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.
Showing posts with label Sacramento Legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sacramento Legislation. Show all posts
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Docked Tails
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
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
A Bill To Support
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
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
Progress
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
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
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Transparancy
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
