The County is proposing the addition of the Hobby Breeder Permit which will cost $250.00 initially and $175.00 for renewal. The current law requires a breeding permit costing $125.00. The fee of $250 means that a person having one litter of puppies a year (all that is allowed in the unincorporated portions of Los Angeles County now) is required to pay the same fee as a pet store selling hundreds dogs per year, an animal menagerie or a wholesale wild animal dealer.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.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
WHAT A SURPRISE! NAVA for Attorney General and FLOREZ for Lt. Governor
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.
The CDOCDogPAC recommendations will be out closer to the primaries. So don't send all your money to Nava this week!
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. "
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
LOS ANGELES TIMES ENDORSES ANIMALS BILLS
In a surprising editorial the Los Angeles Times urged the Governor to sign SB241, AB242 and AB243, as well as SB 135. The end their editorial as follows: "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.
Monday, September 14, 2009
FROM DOGGY BLURB
REJECTED: California’s SB 250 Mandatory Spay/Neuter
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
Friday, September 11, 2009
SB250 - STICKS AND STONES. . .
CDOC and our partner Save Our Dogs work so hard to be fact based, not to make statements without back-up and to be totally credible, that reading the Mancuso/Florez 'almost victory' claim for SB250 was a bit hard to take. But we try to take comfort from the fact that SB250 fell way short of the votes necessary. But we can't help commenting in some areas:
Service Dogs - AFTER the amendments were filed, four state service organizations sent opposition letters to their legislator explaining all the ways in which SB250 falls short. So to say that the bill took care of service organizations seems like more than just an exaggeration.
Judie also claims she will continue to pursue to bill as long as we are euthanaizing 500,000 animals a year. Since we are fat short of that number (all of the counties have now reported) and the number of 430,000. So where does 500,000 come from? Maybe the same place as the Senator's potential savings.
It is easy to follow the crowd in Sacramento. It takes time to review the materials and make an informed decision. The people who took the time to learn the truth and resisted the pressure deserve our thanks and consideration when we make decisions about future leaders. We need independent legislators like those who opposed SB250.
And getting that information into their hands did not come cheaply. But every time there was a follow up meeting, we saw that key among the materials in their 250 folder were the books printed by CDOC/SOD. So your $25 for 250 campaign worked well.
Beginning on Monday, we will again direct you to Easy Letter to send a follow up letter to District Office of your legislator.We will work hard over the break and, with your help, continue to meet the challenges. And when January 1 rolls around, there are thousands of responsible pet owners, ranchers, farmers, service organizations that will be safer for your vigilance. And unlike the City of Los Angeles, the dogs in the rest of California will not be seized and euthanized needlessly. Thank you.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
FROM A LONG BEACH BLOG
(Sept. 9, 2009) -- Sen. Dean Florez's office has toldLBReport.com that SB 250, authored by the Bakersfield-area Democrat, is being made a two year bill (so it can be taken up next year, the second year of the Assembly's two year legislative session).
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 SCAM
The SB250 supporters are telling people that Service Dog organizations support this legislation. While they don't have any organizations to parade around, they have rounded up some people whose dogs are wearing jackets.
Fortunately our people in the capitol are on top of this. This alert has gone and we urge you to forward it to people who voted no or did not vote.
******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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
