DISCLAIMER

Hourly/daily and sometimes minute by minute updates on local and International legislation news.

"AB1634, the most MASSIVE
pet Sterilization Legislation
in American History
"
                       
     OCRegister

"Drastic...government overreach."
          San Diego Union Tribune


WHAT TO DO WHEN ANIMAL CONTROL COMES KNOCKING

CDOC Dogtalk

DOWNLOAD THE JOHN & KEN
INTERVIEW WITH TED CRAWFORD


CKCSCSC Legislative Liaisons

Stephanie Hart, Director CKCSCSC

Ted Crawford, President-CKCSCSC

(Blog updates posted by Stephanie Hart)


AVERAGE DAILY UNIQUE BLOG VISITORS  19,775  -  Highest number of daily visitors **27,625** CKCSCSC Dog Legislation Blog "one of the most frequently visited"  NO ON AB1634      NO ON AB1634      NO ON AB134

Sunday Oct 11, 2009 VETO..............

Concerned Dog Owners of California

 
NAVA/HSUS BILL NOT SIGNED


 
On Sunday, October 12th Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed AB241 and issued this statement:

To the Members of the California State Assembly:

I am returning Assembly Bill 241 without my signature.

This measure would make it a crime for any person or entity to own or control more than 50 unsterilized adult dogs or cats for breeding or raising for sale as pets. I support measures designed to prevent animal cruelty and that punish persons engaged in the abuse of animals. However, this measure simply goes too far in an attempt to address the serious problem of puppy mills. An arbitrary cap on the number of animals any entity can possess throughout the state will not end unlawful, inhumane breeding practices. Instead this measure has the potential to criminalize the lawful activities of reputable breeders, pet stores, kennels, and charitable organizations engaged in raising service and assistance dogs.
For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill. Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

AB 241 would have had a devastating effect on Canine Companions for Independence and Guide Dogs for the Blind.  It would have made the most responsible breeders, the ones who stay on as co-owners for the life of all dogs they place so they can be responsible, criminals.  And it established the age of an adult dog as 4 months.  In many breeds they have not even gone home by that time.

We applaud the Governor's action.


 
PERMISSION TO CROSS POST
 
Tuesday Oct 6, 2009
Remember the Dogs

Those Who Got A Second Chance and
Those Who Never Had A Chance.

 
On Sunday, October 18th the Oakland Raiders will play the Philadelphia Eagles here in California.  And Michael Vick is now on the Eagles football team.  Regardless of your feelings on the subject, there is no denying that Vick is getting a second chance as well as a sponsor in HSUS who plans to 'rehabilitate' him.  We might wish HSUS had the same concern for the dogs.

CDOC will donate 5 bags of food to the Oakland shelters every time Michael Vick is tackled (with a minimum of 100 pounds of food).  We hope you will join us in supporting this effort.  Make a pledge of $5.00 for each time Michael Vick is tackled and through generous donations from Members, CDOC will match the first $1500 in pledges.




All funds will be used to purchase food for the Oakland shelters, for the dogs who are looking for their second chance.  Please help us help the shelters to provide that opportunity.

Make your pledge by clicking here.  After the game we will report the number of tackles and email you on how to fulfill your pledge.  The website will have the names of all people making a pledge.  Should anything happens that Vick does not play or, heaven forbid, does not get tackled;  we will ask that each person pledging give as if there had been one tackle.  Again, CDOC will match the first $1500 in pledges.

Obviously the less expensively we can acquire the food, the larger contribution we can make.  We have contacted both Purina and Pedigree about helping with this project and neither has responded.  If you have a contact at a dog food company that wishes to help, please let us know.  We will make sure they get full credit.

Click on the poster graphic and it will take you to our web page where you can download the PDF file.  Please make sure all your friends know how they can help.

Again, regardless of your feelings about Vick, dogs deserve a second chance.  Let's help.  And we invite our friends from SCIL and HSUS to make pledges as well.  If After all, it's For The Dogs.

 
PERMISSION TO CROSS POST
 
 
 
 POMONA CITY COUNCIL MEETING

As reported last week, the Pomona City Council stated
in their last meeting it was their intent to approve whatever proposal Inland Valley Humane Society (IVHS) brought them without hearings or seeking constituent input.

A group of concerned people attended the Council Meeting last night to voice their opposition to such a hasty move, especially given that MSN is such a poor policy decision and will not accomplish the goals of the City.

Speaking in opposition were Mary Bradley, Geneva Coates, Melissa Paul and Cathie Turner.  Each speaker also had a package for the Council.  You can review the CDOC letter by clicking on the Pomona logo above.

There were a number of others attending last night as well including Terry Toussaint and Ellen Yamada. 

It is very important that we focus on the efforts on IVHS as they also provide services for 10 other California cities.  Although they have not been able to convince the other cities to make the drastic increases in licensing fees that were adopted by the City of Pomona, IVHS is still committed to these type of tactics.

We hope CDOC and our fellow organizations will be able to work with IVHS so show them how they can reduce the killing and increase revenues for the Cities.  From the comments by the City Council one got the feeling the the input of IVHS is more valuable to them than that of their constituents.

 
 
 
LA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETING
SET FOR OCTOBER 28th
 
 
As reported previously, the Los Angeles County Animal Control agency has a proposal for the Board of Supervisors which would result in a reclassification of where kennels cound be located and the elimination of many kennel licenses in a five year period

The following letter is from the Planning Office:

FROM THE PLANNING OFFICE

The County of Los Angeles is proposing to amend its Zoning Code with regards to its regulations for the keeping of dogs and cats and the permitting requirements for the breeding of dogs and cats. The proposed Zoning Code amendment includes the following:
Establishes a definition of a boarding facility for dogs and cats and a breeding facility for dogs and cats. The term dog kennels is replaced with the term boarding facility for dogs and cats in the A-2 and M-1 Zones as a permitted use and as a use requiring a conditional use permit in the CM Zone.

Dog breeding as a permitted use in the M-1 Zone is deleted.  Breeding facility for dogs and cats is added as a use requiring a conditional use permit in the M-1, M-1 and ½, M-2 and M-4 Zones.  The existing limitations on the keeping of dogs in the Agricultural and Residential Zones are deleted and replaced by limitations for dogs and cats that apply to all zones.  Existing approved boarding facilities (kennels) with a breeding facility as an accessory use must stop all breeding activities within five years of the effective date of the ordinance. The Regional Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on October 28, 2009. Please see the attached draft ordinance, public hearing notice, a summary report, and a draft Negative Declaration.



If you have any questions about this matter please contact me.
 James Bell
 Principal Regional Planning Assistant
 Ordinance Studies
 213-974-8480

The meeting will be held at the Hall of Administration ay 9:00 am on Wednesday, October 28th.
 

 

FRIDAY SEP 11, 2009
AKC LEGISLATION ALERT

CA Senate 250 Will not Move This Year
 
Senator Dean Florez, the author of Senate Bill 250, has issued a press release stating that the bill will be put on hold until the legislature reconvenes in January 2010. AKC thanks the clubs, and responsible owners and breeders who took the time to educate their legislators about this issue.
 
We encourage you all to meet with your legislators during the upcoming recess; invite them to Responsible Dog Ownership days events, dog shows and club meetings so that they can better understand who we are and what we mean in expressing support for responsible ownership and responsible breeding practices.

 

TUESDAY SEP 8, 2009 status...

California Senate Bill 250, the Mandatory Sterilization legislation, was defeated in the Assembly by a vote of 27-43.  However, due to a procedural move for “reconsideration” by the bill’s floor jockey, the bill remains on the Assembly floor and may be revoted on in the next few days.


WATCH FOR FOLLOW UP BULLETIN AT 9:00 PM
 

FRIDAY JUNE 26, 2009
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER FOR UP TO DATE INFORMATION
Just Click on Our Friend
To view the videos on Legal Broadcasting Network follow the Twitter link.

 
FRIDAY JUNE 26, 2009 Handling Secrets Uncovered has been shipped and the buzz is all positive. Because there was so much good information, it actually shipped as a double (dual layer) DVD AND a Bonus DVD in earth-friendly paper packaging.

Be sure and order yours. The dog community needs a war chest to take on animal activists. This money doesn't go to any individuals, it all goes to our causes.


ORDER HERE

 
THURSDAY APRIL 9, 2009 There is some misunderstandings about SB 250 in comparison to AB 1634. And
it is important that in writing and calling the California Senate Local
Government Committee and your senator that all understands SB 250 IS NOT AB
1634. In fact, as soon as anyone starts talking about AB 1634, the assumption
is that you haven't read SB 250 and are simply against the bill because of
AB 1634. DO NOT LET YOURSELF BE DISMISSED!

SB 250 IS MUCH MORE THREATENING TO YOU THAN AB 1634.

CDOC opposed AB 1634 for many reasons but the health damage caused by
mandatory spay/neuter for all animals under six months of age was a key reason.
There were tricky, but available exemptions in AB 1634 but it was still a
bad bill and rightfully defeated.

SB 250 OFFERS NO EXEMPTIONS other than for medical reasons as certified by
a veterinarian that the animal has a HIGH LIKELIHOOD OF SUFFERING SERIOUS
BODILY HARM OR DEATH if it undergoes sterilization surgery.

The premise of SB 250 is that no responsible person would ever:

Have a dog get out of their yard
Fail to have an up to date rabies vaccination
Fail to have a dog licensed
Have a leash law violation
Have a violation at their kennel if they have one
Have a tethering violation
Keep a dog in “unsanitary or unhealthy conditions”
Operate a business that involves dogs without a license or state tax ID
number
Leave a dog unattended in a car in violation of Section 597.7

Any person who have ONE CITATION for any of these shall be required to
spay or neuter the unaltered animal.

The bill language reads:

(c) An unaltered dog license may be denied or revoked for one or more of
the following reasons:
(1) The owner, custodian, applicant or licensee is not in compliance with
all of the requirements of this section.
(2) The licensing agency has received at least two complaints, verified by
the agency, issued ONE citation verified by the agency pursuant to
existing policies and procedures that the owner, custodian, applicant, or licensee
has allowed a dog to be stray or run at large or has otherwise been found
to be neglectful of his or
her or other animals.

So what are the practical applications of SB 250?

If any of the above happens to one of your dogs or any dog you are caring
(ie; taking care of your sister's dog from out of state) for whether it is
your or not that particular animal must be sterilized at your expense and
you must pay impound fees or lose the animal.

There is no requirement for them to even mention where spay/neuter is less
expensive and having cited you they can revoke you intact licenses which
means that all you other animals are now required to be sterilized.

So letʼs talk about some examples:

You have your dog off leash training. You are cited.

You are at a dog show. Your dog of course does not have his license on.
Not wearing thjs license constitutes being unlicensed. You can be cited. Same
for agility, hunting, etc.

Your dog is a working dog and is out herding, working the field, or
somehow otherwise engaged in its job and it gets off of your property. You are
cited.

The animal that is involved in the citation must be sterilized if it is
intact. Period.

And now that you have a citation against you, all of your other intact
licenses are revoked and all of your other intact dogs must be sterilized as
well.

This is a back-door route to mandatory sterilization for all dogs and cats
in the State of California.

Although there is in place "due process" requirements, the law is very
clear-- one citation and all of your licenses are revoked. This will create a
judicial nightmare but remember that cases are usually heard by a senior
animal enforcement officer, not a judge.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES?

We know from historical numbers that a percentage of people that are cited
will just have to leave their dogs at the shelter. And we know from
historical numbers that 83% of the surrendered dogs are euthanized. So the
killing will increase. No question about it.

There has already been an impact on the shelters due to the economy; this
will be a disaster for dogs.

It will increase state costs. The State, under the Hayden Act, is required
to pay the shelters for the last three days of confinement for dogs that
are euthanized in municipal shelters. So costs will do up. But since the
state cannot afford to pay the costs right now (they have already put out a
statement that animal mandates, while being booked as a liability to the
State of California, cannot be funded right now, it could be years before your
local community sees any money. And they will have to pay the increased
costs right now.

IS THERE DUE PROCESS?

If you had been cited previously, you would probably have paid your fine,
purchased a licensed, apologized for having the dog loose for training,
etc. Now you must take the time and spend the money to get an attorney.
Because if you cannot beat this; all your dogs will be sterilized. From attending
these hearings, we can tell you that (a) people without attorneys do not
prevail; it involves several days off work. So is there a chance to beat
this. Of course. It is easy, never. Can you prevail? It depends on the Animal
Control jurisdiction. You will be “heard” by the people who are proposing
the legislation.

WHAT DOES YOUR SENATOR THINK?

The senators have been told by Holly Fraumeni (Judie Mancusoʼs lobbyist
*(http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Lobbying/Lobbyists/Detail.aspx?id=1295029&sessio
n=2007) that this is nothing like AB 1634 in that it just goes after the
irresponsible people.

Many of the senators do not understand why we, the "responsible" dog
owners would still be opposed.

They need their constituents to explain to why they needs to vote no.

(1) There is no law against having an intact dog. But if you are cited for
anything except barking, the state penalty for that is MSN of all dogs.

(2) This amounts to unequal protection under the law. Because your dog is
intact, even though you have paid the higher fee required by state law, the
penalty for you is different that your neighbor who is guilty of the same
infraction.

(3) Any responsible person can violate the tenets above. This would be
like saying that no responsible driver would ever speed and therefore is you
are guilty of speeding one time, in addition to the fine, they pull your
registration for that car (and maybe all your cars) and that means you cannot
drive them.

(4) Just because a dog is intact does not mean it will reproduce. And if
it is bred at some time, there is no linkage between that breeding and
shelter dogs.

(5) The dogs leaving the shelters that are sterilized are owned by the
city or county; they are
not owned by individuals. There is nothing is existing law that says owned
dogs lead to the problems.

(6) All the options in this state law are available to local communities
now if they wish to use them. As a matter of policy they do not. Since they
have those options now if they think they are warranted, why add this state
law.

For more information see the CDOC website (www.cdoca.org)

Laura Finco
CDOC Communications
 
TUESDAY MAR 24, 2009
Update: MSN Language Removed from Florida Bill!
Print This Article
[Tuesday, March 24, 2009]
This morning, the Florida House Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Committee adopted a "strike-all" amendment to House Bill 451, which would have required the mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs four months of age with little exception. The Florida Association of Kennel Clubs reports that the amendment, offered by HB 451’s sponsor, Representative Scott Randolph, has removed all mandatory spay/neuter language, and instead provides local government officials the option of using a $5 surcharge currently added to animal control citations to help pay for low-cost spay/neuter programs.

The American Kennel Club commends the Florida Association of Kennel Clubs and the many concerned Florida residents who took action in opposition to the original version of HB 451. Their tireless efforts have ensured that the rights and liberties of responsible dog breeders and owners in Florida will continue to be honored. The American Kennel Club also thanks Representative Randolph for listening to the grave concerns of the AKC and the thousands of Floridians who expressed their strong opposition to mandatory spay/neuter. The AKC Government Relations Department is pleased to have assisted the Florida Association of Kennel Clubs by issuing several legislative alerts with contact information and sample letters; e-mailing thousands of AKC club members, officers, delegates, judges, and legislative liaisons; reporting developments to tens of thousands of alert recipients; and contacting legislators with anti-MSN policy arguments.

Please return to www.akc.org for more information on pending Florida legislation.

For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.

 

TUESDAY MAR 24, 2009
 Concerned Dog Owners of California

Bill Bruce in Southern California
 
 
 
 
CALGARY, ALBERTA - THE ULTIMATE SUCCESS STORY

Join us Tuesday, March 24th
to hear Bill Bruce tell us how they achieved success.
 

A reminder that Bill Bruce will be with us tomorrow, March 24th in Van Nuys and again Wednesday, March 25th in Santa Barbara.

Tuesday, March 24th:   7:00 PM
                                      7701 Haskell Avenue
                                      Van Nuys, CA 91406
OFF THE 405 (San Diego) FREEWAY
FROM NORTH
Take Sherman Way Exit.  At the bottom of the offramp you will be on Haskell Ave.  Turn right, go about 3/4 mile; building is on your left. 

FROM THE SOUTH  Take Sherman Way exit (about a mile north of 101) Go west on Sherman Way.  Haskell is the first street to the west.  Turn right on Haskell; building is on your left.  

Free, well lit off-street parking.

To make sure we have plenty of chairs in Van Nuys, we are asking for reservations.

Wednesday, March 25th:  6:00 PM
                                          105 E Anapamu St
                                          First Floor
                                          Santa Barbara, CA

You are also welcome to attend the Task Force Meeting at 4:00 pm where Dr. Ron Faoro is leading the charge for a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance.  This is at the same address, on the 4th floor.

Again, some of the successes from Calgary.
 
  • Calgary takes in almost 5000 dogs a year and all but a handful are returned to their owners or placed in homes. 
  • Their cat euthanasia has dropped 50%. 
  • Licensing compliance for dogs exceeds 95%.
  • Dog bites are at a 25 year low. 
It was not always this way.  Come and hear what they did in Calgary and what we can apply to our communities.

For more information on what he has accomplished, look here.
No-Kill
Municipal Animal Programs That Work
Canine Legislation


 
PLEASE CROSSPOST  TO YOUR CLUBS AND RESCUE GROUPS

 

Tuesday March 17, 2009 Help here in Nevada to fight against anti-breeder legislation!
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/

Go to  the box on the right "share your opinion".
On the next page, type in SB241  and then vote NO



 
Monday  March 16, 2009 By The Record
March 16, 2009 6:00 AM

MANTECA - An ordinance requiring all dogs be spayed or neutered by the time they are 6 months old will come before the City Council at its meeting Tuesday night.
It is an expansion of a similar ordinance that pertains only to pit bull breed dogs that was passed by the council in September.
At that time, Mayor Willie Weatherford directed the city staff to develop a mandatory spay and neuter ordinance for all dogs.
Police Chief Dave Bricker, in his report to the council, says the goal of the expanded program is to reduce the number of animals that end up in the city's animal shelter and the resulting euthanasia rate for those animals.
The proposed ordinance provides exceptions for police, livestock, and health service working dogs, as well as licensed show dogs and dogs in whom the procedure could be life threatening because of their age or medical condition, according to Bricker.
Cost for spaying or neutering will be borne by the dog owner. Currently costs range from $60 to $130, depending on the size of the dog, according to his report.
The report notes that other communities that have passed similar ordinances have found the number of dogs being licensed dropped because some owners could not afford the additional cost.
Manteca currently licenses about 3,000 dogs each year.
Bricker said the city will continue to use its police volunteers to contact dog owners who do not renew their licenses, which he feels will minimize any drop locally.
Sacramento and Los Angeles counties have adopted similar ordinances, according to the report.

The council meets at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the council chambers at City Hall, 1001 W. Center St.

 
Thursday Feb 12, 2009
A DAY TO BE HEARD

 
No man's life, liberty, or property is safe
 while the legislature is in session.  Mark Twain

 

Sorry to be back again so quickly.  Before we get into the meat, we want to once again urge you to complete the Resource Form at the new website and to sign up on the RSS Feed for the new Blog, which is where we are posting breaking news.

Once we have everyone connected in that way, we will be able to target and you won't get emails that don't affect you.

ORANGE COUNTY

"It's a bold and controversial proposal here in "Live Free or Die" OC; the Orange County Board of Supervisors recently rejected such an ordinance, despite the urgings of a grand jury; and the city of Huntington Beach backed down from a mandatory spay/neuter law after vitriol erupted over the proposal in 2007."

This is a quote from yesterday's Orange County Register.   And it refers to a meeting on February 18th at 2:00 pm to take up the proposal for Mandatory Spay and Neuter in Laguna Woods.  The proponents of spay/neuter have targeted carefully in this case; the average age of the residents is 78 and it is close to Mancuso's base of operations.

We need to continue to hold the line while we are educating the public about the health dangers of spay and neuter. So can we please get Orange County residents to once again, take a couple hours off work and help us hold this off?

It's worth mentioning that the next paragraph of the article says mandatory spay and neuter is proven to reduce unwanted animals.  Clearly the City Council people in Laguna Woods need to be educated.  The most effective thing will be to be at the meeting.  If you cannot go please send them information.  The City website does not show individual email links but says you can email then at cityhall@lagunawoodscity.org.

