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.
The mission of Concerned Dog Owners of California (CDOC) is to provide information and education to elected officials and others so that legislation and regulation will promote the health, well-being and appropriate care of all dogs, protect the rights and responsibilities of dog owners and breeders, and support responsible dog ownership.
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.
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."![]()
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.
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
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 1st.
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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.
We are pleased to see the Governor did not sign this bill given its many deficiencies.
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.
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.
James Bell
Principal Regional Planning Assistant
Ordinance Studies
213-974-8480
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.
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.
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. "
"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.
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
Beginning on Monday, we will again direct you to Easy Letter to send a follow up letter to District Office of your legislator.
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
******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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.