs.

AB 2000 is in the Senate Health Committee. Even if AB 2000 doesn't directly affect you, it might some day so now is the time to show support. Contact the Senate today!

BILL BRUCE IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

2010-01-26T14:50:00.001-08:00

Bill Bruce will be coming to California next week to give his presentation on licensing rather than MSN as a way to keep dogs out of shelters.

This is the information:

Thursday, February 4th

Hyatt Regency Sacramento

6:30 pm

1209 L Street

Sacramento

Friday, February 5th

Courtyard by Marriott

7:00 pm

1000 Fairgrounds Drive

Vallejo

(Across from Marine World)

These events are free and everyone is welcome. To reserve your place, just go here http://www.cdoca.org/page26/page26.php.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

SB250 Bumper Stickers

2009-12-18T07:04:00.001-08:00

If you go to this website, your can order your No on SB250 Bumper Sticker for only $3.95.

Click here to download:

SB250Bumper Sticker.snagproj (78 KB)

This is a great way to let the general public know about SB250. Also, be sure and direct people to www.SB250.org, CDOC's informational site on this bill.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

THESE ARE THE PEOPLE PETA IS MOVING TO LOS ANGELES

2009-12-03T16:41:00.001-08:00

CDOC has stayed out of the bashing of organizations that promote MSN because we don't want to get distracted from our goal of education and finding solutions. But this very latest offering from PETA, timed for the Holiday Season, requires a comment.

If you have not seen the ad with the naked model who uses a cross to cover the strategic parts of her body, here it is. There is also an interview with Catholic League President Bill Donahue and the PETA VP of Marketing Lisa Lange. According to PETA, truly religious people from all over are calling and thanking them for these photos. She says that sex is good (evidently except for animals) and these and the other ads with naked celebrities are beautiful.

CNN Commentator Mike Galanos says he finds the ads offensive, as does the Catholic League. Interestingly, Catholic League President Bill Donahue seems to be up to date on PETA activities and calls attention to the fact that they kill 90% of the animals in the care and do not operate a single shelter. At no time does Lange dispute that kill rate; she simply keeps telling the anchor that the ads are lovely.

You can see the video here. .

And PETA has picked California and specifically Los Angeles, as a new headquarters to bring us more of the same.

The PETA statement about moving their people to Los Angeles said "PETA will transfer about 40 employees - a quarter of its staff - from its Norfolk headquarters next summer to capitalize on the bright lights and big names of Los Angeles. The organization will move its campaigns, youth and online marketing divisions to Los Angeles, said Tracy Reiman, PETA's executive vice president.These departments conceive of and carry out those eye- and headline-catching, envelope-pushing and just plain quirky actions that have helped put animal rights on the map. She said PETA is expanding that office, she said, to be closer "to the city that defines popular culture and cultivates big personalities and bigger ideas. We can have a big impact on the small screen and the larger screen."

If you are fortunate enough to have a legislator who is more concerned with the welfare of their constituents than access to money, movie stars and playboy bunnies, you might forward this blog. PETA is the only national organization linked with Judie Mancuso and the legislation like AB1634 and SB 250. One of the reasons a housewife from Laguna Niguel who had no actual organization and has not proposed a single positive suggestion can direct those big contributions is that she has a link to the money and bodies of these folks.

Maybe your legislator will agree with PETA that this is a sexy, appropriate and beautiful ad. Or maybe they will agree with Donahue that

"PETA is a fraud. It also has a long and disgraceful record of exploiting Christian and Jewish themes to hawk its ugly services. Those who support this organization sorely need a reality check. They also need a course in Ethics 101."

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

CDOC NAMES CALDERON "2009 LEGISLATOR OF THE YEAR"

2009-11-30T09:05:00.001-08:00

Concerned Dog Owners of California named Assembly Member Chuck Calderon 2009 Legislator of the Year for his work on behalf of dogs during the legislative session. Assembly Member Calderon supported legislation that would have provided tax incentives for people to take shelter dogs, supported legislation to toughen rules against dog fighting and opposed the legislation that would have required mandatory spay and neuter of owned dogs.

The latter legislation would have had a serious effect on the ability of service organizations to obtain dogs for their programs. It also had no exemptions for search and rescue dogs and other dogs that help professionals on a daily basis.

Making the presentation for CDOC was CDOC Member Gerri Monohan, President of the Golden Retriever Club of Great Los Angeles, Mary Fry, Carol Hamilton and Dean Lund. All these people are constituents of Calderon.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY MSN ORDINANCE

2009-11-24T10:20:00.001-08:00

Here is the CDOC Response to a letter from Lee Heller, well-to-do SB animal activist, which was printed in todays Santa Ynez Valley Journal.

Dr. Heller has impressive credentials, a history of activism, and she organized both adults and children into a cohesive, yellow-ribbon bedecked band of supporters. But what she never did was present any evidence that MSN works. Nor did the County Public Health Department. And that is because all the statistics go the other way.

If there is evidence of success for MSN why was it not presented? Why has the State Legislature rejected it for the last 3 years? Why has the California Department of Finance reported that it will have a negative financial effect of local government? Why have the American Veterinary Medical Association and ASPCA issued written position papers opposing the MSN of owned dogs? Why did HSUS not weigh in?

There were no shelter experts on the Task Force. The three people that are nationally recognized as having the most expertise are Richard Avanzino, Nathan Winograd and Bill Bruce. Avanzino and Winograd live in California; it would have been easy to get their testimony. Bill Bruce attended a task force meeting but was not allowed to make a presentation the the meeting. Is this the way an organization seeks real solutions, by not listening to the people who have run successful programs?

The Santa Barbara MSN ordinance was based on fear, sympathy and perhaps political contributions (some task force members bragged they had made large contributions and the Supervisors would vote yes). One could never base a YES vote on facts because there are none.

Instead of embracing programs that have worked, the County chose to put in place a model that has never fared as well as licensing, education and incentive programs. The winners are the veterinarians because Dr. Ron Faoro, DVM and Task Force Chair made sure that only they can issue exemptions. And if they decline to give an exemption, they will be right there to sell the S/N surgery. The losers will be the additional owned animals that will die, the additional owned animals that will be surrendered and the taxpayers that will pick up the extra costs.

This is Heller's letter:

Spay-neuter does work

Thank you for your extended coverage of the recent Board of Supervisors hearings and vote on a new spay/neuter ordinance for dogs and cats. The ordinance will require that pet owners get a certificate from their veterinarian if they want to keep their pet intact. Its goal is to motivate people to spay or neuter their pets by getting them to think a little about the consequences of not doing so: namely, overcrowding and unnecessary deaths in our county’s shelters. Those who truly wish to keep their pets intact may do so simply by obtaining the certificate as part of their normal rabies vaccination/licensing process.

The good news is that the mere passage of the ordinance is already having its intended effect. The day after the vote, because of coverage by media outlets like the Journal, one of our local rescue groups got a call from the owner of two kittens: she’d read about the new law and was looking for information about how to get her kittens fixed. Those are two cats that will not be adding to the overabundance of excess kittens we have been seeing in the past few years!

It’s also important to let your readers know that if they want to fix their pet but fear that they can’t afford to do so, they are lucky to live in this county. Our three humane societies -- Santa Barbara, Santa Ynez Valley, and Santa Maria Valley -- all have low cost clinics, and in some cases fee waivers for those in need. Private cat rescue organizations such as Catalyst for Cats and VIVA (Volunteers for Intervalley Animals) will cover all costs for feral cats and in some cases, tame ones also. And CARE 4 PAWS is offering free spaying or neutering of any owned pet. For more information, readers should contact the organizations listed. CARE 4 PAWS, which currently runs its free clinics with the generous support of Buellton Veterinary Clinic, can be reached at (805) 968-2273.