Mayor Robert "Bob" Ring
Mayor Pro Tem Brenda Ross PhD
Council Member Bert Hack JD
Council Member Milt Robbins CPA
Council Member Martin "Marty" Rhodes

The City Hall is at 24264 El Toro Rd., Laguna Woods, CA  92637 
Telephone is 949-639-0500, fax is 949-639-0591.

I am sure these people don't know the actual data. 
(1) Santa Cruz is NOT actual MSN, but even so their euthanasia numbers per 1000 population are higher than before they passed their law.
(2)  The health issues.  (These are pretty clear on the new health page.)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
 

February 18th is also the day that the Santa Barbara County task force is meeting in Santa Maria from 4:00 - 7:00pm.  There are details on the website.  This is an important meeting. 

Dr. John Hamil will be speaking and answering questions of the task force.  In case you've forgotten, the Chair of the Task Force is Ron Faoro, the man who signed CVMA up to support AB1634.  CDOC will be videoing this event and so the more people who are there to speak the better our product will be.

The TF is bringing in from Colorado a former Californian who will testify in favor of MSN.

This is be a pivotal meeting.  Until now, the pro MSN people have dominated.  It was a huge coup for the opposition to MSN to be able to get the TF to hear Dr. Hamil.  Please be there to support both Dr. Hamil and the people in Santa Barbara.


 
PLEASE CROSSPOST SO WE GET THE WORD OUT ABOUT THESE MEETINGS
 
 
  JOIN
Concerned Dog Owners of California

Individual Membership - $25.00
 
 https://www.paypal.com/cgibin/webscr?first_name=&last_name=&undefined_quantity=1&business=sharon@cdoca.org&image_url=&return=http://www.cdoca.org/support CDOC/support CDOC/donation.html&cancel_return=&item_name=Join Concerned Dog Owners of California&amount=25&shipping=0&currency_code=USD&item_number=209&cmd=_xclick
 



For Family Memberships ($40) or Junior Memberships ($15), click on the image.  We rely on your support to do this work.


http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102456461199&e=001JZsQfAY0ZJ_ztI-gCukElrGBQU2PYEWzPDW0hezFPhxUUn6HrjAyz27CrwutRZv7mvIIXr06ZS_cqkCRygN2y1I1J0p9rQc5aP0ELs0IBrPHvZs60iRV9SzIDWz23rjgHp7pFck6nF4DLTQvRn72EkXsEK3vKrA3MpmyGcV4POMezbYWAokPkw==


 

 

Wednesday February 11, 2009
 Concerned Dog Owners of California
February 11. 2009

THE LEGISLATURE IS IN SESSION
 

 
 
 
NEWS BILLS ARE BEING INTRODUCED

 
No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.  Mark Twain
 

Over the years, the California legislature has done some wonderful work.  So perhaps this quote is a bit unfair. 

But several of the legislators are bring up bills that will need your attention.  Rather than try to go through all of them here, please see the all new CDOC website at www.cdoca.org.  We have completely redesigned the website for the new post AB1634 world. 

One thing that is very important is the Resource Page.  We urge everyone of you to please complete that form.  That is how we will be able to let you know what is happening with YOUR legislator and when YOU need to take action.  It will be much more effective than blanket emails.

We have also added a Blog to the CDOC website and if you want to stay up to date, you can subscribe to an RSS feed.  As soon as a programmer finishes a change, we will be adding the capability to include your comments so we all have a dialogue going.

You'll find updates on the blog and under the state legislation section.  As we point out in the blog, the difference is that our constant interaction with the legislators and staff over the past six months has paid off.  We know what is on the table and we have an opportunity to give our thoughts BEFORE language is written.  No one will prevail all the time.  But CDOC made the commitment to its members to get our members and supporters a place at the table and that is happening.

Go to the website to follow the bills already in process.
 

 

 
 
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102455006642&e=001ePMYt2Ja1YrTNeSsue1T0fk9YE7vkcYgbYASHoWk3CeaSgi9NvTsC6iEHY7NUsXw-91idHAt6eAodpQrWwcxlvJEjNjSMN5F3RnHXe2WR9U= PAY ATTENTION TO THIS BILL
Assembly Member Cameron Smyth has introduced AB233 which offers tax credits of up to $300 from 2010 to 2015 to people adopting a dog from a shelter or rescue group.
We think this is a bill all of us should be supporting.  Please have your rescue people take a look at this.  If you think it needs tweaks, please let us know so we can advise the author.
An incentive instead of revenge; what a great idea.
 
 
 
  LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
LOS ENCINOS KENNEL CLUB DONATES $10,000



CDOC continues to pursue our lawsuit against the City.  You can see details on the CDOC website.  The discovery process has been long and we are now preparing for depositions.  There is no question that the City Council made this decision on incorrect information.  But the case is based on the constitutional issues and that is where we are pressing.
Our costs have been about $110,000 to date and we anticipate we may get to the $200,000 level.  So we need to ask you to continue your support.  
We are extremely grateful to Los Encinos Kennel Club which has made a $10,000 donation to support the lawsuit.  We will be asking you to join their effort at www.cdocaction.org.
 
 

 

February 8, 2009
Santa Barbara County 
Board of Supervisors Task Force considers Mandatory Sterilization of Dogs and Cats
 
Don't let them slide MANDATORY STERILIZATION, major fee increases, and invasive home inspections through like they have in other cities and counties.  PLEASE ATTEND AND BE ACTIVE AGAINST ORDINANCES THAT ARE DESIGNED TO FAIL.
 
Next Task Force Meeting 
Wednesday, Feb 18 4:00-7:00pm
Meeting location:  Board of Supervisors Conference Room, 511 E. Lakeside Parkway, Santa Maria 
Teleconference Location: Board of Supervisors Hearing Room, 105 E. Anapamu St. (4th floor) Santa Barbara
(you will be able to fill out a speaker slip and speak during public comment from this location as well)

 
Guest speakers at 2/18 Meeting:
John Hamil DVM - past president CVMA, member Society for Theriogenology - helped reverse CVMA support for CA AB 1634 which would have mandated statewide sterilization of all California’s dogs & cats - Speaking on the health effects of early spay/neuter.
Jean Greek DVM - Board Member Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, Co- Founder Americans for Medical Advancement, Practices in Kansas City and Santa Barbara. 
Janet Vining-Mitchell- Local resident, Attorney and Hobby Breeder
Mary Anne Morrison- Hobby Breeder, resident of Colorado. Committee member of failed May 2008 Santa Barbara Ordinance

 
Send your letters against MSN to the task force members and copy the Board of Supervisors.  Their contact information is on the reverse side.
Santa Barbara SNAP Task Force Members 
c/o Susan Klein-Rothschild, MSW 
Asst Deputy Director, Public Health Dept 
300 N. San Antonio Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93110 
805-681-5435 (work), 805-681-5200 (fax)
Monday January 12, 2009
URGENT: January 13th Riverside County, CA to Consider Spay/Neuter and Mandatory Microchip Ordinance
Print This Article
[Monday, January 12, 2009]
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors will hold a hearing tomorrow morning at 9 am to discuss an ordinance that would require the spaying/neutering of any dog or cat for even a minor violation of the animal control ordinance and would force pet owners to microchip all their animals and register the microchips with the county. It is vital that responsible dog owners and breeders attend the hearing to oppose this measure.

Provisions of the Proposed Ordinance

  • Requires that all dogs and cats be spayed or neutered unless the owner has purchased an intact animal license. Current law requires owners to license their pets and mandates that the license fee for an intact animal be twice that for a sterilized animal. This will not change under the new ordinance. However, keeping that license would become much tougher.
  • Any animal that is picked up at-large will be required to be spayed/neutered prior to being returned to the owner. Any violation of the animal control ordinance can trigger a requirement that the animal(s) be sterilized. A few of the examples used in the ordinance include failure to posses a current rabies vaccination, failure to license, leash law violations, animals left unattended in a car and failure to provide adequate care.
  • A dog would have to be spayed/neutered if there are 2 complaints, verified by the department that the dog has run at-large, or the owner is found to be neglectful. (AKC staff is concerned at the vagueness of this language. It does not appear to require that the owners be cited for the alleged violations or that the owner is convicted of animal cruelty charges.)
  • If an owner has one intact license revoked, they can have all their intact licenses revoked. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume if one dog was picked up at-large and sterilized, then all dogs owned by this person would be required to be sterilized.
  • There is no exemption for dogs picked up at-large that do not reside in Riverside County. If a fancier were in town for an event and their dog somehow got loose, it would only be returned after being spayed/neutered.
  • Requires that any advertisement for the sale of an unaltered dog or cat include the intact license number for that animal. Since animals are not required to be licensed until they are 4 months old, it is unclear how this would impact the sale of puppies younger than four months.
  • Requires that all dogs and cats be implanted with a microchip and that the microchip be registered with the county. Exemptions are provided if a veterinarian states in writing that it is dangerous to the animals health or would negatively impact the animal�s athletic abilities. Animals that are kenneled or trained in Riverside, but whose owners do not live in the jurisdiction are not required to implant microchips.

This ordinance would require the sterilization of any animal that was picked up by animal control, even on a first offense. This is unreasonable as even responsible owners can have an animal escape due to a mistake by a meter reader, gardener, friend or relative leaving a gate open. We agree that steps should be taken to address owners who habitually allow their animals to run at-large, but such a severe response is not justified by a single incident.

This issue is one of utmost importance to those who participate in our dog shows and events. In 2008, almost 14,000 responsible dog owners participated in 75 AKC-approved events held in Riverside County. When you take into account what these participants spend on hotel rooms, gasoline, food, souvenirs and entertainment, the revenue generated by these events is easily over $7 million annually. Clubs will be reluctant to hold events in an area where an escaped dog would be sterilized on a first offense. Passage of a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance in Riverside County would send a clear message that AKC events are not welcome in the community.

The AKC opposes the concept of mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the right of responsible breeders and owners. Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue�irresponsible ownership. These laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners who won�t licensing their pets. This proposed ordinance will unfairly punish responsible owners who are already complying with local animal control laws, while irresponsible owners continue to make problems for the community and local shelters.

The American Kennel Club also opposes mandatory microchipping. As part of our ongoing efforts to promote responsible dog ownership, the AKC encourages dog owners to properly identify their pets. We believe, however, that the final decision about identification�whether by collar, tattoo or microchip�should be made by the owner, not the government.

What You Can Do

Attend the Board of Supervisors Meeting January 13th
9 am, Tuesday January 13th 
Board Chambers
4080 Lemon Street 
Riverside, CA 92501

  • Riverside residents, send a letter to the Supervisor who represents your district. Please click here for a sample letter. Remember that this letter must be personalized and you need to include your full name and mailing address so you will be recognized as a constituent. To find out who represents you, please click here http://www.rctlma.org/districts/.
  • Fanciers who have traveled to Riverside to attend dog events, please personalize this sample letter (webmaster please link to the attached sample letter) and send it to the members of the Board of Supervisors
  • Club Officers please have your club author a letter opposing this ordinance and send it to the Supervisors listed below. A sample letter to personalize can be found here (Webmaster please link to the attached letter).

Riverside County Board of Supervisors

Mailing address for all supervisors
4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor
Riverside, California 92501

Roy Wilson, Chairman (District 4)
Tel: (951) 955-1040
Fax: (951) 955-2194 
District4@rcbos.org

Jeff Stone, Vice-Chairman (District 3) 
(951) 955-1030
Fax (951) 955-2194
District3@rcbos.org

Bob Buster, District 1
Phone: 951-955-1010
FAX: 951-955-1019
District1@rcbos.org

John Tavaglione, District 2
(951) 955-1020
district2@rcbos.org

Marion Ashley, District 5
(951) 955-1050
District5@rcbos.org

For more information, please contact the AKC Government Relations department at 919-816-3720 or doglaw@akc.org.

 

Wednesday December 24, 2008
WE NEED YOUR HELP!

Activist and San Francisco Supervisor, Harvey Milk, would start his famous speeches with "I am Harvey Milk and I want to recruit you!" He encouraged people to come out, speak out, and not remain silent any longer.
 
 
Concerned Dog Owners of California has been your voice for the protection of your right to be responsible for the decisions regarding your pets. We have spoken out and taken the risk. But we need your help and we want to recruit you!

We knew with the defeat of AB 1634 the supports of mandatory spay/neuter would take their fight to the locals where it is easier to convince County Boards of Supervisors and City Councils that this is the solution to the perceived overpopulation shelter issues. WE KNOW BETTER but without our voices speaking against these draconian measures, local ordinances will pass.

The battle is already been lost in the City of Los Angeles where the City Council proudly passed a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, requiring pets to be sterilized by the time they are FOUR MONTHS OLD. Concerned Dog Owners of California filed a lawsuit but without financial contributions and others to come speak out and join the fight, this will be a worn battle lost.

Riverside County Board of Supervisors recently heard testimony for a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. They are set to pass this ordinance, believing the rewritten version will stop all animals from being subject to euthanasia. The new version is basically identical to AB 1634 that was introduced back in the Senate Local Government Committee, making having an intact pet a violation (as a secondary citation like "seat belt laws). There is a microchip component that we believe is a good start but not if it includes mandatory sterilization against an owner's desire.

 
PLEASE ATTEND THE NEXT HEARING ON  -- TUESDAY -- 1/13/09 -- 9:30 a.m.
at 4080 LEMON STREET 1ST FLOOR, RIVERSIDE, CA 92501    -    (951) 955-1060. It is advised that you check the website of Riverside County or call to verify the agenda and time.

 
 
WE NEED TALKING BODIES TO HELP FIGHT THE MANDATORY SPAY/ NEUTER THAT WILL BE PASSED IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY!!


Santa Barbara County is also battling a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. The previous meetings were postponed due to the wildfires in the area; however, the Task Force is ready to begin meeting again. THE PUBLIC IS WELCOME TO ATTEND THE TASK FORCE MEETINGS and we encourage you to do so.

 
PLEASE ATTEND THE NEXT HEARING ON  -- WEDNESDAY -- 1/07/09 -- in Santa Maria. Please contact Task Force Facilitator, Susan Klein-Rothschild at (805) 681-5435 for information on location.
 

 
CDOC WINTER HANDLING CLINIC

 
CDOC is offering a handling clinic in Northern California on December 27, 2008 at the San Mateo Exposition Fairgrounds. The clinic will be held after the AKC all breed show from 7:00 to 8:30 pm. The cost of the clinic is $25.00
 
Taffe McFadden will be doing a Jr. Handling clinic. Amy Rutherford, Mike Stone , and Bill McFadden will be doing a handling clinic. There will be one ring for people that know how to handle but want to learn some advanced techinque.  The other two rings will be for beginner/novice who really want to learn how to show a dog.
 
Sign up at the show or advance sign up with Bill McFadden at Boldoaks@aol.com 

CDOC-ACTION LAWSUIT UPDATE

As the new year is on the horizon, please remember to renew your CDOC membership. And consider making an additional donation to CDOC_Action to support the lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles where it is now a violation of the city ordinance to have or own an intact dog over the age of FOUR MONTHS.
 
CDOC and all the individual plaintiffs believe that we have to stop laws to be promulgated which abridge our constitutional rights and are clearly detrimental to the health and well-being of our dogs. 
 
To donate to CDOC_Action, go to www.cdocaction.org and thank you for your continued support.
 
People who live in the City of Los Angeles area are finding themselves in some compromising situations because of the new ordinance. If you have been personally affected by the new ordinance, CDOC_Action wants to hear from you! You can contact us through our website.
 
We also need additional plaintiffs. If you would like to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff, please do not hesitate to contact us. For years we have kept quiet. That time is over! We need to speak up, stand up for our rights and take back our rights.

 

Tuesday December 9, 2008
Concerned Dog Owners of California

 
December 9, 2008
'TIS THE SEASON
 
 
THE SPIRIT OF THE SEASON

 

I remember as a child my parents would line up all the dogs in front of the Christmas tree for pictures. Everyone in the family would do our best to get all of the poodles to sit proper and stay long enough for the click and flash to go off.  With the puppies, the challenge was to get the picture taken before they ate the wrapping from all of the presents! Oh the seaon! But it was tradition and it truly was the season. Besides, the dogs were and still are such a large part of our family, it was only right that they be part of the traditions.
 
The CDOC family wishes to extend our warm wishes and good health during this season as well. It is only through your generosity and continued support that Concerned Dog Owners of California is able to exist as an organization working for you.
 
SUPPORT CDOC-ACTION WHILE YOU DO YOUR HOLIDAY DOG AND SUPPLY SHOPPING
 

 
Back by popular demand, MOE TOYS will once again hold a Holiday Shopping Spree for CDOC supporters.
 
Purchase your dog supplies and Christmas gifts through Moe Toys at www.moetoys.com.  The company has offered to sell any of their merchandise at 25% off to help CDOC-Action fund this effort.  CDOC has asked them to pass 10% of that savings along to you and to give the remaining 15% of CDOC-ACTION. 

When you order your dog or cat supplies, please use the promotional code CDOC to ensure you get your savings and we get the donation.  This offer will be good from December 8-12, 2008.  Don't forget to ender CDOC as the coupon code and hit the "redeem" button!

We know this is the time you are buying for the holidays.  Make this the time you pick up a couple extra soft crates, replenish your supply of beds, and get lots of toys for those good dogs.  
 
 
CDOC WINTER HANDLING CLINIC

 
CDOC is offering a handling clinic in Northern California on December 27, 2008 at the San Mateo Exposition Fairgrounds. The clinic will be held after the AKC all breed show from 7:00 to 8:30 pm. The cost of the clinic is $25.00
 
Taffe McFadden will be doing a Jr. Handling clinic. Amy Rutherford, Mike Stone , and Bill McFadden will be doing a handling clinic. There will be one ring for people that know how to handle but want to learn some advanced techinque.  The other two rings will be for beginner/novice who really want to learn how to show a dog.
 
Sign up at the show or advance sign up with Bill McFadden at Boldoaks@aol.com 
CDOC-ACTION LAWSUIT UPDATE

As the new year is on the horizon, please remember to renew your CDOC membership. And consider making an additional donation to CDOC_Action to support the lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles where it is now a violation of the city ordinance to have or own an intact dog over the age of FOUR MONTHS.
 
CDOC and all the individual plaintiffs believe that we have to stop laws to be promulgated which abridge our constitutional rights and are clearly detrimental to the health and well-being of our dogs. 
 
To donate to CDOC_Action, go to www.cdocaction.org and thank you for your continued support.
 
People who live in the City of Los Angeles area are finding themselves in some compromising situations because of the new ordinance. If you have been personally affected by the new ordinance, CDOC_Action wants to hear from you! You can contact us through our website.
 
We also need additional plaintiffs. If you would like to join the lawsuit as a plaintiff, please do not hesitate to contact us. For years we have kept quiet. That time is over! We need to speak up, stand up for our rights and take back our rights.
 
 

 

 
PLEASE FORWARD
 

___________________________________________________  __________________
 

Although Officers and Directors of CDOC are not compensated, our organization has significant expenses for representation in Sacramento, public relations statewide as well as printing and related costs.

We hope you will help us continue to make a difference by donating to
CDOC or CDOC ACTION.  CDOC ACTION funds the challenge
to the City of Los Angeles ordinance requiring
sterilization of owned four month old puppies.
 

 

 

Sunday November 16, 2008

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIRES

Once again Southern California is suffering from firestorms throughout the region. Our hearts go out to the families affected by this tragedy as do our prayers. We hope that everyone involved in the CDOC family is safe including all of our four-legged members.
 
Due to the firestorms, the Santa Barbara County Task Force meeting in Santa Maria has been canceled for November 19, 2008. The chair of the task force hopes to resume meetings on December 3, 2008. It is the hope that representatives from the area kennel clubs and specialty clubs will be able to mobilize your legislative liaisons and can attend these meetings. Dates of proposed meetings is listed below.
 
For the task force please email to: Susan.Klein-Rothschild@sbcphd.org asking Susan to forward copies to the task force members and chair. Susan is the task force facilitator.

Link to agenda and previous minutes:
 
Additional TASK FORCE meetings:
Weds December 3 3:30pm
Weds January 7 3:30pm
Weds January 21 3:30pm
 
Call  Susan Klein-Rothschild task force facilitator at (805) 681-5435 for more information.
 
