MONTGOMERY COUNTY

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

STILL NO AMENDMENTS

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

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

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

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.

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