Lee E Heller, Ph.D., J.D., Summerland

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

MANDATORY SPAY AND NEUTER HEARING IN SANTA BARBARA

2009-11-10T13:04:00.001-08:00

Today the Santa County Board of Supervisors heard testimony on the proposed mandatory spay and neuter ordinance proposed by Santa Barbara County Animal Services. This ordinance would require dog owners to visit a veterinarian every time they wanted to license their dogs. It would be up to the veterinarian whether he or she judged the owner suitable to own an intact dog. No ordinance guidelines have been suggested; it is totally up to the veterinarian’s opinion.

Speaking in opposition to the bill was Santa Maria Mayor Larry Lavagnino. Santa Maria contracts with Santa Barbara County for animal control. Mayor Lavagnino pointed out that while the number of animals processed by the Santa Barbara shelter has actually decreased almost 13% from 1998 to 2008, “Santa Barbara County’s bill to the City of Santa Maria has increased 247% in the same 10 year period. Ten years ago they charged Santa Maria $145,000 and now they are charging us $503,000. And we are at the tipping point.” Lavagnino urged a program that focused on licensing since identified dogs don’t end up in the shelters.

Also speaking in opposition to the ordinance was former County Supervisor Brooks Firestone. He said that emotions rather than logic are prevailing in addressing this issue. Firestone urged the Board to vote No.

Dr. Ron Faoro, who was also a sponsor of the failed AB1634, is the guiding light behind this ordinance. He has stated that anyone has the option to try and convince their veterinarian that they should be allowed to own an intact animal. His practice charges $71.00 for a visit and rabies shot. This ordinance, if adopted, will be a huge financial boon to the Santa Barbara Veterinary community. With only 50% compliance, the Ordinance would generate more than $11 million in income to the veterinary community.

Andy Caldwell, Executive Directive Director of Santa Barbara non-profit COLAB testified “something that makes the licensing program more expensive and complex is not going to increase compliance.”

The proposed ordinance is modeled on a Santa Cruz County ordinance. Santa Cruz has had mandatory spay neuter for 15 years. The dog euthanasia rate is 24%, the same as Santa Barbara County, and their cat euthanasia rate is 51% while Santa Barbara County’s is 38%. Those in opposition point out that this is evidence that this approach does not work.

The final vote on the ordinance will be held on December 1^st.

CDOC will have a table at the SLO dog show on Saturday. If you are a resident of Santa Barbara County or if you have ever attended a dog show in Santa Barbara, please come by to complete a letter.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

PENINSULA HUMANE DIRECTOR SPEAKS OUT ON SB250

2009-11-05T09:58:00.001-08:00

San Mateo was the first city in the United States to try Mandatory Spay and Neuter. They found that euthanasia went up in those parts of the County affected by the MSN law while it decreased in the other parts of the County. They also saw licensing compliance reduce by 35% the first year.

San Mateo now takes a different approach to this issue, using education and free spay and neuter programs. And they have been steadfast in their opposition to MSN as they have personally seen the negative unintended consequences. You will find Director Ken White's comments on SB250 interesting.

http://tinyurl.com/ykahgqq

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

HSUS and VICK

2009-10-29T08:07:00.001-07:00

Like the politicians, the LA Times cannot wait to fawn and fall over Pacelle. Pacelle is the man who refused to meet with Nathan Winograd because he could not be trusted. Winograd, whether you like or dislike his approach, has spent most of his adult life working for animals.

While in Oakland two weeks ago, Vick was offered an opportunity by Bad Rap to visit some of the Vick fighting dogs being rehabilitated by that group. He declined. It's unlikely that who loves dogs and has to give them up ever turns down a chance to see them. Michael Vick loves being out of jail, not dogs. Certainly he paid the debt to society that the court dictated. Does that make him a teacher or a role model? Someone to be trusted?

It appears that fawning is not limited to the Times.

latimes.com

Editorial

Michael Vick: a dog's new best friend?

The Humane Society's arrangement with the convicted football player deserves the public's support.

October 29, 2009

For its 11 million members, as well as millions more nonmembers that sport fur, feathers or scales, the Humane Society of the United States' public relations and legislative coups in the last few years have been cause for celebration.

Its undercover video of cows too sick to walk at a meatpacking plant in Chino led to a federal ban on the slaughter of "downer" cows for human consumption. It sponsored Proposition 2 in California, a successful ballot initiative mandating more humane treatment for chickens and other farm animals. And most notably, in 2007, it championed the prosecution of former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick for running a dogfighting operation in Virginia. The Vick case raised the organization's profile and that of its president, Wayne Pacelle, as he called for the Falcons to drop Vick, for Nike to sever ties with him and for passage of new state laws against animal fighting. Since then, 21 states have complied.

But after Vick served his 23-month sentence and the two men had lengthy conversations, Pacelle made a controversial decision: He decided to join forces with the football player and bring him on board as part of the Humane Society's anti-dogfighting program; Vick, now a player for the Philadelphia Eagles, spends some of his free time lecturing schoolchildren about animal cruelty. The move shocked and angered many society members who feel Vick deserves no quarter -- no matter how willing he is to atone. The images of dogs mauled and maimed are unforgettable, and the public was rightly horrified at Vick's callousness. And it is reasonable to question whether he is truly repentant or is simply using the organization to rehabilitate his image.

This page doesn't always agree with Humane Society initiatives, but the organization's partnership with Vick is a smart move. A pattern of cruelty to animals often starts at a young age -- Vick himself was exposed to dogfighting at age 8. The Humane Society, whose members tend to be white and middle class, doesn't have a lot of influence with inner-city kids, but in Vick it has found someone uniquely suited to educate them. There's little doubt that Vick needs the image boost this public-service stint can provide, but the society needs him just as much.

Pacelle, appearing tonight at a town hall meeting in L.A.'s Windsor Square neighborhood, probably will be confronted with questions about Vick, among other controversial topics; in California, the Humane Society is working to ban the hunting of mourning doves, much to the ire of hunters. It also wants to make cockfighting a felony and to crack down on puppy mills. The organization will be more successful in all of these ventures if it focuses on widening its public appeal -- and on trying to be at least as humane toward humans as it is toward animals. Vick has done his time and is in a position to do himself and fighting canines a lot of good. Society members should throw him, and Pacelle, a bone.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

AN UPDATE FROM LOUISVILLE

2009-10-28T16:24:00.001-07:00

Reprinted with permission.

While many have celebrated the announced resignation of Louisville's
disgraced shelter director, Dr. Gilles Meloche, others are worried that this
will bring a stop to the news cycle regarding him and the failed animal
ordinance he vehemently supported.

Not to worry!

To begin with, Meloche is not gone yet. Seems he's waiting for a new epoch
to dawn on the Mayan Calendar or some other heavenly signal before he takes
his leave at the end of this year. As we in Louisville know all too well,
two months is more than sufficient time to wreak havoc on our community and
our critters.

Besides, the current plan will hand authority over to a current
supervisor: Wayne Zelinski. This is far from an improvement as Mr.
Zelinski has been a disciple of Dr. Meloche for several years and is
well-schooled in his policies and procedures. This, despite having a
Masters of Public Administration degree and having been a former canine
officer in Florida.

There also remain some issues that have bee allowed to fester to the point
where the entire community is now demanding someone be held accountable for
how a man with no experience, a failed job history and guilty plea to 27
counts of dispensing anabolic steroids without proper recordkeeping made it
into the pool of candidates to be considered for the job to begin with.

Then, of course, there are other niggling problems: as being a US citizen
was a requirement for the job (Meloche is Canadian) and also a
requirement under Kentucky state law, how did that get overlooked? And,
when it was repeatedly brought to the attention of Mayor Abramson over the
past four years, why was it ignored? And, after Meloche went before a judge
and falsely swore under oath he was eligible to be a peace officer, why was
he not charged with perjury when he later "unswore" himself?

Then, of course, there's Meloche not telling the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth in explaining his Canadian malpractice and steroid
cases when he applied for his veterinary license in Kentucky. That's going
to become an issue now that one of his announced possible new careers might
be....wait for it!....private practice veterinarian. This is the man who
did heart-sticks on kittens with no anaesthetic, sold FIP-infected cats and
parvo-infected dogs to an unsuspecting public and now wants to care for your
pet?