SANTA BARBARA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
1st District: Salud Carbajal, Chair 
Phone:(805) 568-2186
Fax: (805) 568-2534
E-mail:
 
2nd District: Janet Wolf 
Phone: (805) 568-2191
Fax: (805) 568-2283
E-mail: jwolf@sbcbos2.org 
 
3rd District: Brooks Firestone 
Phone:(805) 568-2192
Fax: (805) 568-2883
Solvang: (805) 686-5095
Fax: (805) 686-8133
E-mail:
 
4th District: Joni Gray 
Lompoc: (805) 737-7700
Santa Maria: (805) 346-8407
E-mail:
 
5th District: Joseph Centeno, Vice Chair 
Santa Maria: (805) 346-8400
Fax: (805) 346-8404
E-mail:

 
WHAT HAS CDOC DONE FOR YOU LATELY?
 
Concerned Dog Owners has not rested since the defeat of AB 1634. We knew that even with a victory at the state level, we would be continuing to fight mandatory spay/neuter in local counties and cities throughout the State of California. We are leading the fight against sterilization mandates in the City of Los Angeles with a bold lawsuit aimed at repealing the ordinance.
 
 A victory statewide did not mean that our fight was over. In fact, extremists set on taking away our rights as dog owners including our very right to have dogs as pets are pursuing their agenda on every local level they can sneek into. The City of Los Angeles and Santa Barbara County are simply the latest but we can be fairly certain that mandatory spay/neuter ordinances will arise on the agendas of every major city and every county in our State. We must continue to be strong in presence at every turn.
 
We continue to work with legislators in Sacramento to create proposed legislation that will provide workable solutions to the animal welfare issues of our State's shelters without infringing upon our personal rights and responsibilities as dog owners. We were the ONLY active organization focused on dog ownership this last legislative session to PASS a bill into law. AB 2291 will provide a voluntary check off for donations to fund low cost/no cost spay-neuter programs throughout the State of California.
 
At CDOC, we believe in being PRO-ACTIVE not just REACTIVE and have been working in the forefront to champion the rights of dog owners. We will continue to have a positive and professional influence on Sacramento.
 
Your donations to CDOC will help us continue our work on your behalf.
 
Manor Obedience Training Benefit Drawing to Benefit CDOC
 
Manor Golden Retrievers and students involved in training with Manor are once again holding an "Opportunity Drawing" at the the Stockton show on Sunday NOV 23rd. THERE WILL BE  LOTS OF GREAT HOLIDAY GIFTS TO BE WON. Please support this effort!
 
CDOC REACHES FOR NEW DONATION GOAL
 
The CDOC lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles is in urgent need of additional funding. The very fact that the City is taking us seriously is a victory; however, with each new step in the lawsuit process, legal bills increase. In spite of the injunction being denied, we believe that the court has recognized the merits of our lawsuit and that we have important evidence not previously considered. We also believe that we have documentation that demonstrates a steady decline in euthanasia rates without mandatory spay/neuter. This was accomplished through better public education, not through restrictive and punitive regulations.
 

Although progress made through the filing of the CDOC lawsuit has been great, the lawsuit continues and will require a sustained effort. Additional funding is sorely needed. Fanciers, breeders and exhibitors who would like to help with this worthwhile effort to defeat the City of Los Angeles MSN ordinance may contribute to CDOC by visiting our website at www.cdoca.org/DONATE.html.
 
AB 1634 was defeated but we cannot wait for it to rise again in any form. All of us still need to continue the fight against anti-dog ordinances. Please DONATE! 

 
CDOC WEBSITE IS CURRENTLY UNDER REPAIR CONSTRUCTION. LINKS FOR CDOC_ACTION AND OUR DONATION PAGE ARE STILL ACTIVE. WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT.

We also encourage you to make a donation at www.cdocaction.org.  There are thousands of us.  If 2000 people make a $50 donation, we will meet our goal. 

Please forward this bulletin to your Clubs and everyone you know so we can get the whole country shopping and helping!  Thank you.
Monday November 10, 2008
Concerned Dog Owners of California

 
November 10, 2008 
UPDATE ON SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
 
 
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ANIMAL COUNCIL NEEDS TO HEAR FROM YOU

 

It was not that long ago that Dr. Ron Faoro, DVM was deeply involved in the promotion of a statewide effort to sterlize California's dogs and cats. It was called AB 1634 and because people like you were not afraid to come forth, speak the truth, and let the political community know about responsible dog ownership that this bill was defeated. But the local battles rage on as in Santa Barbara County.
 
During the height of AB 1634, Dr. Faoro petitioned the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to enact a local version of AB 1634. Dog owners from all over the area stepped forward and the Board listened. Rather than enacting a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance, they put together a task force to study the animal population issue. Dr. Faoro is the chair of this task force and while there is an equal representation, the start of the study has been being swayed towards mandatory sterilization as the only answer.
 
We need everyone possible at every meeting to fight for the rights of the people and dogs and cats of this county.  We have to take every opportunity to educate those on the task force about other options and educate them about the downfall of following the task force chair Ron Faoro, DVM's push for mandatory sterilization of dogs and cats and punishing owners of intact dogs with drastically increased licensing fees.

 
Get your topic points down.  If there are more than 10 there for public comment they will only have a minute each but that minute can count. Public comment is towards the end of the meeting so if you have to arrive at meetings late please still come and upon arrival fill out a blue slip to speak.

 
Plan to attend as many of the task force meetings as possible. Write the county Board of Supervisors and express your opposition to mandatory spay/neuter and that the task force must look at viable solutions without mandatory sterilization.
 
Letters from dog owners in areas where MSN has been enacted and its impact as well as areas with alternatives to MSN and their results also are important.
 
 
Please send your informed letters to the task force with copies to the supervisors. For the task force please email to: Susan.Klein-Rothschild@sbcphd.org asking Susan to forward copies to the task force members and chair. Susan is the task force facilitator.

Link to agenda and previous minutes:

Additional TASK FORCE meetings:
Weds November 19 4:00pm- Santa Maria
Weds December 3 3:30pm
Weds January 7 3:30pm
Weds January 21 3:30pm

 
November 19 meeting will be in SANTA MARIA The rest will be Santa Barbara. 
Locations are yet to be determined and they will announce to the public 72 hours in advance. Call  Susan Klein-Rothschild task force facilitator at (805) 681-5435 for more information.

 
SANTA BARBARA BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
1st District: Salud Carbajal, Chair 
Phone:(805) 568-2186
Fax: (805) 568-2534
E-mail:
SupervisorCarbajal@sbcbos1.org
 
 
2nd District: Janet Wolf 
Phone: (805) 568-2191
Fax: (805) 568-2283
E-mail: jwolf@sbcbos2.org 
 
 
3rd District: Brooks Firestone 
Phone:(805) 568-2192
Fax: (805) 568-2883
Solvang: (805) 686-5095
Fax: (805) 686-8133
E-mail:
bfirestone@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
 
 
4th District: Joni Gray 
Lompoc: (805) 737-7700
Santa Maria: (805) 346-8407
E-mail:
jgray@co.santa-barbara.ca.us
 
 
5th District: Joseph Centeno, Vice Chair 
Santa Maria: (805) 346-8400
Fax: (805) 346-8404
E-mail:
jcenteno@co.santa-barbara.ca.us


CDOC REACHES FOR NEW DONATION GOAL
 
The CDOC lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles is in urgent need of additional funding. The very fact that the City is taking us seriously is a victory; however, with each new step in the lawsuit process, legal bills increase. In spite of the injunction being denied, we believe that the court has recognized the merits of our lawsuit and that we have important evidence not previously considered. We also believe that we have documentation that demonstrates a steady decline in euthanasia rates without mandatory spay/neuter. This was accomplished through better public education, not through restrictive and punitive regulations.
 

Although progress made through the filing of the CDOC lawsuit has been great, the lawsuit continues and will require a sustained effort. Additional funding is sorely needed. Fanciers, breeders and exhibitors who would like to help with this worthwhile effort to defeat the City of Los Angeles MSN ordinance may contribute to CDOC by visiting our website at www.cdoca.org/DONATE.html.
 
AB 1634 was defeated but we cannot wait for it to rise again in any form. All of us still need to continue the fight against anti-dog ordinances. Please DONATE! 

 
CDOC WEBSITE IS CURRENTLY UNDER REPAIR CONSTRUCTION. LINKS FOR CDOC_ACTION AND OUR DONATION PAGE ARE STILL ACTIVE. WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT.
 

We also encourage you to make a donation at www.cdocaction.org.  There are thousands of us.  If 2000 people make a $50 donation, we will meet our goal. 

Please forward this bulletin to your Clubs and everyone you know so we can get the whole country shopping and helping!  Thank you.

 
PLEASE FORWARD
 

___________________________________________________  __________________
 

Although Officers and Directors of CDOC are not compensated, our organization has significant expenses for representation in Sacramento, public relations statewide as well as printing and related costs.

We hope you will help us continue to make a difference by donating to
CDOC or CDOC ACTION.  CDOC ACTION funds the challenge
to the City of Los Angeles ordinance requiring
sterilization of owned four month old puppies.

 

Sunday October 26, 2008
CDOC IS STILL ACTIVELY WORKING FOR YOUR RIGHTS

Concerned Dog Owners of California has been working actively throughout the State of California to protect your rights as dog owners. With the defeat of AB 1634 came a new threat in each local region of our State. CDOC has been a present and strong force, willing to stand up and speak out against anti-dog ordinances. Our main focus currently is with the City of Los Angeles.
 
Our law firm, RobertiJensen, filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on behalf of Concerned Dog Owners of California. Unfortunately, the injunction was denied and the ordinance became active October 1, 2008. At this time, it is illegal to own an intact dog in the City of Los Angeles unless you are able to qualify for one of the exemptions and finance a breeder's permit.
 
We believe that owners right now are suffering damages because of this ordinance. The health of many dogs is being negatively affected with results that cannot be undone. We also believe constitutional rights are being abridged. We need to hear your stories. If you are a resident in the City of Los Angeles and have suffered damages because of the new ordinance or were denied a license for a pet unless you either sterilized your pet or applied for a breeder's permit, please contact CDOC, info@cdoca.org and share your story with us.
 
CDOC and all the individual plaintiffs believe that we have to stop laws to be promulgated which abridge our constitutional rights and are clearly detrimental to the health and well-being of our dogs.  For years we have kept quiet.  That time is over.  We need to speak up, we need to stand up for our rights and we need to vote appropriately.
 
We are also pleased to announce that AB 2291 (Mendoza), a bill sponsored by CDOC was signed by the Governor. This bill provides for a check-off on the California State Income Tax form for a donation to support voluntary spay/neuter programs throughout the State of California. Thank you for your support of this deserving bill.


CDOC REACHES FOR NEW DONATION GOAL
 
The CDOC lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles is in urgent need of additional funding. The very fact that the City is taking us seriously is a victory; however, with each new step in the lawsuit process, legal bills increase. In spite of the injunction being denied, we believe that the court has recognized the merits of our lawsuit and that we have important evidence not previously considered. We also believe that we have documentation that demonstrates a steady decline in euthanasia rates without mandatory spay/neuter. This was accomplished through better public education, not through restrictive and punitive regulations.
 

Although progress made through the filing of the CDOC lawsuit has been great, the lawsuit continues and will require a sustained effort. Additional funding is sorely needed. Fanciers, breeders and exhibitors who would like to help with this worthwhile effort to defeat the City of Los Angeles MSN ordinance may contribute to CDOC by visiting our website at www.cdoca.org/DONATE.html.
 
AB 1634 was defeated but we cannot wait for it to rise again in any form. All of us still need to continue the fight against anti-dog ordinances. Please DONATE! 

 
SUPPORT CDOC-ACTION WHILE YOU DO YOUR HOLIDAY DOG AND SUPPLY SHOPPING
 

In bringing this action against the City of Los Angeles, CDOC knew it was taking on a huge responsibility, that would require a great deal of time and money.  But dog lovers from all over the country assured us we would have their moral and financial support.  To date, we have raised approximately $100,000 and we need to raise that amount again. 

One of the easy ways that individuals can help us is to purchase their dog supplies and Christmas gifts through Moe Toys at www.moetoys.com.  The company has offered to sell any of their merchandise at 25% off to help CDOC-Action fund this effort.  CDOC has asked them to pass 10% of that savings along to you and to give the remaining 15% of CDOC-ACTION. 

When you order your dog or cat supplies, please use the promotional code CDOC to ensure you get your savings and we get the donation.  This offer will be good from September 10, 2008 through October 5, 2008. 

We know this is the time you are buying for the holidays.  Make this the time you pick up a couple extra soft crates, replenish your supply of beds, and get lots of toys for those good dogs. 

We also encourage you to make a donation at www.cdocaction.org.  There are thousands of us.  If 2000 people make a $50 donation, we will meet our goal. 

Please forward this bulletin to your Clubs and everyone you know so we can get the whole country shopping and helping!  Thank you.

 

PLEASE FORWARD
 

___________________________________________________  __________________
 

Although Officers and Directors of CDOC are not compensated, our organization has significant expenses for representation in Sacramento, public relations statewide as well as printing and related costs.

We hope you will help us continue to make a difference by donating to
CDOC or CDOC ACTION.  CDOC ACTION funds the challenge
to the City of Los Angeles ordinance requiring
sterilization of owned four month old puppies.
 

 

 

Monday September 22, 2008
Concerned Dog Owners of California needs your help!
 
With the defeat of AB 1634 we once again are focused back on our dogs and our lives with our dogs; however, the fight against mandatory spay/neuter did not end with AB 1634. Throughout the State of California, mandatory spay/neuter ordinances are being introduced city by city and county by county. CDOC made the commitment that we would be a visible force against mandatory spay/neuter and we have held true to our promise.
 
We have sued the City of Los Angeles for their mandatory spay/neuter ordinance that requires the sterilization of pets by the time they are FOUR MONTHS OF AGE.
 
We know that when we prevail in Los Angeles, we will have sent the message to municipalities throughout the State and the Nation that mandatory spay/neuter ordinances are not the answer.
 
We won the battle of AB 1634, now we need to win the mandatory spay/neuter war.
 
We need the commitment of the dog community to help us in this fight.
 
Lawsuits are one of the most expensive costs associated with this campaign.  Help us by donating $25, $50, or $100 today. It is easy-- just go to www.cdoca.org and follow the links for donations.
 
We would also like to thank those of you who have pledged a monthly donation and encourage others to make similar pledges. We have a goal of raising $100,000 by Thanksgiving.

Thank you for your continued support.
 
Laura Finco
Concerned Dog Owners of California
 
As a reminder, no officer or member of the Board of Directors for Concerned Dog Owners of California takes any salary or reimbursement. We are all volunteers and passionate about protecting your rights as a dog owner. 100% of what is donated goes directly to the fight against anti-dog legislation.
 
And don't forget our Moe Toys campaign-- www.moetoys.com has agreed to donate 25% of each purchase to CDOC and we have asked that they give each supporter a 10% and donate the other 15% to CDOC. Just enter "CDOC" in the coupon box at checkout to receive the discount.
 
Thursday September 11, 2008
 Concerned Dog Owners of California

September 11, 2008
UPDATE ON LAWSUIT AGAINST
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
 
 
 
CDOC FILES FOR A MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AGAINST STERILIZATION OF 4 MONTH OLD PUPPIES AND KITTENS
 

On September 9th, the law firm of RobertiJensen filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction on behalf of Concerned Dog Owners of California.  The request acts the Court to prohibit the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Animal Services from engaging in or performing the following acts:

 
1.      Enforcing any and all provisions of Los Angeles City Ordinance No. 179615;
2.      Enforcing any and all provisions of Los Angeles City Municipal Code Section 53.15.2(b);
3.      Mandating the spay/neuter of any and all owned dogs and cats within Los Angeles City;
 
 Punishing by fine, misdemeanor, or penalty, any Los Angeles City resident or person within Los Angeles City for not complying with Los Angeles City Ordinance No. 179615 and/or Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 53.15.2(b).

As we all know, it will take some time for this lawsuit to move through the Courts.  If the City is permitted to require the sterilization of puppies and kittens during that time, that action is irreversible.  So when the Courts find for CDOC and rule that constitutional rights are being abridged, the health of many of the dogs will be negatively affected with results that cannot be undone. A hearing has been scheduled for October 2nd.

As a part of its discovery, the City of Los Angeles has asked for a great deal of personal information on the individual plaintiffs.  It remains to be seen if the plan is to direct harassing and inappropriate attempts at compliance toward those specific people who stepped forward to oppose this Ordinance. 

As you know, the people who promulgated and pushed this ordinance are on the move around the country to get other cites to adopt this ordinance.  Animal Services Director Ed Boks has bragged that he looks forward to taking this to the rest of the country.  Chicago was a recent stop and your city could be next.  Now that AB1634 has been defeated, we anticipate a strategy aimed at local communities.

CDOC and all the individual plaintiffs believe that we have to stop laws to be promulgated which abridge our constitutional rights and are clearly detrimental to the health and well-being of our dogs.  For years we have kept quiet.  That time is over.  We need to speak up, we need to stand up for our rights and we need to vote appropriately.

If you would like a copy of the filing, please send your email address and dog affiliation information to info@cdoca.org.


 
SUPPORT CDOC-ACTION WHILE YOU DO YOUR HOLIDAY DOG AND SUPPLY SHOPPING
 

 
In bringing this action against the City of Los Angeles, CDOC knew it was taking on a huge responsibility, that would require a great deal of time and money.  But dog lovers from all over the country assured us we would have their moral and financial support.  To date, we have raised approximately $100,000 and we need to raise that amount again. 

One of the easy ways that individuals can help us is to purchase their dog supplies and Christmas gifts through Moe Toys at www.moetoys.com.  The company has offered to sell any of their merchandise at 25% off to help CDOC-Action fund this effort.  CDOC has asked them to pass 10% of that savings along to you and to give the remaining 15% of CDOC-ACTION. 

When you order your dog or cat supplies, please use the promotional code CDOC to ensure you get your savings and we get the donation.  This offer will be good from September 10, 2008 through October 5, 2008. 

We know this is the time you are buying for the holidays.  Make this the time you pick up a couple extra soft crates, replenish your supply of beds, and get lots of toys for those good dogs. 

We also encourage you to make a donation at www.cdocaction.org.  There are thousands of us.  If 2000 people make a $50 donation, we will meet our goal. 

Please forward this bulletin to your Clubs and everyone you know so we can get the whole country shopping and helping!  Thank you.

 
PLEASE FORWARD
 

___________________________________________________  __________________
 

Although Officers and Directors of CDOC are not compensated, our organization has significant expenses for representation in Sacramento, public relations statewide as well as printing and related costs.

We hope you will help us continue to make a difference by donating to
CDOC or CDOC ACTION.  CDOC ACTION funds the challenge
to the City of Los Angeles ordinance requiring
sterilization of owned four month old puppies.
 

 

 
 
 
http://visitor.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?v=001ti8yLLtrqgphi35PdouaUDdThqMJxEWj2eHEXVIzrjCYPpsVGLrilWWG_hyJPxkg&p=un
This email was sent to sah64@aol.com by update@cdoca.org.
 
Concerned Dog Owners of California | 22647 Ventura Boulevard | Woodland Hills | CA | 91364

 

Saturday August 30, 2008 AB1634 DEFEATED

"I would like to place AB1634 in the inactive file with the agreement of the author and Senator Dutton's dog!"



CURRENT BILL STATUS

MEASURE :  A.B. No. 1634
AUTHOR(S) :  Levine (Principal coauthors: Senators Negrete McLeod and
Padilla) (Coauthors: Nava and Solorio).
TOPIC :  Dogs and cats: nonspayed or unneutered: civil penalties.
HOUSE LOCATION :  SEN
+LAST AMENDED DATE  :  08/12/2008


TYPE OF BILL : 
                Active
                Non-Urgency
                Non-Appropriations
                Majority Vote Required
                State-Mandated Local Program
                Fiscal
                Non-Tax Levy

LAST HIST. ACT. DATE:  08/30/2008
LAST HIST. ACTION   :  To inactive file on motion of Senator Padilla.
FILE :  SEN INACTIVE FILE - ASSEMBLY BILLS
FILE DATE :  08/31/2008
ITEM :  A- 60

COMM. LOCATION :  SEN APPROPRIATIONS
COMM. ACTION DATE   :  07/14/2008
COMM. ACTION :  Senate Rule 28.8 and amended.

