Older material archives
VACATION IS OVER---PLEASE RESTART YOUR EFFORTS TO FIGHT AB1634---
We fully appreciate your needs to
take a breather. Unfortunately, the proponents are relentless,
and year-end is just around the corner!
Californian and Non-Californian Pet Lovers:
Please Forward as Appropriate
Forwarded
below this email is a Fanciers update from the CFA on the City
Council vote last night re a MSN & microchip ordinance for the city
of Huntington Beach, CA. The proposal was modeled after the
ordinance for dogs passed in Los Angeles County last year, except
cats are added. Sadly, the Council voted 4-3 to approve the
drafting of such an ordinance despite the fact that the city has
very low shelter intakes and euthanasias. Proponents skipped
over the fact by using Los Angeles and state-wide statistics to
justify the need. Once the draft is approved,
it will make Huntington Beach the
first city in California to adopt a MSN & mandatory microchip
program.
Why should we care?
We should be very alarmed at how easily such draconian laws can get
enacted with total disregard for pet owners' rights or concerns.
The Huntington Beach proposal was practically a verbatim copy of the
Los Angeles County proposal, with the exception of shelter
statistics. In doing a little research into the language, we
gleaned some insights into how dog owners in Los Angeles County got
blindsided with the MSN & microchip ordinance in 2006. We had
absolutely NO CLUE it was coming until we saw the announcement on TV
that the ordinance would become effective within days!
The "Morphing" of BSL to MSN -
How could this happen? Most dog breeders in the greater L.A.
areas are residents of the County. How was it possible that we
knew nothing about the MSN until after the ordinance was enacted?
We've been scratching our heads wondering since. Now, we
believe we've discovered the answer to our puzzle -- we didn't pay
attention to BSL, or anything not directly related to our interests.
The L.A. County MSN began as a Breed Specific Legislation (BSL)
targeted at Pit Bulls and Rottweilers. The excuse was that the
breeds were over-represented in shelter intake and euthanasia.
As the legislation progressed, the tenor of the debate changed --
somehow, it became an accepted assumption that there's an urgent
"pet overpopulation" problem that needed drastic actions, and MSN
was the only humane choice. Oppositions to the proposed
ordinance focused singularly on the breed specific nature of the
proposed legislation and argued quite effectively about the inequity
of BSL. At the final meeting, in what must have appeared to
the politicians as a great compromise, the Director of Animal
Services dropped the breed specific focus and requested an
"equitable" legislation that would be applied to all dogs.
This new proposal was unanimously approved and adopted!!!
Emboldened by their overwhelming success in L.A. County, the Animal
Rights folks proceeded to try imposing AB1634 on the State.
Now that AB1634 is postponed, possibly till January, they have
adopted a multi-pronged attack strategy - they are getting MSN
legislation passed at city and community levels, and they are
lobbying the State Senate Local Government Committee hard behind the
scenes to smooth passage of AB1634 out of the Committee. Below
are quotes from the
Official AB1634 Site:
Where does the bill stand?
The bill is
currently being held in the Senate Local Government Committee. The
coalition and Assemblymember Levine are working with the Committee
to update the bill so that the version passed on to the Senate for a
full vote is acceptable to the members while still fulfilling the
core goals - reducing the killing of healthy, adoptable pets and
saving California millions of dollars in the process.
The
Local Government Committee may hold the bill as long as January,
2008, before passing it out of committee. The CAHealthyPets.com
website is currently undergoing a facelift, please check back
periodically for the latest news.
In fact, if you're a
constituent of Senator Christine Kehoe
[District stretching east-west from
Spring Valley to the Pacific Ocean, and north-south from Del Mar to
Downtown San Diego. Includes Del Mar, Lemon Grove, parts of San
Diego, Casa de Oro-Mo, La Presa, and Spring Valley], you
need to get all your neighbors and pet related business owners
together and pay some visits as well as write letters and make phone
calls to her. She is working very hard in lobbying her fellow
Committee Members on behalf of Levine to try to get AB1634 out of
the committee! Somebody there ought to look into her campaign
finances. All San Diegans and perhaps Orange County and
Riverside County pet lovers need to get together and CANVASS her
district to let her constituents know what she's up to, and to bring
pressure to bear. She was elected to the State Senate in
November 2004, so she'll likely be running for re-election next
year. For a brief summary of her personal and political
history, see
here.
She has consistently been rated highly by
PawPAC on Animal Rights issues. We're not familiar with
the Who's Who in the AR movement, but if memory serves, quite a few
of PawPAC's "Honorary
Board Members" are celebrity supporters of PETA and/or HSUS.
This long
dissertation leads us back to Huntington Beach. We should
not and cannot allow the AR folks to continue perpetrating their
lies without fighting back! It's not simply Huntington Beach -
it's a city with low shelter intake and euthanasia that can be held
up as a "brave and progressively humane" example for the rest of the
State to emulate!
It could be used to politically "challenge" the L.A. City Council.
We have ONE more
opportunity to defeat the MSN & Microchip in Huntington Beach BEFORE
the draft is approved. The
Council vote was 4-3 in favor, so all we need is to change ONE
Council Member's vote to kill the proposed ordinance!