Following on the heels of that will be the civil suits being filed against
him by former contract veterinarian Dr. Kendall Clay and kennel manager Dawn
Simpson, both of whom he sexually harassed while under his employ.

And last (but certainly not least) this Friday there will be an announcement
of yet another Federal lawsuit being filed against Metro Louisville over the
Meloche-inspired failed animal ordinance. It promises to put this whole
issue right back where it belongs: center stage!

There's a lot of road left yet before we can all sing the words of that
great country song, "Thank God and Greyhound you're gone!"

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

BEAUMONT CITY COUNCIL WANTS SB250 IN BEAUMONT-BE THERE TONIGHT

2009-10-20T15:32:00.001-07:00

First of all, we are obviously talking about Riverside County here, not San Bernardino County.

They are basically planning on adopting SB250 with added mandatory mincrochipping for dogs and cats. If you can possibly attend, please do so. There will undoubtedly be speakers who will be eloquent. So if you are not comfortable speaking for the whole time, just fill out a speaker card and be a "me too" vote. They need to know you are there about this ordinance.

Remember - SB250 has no exemptions for

Dogs that get out once
Dogs that compete in events where they are not wearing tags.
Search and rescue dogs working off lead
Cadaver dogs working off lead
Service dogs that are off lead or on the wrong type of lead

Just like SB250, this would mean that if you ever violated any state rule anywhere they can demand that you sterilize your dog.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

BEAUMONT TO VOTE ON MSN

2009-10-20T10:14:00.001-07:00

BEAUMONT TO VOTE ON MSN

Beaumont City Council to discuss mandatory spay/neuter Tuesday

Here is the information.

The Beaumont City Council is scheduled to adopt an ordinance that makes spaying and neutering pets mandatory when it meets Tuesday night.

The council approved the first reading of the ordinance two weeks ago.

The ordinance states, in part, that no person "shall own, keep, or harbor an unaltered dog or cat."

Under the ordinance, owners or custodians of unaltered dogs or cats must provide a certificate of sterility or obtain an unaltered dog or cat license.

The meeting is at 6 p.m. at the Beaumont Civic Center, 550 East Sixth St.

Dr. Allan Drusys will undoubtedly be there. Here are some things to remember about Dr. Drusys whjo tries to get MSN instituted everywhere. He made these statements to the Los Angeles City Council when he testified:

The reason MSN had not worked at any of the non-California locations was that it as never really tries.

MSN makes every animal more healthy

In other words, he does not exaggerate, he actually says untruthful things to have an impact. His own City Council does not support MSN and would not support SB250.

It is important to be at this meeting tonight.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

AB241 and Governor's Veto

2009-10-12T09:06:00.001-07:00

All the talk this morning seems to be about whether the legislature will override the Governor's veto.

I think there are many things worth worrying about relative to the California system of government. But this would be low on my list. The last time the legislature overrode a Governor's veto was in 1979. Nava, HSUS and crew will have to start over.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE ON AB241

2009-10-11T16:59:00.001-07:00

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 241 without my signature.

This measure would make it a crime for any person or entity to own or control more than 50 unsterilized adult dogs or cats for breeding or raising for sale as pets. I support measures designed to prevent animal cruelty and that punish persons engaged in the abuse of animals. However, this measure simply goes too far in an attempt to address the serious problem of puppy mills. An arbitrary cap on the number of animals any entity can possess throughout the state will not end unlawful, inhumane breeding practices. Instead this measure has the potential to criminalize the lawful activities of reputable breeders, pet stores, kennels, and charitable organizations engaged in raising service and assistance dogs.

For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

AB 241 Vetoed By Governor

2009-10-11T16:55:00.001-07:00

Assembly Bill 241 (Nava - D) was vetoed today by Governor Schwarzenegger. AB 241, which the supporters liked to call the Puppy Mill Bill would have limited the number of dogs that could be owned to 50 at one time. The bill counted 4 month old puppies as adult dogs. This would have meant that Canine Companions for Independence and Guild Dogs For The Blind could not have effectively continued their breeding programs. It would have also meant that responsible breeders, who stay on puppies that have placed as a co-owner so they always keep track of their dogs, would have been in violation of the law.

We are pleased to see the Governor did not sign this bill given its many deficiencies.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

POMONA CITY COUNCIL MEETING

2009-10-06T07:45:00.001-07:00

The Pomona City Council Meeting was held last night and several people attended who have an interest in whether or not Pomona implements MSN.
Speaking against taking such action were Mary Bradley, Geneva Coates, Melissa Paul and Cathie Turner. Also in the audience (among others that left before I could get all the names) were Terry Toussaint and Ellen Yamada. It is a shame that not everyone spoke, since that opportunity existed. Once key points have been made, you just need to be a "me too" so they can gauge opposition.

Unfortunately in the time available it was not possible to get to the heart of the issue. Pomona is considering this action because there is a $300,000 deficit between what they will owe Inland Valley Humane Society and what they now raise in fees. This was the reason they raised their licensing fees from $10 to $35 for altered animals and raised the rate for unaltered animals fro $45 to $70. If history repeats itself the City will find that new licensing compliance will fall, negating the effect of these increases.

It is important that residents of Pomona make appointments with their Mayor and Council members to discuss these issues prior to the proposal being made by IVHS.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

MORE ON THE PROPOSED CHANGES BY THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

2009-10-02T16:24:00.001-07:00

FROM THE PLANNING OFFICE

The County of Los Angeles is proposing to amend its Zoning Code with regards to its regulations for the keeping of dogs and cats
and the permitting requirements for the breeding of dogs and cats. The proposed Zoning Code amendment includes the following:

Establishes a definition of a boarding facility for dogs and cats and a breeding facility for dogs and cats. The term dog kennels is replaced with the term boarding facility for dogs and cats in the A-2 and M-1 Zones as a permitted use and as a use requiring a conditional use permit in the CM Zone.
Dog breeding as a permitted use in the M-1 Zone is deleted. Breeding facility for dogs and cats is added as a use requiring a conditional use permit in the M-1, M-1 and ½, M-2 and M-4 Zones. The existing limitations on the keeping of dogs in the Agricultural and Residential Zones are deleted and replaced by limitations for dogs and cats that apply to all zones. Existing approved boarding facilities (kennels) with a breeding facility as an accessory use must stop all breeding activities within five years of the effective date of the ordinance.The Regional Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on October 28, 2009. Please see the attached draft ordinance, public hearing notice, a summary report, and a draft Negative Declaration.

If you have any questions about this matter please contact me.

James Bell
Principal Regional Planning Assistant
Ordinance Studies
213-974-8480

COMMENTARY FROM STORY HOPE

This impacts all dog breeding facilities in unincorporated Los Angeles County. It's being done through Zoning rather than Animal Control. This impacts ALL dog kennels that have breeding dogs (Training Kennels and Boarding Kennels that have breeding dogs will be required to cease breeding within 5 years). Please read the documents very carefully as it basically zones all breeding kennels into Manufacturing zoning and requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Read the requirements of the CUP in the final attachment. Please send to all kennels of which you have any knowledge in unincorporated Los Angeles County. And I, personally, would like to know of the hundreds of "puppymill" busts that have been done in Los Angeles County. There is a hearing noted toward the end of October (October 28th), and for all those that said it won't affect me, it will. AKC is aware of this.

A County Supervisor's office was contacted and the word is that meetings are ongoing about these proposed ordinance changes right now, so letters and phone calls are appropriate. Let's have a good attendance at the October 28 public meeting, too. I do not breed, but I'll be there. Will you?

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

MONTGOMERY COUNTY

2009-10-02T09:36:00.001-07:00

Both Bill McFadden and Cathie Turner spoke last evening, October 1st, at the Westie Club meeting in Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania. We were delighted to be on the program with Phil Guidry from the AKC. When you consider that the first Federation in the United States was started in Pennsylvania*, the honor was even more signal.

We are very proud of the work that CDOC has done over the last three years. And it has been done by all of you — who live here in California and by all those in other states who have supported our work financially. We really have become a cutting edge group. We don't try to cover every state*, we don't try to manage other animals; we are about dogs in California.