TITLE :  An act to amend Sections 30804.5, 30804.7, 31751.5, and
31751.7 of, and to add Sections 30804.8 and 31751.8 to,
the Food and Agricultural Code, relating to animals.

WEBSTERS: Inactive = Failed, Lost, Loser, Didn't Win, Hope you kept your day job...oh? never mind...this was your day job.
 
Saturday August 23, 2008 Levine's 2 Year Quest for Forced Sterilization Defeated

When the fur and puns stopped flying and the votes were counted, the mandatory dog and cat sterilization measure garnered just five votes in the Senate yesterday, ending an intense battle highlighted by television icons Lassie and Bob Barker appearing on opposite sides.

CLICK

CLICK
 
Thursday August 21, 2008
AKC URGENT ALERT: CA AB 1634 to Change
 AKC Vigorously Opposes!
 
[Thursday, August 21, 2008]
 
Late yesterday we received a proposed 12th amendment to the wording of CA AB 1634 which Lloyd Levine’s staff presented to our lobbyist. Also, we understand that Mr. Levine attempted to amend his bill in the Senate, in spite of the fact that he had assured the AKC through our lobbyist that the bill was in its final form. As a result of this last minute attempt, we no longer have confidence in the definition of this bill or the credibility of its author.
 
The AKC is outraged and dismayed by Mr. Levine’s last minute action to remove the incentives that were put in place to recognize responsible dog ownership. The new amendment will allow local government to avoid providing discounted licenses for owners who microchip, or owners who microchip and spay/neuter, their animals.
 
A primary reason AKC moved to a neutral position was because it reinforced and rewarded responsible behavior. We believe the process to advance this bill is no longer being conducted in a forthright and transparent manner. Given Mr. Levine’s recent tactics and the fact that we no longer feel confident that an acceptable bill will be produced, a neutral position is no longer appropriate. Therefore, AKC must vigorously oppose this legislation.  
 
Please immediately call and email your State Senator and ask them to oppose AB 1634.
 
For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org

 

Friday August 15, 2008

CDOC
AB1634 - Our Position
8/14/08

Concerned Dog Owners of California was established for the purpose of educating owners, legislators and policy makers regarding responsible dog ownership. We support permanent identification especially as a means of reuniting lost pets and owners as well as tracking habitual roamers. We support the enforcement of current ordinances including license regulations where required.   We support enforcement of leash laws.  We support the availability of voluntary spay and neuter programs and are working diligently with Senator Padilla and Assembly Member Mendoza to find innovative ways to fund those programs.

We do not support last minute amendments that circumvent the legislative process by not allowing enough time for expert analysis and public testimony and response. Concerned Dog Owners of California was not included in any of the discussions, but we were provided sections of the new language on Monday evening. The actual bill is much more involved than the snapshot sections shown to us; so much so that we find we cannot support it.

While the newest version of AB 1634 with the removal of the complaint section is dramatically improved, we believe that without proper analysis and discussion the remaining issues in the bill cannot be properly addressed. We agree with the premise of the newest version of AB 1634 but are reserved regarding much of its content in the development of the penalty schedule for noncompliance with license regulations.  Language such as “improperly licensed” and “at large” have not been defined and are vague. There exist many situations where a dog is legitimately “at large” or “improperly licensed.” Search and Rescue teams with licensed, intact dogs could be considered “at large” during training.  Dogs competing at shows or agility trials without tags on their collars could be considered “improperly licensed.” Are these dogs in violation? Are dogs running loose due to natural disaster in violation? Currently, enforcement officers are allowed the discretion to recognize situations and make the determination whether or not any violation actually has occurred. The language of AB 1634 eliminates this discretion stating that there SHALL be a penalty.

The Appropriations Committee was assured the bill would not have a financial impact; however the Finance Department opposes the bill because of the fiscal risk it imposes on the State.  AB1634 will now be a new animal mandate requiring the State of California to reimburse local animal control units for enforcement of local leash and licensing laws, as long as that enforcement is directed only at intact animals.  There will undoubtedly be fiscal impact due to the Hayden Act as people relinquish their dogs rather than pay fines or comply with the mandatory spay/neuter penalty.

With more time and input, we believe this bill could meet the needs of all the stakeholders.  We agree with Senator Negrete-McLeod about amendments “on the fly” and believe that a reasoned review with input from all parties simply cannot occur in the few days remaining. 

CDOC will continue to work on programs and legislation that get roaming dogs, intact or altered off the streets, that increase licensing compliance of all dogs, intact and altered and that provide funding for voluntary spay and neuter programs available to all.

Opposition letters should be sent to to your own Senator. We would also like as many letters from constituents as possible to

Dean Flores (D)
State Capitol, Room 5061
Sacramento,  CA  95814
Phone:  (916) 651-4016
Fax: (916) 327-5989

Shiela Kuehl (D)
State Capitol, Room 5108
Sacramento,  CA  95814
Phone:  (916) 651-4023
Fax:  (916) 324-4823

Jenny Oropeza (D)
State Capitol, Room 4074
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4028
Fax: (916) 323-6056

Mark Ridley-Thomas
State Capitol, Room 4061
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4026
Fax: (916) 445-8899

Leeland Yee (D)
State Capitol, Room 4048
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4008
Fax: (916) 327-2186

Denine Moreno Ducheny (D)
State Capitol, Room 5035
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4040
Fax: (916) 327-3522

Lou Correa (D)
State Capitol, Room 4062
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4034

Alan Lowenthal (D)
State Capitol, Room 2032
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4027
Fax: (916) 327-9113

Abel Maldonado (R)
State Capitol, Room 4082
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4015
Fax: (916) 445-8081

Alex Padilla (D)
State Capitol, Room 4032
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4020

Edward Vincent (D)
State Capitol, Room 5052
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4025
Fax: (916) 445-3712

Patricia Wiggens (D)
State Capitol, Room 4081
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4002
Fax: (916) 323-6958
August 11, 2008 Please visit the Action page of the CDOC website.


DRAFT AB 1634 FLOOR AMENDMENTS

Mockup of August 5, 2008 version

Deletions in Bold Strikethrough

Additions in Bold Underline

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the California Responsible Pet Ownership Act.

SECTION 1. SEC. 2. Section 30804.7 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:

30804.7. (a) The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is impounded once by a city or county animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society, shall be fined fifty dollars ($50) on the first occurrence and one hundred dollars ($100) on the second occurrence. On the second occurrence, the owner shall be fined one hundred dollars ($100) and the dog shall be microchipped, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure. On the third occurrence, the dog shall be spayed or neutered, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure. These fines are for nonspayed or unneutered impounded animals only, and are not in lieu of any fines or impound fees imposed by any individual city, county, public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane society shelter.

(b) An animal control officer, humane officer, police officer, peace officer, or any agency authorized to enforce the Penal Code may write citations with a civil penalty stated in an amount corresponding to the violation as provided in subdivision (a). At the time that a citation is issued, the animal control officer, humane officer, police officer, peace officer, or any agency authorized to enforce the Penal Code shall provide the owner of the dog with information regarding the availability of spaying and neutering services, as well as written notification of the civil penalty for a second citation for the same dog, including microchipping of the dog with the owner paying the cost of the procedure, and the civil penalty for a third citation for the same dog, including the spaying or neutering of the dog with the owner paying the cost of the procedure. The fines shall be paid to the local municipality or public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane society shelter. Any funds collected under this section shall be expended for the purpose of humane education, programs for low-cost spaying and neutering of dogs, and any additional costs incurred by the public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group in the administration of the requirements of this division. The city or county animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 calendar days of the citation, the owner of the dog presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the dog was spayed or neutered.

(c) This section applies to each county and cities within each county, regardless of population.

(d) No city or county, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society is subject to any civil action by the owner of a dog that is spayed or neutered in accordance with this section.

(e) If an owner found in violation of subdivision (a) voluntarily elects to have the nonspayed or unneutered dog microchipped, a city or county animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society shall waive no less than thirty dollars ($30) and may waive all of the corresponding fifty dollar ($50) fine.

(f) Any dog owner who is not a resident of California shall be exempted from this section if the owner provides proof, as determined by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that the dog is temporarily in California for training, showing, or any other lawful  reason.

(g) A dog shall not be required to be microchipped if its owner provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to microchip the animal. The letter shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, a description of the dog in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the condition of the dog, and the date by which the dog may be safely microchipped.

(h) A dog shall not be required to be spayed or neutered if its owner provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the animal. The letter shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, a description of the dog in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the condition of the dog, and the date by which the dog may be safely spayed or neutered.

SEC. 2. SEC. 3. Section 30804.8 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:

30804.8. (a) The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is the subject of a complaint A person who owns or possesses within the state any dog that is not licensed or is improperly licensed, as required by law, and that has not been spayed or neutered may be cited and, if cited, shall pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. A person who owns or possesses within the state any intact dog that is properly licensed, as required by law, but is being cited under law for the dog being at large may be cited and, if cited, shall pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to any fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or local ordinance.

(b) At the time that the citation is issued, the local animal control agency shall provide the owner of the dog with information regarding the availability of spaying and neutering services as well as written notification of the civil penalty for a second citation for the same dog, including microchipping of the dog with the owner paying the cost of the procedure, and the civil penalty for a third citation for the same dog, including the spaying or neutering of the dog with the owner paying the cost of the procedure.

(c) The owner of the dog shall pay the civil penalty to the local animal control agency within 30 business calendar days of the citation. The local animal control agency shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 business calendar days of the citation, the owner of the dog presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the dog was spayed or neutered.

(d) The civil penalties shall be as follows:

(1) On the first occurrence, fifty dollars ($50).

(2) On the second occurrence for the same dog, one hundred dollars ($100) and the dog shall be microchipped, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure..

(3) On the third occurrence for the same dog, the spaying or neutering of the dog by order of the local animal control agency, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure.

(e) As used in this section, the following terms apply:

(1) Complaint" means an oral or written complaint to a local animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the dog has violated this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint" also means the observation by an employee or officer of a local animal control agency of behavior by a dog or the owner of a dog that violates this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint" shall not include an allegation of excessive noise or barking.

(2) (1) "Local animal control agency" means any city or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing animal-related laws or local animal control ordinances.

(3) (2) "Spay" and "neuter" mean any procedure performed by a duly licensed veterinarian that permanently sterilizes a dog and makes it incapable of reproduction.

(f) This section shall not preclude any city or county from adopting a local ordinance that is more restrictive or imposes higher civil penalties.

(g) If an owner found in violation of subdivision (a) voluntarily elects to have the nonspayed or unneutered dog microchipped, a local animal control agency shall waive no less than thirty dollars ($30) and may waive all of the corresponding fifty dollar ($50) fine.

(h) Any dog owner who is not a resident of California shall be exempted from this section if the owner provides proof, as determined by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that the dog is temporarily in California for training, showing, or any other lawful  reason.

(i) A dog shall not be required to be microchipped if its owner provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to microchip the animal. The letter shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, a description of the dog in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the condition of the dog, and the date by which the dog may be safely microchipped.

(j) A dog shall not be required to be spayed or neutered if its owner provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the animal. The letter shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, a description of the dog in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the condition of the dog, and the date by which the dog may be safely spayed or neutered.

SEC. 3. SEC. 4. Section 31751.7 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:

31751.7. (a) The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered cat that is impounded once by a city or county animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society, shall be fined fifty dollars ($50) on the first occurrence and the cat shall be microchipped, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure. On the second occurrence, the cat shall be spayed or neutered, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure. These fines are for nonspayed or unneutered impounded animals only, and are not in lieu of any fines or impound fees imposed by any individual city, county, public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane society shelter.

(b) An animal control officer, humane officer, police officer, peace officer, or any agency authorized to enforce the Penal Code may write citations with a civil penalty stated in an amount corresponding to the violation as provided in subdivision (a). At the time that the citation is issued, the animal control officer, humane officer, police officer, peace officer, or any agency authorized to enforce the Penal Code shall provide the owner of the cat with information regarding the availability of spaying and neutering services, as well as written notification that the civil penalty for the second citation for the same cat shall be the spaying or neutering of the cat by order of the local animal control agency, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure. The fines shall be paid to the local municipality or public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane society shelter. Any funds collected under this section shall be expended for the purpose of humane education, programs for low-cost spaying and neutering of cats, and any additional costs incurred by the animal shelter in the administration of the requirements of this division. The city or county animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 calendar days of the citation, the owner of the cat presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the cat was spayed or neutered.

(c) Local ordinances concerning the adoption or placement procedures of any public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, humane society shelter, or rescue group shall be at least as restrictive as this division.

(d) This section applies to each county and cities within each county, regardless of population.

(e) No city or county, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or humane society is subject to any civil action by the owner of a cat that is spayed or neutered in accordance with this section.

(f) Any cat owner who is not a resident of California shall be exempted from this section if the owner provides proof, as determined by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that the cat is temporarily in California for training, showing, or any other lawful  reason.

(g) A cat shall not be required to be microchipped if its owner provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to microchip the animal. The letter shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, a description of the cat in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the condition of the cat, and the date by which the cat may be safely microchipped.

(h) A cat shall not be required to be spayed or neutered if its owner provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the animal. The letter shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, a description of the cat in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the condition of the cat, and the date by which the cat may be safely spayed or neutered.

SEC. 4. SEC. 5. Section 31751.8 is added to the Food and Agricultural Code, to read:

31751.8. (a) The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered cat that is the subject of a complaint A person who owns or possesses within the state any cat that is not licensed or is improperly licensed, as required by law, and that has not been spayed or neutered may be cited and, if cited, shall pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. A person who owns or possesses within the state any intact cat that is properly licensed, as required by law, but is being cited under law for the cat being at large may be cited and, if cited, shall pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to any fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or local ordinance.

(b) At the time that the citation is issued, the local animal control agency shall provide the owner of the cat with information regarding the availability of spaying and neutering services, as well as written notification that the civil penalty for the second citation for the same cat shall be the spaying or neutering of the cat by order of the local animal control agency, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure.

(c) The owner of the cat shall pay the civil penalty to the local animal control agency within 30 business calendar days of the citation. The local animal control agency shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 business calendar days of the citation, the owner of the cat presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the cat was spayed or neutered.

(d) The civil penalties shall be as follows:

(1) On the first occurrence, fifty dollars ($50) and the cat shall be microchipped, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure.

(2) On the second occurrence for the same cat, the spaying or neutering of the cat by order of the local animal control agency, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure.

(e) As used in this section, the following terms apply:

(1) "Complaint" means an oral or written complaint to a local animal control agency that alleges that the cat or the owner of the cat has violated this division, any other provision of state law that relates to cats, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint" also means the observation by an employee or officer of a local animal control agency of behavior by a cat or the owner of a cat that violates this division, any other provision of state law that relates to cats, or a local animal control ordinance. "Complaint" shall not include an allegation of excessive noise.

(2) (1) "Local animal control agency" means any city or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing animal-related laws or local animal control ordinances.

(3) (2) "Spay" and "neuter" mean any procedure performed by a licensed veterinarian that permanently sterilizes a cat and makes it incapable of reproduction.

(f) This section shall not preclude any city or county from adopting a local ordinance that is more restrictive or imposes higher civil penalties.

(g) Any cat owner who is not a resident of California shall be exempted from this section if the owner provides proof, as determined by the local jurisdiction or its authorized local animal control agency, that the cat is temporarily in California for training, showing, or any other lawful  reason.

(h) A cat shall not be required to be microchipped if its owner provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to microchip the animal. The letter shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, a description of the cat in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the condition of the cat, and the date by which the cat may be safely microchipped.

(i) A cat shall not be required to be spayed or neutered if its owner provides a letter from a California licensed veterinarian stating that due to age, poor health, or illness, it is unsafe to spay or neuter the animal. The letter shall include the veterinarian's license number, the name of the owner, a description of the cat in question, and, if this information is available, the duration of the condition of the cat, and the date by which the cat may be safely spayed or neutered.

SEC. 6. Section 30804.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:

30804.5. Whenever dog license tags are issued pursuant to this division, any such tag shall be issued for one-half or less of the fee required for a dog, if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog has been spayed or neutered. as follows:

(a) For three-fourths or less of the fee required for a dog, if the dog has been implanted with a microchip that can be used to positively identify the dog, its owner and the owner’s contact information.

(b) For one-half or less of the fee required for a dog, if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog has been spayed or neutered.

(c) For one-fourth or less of the fee required for a dog, if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the dog has been spayed or neutered, and the dog has been implanted with a microchip that can be used to positively identify the dog, its owner and the owner’s contact information.

SEC. 7. Section 31751.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code is amended to read:

31751.5. Whenever a city or county requires cat license tags, any such tag shall be issued for one-half or less of the fee required for a cat, if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the cat has been spayed or neutered. as follows:

(a) For three-fourths or less of the fee required for a cat, if the cat has been implanted with a microchip that can be used to positively identify the cat, its owner and the owner’s contact information.

(b) For one-half or less of the fee required for a cat, if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the cat has been spayed or neutered.

(c) For one-fourth or less of the fee required for a cat, if a certificate is presented from a licensed veterinarian that the cat has been spayed or neutered, and the cat has been implanted with a microchip that can be used to positively identify the cat, its owner and the owner’s contact information.

SEC. 5. SEC. 8. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.



Friday July 25, 2008
--- please cross post ---

Spread the word! The senators are in Sacramento today working on the budget. Let them know today that the state Department of Finance Bill Analysis opposes AB 1634 because the bill would increase costs to the state budget. Tell the senators that in the face of a $15 billion budget deficit, California cannot afford to lay off more teachers or cut more vital services in order to pay for something like AB 1634.
 
Next week is a good time to visit your senator's field office with letter in hand, letting them know that of the Department of Finance's report. If you have already sent one letter, send a follow up letter. Again, it is best to send letters through the US Mail right now since we have time and not fax. If you go to visit your senator's office and do not have the chance to speak personally, follow up with a phone call reminding them that the Department of Finance has found AB 1634 to be a financial risk to the State of California. We cannot AFFORD financially or personally as residents of this State AB 1634.
 
Laura Finco

Excerpts from the Department of Finance's Bill Analysis of AB 1634:

"Requiring the owners of dogs and cats to pay increased fines and to pay for spaying and neutering procedures, regardless of whether the animal was impounded or not, may result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered. Should this occur and the animals are held by an animal control agency, the result would be an increase in the General Fund costs of the existing Animal Adoption mandate, which currently costs more than $20 million annually to reimburse local
agencies for euthanizing certain animals held for a specified period of time."

"The Department of Finance is opposed to this measure because by increasing costs for an existing state mandated local program, it would result in General Fund costs that are not included in the 2008-09 Budget Bill."

"Although the intent of this bill may be to decrease the population of homeless dogs and cats, an unfortunate result of the bill may actually be the opposite. First, local animal shelters or other
agencies that impound animals will no longer receive fines for each additional "occurrence" because upon the third occurrence for dogs or the second occurrence for cats, the animal must be altered and no additional fines may be charged. Most likely, the shelter will pay the cost for this procedure up-front and be reimbursed upon retrieval of the animal by its owner. We estimate the cost of spaying or neutering a dog or cat ranges from $50-$200 depending on whether a
veterinarian donates their time to the shelter (only expense being equipment and supplies) or the shelter contracts with a veterinarian for services. If an owner cannot or chooses not to reimburse the shelter for the cost to spay or neuter their pet and instead chooses to surrender their pet, then the shelter will not be reimbursed for that cost. This bill may drive up the rate of surrender and
the rate of euthanasia, increasing the costs of the existing mandate.

