CA SB 250 FAILS TO PASS!

August 27, 2010

California Senate Bill 250 failed yesterday on the Assembly Floor with 34 members voting in support, 40 members voting in opposition and 5 members abstaining. The measure was granted reconsideration and another vote could be taken prior to the constitutional deadline on August 31st.

CA SB 250 Revived- Action Needed Now!

August 18, 2010

California Senate Bill 250, which seeks to mandate the sterilization of a dog on a second animal control offense, has moved from the inactive file back to the Assembly floor and could be voted on any day. Amendments have been adopted, but they only modify the appeals process and do not alter our fundamental opposition to this legislation. It is imperative that California responsible dog owners and breeders immediately contact their Assemblymembers and Senators and ask them to oppose SB 250! While the AKC strongly encourages all dog owners to abide the animal control laws and to be responsible owners, Senate Bill 250 is unreasonable. Two animal control violations may occur years apart and therefore not accurately reflect the true nature of the dog or the responsibility of the owner. Mandatory sterilization in these cases is an extreme punishment. Furthermore, the owner could be denied from ever owning an intact animal again. AKC’s alert from 2009 with talking points can be accessed at the link below.

Click here to read more: http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4172

CA ASSEMBLY VOTE COULD COME AS SOON AS THURSDAY, AUGUST 19TH

August 18, 2010

Today Senator Florez was able to get the Assembly to take voice amendments (unseen of course) that he said would make S/N affordable to poor people. He is totally ignoring that this is an MSN bill and trying to sell it as a benefit to poor people. The amendments do not do what he has purported.

- It is still secondary MSN.
- It does not exclude the people who are raising the future service dogs.
- There are no exemptions for search and rescue dogs; if they work off lead they are in violation.
- There are no changes to keep this from costing the State of California millions of dollars.
- There are still not consistent rules for appeal.

In fact, one of the amendments to the bill is to allow people, when there is no appeal process, to go to Superior Court in their County. There's an approachable place for poor and under-educated people.

You can see the amendments to the bill here (http://www.cdoca.org/downloads/downloads.html); they are marked in yellow.

In case you have forgotten just how bad SB250 is, or if you need talking points for your letters, please read this. (third item on list http://www.cdoca.org/downloads/downloads.html) Getting letters and phone calls to the Assembly Members tonight and before noon tomorrow is imperative. The list of the Assembly Members who voted No or who abstained is here. (Second item http://www.cdoca.org/downloads/downloads.html)

We want to thank them for their opposition last year and ask them to hold their position. We want to reiterate there is nothing in the bill to offer any services to poor people that were not there last year.

We will also want as many people as possible up in Sacramento to walk the halls. CDOC will be there tomorrow morning; if you can join us please email karen@cdoca.org. Remember, with the changes, this must now go back to the Senate for concurrence. There are no committees here so we need to reach out to almost all of the legislators.

At this point it will all come down to education and input from constituents. We will need eveyone's help to keep him from rushing this through. Although we had legislators educated last year, they have forgotten about the serious issues with this bill. So we need to start all over again and we only have tonite and tomorrow for the Assembly.

Remember, they have reviewed another 2000 pieces of legislation since they last heard about SB250 and you can be sure Florez is not presenting it properly.

We defeated AB1634 and we held off SB250 so far. Do not let the final act of the legislature be to hand Judie Mancuso the end of dogs as we know them. Tomorrow we will have forms set up so you can let us know if you can come to Sacramento. So please check the website often.

Click here to read more: http://www.cdoca.org/

Memphis City Council panel recommends mandatory spay/neuter for cats, dogs

August 11, 2010

A City Council committee has recommended mandatory spaying or neutering of cats and dogs.

The ordinance for cats over 6 months old and dogs weighing 30 pounds or more was approved unanimously by a committee on Tuesday and will move to the full council in two weeks for the first of three votes.

The ordinance, sponsored by Councilman Shea Flinn, makes exceptions for police dogs, service dogs and working dogs.

Owners of fertile animals would pay a $200 one-time fee, which would authorize one litter per female dog during a 12-month period.

They'd also pay a $35 annual license fee for fertile animals. Owners of sterile animals would see that reduced from $15 to $5.

Flinn first proposed a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for pit-bull breeds in January. He had noticed a large number of pits and pit mixes when he visited the Memphis Animal Shelter after an October law enforcement raid there.

Click here to read more: http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/aug/11/the-yelping-begins-over-mandatory-spayneuter/?partner=RSS

Memphis to Consider Mandatory Spay/Neuter, New Dangerous Dog Definitions & Fee Increases on August 10th

August 6, 2010

The Memphis City Council Services & Neighborhood Committee will consider four ordinances amending the city's animal control laws on Tuesday, August 10th. The proposal will require mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs over 29 pounds, define any dog that has "bitten once and been at-large twice" as a dangerous dog, increase fees for owners of intact dogs and limit tethering. It is vital that responsible dog owners and breeders attend this meeting to oppose these changes.

Click here to read more: http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4166\7

El Paso City Council to Consider Numerous Licensing & Breeder Restrictions on August 10th

August 5, 2010

The El Paso City Council will hold a public hearing Tuesday August 10th to discuss possible changes to the animal control code including differential license fees, breeder licensing and inspections, and a ban on sales of cats and dogs in pet stores. It is vital that responsible dog owners, breeders and fanciers oppose this legislation.

Click here to read more: http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4166

San Francisco Considers Banning Sales of Pets Except Fish!