Meetings with legislators in the days after the vote on SB250 have shown we are making progress. Even those who did not vote our way have expressed their appreciation of the professionalism.

An important note — if you have not yet expressed your opinion on AB241, it is not too late. Here is the information. BY THE WAY, JUDIE MANCUSO IS PUSHING HER SUPPORTERS TO CALL THIS SYSTEM.

Automated system
1. Call 916.445.2841
2. Press 1 for english
3. Press 2 for legislation and you will get options

Press 6 for AB241

pressing 1 will express approval and 2 opposition

Please ask the Governor to veto this AB241.

*Although California is our area of expertise, we have volunteered 1/2 of the income from the sale of Handling Secrets at the Montgomery shows to go to the Pennsylvania Federation for their legal fund.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

WAKE UP LOS ANGELES RESIDENTS - TUESDAY SEPT 22ND IS A BIG DAY

2009-09-21T09:13:00.001-07:00

The County is proposing the addition of the Hobby Breeder Permit which will cost $250.00 initially and $175.00 for renewal. The current law requires a breeding permit costing $125.00. The fee of $250 means that a person having one litter of puppies a year (all that is allowed in the unincorporated portions of Los Angeles County now) is required to pay the same fee as a pet store selling hundreds dogs per year, an animal menagerie or a wholesale wild animal dealer.

There is no requirement to purchase the Hobby Breeder Permit just because you have three intact dogs; only if you are planning on breeding.

The text of all the proposed changes to the Ordinance can be found here. Los Angeles County also provides animal services to many of the other cities in Los Angeles County.

Contact information for Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is here.

The meeting will be held at the Hall of Administration, 500 W. Temple St., Los Angeles, CA 90012 at 9:30 am. So to voice your opinion you need to contact your Supervisor today and be at the meeting tomorrow.

City of Los Angeles District 2 Election
Tomorrow, Tuesday, September 22

and the winner will likely be governing you for the next 14 years.

Tomorrow is the election for Council District 2 which includes Sherman Oaks, Studio City, North Hollywood, Sunland and Tujunga, an area with many dog owners and dog lovers. While there are ten candidates, three are considered "viable" candidates;
Paul Krekorian, Chris Essel and Tamar Galatzan.

CDOC has spoken to five of the candidates, including these three, about Animal Issues.

Chris Essel - Movie Executive. Supported by former Council Member and current City Controller, Wendy Gruel. Would be new to city politics in an elected capacity. Does not have a hard and fast opinion on this issue; very fact oriented; willing to listen to both sides. Fastest to respond to CDOC.

Paul Krekorian - Current Assembly Member. Voted for AB1634, for SB250 (after a meeting in the morning and a review of what MSN does), and HSUS "Man of the Year". No explanation of why he would want to give up state seat; speculation is the much greater compensation at City level. Supported by Democratic Party.

Tamar Galatzan - Current School Board Member, Prosecutor. "I absolutely support Mandatory Spay and Neuter". Close friend of the Mayor.

With ten candidates, this is the time for people with a special interest to get behind one candidate and make a difference. So if you live in the area, please vote; this time your vote can make a difference. If you do not vote, you cannot complain about whatever happens here. If you know people in this area, please forward this and ask them to be sure to vote.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

WHAT A SURPRISE! NAVA for Attorney General and FLOREZ for Lt. Governor

2009-09-16T14:22:00.001-07:00

We just received this email from Pedro Nava. This must have come as a huge surprise to him. Whoever would have thought that just because he did two bills for HSUS they would agree to have their legislative fund support him.

The CDOCDogPAC recommendations will be out closer to the primaries. So don't send all your money to Nava this week!

Humane Society Legislative Fund Endorses Nava

for Ca Attorney General

September 16, 2009

Assemblymember and former prosecutor, Pedro Nava announced today that he has been endorsed by the Humane Society Legislative Fund.

"The kind of leadership on animal protection issues that Pedro Nava brings is rare," adds Wayne Pacelle, Executive Vice President of HSLF. "Californians who care about animal protection should cast their ballot for Nava during the primary election."

"I am gratified to earn the Humane Society's endorsement for Attorney General," said Nava. "The organization represents compassionate people all across our country who care deeply about animal welfare. It is truly an honor to have their support. "

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

LOS ANGELES TIMES ENDORSES ANIMALS BILLS

2009-09-15T07:55:00.001-07:00

In a surprising editorial the Los Angeles Times urged the Governor to sign SB241, AB242 and AB243, as well as SB 135. The end their editorial as follows:

"Some opponents of these bills favor improving the lives of pets and livestock but suspect a hidden agenda by the U. S. Humane Society, which backs them: First comes kindness to cows, these critics worry , and next, a mandatory diet of wheat germ and water. That fear shouldn't stop the state from doing what is right. These bills are small steps toward improved animal welfare, but they move California in the right direction."

CDOC supports AB242. We sent a letter of opposition on AB242 because we believe the standard should have been 'animal cruelty' which is defined in the law very differently. And we oppose AB241 because it is poorly written, describes 4 month old animals as adults, doesn't provide sufficient exemptions for service organizations such as Canine Companions for Independence

We would urge all of you to get your letters of opposition to the Governor's Office as soon as possible. This does create a new animal mandate and as such can involve state costs.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

FROM DOGGY BLURB

2009-09-14T13:36:00.001-07:00

REJECTED: California’s SB 250 Mandatory Spay/Neuter

Last Tuesday, the California State Assembly voted 28-42 to reject SB 250, known as the “Pet Responsbility Act.” The bill stated that all California pets (dogs and cats) would require mandatory spaying and neutering, as well as cost the government millions of dollars- they don’t have- to this new program.

With the help of Concerned Dog Owners of California (CDOC), Save Our Dogs, and other opponents, the ralliers proved that the bill that State Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter) proposed had many “flaws, lack of effectiveness and high costs…” like a bill already in the Santa Cruz area.

CDOC’s President, Bill McFadden, spoke briefly during a press conference, stating,

“We are pleased to have been effective advocates on behalf of owners of all types of dogs and pets, as well as working dogs, in California. We look forward to addressing these issues next year in a way that does not disenfranchise responsible pet owners, ranchers and farmers, law enforcement personnel and the disabled who rely on service dogs.”

State Senator Florez proposed the bill as a suggestion to reducing animal overpopulation. SB 250 will be up for consideration once again in January 2010.

Images courtesy of Concerned Dog Owners of America and Yes on SB 250

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

SB250 - STICKS AND STONES. . .

2009-09-11T20:58:00.001-07:00

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

2009-09-09T16:10:00.001-07:00

(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

2009-09-09T11:10:00.001-07:00

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

2009-09-09T11:06:00.001-07:00

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

2009-09-09T08:02:00.001-07:00

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

2009-09-09T07:50:00.001-07:00

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

2009-09-08T13:43:00.001-07:00

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

2009-09-07T20:34:00.001-07:00

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

A MESSAGE FOR LEGISLATORS

2009-09-05T11:49:00.001-07:00

There are no permits to break the law

It has come to our attention that proponents of SB250 are telling legislators that when people who participate in dog events do so, they operate under permits which allow them to avoid animal control laws while participating in those events.

We are sure our legislators are aware that no one can issue a permit to allow laws to be broken. If an animal control law says (and almost all of them do) that tags shall be worn at all times, then that is the law. And that is one of the many dangers for responsible dog owners and how they will easily be caught up in the punishments of SB250.

When dog events are held, no special permits are obtained. Rather, locations are rented, just as for any other type of event.

The proponents are also saying that these laws will hardly ever be enforced (so one wonders why they are fighting so hard for them) and that no community would enforce a law against responsible people.

So that you can speak to this issue first hand we would suggest you check these links.

In Los Angeles, rather than going into the neighborhoods where roaming dogs are a problem, the Los Angeles Police Department and Animal Control is performing raids in the upper class neighborhoods of Pacific Palisades and Rustic Canyon.