"This bill is also unclear in its definition of the term "complaint." The bill states that the term shall not include an allegation of excessive noise or barking but also states that, in the case of dogs
for example, a complaint also means any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. Many local animal control ordinances deal with noises that animals make such as barking, creating the potential for a conflict within the definition of the term "complaint" in this bill. The intent of this bill may have been to define complaint to include observation by an official; however, there is concern that a complaint may be unsubstantiated. If
a complaint is unsubstantiated, an official may still come to an owner's home to investigate the complaint. Non-impounded dogs and cats would be subject to the same civil penalties and spay and neuter requirements as impounded animals unless proof of the animals already
being spayed or neutered can be provided within 14 days."

http://www.dof.ca.gov/Legislative_Analyses/LIS_PDF/AB-1634-20080725094150AM-AB01634.pdf
Thursday July 24, 2008 Subject: ** URGENT - Looking for Constituents in ...

Anyone living in or near the following CA cities/communities or know someone
who does, please email us ASAP. We're hoping to gather up groups of
constituents to visit State Senators Alan Lowenthal and Gloria Negrete
McLeod:

Alan Lowenthal:
Artesia, Avalon, Bellflower, Cerritos, Downey, Florence-Graham, Hawaiian
Gardens, Lakewood, Long Beach, Lynwood, Paramount, Signal Hill, South Gate,
and Willowbrook.

Gloria Negrete McLeod:
Southern San Bernardino county, Fontana, Ontario, Pomona, and Rialto.

If you live in or near these southern California areas or know someone who
does and who may be willing to help us fight AB 1634, PLEASE email us
Kifka@Kifka.com
 
Wednesday July 9, 2008 WE NEED TO WRITE LETTERS NOW. Each senator on the Appropriations Committee can receive faxes; however, official letters to the committee must be hand delivered or received through the US Mail. Addresses are below.

We are urging OPPOSITION to the new version of AB 1634 based upon the concerns expressed by many after witnessing the Senate Local Government Committee hearing.

Appropriations Committee is concerned with the fiscal impact of AB 1634.  In your letter, please emphasize the following points:

When the legislature approved the Hayden Bill, they were told by the Finance Department there would be no cost to the State; the adoption fees would cover the expense.  Finance was wrong and the City of Los Angeles (a primary sponsor of this bill) sued the State of California and prevailed.  The Hayden Bill costs California, per the Legislative Budget Analyst's office, $20 million each and every year. 

AB 1634 will increase reimbursement costs to California. The reimbursement claimed under the Hayden Act were nearly $16 million in 2006-2007 and the LAO predicts claims of over $23 million in 2008-2009. AB 1634 would inrease this amount by adding another category of offender-- millions of California pet owners who have intact pets.

All current costs discussed by Levine are local government expenses.  They are not State expenses.  Funding this mandate will be a new State expense.

The Animal Control community is expecting reimbursement from the State under this proposed mandate.  Los Angeles City Animal Services Director, Ed Boks testified to that before the Local Government Committee.   He stated the local governments did not have the necessary resources but said that in the long term money would be saved.  No one knows if this law would be effective.  But any monies saved would be saved in other areas of local budgets; any change shelter operation costs would not affect reimbursement requests to the state under this mandate.  

It would take the collection of 1000 $50 fines to pay for one entry level animal control position with salaries and benefits.  That does not include vehicles and fuel to follow up on every complaint.  And unlike the animal adoption fees, which failed to fund the Hayden bill, people will not be anxious to pay these fines.  Each community will need a collection and administrative process to get any of the fees.  Some people will turn in their dogs rather than pay.  Some people will sterilize their dogs rather than pay.  Meanwhile, the expenses of administering the program still need to be paid.  And because this is an animal mandate, all those costs will be reimbursable from the state to the various municipalities.  If each entity which reports rabies information to the State adds just one officer, the cost will exceed $4.5 million each year. 

The Legislative Analysts Office report (full report can be found on the CDOC website) on page 106 points out that the effect of the Hayden Act is "shelters do not get more funds if more households adopt animals.  Rather shelters that euthanize the most animals receive the most state funds.  Shelters that are the must successful in promoting adoptions receive the least state funds."  The report recommends repealing the elements of the Hayden Act that make it a mandate.  It further states that "Given mandate law's focus on reimbursing ,local governments for activities, rather than the achievement of policy objectives, few state objectives are suitable to implementation as mandates."
 
None of the reimbursement language was in the original bill.  The reimbursement language is worked out by the Commission on Mandates when the states apply for reimbursement.  Given the budget problems in California, it is inconceivable that all the Democrats will fall in line to create another multi-million dollar budget burden.

AB 1634 is flawed in that the goal is not met by the bill. Making the keeping of an intact pet an actionable offense will do nothing to reduce the overpopulation of unwanted animals. The focus should remain on animals that are roaming "at large" without owner knowledge and control.

By imposing higher penalties and ultimately mandating the sterilization of "repeat offenders;" there is the risk of an increase of owner surrendered animals. In these economically critical times, people cannot be forced to choose between their pets and extreme penalties. Relinquished pets will increase shelter intakes and the number of days an animal must be held by law. These are reimburseable costs that will increase expenses for the State. There will also be the risk of higher euthanasia rates as shelter numbers increase and few reclaims by owners for pets that are impounded.

Assembly Member Levine has stated that AB 1634 will save the state $300 million. Remember, that number is the budget for ALL of the animal services in the State of California and has nothing to do with the cost of euthanizing animals.

There is additional information on the CDOC website www.cdoca.org  under ACTION ITEMS. Please get those letters in NOW.

Laura Finco

Contact Information for Senate Appropriations Committee:

Tom Torklakson, Chairman (D)
State Capitol, Room 5050
Sacramento,  CA  95814
Phone:(916) 651-4007
FAX: (916) 445-2527

Dave Cox - Vice Chair (R)
State Capitol, Room 3060
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4018
Fax: (916) 322-3304

Sam Aanestad
State Capitol, Room 3060
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4018
Fax: (916) 322-3304

Roy Ashburn (R)
State Capitol, Room 3060
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4018
Fax: (916) 322-3304

Gilbert Cedillo (D)
State Capitol, Room 5100
Sacramento,  CA  95814
Phone:  (916) 651-4022
Fax: (916) 337-8817

Ellen Corbett (D)
State Capitol, Room 3092
Sacramento,  CA  95814
Phone:  (916) 651-4010
Fax: (916) 337-2433

Robert Dutton (R)
State Capitol, Room 5094
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4031
Fax: (916) 327-2272

Dean Flores (D)
State Capitol, Room 5061
Sacramento,  CA  95814
Phone:  (916) 651-4016
Fax: (916) 327-5989

Shiela Kuehl (D)
State Capitol, Room 5108
Sacramento,  CA  95814
Phone:  (916) 651-4023
Fax:  (916) 324-4823

Jenny Oropeza (D)
State Capitol, Room 4074
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4028
Fax: (916) 323-6056

Mark Ridley-Thomas
State Capitol, Room 4061
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4026
Fax: (916) 445-8899

George Runner (R)
State Capitol, Room 5097
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4017
Fax: (916) 445-4662

Joe Simitian (D)
State Capitol, Room 2080
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4011
Fax: (916) 323-4529

Mark Wyland (R)
State Capitol, Room 2080
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4011
Fax: (916) 323-4529

Leeland Yee (D)
State Capitol, Room 4048
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4008
Fax: (916) 327-2186

Committee Staff Director
Bob Franzoia
Room 2206
(916) 651-4101
This committee does not give their fax number out and want everything via mail.
 
Friday June 27, 2008
Concerned Dog Owners of California

June 26, 2008
 
MANDATORY SPAY AND NEUTER IS GONE
Now we have the Canine Patriot Act

Local Government Moves AB1634 Ahead
 

 
     As expected, AB1634 moved ahead yesterday on a party vote 3-2.  None of the amendments that were submitted to correct the flaws in the bill, especially Section 2 were addressed.  As a result the bill was opposed by a huge margin.  But this time the will of the constituents did not matter to the Democratic Senators.  Particularly galling was Senator Chris Kehoe who did not even have the courtesy to listen to the arguments before racing in to cast her aye vote.
 
     And what were the arguments that were made to the Committee to pass this in its flawed state?  Mr. Boks gave Chair McLeod a flat statement there would not ever be a time when a responsible person who kept their animals in their yard would ever be the subject of a bogus complaint.  He tried to equivocate on this because even though he was not testifying under oath, the enormity of telling such a flagrant lie bothered even him.  But McLeod insisted on a yes or no, so he gave her a no.
 
     Levine also used his famous seat belt analogy pointing out that, years ago, you could be stopped for a vehicle violation and whether or not the vehicle violation was valid, if you were not wearing a seat belt, police could ticket you for that as a secondary offense.  What the Democrats did not want to address is that fact that in Levine's scenario there was a seat belt law on the books.  A major difference - There is no law making it illegal to have an intact dog.
 
     So without changing Section 2 of AB1634 the situation exists where a responsible dog owner, with an intact license for their dog (if they live in a municipality that requires this), is the subject of a frivolous complaint and then gets a civil penalty for having that intact dog.  It's almost beyond belief that they could have come up with this and it is mind-boggling that Senators Negrete McLeod, Machado and Kehoe would vote for it. 
 
     CDOC supports the section of the bill that penalizes dogs with multiple impounds as the result of constantly running loose.  That is a good example of where there is a punishment because of actual deeds.  As we have said before, an altered roaming dog is no less of a public safety issue, but it cannot reproduce.  We have suggested that community service be offered as an alternative to fines so we don't increase dogs at the shelter.  And we support NAIA's recommendation that these roaming dogs are permanently identified by some means at the first impound so animal control can really know if they are picked up again.   We also strongly support that Section of the bill that would withhold reimbursements from shelters that do not file their reports with the Department of Health Services on a timely basis.
 
     Immediately following the hearing CDOC Directors met with Don Wilcox, Chief of Staff for Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod to again express our opposition.  We left believing perhaps Mr. Wilcox now understands how bad section 2 of the bill is. We were told they had planned to start adding exemptions but that, of course, is a road we have been down before and it is unacceptable.  CDOC is here to protect all dogs and their owners, not the chosen few who get an exemption.
 
     CDOC is not a knee-jerk organization.  We do not oppose this bill just because it has AB1634 as a number.  As we have said all along, Section 2 should be deleted.  Barring that, 'complaint' should be taken out of the bill altogether  and there can be no secondary citation without an actual citation from animal control for a REAL violation of law that is upheld through an appeal process, if such an appeal is desired by the recipient of the citation.  This is a must.
 
     Section 2, as written and described by Levine, allows any individual to offer multiple oral complaints against a person giving animal control a reason to go in and issue citations for this "secondary offense".  Mr. Boks even said that he knows who these people are.  And I am sure some of the people Boks wants to run this scam on are indeed irresponsible dog owners.  But to listen to the Local Government Committee to grant Boks, Levine and Mancuso these police powers was shocking.
 

     It may be that Senator Negrete McLeod did not understand Levine's original intent when she worked on amendments.  And it is a win for the health of dogs that across the board mandatory spay and neuter is no longer an issue.  But the new ability to investigate people based on anonymous phone calls and, even though the subject of the call turns out to be invalid, to be able to issue a citation and require a civil penalty for legally owning a dog is nothing less than the Canine Patriot Act.  Everyone is under suspicion, presumed guilty and privacy is non-existent.

      We have much to do to make sure this bill does not go further and to make sure that all dog owners in the state are made aware of these new police powers.  Please see Action Items on the CDOC website and join us in making sure this goes not further. 
Wednesday June 25, 2008 A gutted and re-written AB1634 passed 3 yes, 2 no this morning.  This bill now moves on to the Senate Appropriations Committee.   http://www.senate.ca.gov/  
 
Thursday June 19, 2008

 

Spay-neuter bill gets gutted in committee

By Malcolm Maclachlan (published Thursday, June 19, 2008)

One of the most controversial bills of the year looks like it will finally get to the Senate floor soon--though is a very altered form.

AB 1634, from Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, originally called for spaying or neutering of any dog or cat over six months of age, with exceptions for breeders, working animals and some others. As amended in the Senate Local Government Committee, the new version calls for the sterilization only of a dog that has been taken into the shelter system three times or a cat that has been in twice.

Levine met on Monday with Senator Gloria Negrete-McLeod, D-Chino, according to both offices. She said changes needed to be made to get the votes to get the bill out of committee and onto the Senate floor, and Levine agreed. Negrete-McLeod now appears as a principal coauthor on the bill.

"I don't think this will satisfy the extremists on either side of the, but this is better policy," Negrete-McLeon said. She added, "You have a bad dog, snip-snip."

Titled the California Healthy Pets Act, it was one of the most talked-about bills of last year. Legislative offices reported getting huge amounts of mail, phone calls, emails and faxes on the bill. Levine made several amendments last year, mainly around creating exemptions for particular classes of dogs and cats, as he tried to placate the opponents. But he said he was not disappointed over moving forward with a much less sweeping bill, noting that it will result in the spaying/neutering of some of the most problematic animals.

"It's the legislative process," Levine said. "You never get everything you want. The purpose of my legislation was to address the serious problem of cat and dog overpopulation. I feel that this will help us accomplish that goal. I'm not unhappy with it. One of the first things they tell you when you come to work in the Capitol is ‘never fall in love with your bills.'"

Judie Mancuso, the campaign director behind the effort to pass AB 1634, was less positive about the changes. For one thing, she said, the home foreclosure crisis is worsening the overpopulation problem at shelters as people give up pets when they move out of owned houses into rented apartments. For all of 2006, she said, California shelters took in 375,000 dogs, euthanizing 146,000. For 2007, shelters took in 419,000 dogs-but 10 counties have not yet reported all their numbers for last year, compared to only one that hasn't reported 2006 numbers. The 2008 numbers, she said, are looking even worse.

She also pointed to numerous other governments around the country-including the state legislatures of Arizona and Rhode Island-that have modeled bills on AB 1634.

"The rest of the country has long looked to our lead," Mancuso said. "The thing that concerns me is the message we're sending out is this is all we can do."



 

State mandatory spay-neuter bill appears dead

By JAMES BURGER, Californian staff writer
e-mail: jburger@bakersfield.com | Thursday, Jun 19 2008 9:33 AM

Last Updated: Thursday, Jun 19 2008 10:09 AM

For all intents and purposes, a statewide mandatory spay-neuter bill died this week.

Blogs:

§       What do you think of the bill's "death"? Comment and read the bill for yourself on the blog.

Its proposed language would have made it illegal to have an unsterilized animal without a permit in California.

The bill, which passed the California Assembly in 2007, was bottlenecked in a Senate committee until earlier this week, according to a letter posted by AB 1634 organizer Judie Mancuso on the California Healthy Pets Act Web site Wednesday.

At that time, the letter states, Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod proposed amendments to the bill that completely removed mandatory spay-neuter provisions.

The new language was made public Thursday morning.

“Senator Negrete McLeod chairs the Senate Local Government Committee where AB 1634 has been held since mid-2007. The senator presented amendments that remove all the current language of the bill and replace it with new language her office developed,” Mancuso wrote.

The bill’s author, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, agreed to the changes.

Text of the bill, which is no longer called the California Healthy Pets Act, has been posted on a state legislative information Web site and scheduled for a hearing before Negrete McLeod’s committee on June 25.

It swaps mandatory spay-neuter rules for an increase in fines on the owners of dogs whose animals are repeatedly impounded by animal control officials.

Fines on dog owners would be $50 for a first impoundment (up from $35), $100 for the second occurrence (up from $50), and would make spay-neuter mandatory on a third impound.

Cat owners would face a $50 fine on a first impoundment and spay-neuter on a second impoundment.

“I know many of you will not be happy with this proposal, and I am personally deeply disappointed that AB 1634 has been rewritten by Senator Negrete McLeod,” Mancuso wrote.

Kern County Animal Control chief Denise Haynes said the new legislation will have little to no impact on Kern County.

Most of the time, there are not repeat impounds of animals.

Most animals impounded by Kern County Animal Control — two-thirds in 2007 — are euthanized.

The 18,669 animals euthanized in Kern County in 2007 prompted Kern County supervisors to consider local mandatory spay-neuter laws. Last week they announced they did not support the idea.

“The third impound spay and neuter is not going to have an impact on the numbers. We don’t get a lot of dogs three times. It would be great if we could (spay or neuter) the first time a dog comes in here,” Haynes said.
 

Thursday June 19, 2008

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATIVE ALERT:  Action has been taken on a Bill - AB1634
Click Here  AB1634

 

Ngrete McLeod Rewrites AB1634
 

    A completely revised AB1634, now co-authored by Senator Ngrete McLeod, Chairman of the Local Government Committee, can be found here and on this page of the CDOC website.  This page will be updated all day.

Under this version mandatory spay and neuter is no longer discussed except as a remedy for dogs about whom complaints, which cannot be barking dog complaints, have been made to animal control. Presumably this would include loose and roaming dogs but would be more inclusive. At the third complaint for dogs, the owner would be required to have the dog altered at his expense. Further the fines for complaints are increased.

This would still be a state mandated program which means it could cost the state money. The last state mandated program was the Hayden Act which costs California $23 million a year. And this also still leaves dog owners at the mercy of their neighbors.
 
Wednesday June 18, 2008
 Concerned Dog Owners of California

June 18, 2008

 
LEVINE ASKS FOR HEARING ON 25TH
 
 
 
LEVINE WANTS LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO PASS AB1634 THIS NEXT WEDNESDAY
 

    Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has asked that AB1634 be once again placed before the Local Government Committee.  Evidently Levine either plans to go ahead without amendments or he has amendments which have not been made public.  CDOC's representative in Sacramento, Scott Sadler has been told the Committee can talk to us about it later in the day. 

     We will keep the CDOC website updated during the day as we get information and we will get another bulletin out when amendments are revealed.  We know many of you have already made plans to be in Sacramento for Bark at the Capitol.  For those of you who would not have been there, please plan to be in Sacramento early on Wednesday, the 25th to show your opposition.

 

Wednesday June 11, 2008
Permission to forward and cross post
 
Kern County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously 4-0 (Rubio was absent) to reject the ordinance which was presented and which included mandatory spay and neuter.  The Supervisors have requested that David Price and the Animal Commission go back to the drawing board and some up with some new ideas for increasing licensing (enforcing existing laws) and bring that back to the Board of Supervisors late in August.
 
The Chairman of the Commission, who was pushing for MSN got 15 minutes to talk.  Then each side got 30 minutes with the proponents of MSN going first.  Of the 12 supporters who spoke, only 5 were from Kern County.  The others included people we know well, most from Los Angeles.  Ed Buck, Curt Ransome of HSUS, someone from In Support of Animals (who introduces herself as an educator and a puppy mill investigator), Mary Catalono from Rescue Round Table and Patty Shankar among others. 
 
Patty Shankar may be familiar to some as Levine's big money donor on elephants, the real estate agent from Pacific Palisades.  And it turns out Shankar paid to have the "Zagby Poll" conducted and says it is the only scientific poll.  No wonder we see it everywhere. 
 
On the opposing side, although there were several from outside Kern County, all the opponents were constituents and voters.  And they did a terrific job. Kudos to the Kern County coalition for organizing and voicing to their supervisors. This again is evidence of what can happen when we all work together. Besides CDOC, Judy Coffman of California Federation of Dog Clubs was there (and had been to basically all of the meetings this last year) and she spoke. And Terry Toussaint was there to support. Bottom line, all of the Bakersfield and Kern County people said the right things. We are learning from each meeting and each hearing and getting better prepared.
 
I apologize if I missed anyone specific but this effort was definitely collective and couldn't have been done without the speakers, constituents, letters, and faxes as well as the support of everyone involved in the fight against anti-dog legislation.
Monday June 9, 2008
CDOC UPDATE
JUNE  25th IN SACRAMENTO.
BE THERE!

    In speaking with the staff of the Local Government Committee this morning we were told that the agenda on the 18th is closed. 

 
We were told the only opportunity for AB1634 to be heard
will be on the 25th of June

 
 
     The 25th of June has also been proclaimed by the Mayor as CDOC "Day of the Dog" in Sacramento, a day when we celebrate dogs and our special relationship with them.  So please make plans to be in Sacramento on Wednesday, June 25th.  Whether Assemblyman Lloyd Levine offers amendments to get AB1634 or whether he just allows the bill to die as is (remember he always has that "gut and amend" process) it will be a red letter day.
 