We (i.e. Everybody regardless of
where you live) need to Flood the City Council Members with
Opposition emails and phone calls, pointing out the
deceptive statistics, the high costs and practical impossibility to
enforce, the burdensome costs to seniors, the violation of pet
owners' privacy and property rights, etc.
Huntington Beach residents,
contact and Meet with ALL the
Council Members to clearly state your opposition As Soon
As Possible! In fact,
Orange County residents may want to do the same. It
appears Mayor Pro Tem Debbie Cook may be close to the end of her 2nd
term on the City Council. Depending on the City's charter, she
may be up against term limit and may look to "job hop" within Orange
County in 2008.
Call the City Council office at
714-536-5553 to schedule appointments with Council Members.
The following chart is a list of Huntington Beach City Council
Members, their votes on MSN & Microchip, and their email addresses:
For a list of
"Frequently Called Phone Numbers" for Huntington Beach, see:
<http://www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us/Government/frequently_called_phone_numbers.cfm>
Everybody PLEASE
re-start your efforts to fight AB1634. We fully appreciate
your needs to take a breather. Unfortunately, the opposition
is relentless, and year-end is just around the corner!
from the
Concerned Dog Owners of
California website -
In May of 2007, the Los
Angeles City Council voted to institute an AB1634 look-alike as soon as
possible, with a goal of having it in place before the presumed
effective date of 4/1/2008 of a state law.
After some work and consultation, and after the failure of AB1634 to
make it out of the Local Goverment Committee, Animal Services presented
an outline of what they were proposing to the Los Angeles Animal
Committion at the June 19th meeting. This outline can be seen
here.Report from Animal Commission. The file information for this issue
can be found here. This is a preliminary document and CDOC is working
with the Assistant City Attorney to provide feedback on this proposal.
We are also talking to the sponsors about our concerns about the
legislation. Anyone wishing to work with us on this issue is welcome and
should send an email to info@cdoca.org. There will be no actual draft of
this legislation until after 8/28/2007 as the attorney working on this
is on vacation.
TX-RPOA E-News
From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance, the reasonable voice regarding
animal issues in Texas. Permission granted to crosspost.
Action Alert!
August 3, 2007
Oppose: San Antonio Animal Ordinance Revisions
"What passes in San Antonio WON'T stay in San Antonio..."
Check the "Action Alert!" yellow button on our website for the ordinance
draft and more information: www.responsiblepetowners.org
On the same day California's AB1634 went down in flames, a similar
ordinance emerged in San Antonio, Texas. Our local "animal rights"
extremists have worked three years laying the groundwork and finally got
everything they wanted in print. We ask everyone - individuals,
breed/kennel local and national clubs - to pull out your California
letters to legis lators, adapt them and send them to our San Antonio
city officials listed below. And please send RPOA a copy for our
website.
A list of "Ordinance Provisions that must go!" is on our website under
the "Action Alert!" blinking yellow button. Please include those points
so we present a united front and aren't fragmented in what we are
seeking.
These ordinance changes will be expensive to implement; a nightmare to
Administer with all the inspections and paperwork; impossible to enforce
and require a huge new bureaucracy with excessive power given to the
Animal Care Services director.
The proposed ordinance includes these objectionable provisions:
1. Mandatory spay/neuter of all outdoor cats and all dogs over 6 months
of age unless a $50 Intact Dog Permit is purchased (in addition to $75
unaltered pet license);
2. Breeder/Litter Permits;
3. New Pet Limits with mandatory spay/neuter requirements;
4. New Livestock Limits with annual permits and high fees per animal;
5. Bond required every 30 days for dangerous dogs held for hearings;
6. A $25 fee for each animal turned in at Animal Care Services.
Proposed changes to San Antonio's animal ordinance will do nothing to
save the thousands of animals killed in San Antonio every year as
claimed - many of them feral cats. San Mateo County, CA, reported an
increase in animals killed after passing a similar ordinance in 1991.
"Animal Rights" Activists sought this same legislation in San Antonio in
1991 but it was defeated.
This is a national "Animal Rights" Legislative Agenda to end all use,
breeding and ownership of animals whether you eat them, wear them or pet
them.
The 5 Year Strategic Plan for a No Kill Community by 2012 will be
doomed. The No Kill Philosophy is programs and services - not
legislation. San Antonio has many new proactive programs to address
their animal problems.
Most of the animals killed at San Antonio's Animal Care Services come
from only 9 of the city's zip codes. The ordinance changes will affect
every animal owner in the city.
The ordinance discriminates against low income pet owners and ethnic
minorities, making animal ownership cost prohibitive and compliance
difficult which creates outlaws out of animal owners. Animals will be
dumped or hidden.
These proposed ordinance changes are not unique to San Antonio. They are
the result of a concerted effort by a heavily funded and well organized
international "animal rights" movement which has many local followers.
Call San Antonio city officials and tell them this will NOT work and
what will work:
1. Enforcement of existing leash laws, animal nuisance and animal
cruelty laws.
2. Educate children and adults in responsible pet care and bite
prevention.
3. Target areas of city where most animals are impounded with special
programs.
