MOLLY'S BILL PASSES CALIFORNIA SENATE

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

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

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

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

Posted via email from cdocdogtalk

PUPPY DEFEATS ALLAN DRUSYS - MSN ADVOCATE

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

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