Legislation

AB 1634: It's Aliiiiive (well, sort of ...)

Article from NAIA (National Animal Interest Alliance)

NAIA just received word that California Assembly Member Lloyd Levine has finally submitted his long-awaited amendments to AB 1634, the so-called California Healthy Pets Act. This is the controversial mandatory spay/neuter bill Levine introduced in 2007. The amendments were offered to the California Senate Committee on Local Government to address the concerns of members who refused to support the bill in the form it was presented last session.

NAIA understands – and it will come as no surprise to those who opposed this misguided bill and its numerous amendments in 2007 – that Assembly Member Levine's new round of amendments does not substantively address the concerns expressed by a majority of committee members last summer.

The committee has made no announcements about their intent, but without significant amendments that address their concerns, it seems unlikely that the bill will garner the necessary support to pass out of committee this session.

Please stay tuned or contact us for more information. Do NOT start writing your legislators yet. The Legislature is dealing with nearly 2,000 new measures that have been introduced since January (including a number of new bills related to animals). It is imperative that we respect the committee process and marshal our resources for the time when they can be most effective. We will keep you informed of any pending action at the committee level. Save your energy for later. Hopefully this time you'll get to write a thank you letter.

More on Manditory Spay and Nuetering laws in California from the CDOCA Group!

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 the highlighted address. 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.

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:

District Office:

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

A thousand snakes in the grass.

Permission to reprint. Written by Margaret Anne Cleek for The Alaskan Malamute Club of America Newsletter

“Better the dragon you see than a thousand snakes in the grass.” This Chinese Proverb should be recognized and heeded by pet owners and fanciers.

Currently anyone who breeds animals is the target of animal rights activists who wish to abolish the purpose breeding of pets, and in some cases pet ownership in general. While we are made aware of federal and state legislation threatening our ownership of our animals, for example PAWs and the Animal Welfare Act at the federal level and CA’s AB 1634, mandatory S/N bill, and broad-based opposition is launched, I believe that the greatest threat is from local legislation enacted as quietly as possible.

The threat is greatest at the local level because a small special-interest group of animal right activists is following a quiet plan to rob us of control over our pets and their reproductive capacity and enacting this plan community by community.

Programs on how to enact legislation have been developed by special interest animal rights organizations. Action steps are outlined on websites with literature, sample wording, canned letters, and a plan showing how to proceed. They are told not to reveal that a new ordinance is the objective, but rather to form a taskforce to address animal welfare or to decrease shelter euthanasia. Also the advice is given to remain informal as this keeps you from being subject to “sunshine laws” which may exist to assure open and public process and to lay the groundwork and assure support from staff before going public. Thus the public is not aware that behind closed doors special interest groups are drafting an ordinance to suit their agenda.

A group is formed and under the guise of being a coalition which includes all “stakeholders” participants further their plan. Some participants are well-meaning, some know precisely what the real agenda is. In any case, the MSN or ‘pay or spay” ordinance is drafted with city or county staff co-opted as a participating member.

Senior staff, legal, and council or board members are now inundated with information in private one-on-one sessions. The perception of a crisis is cultivated and the only solution is to enact legislation forcing people to pay huge fees to own intact animals or criminalize the ownership of intact animals.

Data is provided which is either false or misleading about the success of mandatory S/N legislation. They may show a decline in euthanasia, but fail to note that greater declines were achieved in communities without such an ordinance. They may show an increase in licensing with coercive legislation, but fail to mention that enforcement costs exceed revenue. In my municipality I found that success was even claimed in a community that had no such legislation. (For a comprehensive article on MSN legislation’s results please see Do mandatory spay/neuter laws reduce shelter intake and euthanasia? by Laura Allen.

Breeders are vilified as being responsible for the deaths in shelters under the simply appealing but logically false premise that the birth of a wanted pet causes the death of a shelter animal. Breeders are pimps, heartlessly exploiting animals for money, causing the death of wonderful shelter animals and costing the municipality tremendously in animal control costs. A huge number is manufactured and becomes the lost revenue to the county because all breeders are tax evaders making tens of thousands of dollars and costing the community in animal control costs for the surplus animals they produce. Apparently someone failed Econ 101 as there can either be a crisis of surplus desirable animals OR breeders selling pets for thousands of dollars. You cannot have both.