4. Increase and publicize existing free and low cost pet spay/neuter
programs.
Please contact city officials below!
Address for all: City of San Antonio, PO Box 839966, San Antonio, TX
78283
Mayor Phil Hardberger
Phone: (210) 207-7060; Fax: (210) 207-4168
E-mail:
mayorphilhardberger@sanantonio.gov
City Manager Sheryl Sculley
Phone: (210) 207-7080; Fax: (210) 207-4217
E-mail:
citymanager@sanantonio.gov
Councilwoman Mary Alice
Cisneros Phone: (210) 207-7279; Fax: (210) 207-6931
E-mail:
maryalice.cisneros@sanantonio.gov
Councilwoman Sheila McNeil
Phone: (210) 207-7278; Fax: (210) 207-4496
E-mail:
district2@sanantonio.gov
Councilman Roland Gutierrez
Phone: (210) 207-7064; Fax: (210) 534-1931
E-mail:
district3@sanantonio.gov
Councilman Philip Cortez
Phone: (210) 207-7281; Fax: (210) 678-0099
E-mail:
district4@sanantonio.gov
Councilwoman Lourdes G alvan
Phone: (210) 207-7043; Fax: (210) 212-4860
E-mail: vsalazar@sanantonio.gov
Councilwoman Delicia Herrera
Phone: (210) 207-7065; Fax: (210) 207-8760
E-mail:
district6@sanantonio.gov
Councilman Justin Rodriguez
Phone: (210) 207-7044; Fax: (210) 207-8181
E-mail:
district7@sanantonio.gov
Councilwoman Diane Cibrian
Phone: (210) 207-7086; Fax: (210) 949-0439
E-mail: diane.cibrian@sanantonio.gov
Councilman Kevin Wolff
Phone: (210) 207-7325; Fax: (210) 207-7803
E-mail: kwolff@sanantonio.gov
Councilman John Clamp
Phone: (210) 207-7276; Fax: (210) 207-8777
E-mail: john.clamp@sanantonio.gov
Faxes and phone calls are
best with e-mail a third choice or just do all three! For more
information, check out our website.
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
900 NE Loop 410 #311-D
San Antonio, TX 78209
Phone: (210) 822-6763
Fax: (210) 822-9038
Website: www.responsiblepetowners .org
Read
the transcript of California Veterinary Medical
Association past president John Hamil's testimony at the California
Local Government Committee hearing. Print it out, pass it along,
use it!
CA AB 1634
Pulled From Committee!
The American Kennel Club is pleased to announce that CA AB 1634 was
pulled today from the California Senate Local Government Committee by
the bill sponsor Assemblymember Lloyd Levine. The bill would have
required owners to spay or neuter all dogs and cats six months of age,
with few practical exceptions. Because of this development, AB 1634 will
not be considered for the remainder of this legislative session.
(See the entire AKC statement at the
CA
Spay/Neuter Action Center)
Oppose Overreaching NJ Proposal!
The American Kennel Club is alarmed by the provisions of New Jersey
Assembly Bill 2649. The proposal attempts to replace New Jersey's
already comprehensive and reasonable animal cruelty laws and humane care
standards with an unnecessary, confusing, and haphazard system that will
not only affect the health of the general public, but will also threaten
the due process rights of individual animal owners.
The AKC believes that dog owners bear a special responsibility to their
canine companions to provide proper care and humane treatment at all
times. We take animal cruelty cases seriously—in fact, anyone convicted
of animal cruelty involving a dog will have all AKC privileges
suspended. The AKC also supports reasonable and enforceable laws that
govern dog ownership, as is currently provided by New Jersey's regime of
common-sense laws and regulations. Among AB 2649's 56 pages, its most
egregious proposals include the following:
Any person, regardless of their lack of knowledge, training, or
expertise, could accuse another person of animal cruelty, while
receiving immunity from prosecution for cruelty themselves. Without
providing redress for someone who has been unjustifiably and
vindictively accused of animal cruelty, this provision is ripe for
abuse.
The use of a living bird or other animal in events would be considered
animal abuse. This would effectively make illegal many performance
events, including Earthdog, Coonhound, and Sporting dog hunt tests and
field trials.
The definition of "minimum care" required for the care of animals will
be lessened to include "veterinary care deemed necessary by a reasonably
prudent person". AKC believes that veterinary care in all cases should
be administered with a professional standard of care with the highest
levels of professionalism and competence, as deemed necessary by a
licensed veterinarian.
The definition of "cruelly restraining a dog" specifically bans the
tethering of dogs with less than 15 feet of tether. This provision does
not expressly provide an exemption for dogs being groomed on grooming
tables in any setting, including grooming salons and dog shows. With
substantive animal cruelty provisions already in place, New Jersey state
and local governments need to enforce existing law in cruel tethering
cases. Irresponsible owners who are not providing humane treatment for
their animals can and should be prosecuted under current law.
What You Can Do:
Contact your representative in the New Jersey General Assembly and
express your opposition to AB 2649. To find your Assemblymember,
click here.
Email addresses of
legislators
by name.
See a legal analysis of the
bill as provided by an attorney to the NJ Federation of Dog Clubs.