Read this newspaper account.

In Encinitas, Police raided a park and rounded up the lawbreakers who ran 10 minutes late leaving the park, which had no one else in it anyway.

Watch the television coverage.

Were these people breaking the law? Yes. And under SB250 any intact dogs would be sterilized.

Loose dog and Infraction = Sterilization and Never Owning an Intact Dog Again.

It's human nature; the police and animal control are going to continue to target those people where it is the safest to issue tickets; they are not going to choose to go into neighborhoods where they are uncomfortable. So as with all these things, it is the responsible people that will pay while the others are ignored.

Be sure you make YOUR legislator aware that (a) there are no permits given to break the law and (b) police and animal control officers to enforce all these laws. Send them the links so they can see for themselves.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

A MESSAGE FOR LEGISLATORS

2009-09-05T11:35:00.001-07:00

There are no permits to break the law

When dog events are held, no special permits are obtained. Rather, locations are rented, just as for any other type of event.

So that you can speak to this issue first hand we would suggest you check these links.

Read this newspaper account.

In Encinitas, Police raided a park and rounded up the lawbreakers who ran 10 minutes late leaving the park, which had no one else in it anyway.

Watch the television coverage.

Were these people breaking the law? Yes. And under SB250 any intact dogs would be sterilized.

Loose dog and Infraction = Sterilization and Never Owning an Intact Dog Again.

Posted via email from Cathie's posterous

STICK TO THE FACTS

2009-09-05T10:36:00.001-07:00

We noticed a bulletin yesterday that said SB250 was a new dog tax. It is not a new tax; it is not a revenue generator. And it is a bill from Senator Dean Florez, Senate Majority Leader, not Senator Torres.

To date the community opposing this bill has been fact based, proving with publicly available and vetted data that Mandatory Spay and Neuter of Owned Dogs kills more pets and costs more money. It is important to stick to the facts

This is a Mandatory Spay and Neuter bill. There are no fees or taxes you can pay to get out of this.

If you dog is loose twice over the lifetime of a dog, you must sterilize your intact dogs and lose your right to ever own an intact dog again.

If you have any animal control violation once, you must sterilize your intact dogs and lose your right to ever own an intact dog again.

A tax would be benign compared to this. Please stay on message as you make your calls.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

MSN in Los Angeles

2009-08-25T09:09:00.001-07:00

I see that the SCIL people are claiming that MSN was not enforced in Los Angeles until October of 2008. I can understand how they could think that; none of them live in Los Angeles or have dogs so they had no reason to try and license dogs.

The City could not issue citations until October 1st. But beginning on February 27th, as soon as the Mayor signed the Ordinance, it was enforced at the six Animal Shelters. You were told that you had to have your animal sterilized. If you were familiar with the law, you could get them to grudgingly agree that if you had an AKC show dog, you could get a $100 license. But each person wanted different "proof" of this. For some an AKC Certificate was necessary, for others a listing in a dog show catalog, others wanted to see that your dog was really there.

Unless you showed your copy of the ordinance, they never mentioned that you could keep a non-AKC dog intact by buying a "Breeder's Permit". CDOC accompanied several people to license their dogs after they were told they could not get intact dog licenses. So this law has been enforced since February. We have video and recordings of shelter personnel and their supervisors fumbling their way through explanations; not their fault; it is amazingly complex.

We also have a sworn statement from Ed Boks talking about the fact that the law was enforced, as far as licensing, beginning February 27th.

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

2009-08-05T08:31:00.001-07:00

Yesterday the City of Los Angeles had on the agenda to consider whether to support SB250. Since the Mayor's Office has been sending people, at City expense, to Sacramento for each hearing, it seems that he has unilaterally decided to support this. He is evidently not concerned about the increased killing in Los Angeles since the end of February. Kill rates for dogs are up 24%.

His advisors, including SB250 sponsor, who was at the City Council meeting today, would say that the reason the numbers are so bad is that the economy and home foreclosures are so bad. But, as the chart below shows, the numbers in Los Angeles far exceed those elsewhere in the State. And this Chart specifically shows counties with high foreclosure rates and where the economy is far worse than Los Angeles.

Maybe the City Council just wants company. Unfortunately it would come at the expense of owned dogs and cats.

. . And Still No Amendments

2009-08-03T20:35:00.000-07:00

August 3rd and those amendments that Florez promised the Senate just have not appeared.

It would have been hard to predict at the beginning of the legislative year and anyone could make Assembly Member Levine look responsive but Florez has managed to do this. For those of you who have forgotten the Committee hearing, it is here.

One of the problems that the Senator has is that his bill makes the 500,000 people who went to one or more AKC events last year irresponsible owners with this bill. Some because they do not have their tags on in conformation events and some because they have to be off lead to compete in performance events. And with Los Angeles Animal Control conducting sting operations so charge people training their dogs at the parks; can you doubt that other cities will follow their lead. One dog show sweep alone could net almost $500,000 in fines and court costs.

STILL NO AMENDMENTS

2009-07-06T17:33:00.000-07:00

Here we are, a week after Senator Florez announced he had made several amendments to the bill to satisfy prior commitments. In fact, he was prepared to hand them to the B&P Committee. But since they would not consider them, he put them away. No one has seen them; many have called his office and requested them. But there is no response.

And SB250 remains as bad a before; only we are smarter now. Remember when Levine and Boks were telling us MSN was just a "tool" to get to the bad people? We heard that again in B&P Committee last week. But now that Animal Services is using animal control and LAPD manpower to conduct raids in the nice part of town, we know that it is not tool. It is a hammer to get the people who are not part of the problem, who almost all have altered, licensed dogs. But some don't keep their tags on their dogs and some actually take them off leash to throw a frisbee or a ball. Thank goodness Senator Florez is on the job to allow every animal control group in the state to take a page out of the Los Angeles book.

And the interesting thing is that the California Animal Control Directors Association is not supporting this bill. They know that impounds will increase; they know that euthanasia will increase. And they know the irresponsible people will turn in one dog and go get another.

Meanwhile we wait for the amendments and continue to get our letters in. Remember organization letters in by tomorrow afternoon. If you are worried they will not get there, send a copy of your organization letter to CDOC at 818-332-9690. We even bought a new fax machine today just to keep up with the volume of letters. Letters to the Committee members can go all week but should be there by Monday.

CDOC will be meeting with Committee Member on Monday and Tuesday.

LETTERS ARE COMING IN

2009-07-06T08:19:00.000-07:00

The CDOC fax machine is running constantly and we assume/hope we are getting just a small percentage of the Club letters that are opposing SB250. Please remember that Wednesday is the deadline so you want to get them in by then.

Dog owners in Ventura got busy on Sunday and signed hundreds of letters opposing SB250. Of course, under SB250 everyone at the dog show was in violation of this new law making them subject to mandatory spay and neuter.

And horse owners are starting to get into the Act as well.

This week you need to focus on members of appropriations. After that committee, if this continues to move forward, you will need to again focus on your Assembly Member.

State Employees Continue to Be Paid - IOUs or Not

2009-07-02T08:17:00.000-07:00

You might think that would the threat of no income in the coming weeks and months due to the IOUs that legislators and staffers would be frantically working on real solutions. I would be if my income was going to be cut off.

But here is how it works - really almost every year. We have no budget. Almost all employees belong to a Sacramento credit union which makes no-interest loans which equal their salary - because they know that sooner or later the money will be there. By providing this service the credit union has a captive (and happy) membership.

So if you are thinking that cow tails and dog reproduction will now be traded for work on significant California problems, dream on. While many of us have taken pay cuts, are "really" furloughed or have lost our jobs, the legislators and staffers have none of those concerns.

The only incentive they have to address this mess is that it could interfere with their break from July 17 to August 17.

Continuing Raids in Pavley's District

2009-06-29T05:50:00.000-07:00

The raids are continuing in full force. Squads of animal control officers and police officers are conducting their early morning raids in the parks on the Westside. Animal Control warned us that this would happen. They said Los Angeles needed their new law so they could have a new tool to use against those people who abuse the system. ANd what is more abusive that Westside soccer moms and movie executives letting their dogs play together off leash while they get together and chat.

