FINANCE OPPOSES SB250

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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!