California AB1634

[Black Watch Debatable]

Kind of, possibly, semi-good-ish news: Someone Important from an Animal Services group in the California "Healthy Pets" Coalition was kind enough to return my call today, and big props to this individual, now referred to in the plural to protect "them" from the crazies.

 

"They" told me that they had waited to return my call until they had some assurance -- after talking with assembly members -- that language protecting stockdogs was in the latest draft and would continue to be part of the bill. They told me they absolutely understood the importance of the working stockdog. I explained (yet again) that if the current bill is passed and enforced as written, working stockdogs will be history --- since working stockdogs aren't trialed until well over a year of age and do not earn titles from the trial sanctioning body. I pointed out that some of the best working dogs, though purebred, may not be registered and may never be trialed. "They" said they completely understood and were in our corner. May it be so...

 

I can't imagine how they're planning to enforce this law, if it passes. Does anyone know?

 

Funny you should ask.

 

Yesterday I got a return call from another Important Animal Services Person in the coalition. This individual... er, "they" said, in the friendliest way, "This law isn't about you. Ignore it. We'll never see you. We aren't looking for you. This law won't make your breed 'extinct,' because it isn't aimed at your dogs. This law was designed to stop the people who bring litters of pups or kittens to the shelter every. single. year. If you want, I suppose, you can always have your ACO write some kind of exemption. But please, don't worry that this law might affect your dogs, or your friends' dogs. We don't begin to have the money and the manpower to enforce the spay/neuter law --- but we had to have something to stop the worst offenders."

 

 

If working stockdogs aren't part of the problem, I asked, why not exempt them from the requirements of the bill? Well, "they" said, "It's very important to close all the loopholes." And "they" were in fact opposed to an exemption for stockdogs, since their ACOs deal with "many border collies and border collie mixes." But no worries: "Honestly, you don't have to change anything you're doing --- you will not be affected, because this law has nothing to do with you."

 

[Maralynn]

Yesterday I got a return call from another Important Animal Services Person in the coalition. This individual... er, "they" said, in the friendliest way, "This law isn't about you. Ignore it. We'll never see you. We aren't looking for you. This law won't make your breed 'extinct,' because it isn't aimed at your dogs. This law was designed to stop the people who bring litters of pups or kittens to the shelter every. single. year. If you want, I suppose, you can always have your ACO write some kind of exemption. But please, don't worry that this law might affect your dogs, or your friends' dogs. We don't begin to have the money and the manpower to enforce the spay/neuter law --- but we had to have something to stop the worst offenders."

 

 

 

If working stockdogs aren't part of the problem, I asked, why not exempt them from the requirements of the bill? Well, "they" said, "It's very important to close all the loopholes." And "they" were in fact opposed to an exemption for stockdogs, since their ACOs deal with "many border collies and border collie mixes." But no worries: "Honestly, you don't have to change anything you're doing --- you will not be affected, because this law has nothing to do with you."

 

So that's how laws work in California... I can't believe they expect folks to believe that (except for the part that they can't enforce it).

 

Honestly, they'd be making more headway if they started having the person that brings the puppies in also bring in the mother to be spayed at that time.

 

For one thing, it's hard for me to imagine an individual owner spending the legal fees to bring a challenge, and I don't know if the stockdog registries have the bucks to finance one.

 

If a law like this gets placed on the books, someone will have the time/money to challange it. It'll affect alot more people than working stockdog people. I know the folks on the working dog forum that I'm on don't care for it one bit either. For instance, if someone is raising a dog for personal protection, they want and need the serious mentality that comes with the hormones as the dog matures. Speuter the dog early and the dog may be worthless as a protection dog.

[Black Watch Debatable]

UPDATE:

Neutering legislation caged by committee

 

BY STEVE GEISSINGER, Sacramento Bureau

LA Daily NewsArticle Launched:04/11/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT

 

SACRAMENTO - An ambitious plan to spay and neuter most California cats and dogs failed to clear its first key legislative hearing Tuesday.