Swooping down in vans and LAPD vehicles, they are rounding up and citing people left and right. They have no information, just issue their citations. Now, under SB250, all of the people who were cited just lost their ability to ever own another intact dog. Because they now fall into the category that is forbidden by SB250

FINANCE OPPOSES SB250

2009-06-26T14:36:00.000-07:00

The California State Department of Finance report has finally been made public. For some reason, it was held back and was never seen by the Appropriations Committee in the Senate. But since Florez took pains to say all the costs will fall on local government rather than the state, it is clear that he was aware of the contents.

It says in part

"This bill would result in a substantial increase to the General Fund cost of the Animal Adoption mandate. The Animal Adoption mandate currently costs more than $24 million annually to reimburse local government shelters' cost to care for impounded animals. Given the current economic climate, requiring the owners of dogs and cats to pay for sterilization procedures would result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owners' inability to finance the sterilization procedure and pay additional fines."

"Mandatory spay and neuter provisions have failed throughout California at the local government level. According to the National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA), Los Angeles City experienced a 20 percent increase in shelter impounds and a 30 percent increase in shelter euthanasias after passage of a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance. NAIA also indicates that in Santa Cruz County, animal control costs doubled after mandatory spay and neuter ordinances were passed."

The entire report can be seen here on the

links page.

Whatever Florez says, a precedent has been set with the Hayden Bill. All it will take is another lawsuit (probably from the City of Los Angeles which already receives more than $4 million in reimbursements already) and these will, as the Department of Finance says, become state costs.

HSUS, ASPCA PROTEST GOVS PROPOSED TEMP RECISSION OF THE HAYDEN ACT

2009-06-26T14:30:00.000-07:00

On behalf of its nearly 1.3 million California constituents, The Humane Society of the United States appeared before the state legislative Budget Conference Committee to urge consideration of the serious and adverse implications of the Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to suspend the "animal adoption mandate," which would have the effect of reducing by three days the holding period for stray dogs and cats in the state's municipal animal shelters.
The Governor is advancing this proposal as a means of generating savings during the state's budget crisis.
The holding period is the period of time that a shelter must hold stray dogs or cats before they can be adopted to new families or euthanized. The current requirement that stray dogs and cats be held for at least four or six days (depending on hours of operation) was established by the 1997 passage of the Hayden bill, a body of law that includes other provisions aimed at increasing the number of animals adopted from the state's shelters.
The intent of the Hayden law's provision that stray animals be held an additional three days is two-fold: (1) to give pet owners more time to locate lost animals and (2) to give unclaimed animals more time to either be adopted or transferred to an animal rescue group.
Of course, none of this keeps the shelters from keeping the dogs and cats as long as they want. But currently the Hayden Act reimburses them for the dogs they keep and then euthanize. This would eliminate that reimbursement. There is no reimbursement for dogs and cats that are adopted. The Commission on Animal Mandates has pointed that out as an unintended consequence of the Act. It rewards the shelters that do not find homes for their animals and penalizes those that do.

RAIDS IN LA CITY PARKS?

2009-06-26T14:26:00.000-07:00

Recently the Department of Animal Control conducted what has to be called a RAID on a park in West Los Angeles where the West Valley Dog Obedience Club regularly holds classes and matches. When it takes 3 vans and 4 police officers to check the license of the one dog person who was in the park, it's hard to know what else to call it.

During the raid, the person in the park (who was working a licensed and on-leash dog at the time) was told they could ticket her for not having the tag on the dog. They further told her that

anyone coming to Los Angeles Parks with dogs from surrounding communities need LA City licenses

. That should have a chilling effect on all the events that are held (and which contribute money) to City coffers.

ALL DOCUMENTS FILED IN CITY OF LOS ANGELES LAWSUIT

2009-06-26T14:06:00.000-07:00

The final brief has been filed in the case of Concerned Dog Owners of California versus The City of Los Angeles. At issue is the City's law making it illegal to own a puppy or kitten over the age of four months unless it is altered; unless you belong to a Registry approved by the City and show the animal or unless you want to pay $200 and declare yourself a breeder, even though you are not and have no intention of breeding dogs or cats.

In bringing this lawsuit, the Plaintiff's asserted that causing someone to pay money to join a registry which may or may not assert their beliefs is a violation of the Constitution guarantees of right of association. If, for example, you do not choose to be associated with the American Kennel Club and attend American Kennel Club shows, then your dog must be sterilized. No matter that two littermates, owned by the same person, would be treated differently. And going further, a pet owner whose dog is not eligible to join a registry (or which belongs to a registry the City doesn't like) must state that he or she is a breeder of dogs. As we know that term has become very politicized. And in dealing with the City, it is possible to find out who is and is not listed as a breeder.

The Plaintiff's also asserted that there was no rational basis for this law. The City confirmed, in depositions, that in the year before passing the law, they euthanized only 560 cats because they ran out of time and space - and that was in three of the six shelters. The other three euthanized no healthy adoptable animals. Presumably they could have transferred animals and solved the problem.

In the City's response they did not dispute the numbers. The City says it relies on its police powers which are broad and essentially allow it to do anything it wants. They claim there was no responsibility on their part to prove that intactness causes pet overpopulation or mass euthanasia.

CDOC's answering brief was filed on June 22nd and the judge will announce his decision on July 14th. CDOC will appeal this case if the judge rules in favor of the City of Los Angeles.

LEGAL ASPECTS OF MSN FINALLY GET EXPOSURE

2009-06-26T13:58:00.000-07:00

The Legal Broadcasting Network has put together a series on mandatory spay and neuter and the implication of such laws. The videos can be watched at www.legalbroadcastnetwork.com or at www.speakingofjustice.com. There are three videos in the series. Cathie Turner of CDOC, David Frei of Westminster Kennel Club and John Jensen, lead attorney i the suit against the City of Los Angeles over the MSN at 4 months law.

These are not just for dog people. This is the chance to take the message to the public. We have often said we didn't have those resources; now we do. Please see that this information is broadly distributed.

Responsible vs Underground Breeder

2009-06-02T13:18:00.000-07:00

What is a responsible breeder?

I believe that a responsible breeder, as outlined by the HSUS, is very much like the very people who are fighting against SB 250 and other bills that incorporate the use of mandatory spay/neuter of pets.

In the state of California, a low volume hobbyist breeder may breed and sell puppies. There are no laws against that...yet (but I am sure that there are those who will be working on that). Depending upon the county or city, a breeder may be required to have a permit but most municipalities treat hobbyist breeders not as businesses.

In fact, most hobbyist breeders are not a business anymore than someone holding a garage sale is a business. Hobbyist breeders whelp and wean the puppies right in their homes. These puppies are not subjected to early lives in cages nor are the parents forever housed in crates. The parents are full fledge members of the family; a companion and much loved. Each parent is carefully screened for health clearances and before any breedings take place, pedigrees and genetics are carefully considered.

When the puppies are born, they are cared for in the home (not some backyard pit as characterized by supporters of mandatory spay/neuter laws) and lovingly weaned. Prospective new homes are carefully screened through applications and interviews. New homes are required to meet a certain criteria and agreements about breed appropriate spay/neuter, veterinary care, training, and the life long responsibility are reached.

Most cities do not require any type of permit to breed and sell a litter of puppies. Supporters of mandatory spay/neuter laws want others to believe that anyone who sells a litter of puppies is an underground breeder who is trying to skirt the law and not follow the rules. Hobbyist breeders have been demonized and their reputations have been tainted because they had the strength to speak out against those who would take away, not only their right to breed pets but the very pets they love!

Unless someone is in the business of breeding and selling dogs for profit or sells more than what the tax law considers a business, a hobbyist breeder is just that-- a hobby. The goal is to 1) preserve the integrity of the breed and 2) provide new families with healthy, life long companions.