     Bark at the Capitol is our opportunity to show just how many voters there are who are for the dogs and for responsible dog ownership.  CDOC will have legislative packets for you.  So, in addition to joining the celebration of dogs and speaking up against AB1634 if the Committee hears it, you can also visit your legislators with information on what responsible dog owners are doing to address concerns.

     Information on Bark at the Capitol can be found here.
 
 
    Defeating AB1634 is just the first item on our agenda.  We need to educate people on the failures and health risks of the sterilization of owned dogs in several jurisdictions, beginning with Kern County.   

 
2:00 pm in at Kern County Board of Supervisors,
1115 Truxton Ave in Bakersfield.  More information here.


Permission to forward.
Saturday June 7, 2008 STATUS update from CDOC:  As of today, June 7th AB1634 is NOT on the schedule to be brought back June 18th.  Keep checking for daily and sometimes hourly updates

 
Thursday June 5, 2008 ALERT:  WEDNESDAY JUNE 18, 2008

http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation/CA_action_center.cfm

CA Spay/Neuter Action Center

Final Hearing for California Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill
Assembly Bill 1634, which would require the spaying/neutering of all dogs and cats over six months of age unless the owner qualifies for and purchases an intact animal permit, is expected to be heard for a final time in the Senate Local Government Committee on June 18th. This is the last scheduled meeting of that committee before the June 27th deadline by which bills must be heard by the policy committee.
Concerned dog owners and breeders are encouraged to start making travel arrangements to attend the hearing. It is also vital that folks contact their State Senator and the members of the Senate Local Government Committee and reinforce why AB 1634 and mandatory spay/neuter is not an effective solution to animal control issues. As always, please remember to be polite and respectful in your communications with elected officials.
As more details about the hearing become available we will post updates on our website. Thank you for your attention to this important issue.
What You Can Do
     •    
Contact your State Senator and reinforce your opposition to AB 1634. Sample letters can be found in the column on the right-hand side of this post. To find out who represents you in the California State Senate, please click here.
     •    
Contact the Senate Local Government Committee and ask them to oppose AB 1634. Contact information for the committee and members can be found here.


For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
 
Wednesday June 4, 2008 Lloyd Who?
for those living in the valley wishing to seek employment, we will be glad to post your local unemployment offices contact information...
EDD-Employment Development Dept.
San Fernando Valley (818) 890-9429
11623 Glenoaks Blvd., Pacoima


Blumenfeld, TAKE NOTE of her two to 1 victory over Mr. AB1634, this should help guide you in your future endorsements of such Extremist Animal Extinction Legislation...


Fran Pavley—An Environmental Legend—Wins Democratic Primary for Kuehl Senate Seat
 

Beats Assemblymember Lloyd Levine by Two-to-One

By Frank D. Russo
Fran Pavley, served three terms in the California State Assembly before having to leave because of term limits, has decisively won the Democratic primary and will be returning to the State Senate to succeed Sheila Kuehl in representing the parts of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, including the San Fernando Valley and Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and the Westside of Los Angeles.

Those are big shoes to fill, but Pavley is considered a legend in her own time by environmental groups as the author of the “Pavley Bill,” AB 1493 on tail pipe emissions of greenhouse gases that recently was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and has been fought by the Bush administration. She also was the author of AB 32, the landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, along with then Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez. AB 32 was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger and has been widely touted nationally as a model for other states as well as internationally. Her leadership on the most important environmental issue facing the world in the 21st Century has been recognized by many entities, including being selected as one of Scientific American's Top Technology Leaders in Transportation, and receiving the 2006 California League of Conservation Voters "Global Warming Leadership Award" along with former Vice President Al Gore.

Pavley won with 66.4% of the vote to current Assemblymember Lloyd Levine’s 33.6% to win the Democratic nomination. She carried both the Los Angeles County part of the district as well as the smaller portion in Ventura County.

She was endorsed by Senator Sheila Kuehl for the seat that Kuehl has had to leave due to term limits.

Pavley was also endorsed by the California League of Conservation Voters, despite Levine having a perfect 100% rating on the organization’s environmental scorecard for his votes on legislation in 2006 and 2007.

Her AB 1493 requires the Air Resources Board to adopt regulations that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light duty trucks by 30% by the year 2016. It was the first bill of its kind in the country and was featured on a special segment on the PBS, which you can watch.

In the Assembly, she became known as one of the most effective legislators, seeing over 70 of her bills and resolutions become law. She focused on education, the environment, consumer protection, public safety and creating a clean, secure energy future for California and the U.S.

It’s not as if the voters in this district had a bad choice between her and Levine. He has authored significant environmental legislation including the recycling of plastic bags and discouraging their use in markets and drug stores. He’s also spearheaded a movement to phase out the use of incandescent light bulbs in California for more efficient ones.

And Levine has not been shy in tackling difficult policy areas –for instance carrying legislation to make pet spaying and neutering mandatory. This and other legislation on death with dignity, modeled after Oregon’s law have drawn him the wrath of those opposed. In fact, AB 1634, the Healthy Pets Act received so much mail that it broke fax machines in the Capitol.

We carried an article in April of 2007 looking at this race and predicting that Pavley would prevail on the basis of polling and name identification.

We’ll miss Levine and welcome Fran Pavley to the Senate. She should have no difficulty in winning in November.

Posted on June 04, 2008


 

Wednesday June 4, 2008
Permission to crosspost the below information is granted.

Mandatory Spay/Castration Laws are Not Popular
with the Public.

A quick review of online polls taken within the past several months indicate an overwhelming majority of respondents oppose government requirements that pets have their reproductive organs removed.
 
1. Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, author of last year's sidelined bill AB1634 ran a poll on his website early in 2008 posing the question, "Do you support the LA City Ordinance and AB 1634?"  The results:  29.01% voted YES, and 70.99% voted NO.  The results are no longer posted on his website.
-         see:  http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a40/mainpage.htm
-         a downloadable PDF with a partial screenshot of the website poll is found here:  http://petpac.net/ab1634_disaster
 
2. Ed Boks, Director of Los Angeles Animal Services ran a poll on his blog asking how Angelinos felt about mandated pet sterilization.  Results: the public voted about 12% in favor and 87% against such a law.  The question was supposed to run for almost a month, but was pulled after several days.  The results are no longer posted on his blog, though the results may be found in a search of other online sites which noted the results.
-         see: http://www.laanimalservices.blogspot.com/
 
3. A current online poll by MSNBC.com asks, "Do you support legislation that would require spay/neuter surgery for pets by ages 4 to 6 months?"  On June 3rd, 2008 the results are currently 22% YES, 76% NO and 1.6% Undecided out of 4,825 responses.
-         see: http://www.msnbc..msn.com/id24657403


 
4. PARADE Magazine polled its' readers at Parade.com in April and May 2008 on the question, "Should owners be required to sterilize their pets?"  The results: 9% YES (5026 votes) and 91% NO (47,951 votes).  Total votes were 52,977 as of June 3rd, 2008. 
-         see:  http://www.parade.com/opencms/opencms/aritcles/editions/2008/edition_03-16-2008_Report
 
This was actually the second poll run by www.parade.com  on this question.  The first poll, taken during March 2008, was ended on 3-27-08 due to an 'overwhelming response to our poll and the strain on our servers.' More robust polling software was used to collect the latter data. The results of that first poll were Yes: 22% and NO: 78% (41,798 votes).
 
5. In <st1><st1>Wes, an online poll at gazettemailpets.com asked the question, "Do you believe we should have mandatory spay/neuter laws in WV?"  As of June 3rd, 2008 the poll response is 11% YES (340 votes) to89% NO (2868 votes).
-         see: http://www.gazettemailpets.com
6. On June 2, 2008 an online poll was conducted by TV station Channel 5, WRAL in North Carolina asked the question, "Do you support requiring all pet owners to have their dogs and cats spayed or neutered?"  This poll provided a number of possible responses, with results as follows after one day:
36% (2037 votes) – Yes, it'll keep unadopted cats and dogs from being euthanized
6% (320 votes)     - Yes, it'll save taxpayer money
46% (2651 votes) – No, it infringes on the rights of pet owners
8% (471 votes)     – No, it seems impractical or ineffective
4% (249 votes)     – Not sure
 
42% total voted Yes; 54% total voted NO from a total of 5,728 votes.  The poll was online for one day, then removed.  See: http://wral.com
 

Tuesday June 3, 2008 (thanks Brat!)

This morning (Monday, 2 June) Diane Amble visited the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to meet with the supervisors and their staff and to personally deliver information regarding AB1634. The "truth" about AB1634 that is.

With that said, it should not be a surprise to anyone to learn that Judie Mancuso was already there at the offices of the supervisors ... a busy girl buzzing in & out and catting about the corridors as she hopes to acquire another feather in her cap so that she can continue pushing her AR agenda and paying for her home on the beach.

Mancuso has urged her faithful followers a/k/a "usual suspects" to be in attendance because "a very important milestone for pets in California is approaching." While "she" is most likely referencing her "date with destiny" (Wednesday, 18 June) when AB1634 will be heard (rumour has it), Lloyd Levine has another thought in mind to be sure.

It is my hope/fervent wish/desire/whatever that there will be "a very important milestone" TOMORROW, 3 JUNE. Assemblymember Lloyd Levine, the puppet of AB1634, will be watching FRANtically and waiting to see if his dreams of a Senate career circle the drain. Will he need to consider a new career? Will his clock be cleaned by Fran Pavley?

PLEASE ... tell all your friends. GET OUT & VOTE!

While Mancuso & Company are busying themselves in San Jose and abandoning Lloyd The Bachelor somewhere in the City of Angels, you can be at the polls voting, calling your friends in his district, and changing the course of history.

Tuesday, 3 June, at 9:30am the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors will be voting on a resolution to "adopt" AB1634.

Mancuso has been working overtime recently with her new highway billboards and her new advertisements in the CAPITOL ROUNDUP. We all know advertising does not grow magically on trees. She is well-financed in her efforts. She fretted so over her use of the word "mandatory" that she has decided to replace it with "universal." (What's next, Judie?) Her Zogby poll regarding the numbers of individuals that vote "yes" are merely another wild fantasy on her part. If you can't tell the truth, manufacture it, eh?

Mancuso has decided to soften her approach in year two of mandatory spay neuter vs. reality. She signs her letters with "warm regards." Personally, I am having a bit of difficulty finding warmth in anything she shovels. She concluded her most recent poison pen with "I am a volunteer." If anyone believes that, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn and swamp land in Florida to sell.

She informs her readers that "We don't stand to gain anything except a better future for our cats and dogs." Excuse me while I cough a fur ball.

AB1634 won't save lives and it won't save money. Attend the meeting (3 June) at 9:30am. Location is 70 West Hedding Street in San Jose. Board Chambers are located on the 1st floor. Plan to arrive early at 9am and fill out a speaker's card for Item 28a.

Tell the Supervisors that the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) withdrew their support for MSN last year after opposition by its member veterinarians!!

VOTE FOR FRAN PAVLEY!!

WATCH THE ELECTION RESULTS!!

CALL/WRITE THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS!!

Thank you.
Brat Zinsmaster
 
Saturday May 17, 2008 AB2291 Passed the Assembly   64 to 10

MEASURE :  A.B. No. 2291
AUTHOR(S) :  Mendoza.
TOPIC :  Taxpayer contributions: Low Cost/Free Spay-Neuter Fund.
HOUSE LOCATION :  SEN
LAST AMENDED DATE  :  04/21/2008

AB 2291, as introduced, Mendoza. Taxpayer contributions: Low
Cost/Free Spay-Neuter Fund.
   Existing law, relating to the administration of personal income
taxes, authorizes individual taxpayers to contribute amounts in
excess of their tax liability for the support of specified funds or
accounts.
   This bill would allow taxpayers to designate on their tax returns,
that a specified amount in excess of their tax liability be
transferred to the Low Cost/Free Spay-Neuter Fund, which would be
created by this bill. However, the bill would provide that a
voluntary contribution designation for this fund may not be added on
the tax return until another voluntary contribution designation is
removed from the return.
   This bill would provide that all moneys contributed to the fund
pursuant to these provisions, upon appropriation by the Legislature,
be allocated to the Franchise Tax Board and the Controller for
reimbursement of costs, as provided, and to the appropriate state
department as established by the Department of Food and Agriculture
for allocation to municipal shelters for the purposes of providing
low cost or free spay-neuter services.   READ MORE
 
Wednesday May 7, 2008 From Diane Jones:

http://sbcounty.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=4

For those of you who were in attendance today- THANK YOU.  For those who spoke, thank you even more.  I want to thank Bill Hemby (
http://www.petpac.net/) and Cathie Turner (http://www.cdoca.org/) who both came to Santa Barbara, met with locals and shared insight which helped us prepare for today.  Everyone else from all the local and distant clubs and organizations I hope you will accept this generic thank you for your attendance and continued support of areas fighting Mandatory Sterilization.  Thank you to all the individuals, groups who made telephone calls sent emails, faxes, cards and met with our Supervisors.

The item has moved to a task force which is to be created.  Each supervisor will be able to propose 2 to the task force except the Chair who will have 3.  The task force will be created from Constituents.  More information to follow.

Please take a few minutes this week to thank the Supervisors for listening to their constituents and others who spoke today and please continue them to educate them why Mandatory Sterilization will not succeed.

Diane Jones Legislation for
Channel City Kennel Club
Santa Barbara, CA
 
Saturday April 26, 2008
Bob Barker's 'Right' to Free Speech Comes with a 'Price'

Recent Comments Made by TV Game Show Host Spark Controversy

    LOS ANGELES, April 25 /PRNewswire/ -- Bob Barker, the long-time host of
the television game show "The Price Is Right," recently spoke out against
Concerned Dog Owners of California (CDOC), a non-profit group formed to
support responsible dog ownership. The group has spoken out against the
mandatory spay and neuter law that went into effect this month in Los
Angeles County. In a letter bearing his name designed to raise funds for
the State Senate candidacy of California assemblyman Lloyd Levine, Barker
stated, "A group calling itself Concerned Dog Owners of California has been
created for the express purpose of trying to defeat Lloyd in this campaign.
These foes of humane treatment of animals have hired a political consultant
and are raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to oppose Lloyd in his
campaign for the State Senate. We cannot let them succeed."

    In response Cathie Turner, CDOC's Executive Director issued a statement
declaring, "CDOC was formed long before Assemblymember Levine even
announced his candidacy for the State Senate." Turner added, "Just one of
CDOC's projects is to educate the public about the hazards of too-young
mandatory spay/neuter and about better ways of addressing the problem of
unwanted pets such as education and low-cost and voluntary spay/neuter at
the appropriate age. We certainly did not create this organization to
defeat Lloyd Levine."

    CDOC is a 501(c)(3) organization which by law cannot endorse a
candidate for office or raise funds for a candidate. According to Turner,
inaccurate comments such as those by Barker can jeopardize a non-profit
organization's tax-free status. CDOC claims they have never raised nor
spent a single penny to defeat Lloyd Levine or to elect his opponent.
Turner continues, "Far from being 'foes of humane treatment of animals,'
CDOC has promoted legislation, including a bill that would enable
Californians to check off a box on their tax returns to donate money for
education and low-cost voluntary spay/neuter programs, and a bill which
would create a 'Responsible Dog Owner' license plate, again to raise money
for programs that have far greater prospects for success than early,
mandatory spay/neuter laws."

    The results of a recent Parade magazine poll further show the
communities' overwhelming support of CDOC's efforts, with 91 percent of all
participating pet owners voting against a mandatory spay/neuter law.
(Results current as of April 22, 2008)


    Concerned Dog Owners of California, an inclusive organization is
comprised of individual dog owners across California, believes in promoting
voluntary altering at a time chosen by the owner and the veterinarian of a
dog. The reality of mandatory spay and neuter programs is that they can
result in an increased number of animals being surrendered because their
owners cannot afford sterilization, which costs upwards of $200 in the City
of Los Angeles, unless subsidized by the City. Voluntary programs, on the
other hand, have reduced dog euthanasia by 74 percent in the last six years
in Los Angeles alone.

    About CDOC:

    The mission of Concerned Dog Owners of California (CDOC) is to provide
information and education to the general public as well as elected
officials and others so that legislation and regulation will promote the
health, well-being and appropriate care of all dogs, protect the rights and
responsibilities of dog owners and breeders, and support responsible dog
ownership. For more information on CDOC, please visit:
http://www.cdoca.org/
 

 

Friday April 25, 2008

Lawsuit Filed Over Los Angeles

Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance
Issues Pertain To Every State And Municipality

by JOHN YATES
The American Sporting Dog Alliance

LOS ANGELES, CA – Concerned Dog Owners of California filed a lawsuit this week against the City of Los Angeles, seeking to overturn a new ordinance mandating the spaying and neutering of all dogs.
The lawsuit is primarily based on constitutional grounds, and alleges that the ordinance violates the civil rights of dog owners in several ways.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance believes that the importance of this lawsuit extends far beyond the City of Los Angeles. It marks the first of several anticipated legal challenges to onerous laws and ordinances as dog owners turn to the courts to fight for their rights on constitutional grounds. This lawsuit is based on legal issues that exist in every state.

An estimated 1.85 million Los Angeles residents have at least one dog or cat.

The ordinance mandates the sterilization of all pets at four months of age. An exemption can be obtained by purchasing a breeder’s permit, for a dog registered with an approved national registry and is being shown or used in competition, and for other categories such as seeing-eye dogs and police dogs. Fines and penalties are provided for violations.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance (ASDA) strongly supports Concerned Dog Owners of California in this lawsuit. Mandatory sterilization laws and ordinances violate the basic rights of dog owners in many ways, and ASDA considers them a major part of the hidden animal rights agenda to eliminate the private ownership of animals. We urge our members and all dog owners to offer their full support to Concerned Dog Owners of California, and also to financially assist this group to pay for the cost of the lawsuit. They can be reached online at
http://www.cdoca.org

Here is a summary of the legal issues in the lawsuit:

It violates the rights and familial relationships of 650,000 pet-owning households.

The options provided in the ordinance to avoid pet sterilization are not constitutionally valid. It infringes on basic rights of freedom of association, freedom of speech, the guarantee of due process and freedom of religion.

It won’t work. The evidence is clear in communities that have passed similar ordinances. Similar ordinances have been proven to increase the number of dogs euthanized, increase shelter admissions, increase the costs of dog control programs and increase noncompliance with licensing requirements.

It will increase the number of puppies born, because people will choose to get a breeding permit and to breed their dog simply to avoid mandates to spay and neuter.

It exposes pets to unjustified risks to their health. Current research shows that many significant and sometimes fatal health problems are associated with sterilization, especially at a young age.

Pet owners are threatened with immediate and irrevocable injury when the ordinance takes effect October 1.  Existing laws are not being enforced. An estimated 75% of the pets in the city are not even licensed. Other proven means of reducing shelter admissions and euthanasia rates have not been tried.

Much of the ordinance, including the basis for exemptions, is arbitrary and capricious, ambiguous and discriminatory.

The lawsuit states its case succinctly: “Owners who wish to keep their healthy pets unaltered have no constitutionally valid options to the MSP (mandatory spay and neuter) ordinance. Although the ordinance provides for six alleged ‘exemptions,’ and a breeder’s permit, these exemptions and the breeder’s permit are, in actuality, nothing more than arbitrary and capricious compelled associations that violate an owner’s fundamental free speech rights.”

The ordinance forces a dog owner to join an organization approved by the city, and to identify her/himself as a breeder, which is state-compelled speech, the document says. By requiring the city to approve of a dog owner’s membership in an organization, such as a dog registry or club, government is both compelling membership and dictating a list of acceptable organizations that a person is forced to join. The ordinance then mandates that a dog must compete in an event sanctioned by one of those approved organizations, or is in the process of being trained to compete.

To obtain a breeder’s exemption, a dog owner also is compelled to join one of those approved organizations and identify him/herself as a participant of that organization, which is an infringement of free speech, the documents show. The right of free speech is infringed by forcing a dog owner to identify her/himself as a breeder on government documents that are available to public inspection.

In essence, a person is forced to say, “I am a breeder,” even if the person does not consider her/himself to be a breeder, or if he/she is personally opposed to breeding.

