California AB 1634 to be heard July 14 2008

[btrent]

For all Californians, please write to the Appropriations Committee today telling them that you oppose AB1634 and call or fax your own individual Senator if they are not on the Committee. The hearing date has been moved up to Monday July 14, 2008. Materials will be prepared for the Senators by Sunday.

 

If you are not from California but have friends here, please urge your friends to respond today.

 

NAIA Trust has a letter-writing tool that is very helpful in composing your letter.

 

http://www.naiatrust.org/index.htm

 

thank you,

 

--Billy

[btrent]

CROSS POSTED WITH PERMISSION.

 

Thanks to all of you that have already taken action. Please, if you haven’t, do! Even if you have already voiced your opposition, this is interesting reading and absolutely disgraceful that our legislature is behaving in such a manner.

 

 

 

PLEASE CROSSPOST THIS MESSAGE

 

 

 

Gail Burnham WILL HAND CARRY LETTERS TO THE SENATORS TOMORROW. FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS AND EMAIL YOUR OPPOSITION TO HER. Read the correspondence regarding the moving of this bill, the refusal to accept input, etc.

 

 

 

An FYI, if you are calling the only info that they want to hear is your position, name, and address. They aren’t taking info/arguments. Do be prepared in the unlikely event that they ask for an argument.

 

 

 

We also now have email addresses for the Mark McKenzie, who is responsible for the bill analysis and Bob Franzoia, the staff director. Flood them with emails as well.

 

 

 

Mark McKenzie <Mark.McKenzie@sen.ca.gov>, Bill Consultant

- Bob Franzoia <Bob.Franzoia@sen.ca.gov>, Staff Director

 

 

 

___________________________________________________

 

Long message—other input follows including a legislative update.

 

 

 

Forwarded message.

 

 

 

Please Do ASAP - Time is of the Essence!

 

Patricia Gail Burnham has generously offered to make copies and hand deliver our opposition letters to the Appropriations Committee as well as to all 15 Senators on the Committee plus Senator Don Perata (Senate President Pro Tem) and Senator Darrell Steinberg (soon to be Senate President Pro Tem). She'll need everything that you want delivered emailed to her by 8 AM Friday, 7/11/08 <pgburnham@juno.com>. She'll take care of having Kinkos make copies and will hand deliver them to the State Capitol. See forwarded email below.

 

We're also forwarding letters she wrote to:

 

Senator Cox (her State Senator) this evening, to complain about the Appropriations Committee staff's decision to disenfranchise opponents AB1634.

Local Government Committee (and to Senator Darrell Steinberg) on 6/22 to oppose AB1634.

 

Email and fax information for the 15 Senators plus the 2 Presidents Pro Tem are pasted at the bottom of this email for those of you that plan to do your own faxing or emailing to the Senators. We're also forwarding an email reply from Senator George Runner (our State Senator).

 

We were able to find out the email addresses for the Appropriations Committee's Staff Director and bill consultant's:

- Mark McKenzie <Mark.McKenzie@sen.ca.gov>, Bill Consultant

- Bob Franzoia <Bob.Franzoia@sen.ca.gov>, Staff Director

 

To: Senate Appropriations Committee

 

Since the committee staff have treated us so contemptuously, we urge EVERYONE to FLOOD Mark McKenzie and Bob Franzoia with Opposition emails, just so we will all leave an audit trail of opposition emails. Email them even if you're having Gail Burnham deliver it in person. As the committee staff already told us they have no intention of reading anything we have to say, keep your opposition letter to one or 2 lines. This is strictly for the official record even though they're trying their best to not let us be counted. You can send the same letter to the Senators if you don't have time to write in details - just send the email to the Senators and cc the following 2 email addresses:

 

EVERYBODY, Please send the following email to:

<Mark.McKenzie@sen.ca.gov>, <Bob.Franzoia@sen.ca.gov>

 

Subject: AB 1634 as amended July 1, 2008 - OPPOSED

 

Dear Honorable Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee:

 

AB 1634 will severely damage California's travel and tourism business. The state budget is already in crisis. California cannot afford a huge blow to its state tax revenues. Vote NO on AB1634.

 

Sincerely,

you name

 

 

 

Patricia Gail Burnham's emails are forwarded below in reverse chronological order. Contact information for Senators are at the bottom of this email. Thank you. BIG Thanks to Gail for the very generous offer and for sharing her thoughtful letters.