Those who would want everyone to go to a shelter to get a dog do not appreciate the complexity of choice. We have a choice when choosing a pet. It is important that people be able to choose and if they decide to go to a shelter or rescue, that is wonderful. But if someone wants a purebred dog from a responsible breeder--would it be better to go to a low volume hobbyist breeder as described here or a substandard commercial breeder (aka puppy mill) or puppy broker or through the internet or imported from another country? If we take the hobbyist breeder out of the picture through continued pressure of legislation, what choice do we have?

Other SB 250 Applications

2009-04-24T10:35:00.000-07:00

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!

SB250 - One Strike and You Are Out of Dogs - Forever

2009-04-16T13:20:00.000-07:00

UPDATE ON SB 250 - The One Strike and Out Act

SB 250 was heard and passed in the California Senate Local Government committee. The author spoke to the idealogy that SB 250 represents the $250 million a year that California spends on impounds and euthanasia (thus suggesting that the state could save this amount of $$ if his bill passes) and then turned the microphone over to his supporters. Once again, the supporters spoke about their concerns regarding the number of animals in the shelters and the euthanasia costs. There was nothing about how this bill was going to make more owners responsible. And even though the audience was constantly being told that this is NOT a mandatory spay/neuter bill every single pro-SB 250 speaker exaulted the idea of mandatory spay/neuter. Not once was there any point that voluntary spay/neuter and education can also accomplish a decline in impounds and euthanasia as shown by actual shelter numbers over the last decade.

Speaking in opposition was a coalition of AKC/CDOC/NAIA/SaveOurDogs.

PetPac also had a representative speak. The opposition dealt with the concept that punitive and coercive measures do not encourage compliance with the law. In fact, the opposite is true and more owners go "underground" rather than risk the penalty. The ONE STRIKE AND YOU'RE OUT OF DOGS... FOREVER was presented but appeared to be ignored by the members of the Committee. Instead of dealing with any of our concerns, the committee chair, Senator Wiggins offered a set of amendments that basically eliminated the "laundry list" of infractions that could be punished by mandatory spay/neuter and substitute those she thought most egregious. HOWEVER THE HEART OF THE BILL REMAINS THE SAME-- get a citation and the penalty is mandatory sterilization.

PERSONAL OPINION:

I will give Senator Florez the credit that SB 250 is not AB 1634. In the original version of AB 1634, all dogs and cats in the state of California were required to be sterilized unless met with one of several (albeit confusing) exemptions. In the final versions of AB 1634, a pet could be left intact but by doing so, the owner was subjected to a new set of penalties. In other words, the same infractions were punishible by a different set of penalties with the "third strike" being mandated sterilization. SB 250 follows current state law through the requirement that all dogs must be licensed (of course, there is less than 15% average compliance in the State for this law) and that intact dogs must be licensed at a higher rate (as a way to encourage sterilization). In AB 1634, it basically became a secondary crime to have an intact animal. Senator Florez is emphasizing that having an intact pet is not a violation unless the intact pet is subject to a violation.

And what basically makes it not the final version of AB 1634 is that the penalty of mandated sterilization happens on the FIRST STRIKE and you're completely out of intact dogs FOREVER. It is a lifetime penalty for a one-time infraction.

Laura Finco
CDOC Communications

Pets Left Behind

2009-04-07T18:17:00.000-07:00

In an upcoming PEOPLE magazine article (April 13, 2009 issue), Jeff Truesdell writes about Pets Left Behind due to the national economic crisis. The focus of the article is on the Sacramento SPCA shelter. It notes that this one shelter alone saw almost 1,000 more pets given up in 2008 than in the prior year; taking in as many as 200 animals each week. The silver lining for this one shelter is that approximately 71% of the dogs brought in find new homes or go to other rescue organizations. This is an open shelter so they take in all kinds of pets including those deemed not adoptable so this is a fairly good "save rate."

The article ends with a woman giving up her two Lhasa apsos. It says that she may call to find out if the dogs have been adopted but then she says that she is not sure she wants to know. Hence, she understood that euthanasia may be what becomes of her family pets.

It is heartbreaking to read how people feel the pressure of taking care of a pet or taking care of their children. And so much of our current legislation, especially mandatory spay/neuter bills and limit laws, push more and more families to have to make these difficult decisions. It just seems so contrary to the goals of those who are concerned about the welfare and health of all animals. It seems irresponsible to be putting these animals at more risk by pushing these types of legislative bills.

SB 250 has the goal of saving animal lives and thus saving California taxpayers dollars. But the truth is, more families will be compelled to surrender their pets because we have no statewide system in place for low cost/no cost spay-neuter programs. We are seeing mandatory spay/neuter fail in the City of Los Angeles because the resources are simply not there. Rather than writing bills that crimilize otherwise law abiding citizens who are actually good pet owners, we should be looking to statewide measures to encourage pet ownership and educate responsible care of the health and well being of all Californian animals including spay/neuter programs.

The goal to reduce the number of animals in our shelters can be achieved through positive programs and education. We have seen in recent years with more and more education being available to the public and more resources utilized, a downward trend in impounds/surrenders/euthanasia. Sadly, the rates are going back up, but not due to bad breeders or bad owners. Just the opposite-- it is due to families having to make difficult financial decisions.

SB 250 is irresponsible especially in these tough economic times. Let us use what resources we have helping people keep their families together including their pets, not push them to the point where they need to surrender their animals because they run the risk of not complying with the law.

The Epidemic Is Spreading

2009-04-02T12:58:00.001-07:00

When AB 1634 first hit the state of California, the dog community was unprepared. Those that introduced the idea of mandated forced sterilization of all pets had several years to work on their proposal and develop their arguments. They knew where to hit: the heart with the stories of euthanasia and the overburdened animal shelters and the pocketbook with the amount of dollars being spent every year on euthanasia and the overburdened animal shelters.

As a community, the dog fancy came back grassroots style with the facts. Although the emotion was there (we are talking about our dogs; a HUGE part of each of our families), we kept it checked and let the truth speak. Too often, unfortunately, the truth was smothered by the twisted figures used by those who support mandatatory sterilization and the pleas for "do the right thing."

My heart goes out to every animal in the shelter especially those who are too ill, too old, or too much of a behavior issue to even be considered for homes. My altruistic nature would love to open up a facility and never have a single animal killed. But this is not the reality so the best that I can do is be sure that the animals I breed are well provided-- whelping to grave-- and that I take care to ensure that every prospective family passes all of my "tests." This is the small part that I can do to be sure that none of the puppies I bring into this world will ever be a burden on the system.

Every time a mandatory spay/neuter bill is presented throughout our nation, the dog fancy speaks out about what we are doing to help the system and the American Kennel Club sends out an alert. I have it memorized by now because at last count, I believe there are 38 states with some sort of mandates either on the books as law or proposing such. It is an epidemic!

The source is not Judie Mancuso or Ed Boks. Neither of them created the idea of sterilizing pets but they were willing enough pawns to carry the torch for the more extreme animal rights organizations. It is a seed that had been planted years ago and now has caught on like wild fire.

It seems that at every turn there is a new proposal somewhere.

One day, I hope, legislative bodies will realize that mandating restrictions on basic property rights and the love of our best friends-- our dogs-- will only result in more heartbreak.

Now, the sad question-- do they even care?

CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR

2009-03-24T06:42:00.000-07:00

Those who support mandatory spay/neuter as a way to reduce the shelter population, although noble in cause, are missing the fact that there are no connections between dogs in the shelters and dogs being born. It is obvious that Judie Mancuso and supporters of mandatory spay/neuter have the agenda of deterring people from breeding their pets. In their hearts, they believe that if there were no domestic animals born in the state of California, there would be no animals in our shelters and therefore, no euthanasia.

However, reducing the supply of California bred animals is not going to reduce the demand for California pets.

Low volume or hobbyist breeders take the time to carefully consider each breeding and evaluate each family's ability to care for and sustain a life long relationship with a pet. There even exists some commercial breeders who take great care to do the same sort of sifting and education of potential new homes. If we deter good quality breeders from producing good quality pets, where will Californians get their pets?