Documents were attached to the court filing to show examples of harassment and vilification of breeders that were distributed by the groups that support the ordinance. In essence, identifying oneself as a “breeder” exposes the person to danger, harassment and defamation of character as consequences of government-compelle Documents.   Several religious groups prohibit their members from sterilizing an animal. These groups include Orthodox Judaism and the Jehovah’s Witness faith. Members of these faiths are unable to sterilize their pets without violating their religious beliefs, which puts the city in the position of violating their constitutionally protected freedom of religion. Los Angeles has the second largest community of Orthodox Jews in the nation.

The ordinance also gives the city the power to forcibly seize and confiscate pets that are not spayed or neutered, if their owners are not granted one of the arbitrary allowed exemptions. This violates the pet’s owner constitutionally guaranteed rights of due process under the law, that also are violated because the ordinance does not provide recourse through a hearing.

Forcing a dog owner to spay or neuter also represents an unconstitutional “taking” of property rights, as the ordinance compels taking away the value of a dog’s reproductive capacity, and due process is denied.  To compel pet sterilization also is to deny an owner the freedom to act according to her/his own religious beliefs, personal ideology or political viewpoint, all of which are protected under the U.S. and California Constitutions.

The lawsuit also contends that the City of Los Angeles has failed to take far less draconian actions that have been proven to reduce the number of animals entering shelters, such as enforcing licensing requirements (a reported 75% of the dogs in Los Angeles are not licensed), offering low-cost licensing for puppies that would allow their owners to be educated about the issues, or mandating permanent identification of pets so that animals taken to the shelter could be returned to their owners.

Because of the reported dangers of spaying and neutering (especially at an early age) shown in numerous research findings, the city also is denying dog owners the right to protect their pet’s health and infringing on the relationship between a pet owner and his/her veterinarian.

The ordinance also infringes upon the basic concepts of the liberty and happiness of a pet owner, and also of the relationships between an owner, her or his family, and the pets that are part of their family. Although most pet owners consider their dogs as family, rather than property, they are legally defined as personal property and protected as such under the fundamental right of property in the California Constitution. The ordinance is an arbitrary and capricious “taking” of those property rights by government, especially since the evidence from other communities shows that the ordinance will be counterproductive to its stated goals.

The lawsuit also alleges that the ordinance contains much vague and ambiguous language, such as undefined concepts like “adequately trained” and “poor health,” or not stating clearly what registries have been approved, and which have not.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional, and to order the city not to enforce it.

Please feel free to use any information contained in this report, and also to cross-post it and forward it to your friends.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is the unified voice of sporting dog owners and professionals in America. We work at the grassroots level to defeat unfair legislation and policies that are harmful to dogs and the people who own and work with them. Our work to protect your rights is supported solely by the donations of our members. Your participation and membership are vital to our success.

http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org/

Thursday April 24, 2008

 

Wednesday April 23, 2008 I think this means they get an F...
 
Tuesday April 22, 2008 News:  3:00 pm...CDOC has filed the lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles today, Tuesday April 22, 2008... to overturn the MSN ordinance
 
 
SUCCESS . . . AND OUTRIGHT LIES
AB 2291 PASSES ITS FIRST COMMITTEE
 

    On Monday, April 14th at 1:30 in Room 126, the Committee on Revenue and Taxation approved AB 2291, sponsored by Concerned Dog Owners of California, introduced by Assembly Member Tony Mendoza, supported by dog clubs, individuals and humane organizations.  The bill passed with only one no vote.

    This bill adds a check off box to the California Income Tax Form  so each year we can all contribute $1 for a voluntary spay and neuter fund.  Along with the Responsible Dog owner license plate legislation, this can provide $10,000,000 a year for voluntary spay and neuter - that could mean 30 new mobile vans for California every year.

    If your dog club has not yet looked at this bill and sent a letter of support, we would certainly appreciate your help.  Letters should be sent to
 
Rene Bayardo
Assembly Member Tony Mendoza
P. O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0056
Fax - 916-319-2156

OUTRIGHT LIES
BARKER-ING UP THE WRONG TREE


    Former TV show host and self-proclaimed animal expert Bob Barker has sent an appalling fund-raising letter on behalf of Assemblyman Lloyd Levine.  In this histrionic letter Barker claims, among other things, that CDOC is a foe of the humane treatment of animals. 

   In a time when we are the only organization actually trying to raise funding for voluntary spay and neuter we wonder where Barker gets his information.  Certainly not from the website or literature. 

   Marty Cooper, who represents Concerned Dog Owners of California (and who is not a political consultant) has written an excellent letter to Levine asking him to confirm that he was unaware of this ghastly fund-raiser from Barker.  The entire letter, as well as the Barker letter, can be read here.

   As a 501(3)c, CDOC does not and cannot endorse any political candidates nor can it make donations to candidates.

   But this is a reminder that CDOC only works through your donations.  We hope you will continue to give generously to Concerned Dog Owners of California for our core work of providing information and education to public officials and others on the health and well-being of dogs. 

   Dogs have not changed in the last 30 years.  But the data we have on them has changed enormously.  As dogs have become big business, there have been more and more studies done on canine health and that new information shows there are significant long-term health implications of early spay and neuter.  It is not in the interests of the animal rights community to accept this information; they still think the world is flat and as long as the animals don't die in surgery, everything in OK.  So on behalf of dog owners all over California who want pets that will live long and healthy lives, we need to get this message out. 
Please help with your donation to CDOC.
 

MORE SUPPORT FOR CDOC ACTION

    With the filing of the litigation against the City of Los Angeles scheduled for this week, we would like to acknowledge the latest Clubs to decide it is time to actually fight back for the health of our dogs and the rights of dog owners.

    It should have been mentioned in the last issue that Sierra-Tuolumne Kennel Club, Inc, which was part of the raffle group at the dogs shows two weeks ago.  Meeting the Cabrillo challenge are Beverly Hills Kennel Club and Golden State Rottweiler Club.  Other generous donations have come from the San Francisco Bay West Highland White Terrier Club, Silky Terrier Club of Northern California, Bearded Collie Club of the Golden West, Eugene Kennel Club, Columbia Missouri Kennel Club, Inc., Scottish Terrier Club of California, Western Rottweiler Owners, Southwestern Rottweiler Club of San Diego, Southern California Dog Obedience Council, Inc. and Gig Harbor Kennel Club, Inc.

    This is a complicated issue and very expensive to litigate.  We thank all the Clubs and people who are working to demonstrate that we have the will and the money to fight for the health of our dogs and the rights of our owners. 

    Again, we ask every individual to commit to raise $100 for us and every Club to give what they can.  The CDOC ACTION website has been updated with press information and lists of contributors and will continue to be updated. 

    We are organizing to get materials out to Clubs for fund raising and we appreciate your patience.  The website for donations is www.cdocaction.org or they can be mailed to 22647 Ventura Boulevard, #108, Woodland Hills, CA.


Friday April 4, 2008


with our shelters allegedly overflowing with dogs and cats...the AR's bring them in from as far as Taiwan...


15 stray dogs fly to new homes in U.S.  Read  last paragraph 600-plus in 3 years!

CNA
KAOHSIUNG, Taiwan --  Thanks to the concerted efforts of local and  U.S. animal rights activists,  15 disabled stray dogs left Taiwan for the United States yesterday aboard  a China Airlines (CAL) plane to find new homes and build new lives.   "It marked the largest single 
shipment of stray dogs from Taiwan to the  United states for adoption in recent memory," said Ni Ching-tai, an Animal  Rescue Team Taiwan (ARTT) volunteer who is in charge of the team's  cross-border stray-dog adoption affairs. All of the dogs were physically  disabled strays 
that were rescued by ARTT volunteers from around the country, Ni said, adding that each of them had a miserable past and needed good care. [because the U.S. is running low on stray dogs in shelters????] 

Upon arrival, the 15 dogs will first stay at shelters run by animal  rights groups in Los Angeles and Seattle, according to Ni.    [the same shelters overflowing with U.S. strays?  But we have room now to help Taiwan with their pet overpopulation problem too????]

After they get  accustomed to the new living environment, animal rights groups will arrange for them to be adopted by pet-loving American families. [and blame U.S. breeders for all the pet overpopulation????]  The ARTT mobilized more than 50 volunteers to help prepare for the  delivery, and China Airlines offered a 50 percent discount on the freight  fares. 

Over the past three years, the ARTT and its American counterparts have  jointly arranged for 600-plus stray dogs rescued from around Taiwan to  find new homes on the U.S. West Coast, Ni said.  [because we don't have enough of our own?????]
 
Thursday March 21, 2008
Concerned Dog Owners of California


WESTMINSTER KENNEL CLUB TO PRESENT CHECK
Tuesday March 25, 2008
Join us for an update and a glass of wine!
 
 
 

JOIN US ON MARCH 25th
IN VAN NUYS
 
    Please join us on Tuesday, March 25th at 7:00 pm.  David Frei of the Westminster Kennel Club will be presenting CDOC-ACTION with a check for $2500.00 to help in the court challenge against the City of Los Angeles ordinance.
    We are delighted with WKC's support.  The financial contribution is important as we work toward meeting our goal of raising the $100,000 for this challenge.  But perhaps the most significant thing is that it signifies the support we are getting from all over the United States.  People who love dogs, people who own dogs, people who show dogs, people who breed dogs - for the first time we are working together with determination and money to save the health of dogs and stop the unintended consequences of mandatory spay and neuter.  The City of Los Angeles is the right place because they want us to take this action by the time our puppies and kittens are 16 weeks of age.
      Representatives from Roberti Jensen will be there to answer questions about the status of the litigation and CDOC will update you on AB1634, Santa Barbara, Pasadena and our legislation in Sacramento.  But primarily this is a chance to relax, take a deep breath as we enter the arena to protect our dogs and our rights.  And let's not forget we need to celebrate the POWER victory in Huntington Beach!  Please join us.
     We will be using video and photos from this event to make the official announcement of the lawsuit so let's make sure the rooms are filled and it's clear that we are all going forward together.  We will also be inviting media to cover the event.
    The address is 7701 Haskell Ave in Van Nuys.  The building, on the west side of the street, says Schneider Optics.  There is plenty of free parking.  The exit from the 405 is Sherman Way and Haskell is the first street to the west.  The address is a few blocks north of Sherman Way.
    Please donate to CDOC-ACTION at www.cdocaction.org or mail checks to 22647 Ventura Blvd., Woodland Hills, CA 91364. 
 
 

Come And Meet UNO at 3:00 pm on Tuesday
 
    David Frei, Westminster Kennel Club, handler Aaron Wilkerson and Uno, this year's Best in Show winner of the Westminster Kennel Club will be at the Sepulveda Basin Dog Park in Encino on Tuesday, March 25th at 3:00 pm.
    Be sure and tell all your friends to come out, with or without dogs, to this park at 17550 Victory Boulevard.  The park is south of the Ventura Freeway and just west of Balboa Boulevard. 
    Again this is a media event; it's not often we get those East Coast dogs here to California to soak up some rays.  And with the media attention comes opportunities for Frei to mention his other reason for being in California, to support CDOC-Action and it's legal challenge to Mandatory Spay and Neuter in Los Angeles.
     We complain about no TV coverage; this event is tailor-made for the media.  So make sure you forward this email to everyone in the city.  Everyone loves a Beagle and we are offering them the Beagle who won the Garden!  The more of us who turn out to welcome David, visit with Uno and talk about our issues, the more the City Council will take notice.  And, we might just have some NO on AB1634 buttons available.  Let them see that there are hundreds of people in Los Angeles opposed to this ordinance, not just the few who were able to get to the City Council meeting.
     Make an afternoon of it.  Come to the park and speak out.  Come to the meeting and relax.  Show them we care, tell them we vote and let them see that there are lots of us. 
 
 

SUPPORT NEEDED FOR BILLS IN THE LEGISLATURE

Last year when we opposed AB 1634, we were quick to send our letters of opposition to the author.  We need to do the same thing for the authors and bills we have sponsored and support. 

Sponsored by Concerned Dog Owners of California

AB 2291       Assemblyman Tony Mendoza (D-56th)
                  Add a check off box to California State Income Tax Form for
                  Spay and Neuter Fund
                  Letters to Robert Baird
                  State Capitol
                  P.O. Box 942849
                  Sacramento, CA 94249-0056
                  FAX - (916) 319-2156
                  Committee Hearing 4/14/08 - Revenue and Taxation

SB 1771       Senator Ron Calderon (D-30th)
                  Add forfeiture language to dog fighting law
                  Letters to Rocky Rushing
                  Capitol Office
                  State Capitol, Room 4088   
                  Sacramento, CA  95814
                  FAX - (916) 327-8755
                  Public Safety Committee - Hearing Not Set
 

Supported by Concerned Dog Owners of California

AB 1969       Assembly Member George Plescia
                  Increased penalties for crimes against dogs and horses
                  Committee Hearing 3/25/08 - Public Safety
 

AB 1938       A tax credit for partial costs of spaying and neutering animals
                  Revenue and Taxation - Hearing Not Set
                  Letters to Assembly Member George Plescia
                  State Capitol Building Room 3141
                  Sacramento, CA 94249-0075

This is the time to show that we are a force, for or against a bill.  Thank you.
 

 
A CHALLENGE TO KENNEL CLUBS
 
MATCH THE DONATION OF CABRILLO KENNEL CLUB

Cabrillo Kennel Club, which is not a Los Angeles based Club, made a donation of $2500 toward the cost of this lawsuit.  This is in addition to the monies they have given CDOC, NAIA and PetPAC during the last year to fight AB1634.

They feel that Los Angeles is the battleground and they have stepped up to be a part of the team.  And they are challenging other Clubs to dig deep and help as well.

The issue is not whether some show people may qualify under the ever shifting "exemptions." With this Ordinance, the City knowingly traded away the health of dogs owned by the average pet owner to pacify Animal Rights extremists and to try and revive AB1634.

Show them it will not work.
 
HOW CAN YOU HELP US RAISE MONEY
In addition to your personal donation, here are some other ideas for raising money for the court challenge. 

Put a link to Concerned Dog Owners of California www.cdoca.org and CDOC-ACTION www.cdocaction.org on your personal and Club websites.

Hold a match in your area and contribute the funds to CDOC-ACTION.  We will send you materials for donations.

Ask your local Kennel Club to let you have a table at the next show, agility trial or obedience trial with materials and donation boxes for this. 

Go to your local dog park and talk to people about the health problems when sterilization is mandated by the government at 16 weeks. 

Take information to your local groomers and independent pet stores.

Forward information on this law to all the puppy people you know.

Talk to your veterinarian about putting up posters in their office.  Most knowledgeable veterinarians are reluctant to sterilize a 16 weeks old puppy.

AKC Clubs that you belong to to make a contribution.

Visit dog event vendors and ask them for donations.  Contact us and we will send you supplies.

Put brief information about this legislation with a link to CDOC-ACTION in the signature block on your email.

Call your local radio and TV stations and make them aware of these laws, and the health consequences.
 
 
 
Sunday March 16, 2008 With permission to cross post

You may have heard by now that Carpoc has decided not to proceed with litigation against the City of Los Angeles. This in no way affects the decision of Concerned Dog Owners of California through CDOC-Action to seek relief from the courts.

Some people have suggested that by losing a case that there is potential damage to future suits and a negative precedent would be set. This is new territory: our attorneys believe there is reason to proceed.

Our opponents---those who would damage the health of dogs and interfere with our rights are hoping we will be afraid to take BOLD action.

CDOC-Action does not see where we are well served by allowing the Los Angeles law to stand and spread to every other city in the country.  It is more punitive than AB1634. Next week we will be updating you on some tremendous support that we are receiving but wanted to get this out quickly.

Permission to cross-post.

Sharon Shilkoff
Secretary - CDOC/CDOC-Action

Please consider donations to CDOC-Action at http://www.cdocaction.org
 
Friday March 7, 2008

Concerned Dog Owners of California

March 6, 2008

CHALLENGING THE LOS ANGELES LAW
 
 
 
Mandatory Spay and Neuter at Four Months (Ordinance No. 179615) was signed by Mayor Antonio Villariagosa (a name to remember during the next election) on February 21st. 

So when does it go into effect?  The statute says 30 days after publishing, the posted information from the City says April 8th and of course when the language was presented at City Hall, it said October 1, 2008.  Per the Mayor's Office October 1st is the date Los Angeles plans to actively start enforcing the law - checking dogs to see of they are sterilized.  So much for compliance based enforcement.  But anyone trying to license a dog will, by April 8th at the latest, be required to have it sterilized in order to pay the $15.00 fee.  And by the way, the specific exemptions?  Up to Animal Services. 

Given not only the constitutional issues but the incredibly negative effect this will have on the health of any dog not owned by a person who can get an exemption, CDOC will challenge this Ordinance in court.

The firm of Roberti Jensen will represent us. 

Roberti Jensen is the ideal law firm for this sort of challenge.  They work primarily in this area, they are well-respected in Los Angeles; they are well-known to the liberal Democratic establishment in Los Angeles.  The Los Angeles Ordinance was not passed because of a problem, euthanasia of dogs is down 74% in 6 years.  It was decided that the health of dogs came a distant second to politics and the demands of the animal rights groups.

David Roberti is intimately familiar and knowledgeable with government and regulatory matters. His 28 years of service in the legislature and 13 years of service as President Pro Tem of the California State Senate provide superior understanding of the nature and process of governmental actions. He is well known as one of California's most prominent legislators. In addition, David Roberti is an attorney experienced in government and business transactions, negotiations, and processes. After Loyola University and USC Law School, David Roberti served as Deputy Attorney General and as a Clerk in the District Court of Appeals. John Jensen has extensive experience in drafting and negotiating contracts, assisting businesses with government regulation and compliance, and advising upon all aspects of business affairs. He has drafted and negotiated complex three party agreements in regulatory contexts, successfully argued administrative actions at the state level, and negotiated various beneficial financial settlements. John also has extensive experience with non-profit and charitable entities.  Additionally they are both pet owners who live in the City.

The lawsuit will be funded through CDOC-ACTION, a 501(c)4.  The Officers and Directors for the most part mirror those in Concerned Dog Owners of California.  We anticipate the costs will be at least $100,000.  A daunting number until one remembers how many of us there are.  That is 1000 people, fewer than attend a dog show, giving $100. 

So please open your checkbooks and your rolodex and start making calls to help us raise this money.  We have a very short window in which to file.  Donations can be sent to CDOC-ACTION at 22647 Ventura Boulevard, #108, Woodland Hills, CA 91364.   Credit card and Paypal payments can be made at www.cdocaction.org.  The outcome of this challenge in the courts will have an impact far beyond Los Angeles and California.  For all of you who have written and said someone should go to court, we are and now is the time to contribute.

The Los Angeles Ordinance is being promoted as a model in cities across California and other states.  It is being touted to federal legislators as a very popular bill.  Actually, until he took it down, Assemblyman Levine was running a poll on his website.  Even there, more than 70% of the people were opposed to it.  This is a wildly unpopular idea.  Let's stop this ordinance and get back to our work of increasing voluntary spay and neuter when the owner and veterinarian think the time is right.
 
 
A CHALLENGE TO KENNEL CLUBS
 
MATCH THE DONATION OF CABRILLO KENNEL CLUB
 

Cabrillo Kennel Club, which is not a Los Angeles based Club, made a donation of $2500 toward the cost of this lawsuit.  This is in addition to the monies they have given CDOC, NAIA and PetPAC during the last year to fight AB1634.

They feel that Los Angeles is the battleground and they have stepped up to be a part of the team.  And they are challenging other Clubs to dig deep and help as well.

The issue is not whether some show people may qualify under the ever shifting "exemptions." With this Ordinance, the City knowingly traded away the health of dogs owned by the average pet owner to pacify Animal Rights extremists and to try and revive AB1634.

Show them it will not work.
 
 
 
 
Wednesday Feb 28, 2008 http://www.malibutimes.com/articles/2008/02/27/news/news8.txt

The vote was 26 in favor of Pavley,   3 in favor of Levine.