There is rampant emotional manipulation. Pictures will be shown of darling puppies. Then the numbers of animals killed in the shelter will be given. This leads the targets of the message to believe that these darling puppies are killed. In fact, the number presented includes wildlife injured and brought in, small animals, reptiles, owner surrender for euthanasia because of age or illness, feral cats and unweaned kittens, and dangerous dogs. They present as if the community is killing huge numbers of adoptable animals, but when the data is examined, the numbers of adoptable animals is revealed to be very low. Many shelters cannot meet the demand for puppies and smaller dogs and only have large mixed breed, often pit type available in any numbers for adoption. Anyone who gathers this data is dismissed, because now the numbers, which were once touted as so compelling, are “not important”.

The council members or supervisors are sold “the big lie.” The Big Lie is a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf . It is a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously". In the case of pet overpopulation the Big Lie is promoted over and over to city officials and the public, to the point of where they no longer can process logical arguments against the lie and accept it as fact without question. They come to fully believe that there is a crisis of pet overpopulation, that the public has not responded to education and the problem is getting worse and worse and we must enact coercive and draconian legislation because all else has failed. Breeders are unethical and unregulated and need to be controlled. Intact animals bite and run at large while altered ones do not. Every intact animal is a ticking time bomb and a single female cat can produce 470 thousand cats in seven years and a single female dog 65 thousand dogs—everyone knows this to be true!

In fact, there has been a dramatic reduction in the number of pets euthanized. The most reliable data available indicates between 3 and 4 million animals were euthanized in shelters last year. This includes feral cats, ill and infirm animals, dangerous animals, and owner turn in for euthanasia. These numbers are a far cry from the 25 million estimated 30 years ago and these numbers have decreased in spite of an increase in the number of total pets and a doubling of the expected lifespan of dogs in homes (mostly due to leash laws). It is estimated that voluntary S/N rates for cats are around 90% and 75% for dogs (numbers from HSUS, American Pet Products Manufacturer’s Association and Animal People). Spay/neuter for pets is an easy sell and represents one of the most successful social change efforts of this generation.

Before dog and cat fanciers are aware that such legislation is even being considered, senior staff and legislators have been indoctrinated to believe that there is a crisis so great and so intractable that extreme coercive and punitive action must be taken, that breeders are the scum of the earth, that a single intact animal is a threat to the community and thus vets must report animals not neutered by 4 months to animal control, that the community supports this draconian legislation, and that it has been hugely successful every where enacted. Any evidence to the contrary is dismissed as false information from breeders who are trying to protect their “business”. Anyone who opposes the ordinance is demeaned as a selfish and heartless “special interest” while the so-called coalition is presented as representing the interests of the larger community and the animals.

The legislation is then presented to the municipal legislative body by staff as the extensive work of a “taskforce”, all “stakeholders” have been involved, and it is specially designed to meet the needs of the community. In fact, the legislation is the “canned” product of an animal rights group and these taskforces are rigged, and anyone who does not agree with the agenda is not invited to the private meetings, or if initially involved but not with the program, “chilled” out of the proceedings by the dominant group.

The real kicker in all of this is that the agenda and legislative lobby work of a special interest group (possibly with a 501c3 status which means they should not be political) is presented to the council members or supervisors as a recommendation of staff. This makes passing it a knee jerk as councils or boards rubber stamp just about anything staff recommends in virtually every community. In some cases a MSN ordinance is not even presented to the public and is attempted to be snuck through on a consent calendar (Sacramento City August 2007).

It is my belief that the greatest threat to the ownership of pets lies in the stealth enactment of these ordinances in our communities. And this is not just happening in California, the land of fruits and nuts. Hendersonville, NC, Palm Beach, FL, Little Rock, AR, San Antonio, TX, Albuquerque, NM are some of the communities considering or enacting extreme AC ordinances.

Top