----

Ken & Patti Burton - Kifka Borzoi

E-mail: Kifka@Kifka.com

 

 

-------- Original Message --------

 

Subject:

Re: A way to get letters to the appropriations committee

 

Date:

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 04:01:12 GMT

 

From:

pgburnham@juno.com <pgburnham@juno.com>

 

To:

Kifka@Kifka.com

 

 

 

 

I just sent this to my Senator Cox. I was steamed after talking to the clerk.

 

Dear Senator Cox,

 

Thank you for your prompt reply to my last letter. Unfortunately, I am now writing to whine about the scheduling of AB1634 before the Appropriations Committee and the committee's refusal to accept for or against letters by either Fax or Email. Yesterday Mr. Levine had the hearing for this bill moved up from August 4 to July 14th. He gave his supporters advance notice of the new schedule for their support letters so they have had no difficulty flooding the committee with support letters.

 

But public notice of the schedule change did not go out until yesterday. That gives those of us who oppose this bill all of Wednesday, Thursday and part of Friday to get our opposition letters to the committee. It is not possible for individuals to do that by snail mail. Every other committee that has heard this bill has accepted email and fax comments. Not doing so, disenfranchises all the people who oppose this bill and live out of the Sacramento area.

 

Yes, the committee will receive my comments, because I can drive to the capital and hand deliver them. But this bill affects pet owners state wide and many of them can't hand deliver them. (I phoned the committee office a half hour ago to ask for their email and fax numbers and the clerk denied my request and told me that they already had plenty of comments and that anyone could hand deliver additional comments.) Yes, they have plenty of comments from the supporters to whom Levine gave advance notice of the deadline change. What they haven't heard from are the outraged opponents of this bill who have been denied their opportunity to comment on it.

 

Except me, of course. I was a government employee for 35 years and I am dismayed with the games that the legislature allows Mr. Levine to play with this bill to avoid the input of those who oppose it.

 

As he found out in his own failed election, there are a lot more pet owning voters in California than there are animal rights extremists.

 

And, speaking of animal rights extremists, when I was at the Capital today delivering the Sacramento Dog Training Club petition against AB 1634, four young women that looked a lot like Peta supporters called me a "Tax Evader." When I asked them what that had to do with AB 1634 they said, "Think about it." This is like debating grammar school kids.

 

When I complained about their behavior to one of the security guards, he told me that they could call me anything they liked and as long as they didn't threaten me. That they were just exercising their freedom of speech. That advice could make the next time we are all standing in line together in the Capital exciting. I have been paying taxes since before these people were born. The last time I sold a puppy was in 1996. I am not a tax evader and I don't appreciate being called one by animal rights extremists who will say anything and do anything to get this bill passed.

 

Thank you for reading this far. Is there any possibility of getting 1634 moved back to its August 4 date to let the committee hear from both sides of the issue?

 

Thank you for your continued opposition to this bad bill. I am delighted that you won your election and Levine lost his.

 

Patricia Gail Burnham

[ Address ]

Fair Oaks, CA 95628

 

 

-------- Original Message --------

 

Subject:

A way to get letters to the appropriations committee

 

Date:

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:19:01 GMT

 

From:

pgburnham@juno.com <pgburnham@juno.com>

 

 

 

 

The 1634 hearing and vote has been moved up to next Monday July 14th. That means we need a lot of letters, faxes, and emails really fast. Letters don't have to be long. They can be a single sentence in fact. (Mine tend to get long).

 

Apparently the Appropriations committee has refused to allow its fax number out. Fortunately we have the fax and email numbers of the committee members on the attached list. But to count for the committee we need letters delivered to the committee.

 

For people who want don't have faxes and don't trust email, so they want to send real letters, . I will do a walk through the capital on Friday to deliver letters. (I just did a walk through to deliver a 28 signature petition from the Sacramento Dog Training Club members. And I ran into four skinney little animal rights extremists who called me a "Tax evader" When I asked them what that meant, they said, "Think about it." This is like debating high school kids. When I complained to the security guard, he said it was just freedom of speech. And that as long as a person doesn't make threats they can say whatever they like. Boy, that should spice up waiting in line with the ARs to get into the committee room next Monday.

 

I need anytthing that you want delivered emailed to me by 8 AM Friday. Then I will copy and deliver them. We need to have them delivered by noon so the committee staff won't have any grounds to not count our opposition in their analysis.

 

I will attach the text of my letter in case anyone wants it to draft from. .And a list of the committee addresses.