 
Monday Feb 25, 2008

Online Donations...
www.cdocaction.org

Dear Concerned Dog owners,

I am sending you this letter because over the years you have either contacted me or a reputable breeder about puppies, you are a fellow responsible breeder, or I know you through the many dog activities we all participate in.

The City of Los Angeles has passed legislation which makes it illegal not to spay or neuter your dog or cat by the time it is 4 months of age.  Some of you are saying that’s awful but I don’t live in the City of Los Angeles so it doesn’t affect me.  But it does! 

I am asking you to make an immediate and generous contribution to CDOC Action which is suing the City of Los Angeles to overturn this law.

For the past year, animal activists including some well-meaning rescue and shelter people led by PETA and HSUS have been trying to get legislation like this passed.  There is a bill in the legislation in California which I think we will be able to defeat this year that would do the same thing.  This type of legislation has been introduced in 20 places, all at the same time this year, as part of a concerted effort using Los Angeles as an example.

An organization I am affiliated with (I am on the Board of Directors) Concerned Dog Owners of California has been both fighting this legislation and working to develop funds for voluntary free spay and neuter programs through other legislation.  CDOC members believe in voluntary spay and neuter at a time a dog owner and his veterinarian make that decision, taking into account the effects of spay or neuter on the specific breed. Concerned Dog Owners of California has spent its money getting bills in the California legislature (2) which will develop funds so people who can’t afford to spay and neuter will be able to do so. In addition we are working on adding RICO language to current dog fighting laws so that people who participate in or attend such events, lose assets as well as face other stiff penalties.

Spay and neuter at sixteen weeks will be devastating to the health of many breeds of dogs.  Please go to  www.cdoca.org/HealthIssues.html  and look at the dozens of articles about the damage physically, mentally and behaviorally that occurs when spay and neuter are done too early.  Yes, a 16 week old puppy will live – no question about it.  But in most breeds he or she will be subject to a variety of on-going health problems and a shorter life span because this major surgical procedure was done too soon.  Finally, a dog that is spayed or neutered at 16 weeks will not look anything like its parents.  It will be taller, skinnier, have a narrow head and a longer muzzle.  The traits you like in the dogs you have admired; early spay neuter stops that.

None of us want a shorter lifespan for our beloved animals.  If this law is allowed to stand, this will likely be the law throughout most of California by the end of 2008, and using California as the model, will be well on its way to being the law in other states. 

That means people who breed dogs will have to make a decision.  There is no ban on breeding, but breeders know that the dogs we bring into the world will have shorter lives and may be plagued with physical and behavior problems during that life.  Yes, there are plenty of people who will continue to breed; but reputable people like me will stop.  We have no interest in participating in damaging dogs.  As this spreads across the country, your ability to get your next dog, or to have your children get dogs that are like those we enjoy today, will be severely limited.

Obviously there are serious constitutional issues here and that is what the lawsuit will be based upon.  The attorneys are Roberti Jensen.  Located in Los Angeles, they specialize in clients with issues before California state government, California state departments, and California state agencies in Los Angeles and Sacramento. 

David Roberti is intimately familiar and knowledgeable with government and regulatory matters. His 28 years of service in the legislature and 13 years of service as President Pro Tem of the California State Senate provide superior understanding of the nature and process of governmental actions. He is well known as one of California's most prominent legislators.

In addition, David Roberti is an attorney experienced in government and business transactions, negotiations, and processes. After Loyola University and USC Law School, David Roberti served as Deputy Attorney General and as a Clerk in the District Court of Appeals.

John Jensen has extensive experience in drafting and negotiating contracts, assisting businesses with government regulation and compliance, and advising upon all aspects of business affairs. He has drafted and negotiated complex three party agreements in regulatory contexts, successfully argued administrative actions at the state level, and negotiated various beneficial financial settlements.

Los Angeles is the battleground for the state and the country.  If we stop this here, our victory will become the law for California and the issue of mandatory stay and neuter will be dead.  If we win on constitutional issues, they will apply across the country.  So we are asking for people across the country to help. 

We need to raise $100,000.00 in a matter of weeks.  Please help us keep dogs healthy!  Send your contributions to:

CDOC Action
22647 Ventura Boulevard, #108
Woodland Hills, CA 91364

If your check is for $500.00 or more, please make it out directly to Roberti Jensen and send it to this same address.  If you give less than $500.00, please make your check out to CDOC Action and we will write a combined check to the law firm.  CDOC Action is a 501c4 and contributions are not tax deductible. 

You can also donate on line at www.cdocaction.org after 2:00 pm PST today Monday February 25, 2008.

Wherever you live in this country our success or failure here will have a direct bearing on what happens in your local community.  So please make a generous contribution as quickly as you can.  Don’t let a law that will damage the health of dogs stand as the law of the land.

I cannot tell you how important this is.  I am asking that you do as I have done.  Please feel free to modify and forward this letter to everyone you know who loves dogs and ask them to make a contribution as well.   We are not HSUS or PETA, we don’t have millions of dollars to spend in fundraising.  So we and the dogs are counting on you.  Thank you.

Ted Crawford
Director, CDOC (Concerned Dog Owners of California)
President, Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club of Southern California
Vice President, Beverly Hills Kennel Club

 
Thursday Feb 21, 2008

You can make your donation to CDOC online at the link above to help in the fight...
 
 Concerned Dog Owners of California

February 18, 2008

WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT LOS ANGELES?
 
 
 
CITY OF LOS ANGELES - IS IT LEGAL?

 
DETAILS FOR THE TOWN HALL MEETING
February 21st at 7:30 pm
 

Galpin Ford, the location for our meeting, is located at Roscoe and Orion.  Roscoe is an exit from the 405 Freeway about 2 miles north of the 101.  Take the Roscoe exit and turn right.  The Community Room that we will be using is accessed through the Mustang Showroom and is up the stairs.  There will be signage.

Unless you are planning on buying a car, please park across the street; do not park in the customer parking lot.

I know all of us are very interested in what the legal options are.

We believe Senator David Roberti's firm is the right choice for this type of issue. 
Roberti served as resident Pro Tem of the California State Senate 1980-199, State Senator 1971-1994, Assemblyman 1967-1971, Deputy Attorney General 1965-1966, and Clerk District Court of Appeals 1964-1965.   He understands the Los Angeles political establishment.  And he is a resident of Los Angeles and he owns a dog.

If you sent in a question, it has been forwarded to the law firm.  You can also turn in questions when you come into the room.

We are videotaping this session and will quickly put on DVDs for kennel clubs that are out of the area.  If your Club would like a copy, please contact karen@cdoca.org.

We look forward to seeing all of you tonight.
 


 

 
 
The mission of Concerned Dog Owners of California (CDOC) is to provide information and education to elected officials and others so that legislation and regulation will promote the health, well-being and appropriate care of all dogs, protect the rights and responsibilities of dog owners and breeders, and support responsible dog ownership.



Thanks Laura!!
-------------------

Good news! Assemblymember Tony Mendoza (56th Assembly District) introduced today in the California State Assembly AB 2291.

This bill would provide a check off box on California State Income Tax Returns for contributions to free and low cost spay/neuter programs. This was an idea that was presented early on in our fight against AB 1634-- the California "Healthy" Pets Act as a way to fund spay/neuter programs without having to go on the attack against responsible dog breeders. Judie Mancuso told us that she already looked into this alternative and said it couldn't be done. Well guess what-- IT IS BEING DONE!

Concerned Dog Owners of California took this idea (along with another spot bill that is being considered) and are thrilled that Assemblymember Mendoza has introduced it. Now it is up to us in the dog fancy community to make sure that it passes through.

Please forward this post to individuals and kennel clubs throughout California and ask them to write letters of support to Assemblymember Mendoza's office. The contact information is below:

Capitol Office:
State Capitol
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0056
Tel: (916) 319-2056
Fax: (916) 319-2156

District Office:
12501 E. Imperial Highway
Suite 210
Norwalk, CA 90650
Tel: (562) 864-5600
Fax: (562) 863-7466

Thank you-- and permission is given to forward and crosspost.

Laura Finco

Tuesday Feb 12, 2008 LA ANIMAL WATCH

PROVIDING INFORMATION AND ANALYSES OF ANIMAL ISSUES IN LOS ANGELES

Monday, February 11, 2008

TNR vs. Spay/Neuter vs. No Charge to Rescues

Here is my point re allocation of resources; there are long term payoffs and short term.

Assuming ANY of Boks numbers are accurate, adoptions increased 2,600 since prior to when he started. That is significant. Fosters are up 800, that is significant. Died in shelter is up 600; that is significant.

These are short term gains/losses.

But what about TNR?

LAAS has had active spay/neuter programs for several years now with some mild reduction in impounds. However, we also speculate that Boks is refusing some animals and not taking ferals in at all. This could account for all the animals not taken in rather than spay/neuter.

Therefore if you put another $500,000 into TNR or spay/neuter to rescue groups, how many fewer will be impounded and how many fewer will die?

If you put $500,000 into spay neuter programs, how much will that drop impounds?

We'll never know how much impound numbers are corrupted by policies that refuse animals.

Everyone agrees TNR and spay/neuter are where its at, but this is just speculation. Studies of TNR are inconclusive. The effect of spay/ neuter certificates and those done in the shelter also are not knowable.

So long term we don't know what will reduce impounds and euthanasia.

Long term we do not know the impact of mandatory spay/neuter either.

Short term, we do: adoptions; fosters.

I am just saying money spent short term may have a big effect two years from now, but we don't know. Money given to rescues may have a big impact two years from now.
.
If you measure the success of a program in the short term rather than the long, thinks like storefront adoption centers, better advertising and PR will probably have the biggest impact.

Posted by Ed Muzika  

3 comments:

Anonymous said...
When San Bernardino County installed a spay/neuter program for county residents, within the first four years the number of impounded dogs went down over 40% with cats remaining about the same before the program. Considering the County was experiencing a rapid growth rate
during this time, the figures are even more amazing. Social Services played a role in the program by distributing spay/neuter info with the welfare checks and at the food stamps office. This hit a targeted population that can't afford spay/neuter as a rule. Also this program
was part of an overall umbrella that covered the Inland Empire and gave people one phone number to call for any and all programs on spay/ neuter in their area. Volunteers from the coalition POPCO screened callers and referred them to the correct agency for help. This
program won a national award and has been copied by other cities and Riverside County. Just in San Bernardino 76 vets participated in accepting the county vouchers for spay/neuter. Just to give you an idea of how effective a good program can be.

11 February, 2008
Anonymous said...Wow (to the previous comment)! San Bernardino County sure has it
going on! Let's get a competent GM and model ourselves after their successful program. I know Boks' ego is too big to take advice from anyone else, but maybe he'll do it and act like it was his idea. Either way, let's get it done!

11 February, 2008
Rebecca said...
www.SpayDayLA.com

Spay and neuter programs are essential for a reduction in intakes and euthanasia. We've found that charging no more than $20 is essential and offering it free results in an overwhelming number of participants. Community outreach, easy to participate in s/n programs
and free or very low cost (even for those who CAN afford it) are all needed for a successful program. This event is only one event, but it is privately funded and will reach thousands and thousands of people and will prevent even more unwanted births.
 
Sunday Feb 3, 2008
Ed Boks, General Manager Los Angeles Animal Services, asks the question on his website:
 
Do you believe the City's new spay/neuter ordinance is needed?
As of tonight, Sunday February 3, 2008    96% NO    3% YES
 
Here is a link to his poll.  Once you have voted, you can click "Show Results."  It is interesting to see that "after" you have voted, Boks has another link for you to click that says "Change Your Vote." 
 
Please voice your opinion ... although ... since Ed Boks is gathering the statistics, the data may/may not be manipulated.
 
Thank you.
Brat Zinsmaster

http://laanimalservices.blogspot.com/2008/02/la-city-council-passes-spayneuter.html
 

Thursday Jan 31, 2008 Unique Blog Visitors topping 20,000 again for the first time since Summer 07!

(thanks Brat!)

Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:47 PM

Per my telephone conversation a few minutes ago with John White, Legislative Aide to the Public Safety Committee, here is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT information regarding tomorrow's City Council Meeting in Los Angeles:

On the schedule, it now appears as:

http://lacity.org/clk/councilagendas/clkcouncilagendas350407_02012008.pdf
COUNCIL: Los Angeles City Council Agenda, Special Meeting

Ten (10) votes are required for City Council to consider an ordinance. If City Council has twelve (12) or more unanimous votes, they can approve the ordinance at the "first" reading. This means that the ordinance "could be" approved tomorrow.

If the City Council does NOT get twelve (12) or more unanimous votes, it will be held over for a "second" reading. At that time, it could pass with a "simple majority" of eight (8) votes.

The City Council can always decide to continue the matter. That is another option that the City Council could take.

The public hearing will take place at Van Nuys City Hall (as previously announced). Please note the following updated information:

FILE #07-1212 IS NOW ITEM NO. 39 (SPECIAL AGENDA)

When you fill out a speaker's card, you can either write "ITEMS 9, 39" or "ITEMS 9 and 39". Or, you can fill out a speaker's card for EACH of the item numbers. (In this manner, you will be covering all bases.)

Here is the website link for the posted announcement of the LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL AGENDA, SPECIAL MEETING to be held at 10:15am.

Please scroll to page four (4) and look for ITEM NO. 39 (File #07-1212):

http://lacity.org/clk/councilagendas/clkcouncilagendas350407_02012008.pdf

Items for Which Public Hearing Have Not Been Held

Item 39 (10 Votes Required for Consideration)

ITEM NO. (39) - Motion Required - SEE ITEM NO. (9)

07-1212

COMMUNICATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY and ORDINANCE FIRST CONSIDERATION
relative to amending Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) Section 53.15.2 (b) requiring all dogs and cats in the City to be spayed or neutered unless exempted as provided.

Recommendation for Council action, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MAYOR:

PRESENT and ADOPT the accompanying ORDINANCE amending Subsection (b) of
Section 53.15.2 of the LAMC to require all dogs and cats within the City of Los Angeles to be spayed or neutered unless the owner has obtained a breeding permit or unless the dog or cat is exempt by reason of one of the listed exemptions and is implanted with an animal identification device and to establish a Spay/Neuter Advisory Committee to advise the Board of Animal Services Commissioners on the impact of the spay/neuter policies on the City's low income residents.

Fiscal Impact Statement: None submitted by the City Attorney. Neither the City Administrative Officer nor the Chief Legislative Analyst has completed a financial analysis of this report.

It is vital that this information be shared with everyone that will be in attendance tomorrow. Please crosspost widely!!

Thank you.

Brat Zinsmaster

-----------------------
URGENT
- Please Call L.A.City Council Now - it doesn't matter if you're not
in CA!  AND the phone answering machines are still being recorded (yea or nay) and fax machines are on all nite...........so do it now, and ask them to OPPOSE the mandatory Spay & Neuter ordinance.

We just got off the phone with one of the Councilmember's office's.  She told us that they had been getting calls all day and they had been keeping a running tally.  She said so far there're More calls in Support than Oppose!!  So, if you don't call, prepare to lose this battle!!!

Please CALL now - You Don't have to be a Californian to call.  Ask them to OPPOSE the Mandatory Spay & Neuter ordinance.
----
PHONE and FAX numbers here:

  Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa Phone: 213-978-0600    Fax: 213-978-0750
  Richard Alarcón Phone: 213-473-7007    Fax: 213-847-0707
  Tony Cardenas Phone: 213-473-7006    Fax: 213-847-0549
  Eric Garcetti Phone: 213-473-7013    Fax: 213-613 0819
  Wendy Greuel Phone: 213-473-7002    Fax: 213-680-7895
  Janice Hahn Phone: 213-473-7015    Fax: 213-626-5431
  José Huizar Phone: 213-473-7014    Fax: 213-847-0680
  Tom LaBonge Phone: 213-473-7004    Fax: 213-624-7810
  Bernard Parks Phone: 213-473-7008    Fax: 213-485-7683
  Jan Perry Phone: 213-473-7009 na
  Ed Reyes Phone: 213-473-7001    Fax: 213-485-8907
  Bill Rosendahl Phone: 213-473-7011    Fax: 213-473-6926
  Greig Smith Phone: 213-473-7012    Fax: 213-473-6925
  Jack Weiss Phone: 213-473-7005    Fax: 213-978-2250
  Herb J. Wesson, Jr. Phone: 213-473-7010 F   ax: 213-485-9829
  Dennis P. Zine Phone: 213-473-7003    Fax: 213-485-8988
 
Tuesday January 29, 2008 ATTENTION

January 30th
WEDNESDAY – Anyone can comment on this Proposed Ordinance because it will not be on the agenda. You can do this at the City Council in Los Angeles or at the Van Nuys City Hall. For those who are uncomfortable with speaking, we will have speaker cards available that can just be read. So if we have many Speakers we can address many issues even though each person's time is short. Public comment is very frustrating because it appears no one is listening – but they take note if there are large numbers.

January 31th
WEDNESDAY AND THURSDAY – These are the days to contact City Council members. If you are not in the City, find a friend who is and go in with them. They are the entrée and you can talk. We will have packages available for this – what we need are bodies and people who care.

February 1
FRIDAY – City Council meets at 10:00 am. We need as many people there as possible. Everyone should fill out a Speaker card because that is the only way you get counted. Again, we will have cards there for people who might get called and are uncomfortable with speaking extemporaneously. You can use other addresses if you are not comfortable using your own. At the City Council meeting it can take hours to get to the subject. Bring a book, computer, knitting.

EVERYDAY

Get everyone you know to fax representatives. Talk to your neighbors, talk to your friends. It is their address, not their words that matter. Later today we will have easily accessible fax numbers and downloadable letters available at www.cdoca.org . .

This is a complete end run to avoid Animal Services where we are always in attendance. We were willing to go to Sacramento but it is with Los Angeles politicians that this stuff always starts. Let's all turn out for this – it is very important.

CDOC focuses on dogs because we lack knowledge and experience with cats. But please also contact people with cats. This addresses cats and the age is back to four months!

We also need people who can help with coordination, determining how many packets are needed, having supplies at Van Nuys. Please let us know how you will help.

Thank you.

Cathie Turner
Executive Director
Concerned Dog Owners of California
info@cdoca.org
cdoc4cathie@aol.com
 
Friday Jan 11, 2008

You can make your donation to CDOC online at the link above to help in the fight...

www.centredaily.com/business/story/324485.html

Thursday, Jan. 10, 2008

PETA Killed 97 Percent of 'Companion Animals' in 2006,
According to VDACS


WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 — An official report from People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), submitted nine months after a Virginia government agency's deadline, shows that the animal rights group put to death more than 97 percent of the dogs, cats, and other pets it took in for adoption in 2006. During that year, the well-known animal rights group managed to find adoptive homes for just 12 pets. The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is calling on PETA to either end its hypocritical angel-of-death program, or stop its senseless condemnation of Americans who believe it's perfectly ethical to use animals for food, clothing, and critical medical research. Not counting animals PETA held only temporarily in its spay-neuter program, the organization took in 3,061 "companion animals" in 2006, of which it killed 2,981. According to Virginia's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), the average euthanasia rate for humane societies in the state was just 34.7 percent in 2006. PETA killed 97.4 percent of the animals it took in. The organization filed its 2006 report this month, nine months after the VDACS deadline of March 31, 2007.  "Pet lovers should be outraged," said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. "There are thousands of worthwhile animal shelters that deserve Americans' support. PETA is not one of them. "In courtroom testimony last year,
a PETA manager acknowledged that her organization maintains a large walk-in freezer for storing dead animals, and that PETA contracts with a Virginia cremation service to dispose of the bodies. In that trial, two PETA employees were convicted of dumping dead animals in a rural North Carolina trash dumpster.

Today in Southampton County, Virginia, another PETA employee will face felony charges in a
dog-napping case.  Andrea Florence Benoit Harris was arrested in late 2006 for allegedly
abducting a hunting dog and attempting to transport it to PETA's Norfolk headquarters.
"PETA raised over $30 million last year," Martosko added, "and it's using that money to
kill the only flesh-and-blood animals its employees actually see. The scale of PETA's
hypocrisy is simply staggering." To speak with a spokesman contact Tim Miller at 202-463-7112.

For more information about PETA's massive euthanasia program, visit http://www.PetaKillsAnimals.com
SOURCE Center for Consumer Freedom