1. Internet sales where they have no opportunity to visit and view the parents or develop a relationship with the "breeder."

2. Puppy brokers where large volumes of puppies are imported from out of state and sold for profit by "breeders" who are not even affected by mandatory spay/neuter ordinances because they do not own any adult or intact dogs. All of their business is done through imports.

3. Substandard commercial "breeders" who do not take the time or care to screen owners or work through pedigrees and genetics of breeding animals.

4. Backyard "breeders" who have the litter because they happen to have two dogs and since they are "under the radar" and do not advertise in the newspapers or show or work their dogs, are rarely visible as puppy sellers.

5. The shelter. And while I support adoptions from shelters, I also know that the shelters do not have the supply of puppies and kittens that Californians desire or demand. And so, families will go to the other options above which will only put more animals into the shelters that are not adoptable.

The focus for reducing euthanasia in California needs to be on reviewing the issues BEFORE developing a solution. My grandmother called it "throwing the baby out with the bath water."

There are models of successful Animal Services programs where communities have built bridges rather than burning them and where it is not about "control." Isn't it time that we look beyond the extremes and develop a plan of action that does not toss out the good with the bad?

WHERE ARE THE NUMBERS?

2009-03-18T07:40:00.000-07:00

As we continue to follow the meltdown of subsidized spay and neuter in the City of Los Angeles, several things are clear. Unless someone starts to view this as a business problem and determines appropriate metrics, we are dooming ourselves to continual failure while we penalize responsible dog owners.

CDOC said from the outset that it is the uneducated and disadvantaged that are most likely to be prosecuted in this MSN frenzy. And they are the people least likely to be able to be able to afford the surgery, $245 in city shelter-sponsored clinics unless you have a voucher.

So think about this.

1. Where are the dogs coming from that are in the shelters? According to Ed Boks last Friday, 35% are turned in by their owners. These people are probably not turning in healthy, well-adjusted and much loved dogs. Those stay with people through good times and bad. Rather LAAS is getting old, infirm, socially-challenged and sick animals. And statistically 83% of owner turn-ins are not deemed "heathy and adoptable". Indeed, some are turned in to AS just for euthanasia.

2. Are the dogs that go into LAAS intact or neutered. This information is not tracked per Boks because they are all altered when they leave. But that is not true. LAAS unites a number with their owners. So let's look at this subset. Whoops, not tracked.

3. How many of the dogs that come in are licensed? Whoops, not tracked.

4. Do the LAAS people check all the registries to try and reunite dogs with owners? Whoops, no information available on that.

There is absolutely no nexus between the reproductive status of OWNED dogs and dogs in the shelter. There is probably some correlation between roaming intact dogs and increased breeding; we saw a huge drop in shelter dogs after the Vincent Act was passed. Because shelter dogs are far more likely to be back in the shelter than privately acquired dogs.

Let's enforce the laws that we have (leash laws) and write some new ones that require positive permanent identification and require that after a dog is picked up by AS a third time, it will not be returned to its owned until it is altered. Because that dog doesn't have a responsible owner.

But instead of managing this like a benevolent business, we let emotion get in the way and make decisions that exacerbate the problem and divide people who should be working together. The proponents of MSN and Boks could get their minds around these two things.

1. There is no automatic connection between reproductive status and actually reproducing in owned dogs.

2. People who want intact dogs to show, for performance, to raise for autistic children (not covered as a service dog by the way) or just for health reasons are not all breeders. Indeed, the vast number of people who show dogs have never and will never breed a dog. But Boks continues to call the dog show people breeders.

Should people with intact dogs pay a higher licensing fee. There's no particularly good reason for it but if it would mean that AS would be out there picking up the roaming dogs, it is worth it.

What we should do is concentrate on licensing and identifying dogs. And you can't do that when you treat a large part of the community like criminals.

I have left cats out because everyone knows that these laws really affect only dogs. But cats are the biggest part of the problem. Boks agrees that TNR is the best and only way to manage this issue. And what has he done to institute that. Nothing.

LAGUNA WOODS MEETING ON MARCH 18th

2009-03-17T10:03:00.000-07:00

Don't forget that the Laguna Woods City Council meeting is this Wednesday at 2:00 pm. The City Council has been particularly unwilling to meet with their constituents to discuss this issue. Although it is hard to imagine the Council taking definitive action before they replace the member who died earlier, they are being pushed hard by Judie Mancuso. The City Manager recently told someone she is not involved; she is just their 'guest'.

You will be hearing more in the coming weeks about building the CDOC Legal Fund which will do more than just fund the LA City lawsuit. Again, here is a community that is considering an ordinance for which there is no rational argument. And as proposed, it has jail time for miscreants. This is a city where 80% of the resident live in Leisure World and are senior citizens.

We sympathize with the Laguna Woods residents who are upset with loose animals on their yards. But the answer to that is enforcing leash laws; not requiring surgery.

Ed Boks Cancels SN Vouchers

2009-03-16T17:20:00.001-07:00

UPDATE ON SB 250 "The Responsible Pet Act"

SB 250 was heard and passed in the California Senate Local Government committee. The author spoke to the idealogy that SB 250 represents the $250 million a year that California spends on impounds and euthanasia (thus suggesting that the state could save this amount of $$ if his bill passes) and then turned the microphone over to his supporters. Once again, the supporters spoke about their concerns regarding the number of animals in the shelters and the euthanasia costs. There was nothing about how this bill was going to make more owners responsible. And even though the audience was constantly being told that this is NOT a mandatory spay/neuter bill every single pro-SB 250 speaker exaulted the idea of mandatory spay/neuter. Not once was there any point that voluntary spay/neuter and education can also accomplish a decline in impounds and euthanasia as shown by actual shelter numbers over the last decade.

Speaking in opposition was a coalition of AKC/CDOC/NAIA/SaveOurDogs. PetPac also had a representative speak. The opposition dealt with the concept that punitive and coercive measures do not encourage compliance with the law. In fact, the opposite is true and more owners go "underground" rather than risk the penalty. The ONE STRIKE AND YOU'RE OUT OF DOGS... FOREVER was presented but appeared to be ignored by the members of the Committtee. Instead of dealing with any of our concerns, the committee chair, Senator Wiggins offered a set of amendments that basically eliminated the "laundry list" of infractions that could be punished by mandatory spay/neuter and substitute those she thought most egregious. HOWEVER THE HEART OF THE BILL REMAINS THE SAME-- get a citation and the penalty is mandatory sterilization.

PERSONAL OPINION: I will give Senator Florez the credit that SB 250 is not AB 1634. In the original version of AB 1634, all dogs and cats in the state of California were required to be sterilized unless met with one of several (albeit confusing) exemptions. In the final versions of AB 1634, a pet could be left intact but by doing so, the owner was subjected to a new set of penalties. In other words, the same infractions were punishible by a different set of penalties with the "third strike" being mandated sterilization. SB 250 follows current state law through the requirement that all dogs must be licensed (of course, there is less than 15% average compliance in the State for this law) and that intact dogs must be licensed at a higher rate (as a way to encourage sterilization). In AB 1634, it basically became a secondary crime to have an intact animal. Senator Florez is emphasizing that having an intact pet is not a violation unless the intact pet is subject to a violation. And what basically makes it not the final version of AB 1634 is that the penalty of mandated sterilization happens on the FIRST STRIKE and you're completely out of intact dogs FOREVER. It is a lifetime penalty for a one-time infraction.

Laura Finco
CDOC Communications

Bill Bruce

2009-03-09T13:29:00.001-07:00

SB250 and SB1634

2009-03-08T11:33:00.001-07:00

SB250

2009-03-06T11:04:00.001-08:00

State Legislation

2009-02-26T10:17:00.001-08:00

Mandatory Spay/Neuter in OC

2009-02-12T07:18:00.001-08:00

Docked Tails

2009-02-11T14:30:00.001-08:00

A Bill To Support

2009-02-11T11:45:00.001-08:00

Progress

2009-02-11T11:32:00.001-08:00

Transparancy

2009-02-08T12:03:00.001-08:00