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.  

Continuing Raids in Pavley's District

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

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.

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.

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

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

LAGUNA WOODS MEETING ON MARCH 18th

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

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

State Legislation

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

Mandatory Spay/Neuter in OC

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