 

The bill backed by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa would force pet owners to spay or neuter nearly all cats and dogs by the time the animals are 4 months old.

 

Owners who fail to comply would be subject to a $500 fine. Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, sponsor of the bill, said it would exempt cats and dogs owned by licensed breeders.

 

More than 100 representatives of the state Humane Association and other groups testified in support of the bill, aimed at reducing euthanasia of an estimated 500,000 feral and roaming animals annually in California.

 

But opponents argued that it would impose a financial hardship on hobbyist breeders, who would have to pay for permits.

 

"Only the commercial, high-volume breeders and the illegal, underground breeders would remain," said Douglas Surber of Save our Dogs, a group of dog breeders and others opposed to the legislation.

 

And Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-Monterey Park, said he wanted several amendments to clarify provisions and rules in the measure, which would follow the lead of L.A. County and states such as Rhode Island that have passed similar laws. Levine legislative aide Zak Meyer-Krings said problems will be worked out within two weeks, in time for the next committee hearing April 24 - the last meeting before an April 27 deadline for action.

[painted_ponies]

Congratulations, Luisa, and thanks for all you're doing to fight this bill. Measures like that usually start in one of the more ambitious areas on one of the coasts, but as they tend work their way round the country eventually, I'm very happy for all of us that some sanity has been injected into the process.

 

And what the second IASP told you about enforcement is sort of what I suspected. But this is the kind of law that will eventually get enforced against a legitimate breeder of working dogs, because someone will take a grudge against the breeder or for some other foolish reason. Then some poor attorney will have the unenviable task of trying to justify the law in court (never mind how I know this ). Telling the judge, "oh, well, we never expected it to be enforced against everyone equally," is really not one's best argument.

 

I hate to say it, but around here the shelters are still trying to encourage those people who bring in a litter every single year. As opposed to dumping them somewhere in the woods, which is the preferred method of that type of owner.

I was at one of our shelters recently when a young man brought eight six week old puppies in, and then asked the manager to sign a piece of paper to prove to the sheriff he'd brought them to the shelter. He'd been caught the day before by a deputy, when he was "just taking the pups out for exercise in the woods," and for some reason the officer thought he'd been trying to abandon them.

[bcollie]

My take on the hearing is not as optimistic as the article quoted. I read an earlier article of his and he did not have his facts right so I am a bit suspicious. I spoke with someone who testified at the hearing and she said it was to be continued on April 24th but was worried that it would pass out of committee then. There are 7 democrats on the committee of 10 and since it was introduced by a democrat, the other members feel like they need to support his bill whether they totally agreed with it or not. Hopefully they will get bombarded with letters to the contrary, especially by voting members of their districts and barring changing their minds, hopefully there will be amendments which we can live with. I would urge everyone to write another round of letters before the April 24th hearing. You can find info on the bill and contacts for the committee members at www.saveourdogs.net . People outside California think this could never pass but they underestimate the craziness of our legislature and Californians in general. (I live at the very northern end of the state and try to pretend I don't live in California!)

[Black Watch Debatable]

I emailed the Murky News last night (cc to the person in charge of corrections) to point out that they were linking to an outdated version of the bill. That hasn't changed [sigh].

 

Oh, and I actually called this reporter yesterday re: outdated info in his article. (His stuff is widely circulated by his newspaper group.) I said I was calling about the spay/neuter bill and he muttered, "Uhhh... I have to talk to my editors..." --- put the phone down, wandered away and then hung up. Very impressive, dude They must be getting a few calls. And yeah, I can be a pest.