 

___________________________________________________

 

22 June 2008

 

Senator Darrell Steinberg

California State Senate

State Capitol Building, Room 4035

Sacramento, CA 95814

 

SUBJECT: AB 1634 as amended June 18, 2008-OPPOSED

 

Dear Senator Steinberg:

 

I am urging that you use your position as the pending Senate President Pro Tem to oppose AB 1634 for the following reasons:

 

Inadequate Public Comment Time: After a year of preparation time by the proponents of AB 1634, seven days is an entirely inadequate time frame between the publication of the new bill and the committee’s proposed vote on it. Very short review times to limit public comment have been a strategy of Mr. Levine throughout the history of this bill. Mr. Levine gives his animal rights activist supporters advance information about the text and schedule of each amended bill which enables them to prepare their support statements in advance and file them in the limited comment periods. That places those of us who oppose it at a serious disadvantage, since we had to wait until the amendments are published before we can draft our opposition arguments. Please either vote against this bill or schedule it for action on a date that allows for a decent public comment period. And this especially applies since you want comments from organizations instead of individuals. It takes time for organizations to authorize and generate approved comments. It certainly takes more than seven days.

This Is an Entirely New Bill and Should Be Processed As Such: This bill’s only faint resemblance to AB1634 is its requirement for Spaying and Neutering of stray cats and dogs. It is a desperate attempt by 1634’s supporters to pass anything that is called AB 1634. AB 1634 is famous (notorious) across the USA. Its supporters will do anything to say that they have passed it. If they want to propose this new bill, then it should start the approval process from the beginning, including the assignment of a new bill number.

This Bill Deprives Pet Owners of Due Process. By making the penalties a civil penalty you are depriving pet owners of the right to due process of the law. They are considered guilty as soon as a complaint is made. This gives me the feeling that drug dealers are more entitled to due process than are pet owners. Certainly their property rights are given more respect than ours are.

50% of Animal Complaints are Not True: In a meeting with Sacramento County Animal Control over a local spay and neuter ordinance, the animal control officer told me that 50% of the complaints that he responds to are bogus. (His word, not mine.) They are the result of neighbor feuds, and are without merit. I know about neighbor disputes. I was once the object of a false complaint after I had reported a new neighbor for cutting down a heritage oak tree. The county tried to fine him. His response was to lie about me to animal control. This bill does not require that the complaint be valid, only that it exists.

This Bill Is Simply Complaint Based Mandatory Spay and Neutering. The question is, "Who is making the complaints." In addition to neighbor feuds, complaints can be made by animal rights activists who hate all pure bred animal breeders, and by animal control personnel who have been co-opted by the animal rights activists. This bill makes the owners of intact animals the targets for not only their pissed off neighbors, but for animal rights activists and animal control personnel. These last two at the same groups who backed the original mandatory spay and neutering in AB 1634. Faced with defeat last year, the current amendment is their attempt to back-door their agenda into law.

This Bill Will Have No Effect on the 67% of the Animals that are Being Euthanized, That is because 67% of the animals that shelters kill are cats, mainly wild (feral) cats, and cats that catch the contagious diseases that they are exposed to at animal control. Animal control does not chase stray cats down the street. They just impound cats that are brought to them by citizens that want to trap and get rid of them. Some animal controls will loan you cat traps but they don’t come and trap them for you. Less than 2% of the cats turned in to animal control are reclaimed by their owners. So the chance of the same cat being impounded and reclaimed twice is pretty much zero. How will animal control determine if it has impounded the same cat twice for the penalty to go to mandatory spay and neutering? They can’t. That leaves dogs as the only candidates for the penalties of this bill when dogs are a minority of the animals killed at animal control. And the majority of the dogs that are killed are either owner turned in adolescent pit bulls or pit mixes that are put down for bad temperament.

Do We Really Want to Mandate a Medical Procedure for Legal Infractions? If so, does this mean that we can start to castrate rapists and child molesters? I might support it in that case. But on second thought, it would be hard to give a man back his testicles when later DNA proves that he was wrongly convicted. Fines are common in response to infractions. Medical procedures are not.

Please vote No on AB 1634.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Patricia Gail Burnham

[ Address ]

Fair Oaks, CA 95628

[ Phone ]

pgburnham@juno.com

 

END OF FORWARDED MESSAGE

[btrent]

Urgent - I just heard this afternoon that the bill has bypassed the California Senate Appropriations Committee and has gone straight to the Senate Floor. It will not be heard in Committee on Monday but could be voted on in the Senate any Monday or Thursday in the upcoming session. Please contact your Senator immediately, and all the Senators if possible. All talking points are now back on the table (working dogs, service dogs, health reasons, etc.), not just fiscal.