What SB250 looks like now
SB250 AMENDMENTS UP
SB250 has been amended. Here are some things to remember as you make your calls and visits to legislators today.
This DOES affect responsible people
Anyone participating in a dog event uses a collar that doesn't include a tag. This bill says you are in violation if you are not wearing a tag on your collar; the definition of "properly licensed" says the dog must be wearing a tag. Thus everyone who participates in a dog event in California is in violation of the "care and concern" portion of the bill.
The bill specifically addresses and does not require that there be a written notice of the denial and revocation and a reasonable opportunity for appeal. Florez has chosen to make due process an optional item for the local jurisdiction.
This bill does not exempt from 'roaming at large' dogs that are processed under the federal Pet Evacuation and Transportation Act of 2006. So if this were in effect right now, hundreds of dogs in California would be in violation.
This will cost more money
Department of Finance opposes. In Santa Cruz where this has been in effect for 15 years, the costs are 174% per capita as high as they are for the rest of the state. Communities that used to be served by Santa Cruz have gone elsewhere for Animal Control; they could not afford the high costs.
And because more dogs are impounded, Santa Cruz had to build a new shelter.
More dogs will die
Read the Winograd articles and see the Los Angeles numbers from yesterday's bulletin.
When faced with the costs associated with this bill, many people cannot afford to pay the fines, court costs, time off work (if there is even an appeal process in place) and then sterilization
No nationally respected organization supports this
Opposed by California Chamber of Commerce
AVMA opposes MSN of owned dogs
ASPCA opposes MSN of owned dogs
Even HSUS, which supported AB1634, does not support this bill. They are right here in Sacramento and they have not been pushing the bill and would not sign on as a supporter. Why? Because since AB1634 more people have looked at the data and found that MSN kills more dogs and costs more money. If the California numbers skyrocket, HSUS does not want that to hurt them nationally.
SOME OF THE SPECIFICS
The following definition of a working dog was provided to Senator Florez by experts in the field so that all appropriate dogs could be exempted. He declined to use the definition or anything appropriate.
"A working dog, performing his duties, under the control and supervision of owner/handler shall not be considered at large while performing his duties. A dog being trained for work shall not be considered at large while being so trained under the direct and positive control of his owner or custodian. Working dog duties include, but are not limited to, herding, hunting, retrieving, search and rescue, law enforcement, obedience, agility, tracking and other trained behaviors. Dogs being exercised under the control of their owners or custodians in public areas designated for animal exercise shall not be considered at large."
With the latest amendment from Senator Florez the following dogs are at-risk as the performance of the work requires them to be off lead and without a collar and dangling tag:
Search and Rescue dogs
Cadaver dogs
Tracking dogs
Dogs participating in movie and television productions
Dogs participating in obedience trials
Dogs participating in agility competitions
Dogs participating in hunting tests
Dogs participating in conformation shows
Dogs participating in tracking events
Dogs training for any of the above
Out-of-state dogs that are in California for training for more than 30 days other than for field training.
It provides no exemption for people who breed the law enforcement dogs and service dogs for future generations. Canine Companions for Independence believes that passage of SB250 will increase the wait for a trained service dog from them (and they breed their own dogs as well as getting dogs from responsible breeders) from 2 years to 5-8 years.
There is no provision for dogs that are roaming due to natural disasters (fires, wind storms, earthquakes). These are counted as irresponsible acts even though the Pet Evacuation and Standards Act says animals must be saved along with people.
There is no "statute of limitations". A puppy that gets out at 8 weeks and then is loose again 8 years later triggers the action for sterilization of that dog and other intact dogs owned.
There is no requirement for an appeal process with written notice of a revocation and a reasonable opportunity to respond. This is given as an option.
Service Dogs Will Not Be Available.
Every service dog organization in the State gets puppies and semen from people who breed dogs; even the two with their own breeding programs. Without that inflow, the wait to get a service dog will double or triple. Fourteen of the sixteen organizations in California get their dogs from breeders. This bill shuts them down. All service dogs are altered; an exemption for those dogs is useless.
These types of regressive laws always affect the poor and economically and physically disadvantaged the most.
There is no requirement for free or low-cost services to be available and no exemption for those below the poverty level or on unemployment.
This is without a doubt the most dangerous piece of dog legislation that has been proposed and it will affect every single CDOC member.
If you will be in Sacramento Tuesday or Wednesday, you can meet us by the "Bear" at 10:00 am.
Call and send a letter to your representative. Use the Save Our Dogs easy letter; you don't even know who your representative is. Go to the CDOC website for the Send a Letter Page. This should go to your friends and family.
Call every day.
Written in haste on a Southwest Flight – thank goodness for on airplane wi-fi. Please excuse any typos.
$25 AGAINST 250
You can help with money as well. This money is being used to help get the Easy Letters printed and to the legislature. It is being used to pay for briefing books for Sacramento staffers. It is being used for DVDs for the legislators. It is being used for handouts for members and other interested people who want to visit their legislators. Every penny is going to the fight against SB250. So please continue to participate.
Click here to donate $25.00 for printed materials to Oppose SB250. And then look for your name on our Supporters Page. Let's make sure everyone in California knows just how bad this bill can be.
If there was any doubt about how many more dogs will die if SB250 passes, the City of Los Angeles has resolved those for us.
The proponents would say that this 24% increase – owned dogs that were killed by the City – was due to the economy. But when you look at counties with worse economies, more poverty and higher foreclosure rates, you see that there is one thing that is different about the City of Los Angeles. Mandatory Spay and Neuter. And who brought that to us? Judie Mancuso.