 

Anyhow, same guy --- but here's a more recent and more detailed story on the hearing:

 

California spaying bill stalls in first hearing

 

PET-NEUTERING PLAN INSPIRES VERY VOCAL SUPPORT, OPPOSITION

 

By Steve Geissinger

MediaNews Sacramento Bureau

San Jose Mercury News

 

Article Launched: 04/11/2007 01:46:55 AM PDT

 

 

 

SACRAMENTO - An ambitious statewide plan to force household pets to be spayed and neutered failed to clear its first, key Assembly committee Tuesday after more than 100 foes attacked it and lawmakers demanded a delay for amendments to fix flaws.

 

The development involving the mandatory sterilization bill raised the possibility it will fail in the face of some pet owners' and breeders' assertions it is an unreasonable burden on them.

 

At the same time, an equally large number of representatives of the state Humane Association, other groups and individual supporters testified in support of the bill, aimed at reducing euthanasia of what's been roughly estimated at a half-million feral and roaming animals annually in California.

 

The Assembly Business and Professions Committee postponed further consideration of AB1634 by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, until just before an end-of-month legislative deadline that would kill it.

The bill, backed by Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, would force pet owners to spay or neuter nearly all cats and dogs by the time they're 4 months old. Owners who fail to comply would be subject to a $500 fine if their pets are caught anywhere, ranging from the veterinarians' office to a car, to the front yard.

 

Levine said the measure is aimed at exempting cats and dogs used for breeding by licensed breeders.

 

Opponents such as representatives from Save Our Dogs said it would impose a financial hardship on hobbyist breeders, who would have to pay to obtain permits.

 

"Only the commercial, high-volume breeders and the illegal, underground breeders would remain," said Douglas Surber of Save our Dogs, described on its Web site as "an effort by a small group of people to spread the word of how AB1634 will hurt working dogs in California."

 

Levine backed off pushing for a vote Tuesday at the request of the committee chairman, Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-Monterey Park.

 

Eng said he wanted numerous amendments fixing mistakes, clarifying confusing provisions and addressing conflicting rules before a vote on the bill at the committee's March 24 meeting - the last session before a March 27 deadline for action.

 

Levine told the 10-member committee that he "has been collaborating with them (the committee staff) on a number of amendments that I plan to take in the coming days to make the legislation before you even stronger."

 

Amendments center on committee analysts' assertions that "there are a number of unclear issues associated with the language in this bill, ranging from technical to substantive."

 

Concerns include a lack of provisions for out-of-state visitors with unaltered pets, contradictory language regarding exemption of show dogs and language meant to exempt police and guide dogs.

 

The bill, as written, would allow local governments to adopt stricter programs that exempt law enforcement dogs, but it fails to exempt guide dogs.

 

Committee analysts also said there are unclear definitions of a number of terms regarding animals, licenses, enforcement and fees.

 

Levine legislative aide Zak Meyer-Krings said the problems with the bill will be worked out within two weeks, in time for the committee hearing. Levine examined two successful programs before writing the legislation, in Santa Cruz and Los Angeles counties.

[Black Watch Debatable]

Yay! The Mercury News emailed me --- they corrected the link on their website. ("Read the latest draft," it says now.)

 

There is also a poll. Currently 305 in favor of the mandatory spay/neuter approach, 1411 against.

 

Here's the link: http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_5640017

[Eileen Stein]

Article Launched: 04/11/2007 01:46:55 AM PDT

 

. . . .

Levine backed off pushing for a vote Tuesday at the request of the committee chairman, Assemblyman Mike Eng, D-Monterey Park.

 

Eng said he wanted numerous amendments fixing mistakes, clarifying confusing provisions and addressing conflicting rules before a vote on the bill at the committee's March 24 meeting - the last session before a March 27 deadline for action.

 

Only in California does March come after April.

 

But seriously, folks, what about the assurances Levine's staffers and the Healthy Pets Act "Campaign Director" gave that the working dog issue would be dealt with? Were they just deliberate lies? Anybody know what they're saying now?

[Black Watch Debatable]

People outside California think this could never pass but they underestimate the craziness of our legislature and Californians in general. (I live at the very northern end of the state and try to pretend I don't live in California!)

Only in California does March come after April.

 

Nyah, nyah --- California is the most beautiful and terrific place on earth, and I'd rather put up with California crazy than any other kind. Our crazy is good crazy. And I mustn't complain too much about latecomers [post-1833] ruining the state, living as I do on Thai food these days.

 

Topic. Not to sound conspiracy-theory crazy, but the language of the current draft gives me the creepy feeling that it's the original, hoped-for version the authors thought they could sneak in under the radar. It reads less like a draft than the original does. "We want to close all the loopholes," a "Healthy Pets" coalition member told me. No kidding

 

And Levine wanted it passed as written! Screw the working dog issue --- they lied through their teeth. I'm making a call tomorow...

 

Also in the "deliberate lies" category: I hate that the bill's website remains unchanged. It still states:

 

The California Healthy Pets Act exempts:

• Purebred dogs and cats whose owners obtain a permit
  
• Dogs who work as guide dogs, service dogs, or signal dogs
  
• Dogs who are used by law enforcement agencies for law enforcement or rescue activities
  
• Dogs and cats whose veterinarian determines that due to age, poor health, or illness it is unsafe to spay or neuter them
  

and in the FAQ:

 

Q. I have a purebred dog or cat and I breed (or want to breed) the animal. Will this law stop me?

 

A. No. If your animal is registered with a recognized group, such as the AKC, you may obtain an intact permit. Any animal with an intact permit may breed.

Most of the news reports I read following the hearing took these statements at face value, unaware of the changes in the bill which would make "intact permits" impossible to obtain for all but volume breeders [puppy mills]. The web site is deliberately misleading now.

 

And I hate this bit of dishonesty with all my heart ---

 

Q. Why is a state law needed? Can't the individual cities and counties come up with their own rules?

 

A. Most of our overburdened city and county animal services do not have the time or resources to develop appropriate local ordinances. Also, a uniform state law stops the undesirable "patchwork" effect of local laws.

--- when the latest draft emphasizes that intact permits are to be approved and determined "in the sole discretion by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency."

 

Not to mention: "Nothing in this Section shall prohibit a local jurisdiction from adopting or enforcing a more restrictive spay or neuter program..."

 

"Uniform state law," my brown Californian elbow

[Black Watch Debatable]

To see the Assembly Committee's analysis of the bill, use this link:

 

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset2text.htm

 

On the AB1634 page you can click on "Comment" and leave an opinion, if you'd like.

[bcollie]

The new amendments are out to this bill and they still haven't taken care of the concerns of the stockdog world. There is still no way for a ranch dog to legally remain intact and you still have to be competing towards a' title' to qualify for an intact permit which we don't have in the legitimate sheepdog trial world!!! Livestock Guardian dog? Forget it. No way to raise any more of those.

 

In addition to sheepdog trialing, our main use for the dogs is on our cattle ranch. We could not get the work done without them. We have a line that we have been breeding for many years and if this bill passes we will no longer be able to continue this line. They are registered but my husband's ranch dogs do not compete as he and they are too busy working.

 

The committee vote on this bill is April 24th. They will not take any more testimony at the hearing. Objections to this bill had to be received by yesterday and the amendments came out today. I have heard people from other states saying that this is too ridiculous to pass but this is California and a good portion of the state is crazy!!!

[Black Watch Debatable]

If your organization has already sent a letter you must update it to respond to the latest draft before 5pm Thursday, April 19. Just send a brief note reaffirming your objections.

 

More info here: http://saveourdogs.net/

 

Might be very important to cc these folks as well --- Ms. Rhine writes the bill analysis. Fax numbers below:

 

Tracy Rhine

Committee Consultant 1020 N Street, Room 124

Sacramento, CA 94249 916-319-3306

 

 

 

Ted Blanchard

Republican Committee Consultant 1020 N Street, Suite 400

Sacramento, CA 95814 916-319-3902