Carolyn Jones, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer
July 8, 2010

Sell a guinea pig, go to jail.

That's the law under consideration by San Francisco's Commission of Animal Control and Welfare. If the commission approves the ordinance at its meeting tonight, San Francisco could soon have what is believed to be the country's first ban on the sale of all pets except fish.

That includes dogs, cats, hamsters, mice, rats, chinchillas, guinea pigs, birds, snakes, lizards and nearly every other critter, or, as the commission calls them, companion animals.

Click here to read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/07/MN9L1EAT90.DTL

NC Victory: SB 460 Dead After Two-Year Run in Legislature

July 6, 2010

The American Kennel Club is pleased to announce that SB460 is finally dead. The measure was pulled from consideration by the House Finance Committee late last week when it became clear that supporters did not have the votes to pass the measure in the House. The AKC received further confirmation this past weekend that no other additional attempts will be made to pass SB460.

Click here to read more: http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4144

NC Update: SB 460 Pulled from Consideration

July 1, 2010

North Carolina's responsible breeders and their allies were handed a major reprieve today when the bad breeder regulation bill, SB 460, was pulled from consideration by the House Finance Committee. The bill was removed from the committee's agenda when it became clear that proponents lacked the support needed to pass the measure out of committee.

With less than two weeks left in North Carolina's legislative session, it remains possible that the measure could reappear and move quickly via a number of other parliamentary maneuvers. AKC Government Relations will continue to keep you updated on any actions that could revive this bill.

Click here to read more: http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4144

NC Update: SB 460 Hearing Likely Next Week

June 25, 2010

The AKC Government Relations Department has learned that the House Finance Committee will likely consider Senate Bill 460 on Wednesday, June 30, 2010. This bill was originally scheduled to be heard on June 24, but the hearing was postponed after the committee received an enormous volume of calls and e-mails from concerned dog owners and breeders from across the state. You are making a difference! Please take a few moments this weekend to call AND e-mail the members of the House Finance Committee. Tell them that responsible dog owners and breeders oppose SB 460, and respectfully ask them to also oppose it and not let it to move forward as currently written. Scroll down for the committee contact information.

If you would like to take further action, the North Carolina Federation of Dog Clubs is hosting a lobby day at the Capitol in conjunction with the North Carolina Sporting Dog Association on Tuesday, June 29, 2010. The federation asks that those attending meet on the front steps of the North Carolina General Assembly Legislative Building at 8:30 a.m. For more information about the lobby day, please contact the federation directly.

Click here to read AKC's position on this legislation: http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4144

Riverside, CA passes spay/neuter law, limits number of pets

June 15, 2010
By ALICIA ROBINSON
The Press-Enterprise

A new animal protection ordinance in Riverside won't result in mass forced spaying and neutering, or pets being seized, city officials told residents Tuesday.

The Riverside City Council unanimously approved a rule that will require most cats and dogs to be microchipped and spayed or neutered once they're 7 months old.

But enforcement of the spay-neuter provision is secondary, which means animal control officials won't actively look for unaltered animals. For example, if a dog escaped, officials would then check that it was licensed and altered.

The rule includes exemptions for some registered show and breeding animals, or if spaying-neutering would threaten the animal's health. Also, people can continue to keep unaltered dogs by paying a much higher licensing fee.

The biggest change under the new ordinance is a cap on the number of pets people can keep without a special permit. Currently the city has no limit.

Officials said that has made the city a magnet for puppy mills, animal hoarders and others who don't treat animals well.

The rule will require people with more than four dogs or nine cats to apply for a kennel or cattery permit. Officials pointed out that unlike elsewhere in Riverside County, the city will grant the permits in residential areas.

Current pet owners are grandfathered in for 20 years with their existing pets.

The council meeting drew about 40 people, many of whom opposed the new rule. Some worried that it will unfairly penalize legitimate breeders, low-income pet owners or people trying to help abandoned animals.

Others said if the rule's target is unethical animal keepers, the city can crack down on them now.

"You've already got laws on the books to deal with these problems. Why aren't they being enforced?" said Kathy Grosso, a Banning resident who is active in the Kennel Club of Palm Springs.

Others said the rule is needed to reduce pet overpopulation, which results in crowded animal shelters and euthanasia of pets.

The ordinance must pass a second reading on June 22 and would then go into effect July 23.

The city plans to offer a dog license amnesty in July and August, when fees for expired licenses will be waived and licensing is free if a dog is vaccinated, altered and microchipped.

Reach Alicia Robinson at 951-368-9461 or arobinson@PE.com

Click here: http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4138

Rhode Island Update: Contact the House Judiciary Committee

June 15, 2010

Senate Bill 2022, which places numerous new onerous requirements on responsible dog owners, has passed the Senate and been assigned to the House Committee on Judiciary. The General Assembly will only be in session for another week, so it is essential that responsible dog owners and breeders in Rhode Island contact their Representative and the members of the House Committee on Judiciary today to express opposition to the onerous provisions in this bill.

Click here to read the AKC's letter to the House Committee on Judiciary: http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4138

Click here to read the previous legislative alert: http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4131

Riverside, CA to discuss MSN for minor violations of animal control ordinance

June 14, 2010

The Riverside City Council will meet Tuesday, June 15th 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, would force pet owners to microchip all their animals, and will require anyone with five or more dogs to obtain a residential kennel license. It is vital that responsible dog owners and breeders attend the hearing to oppose this measure.

Provisions of the proposed ordinance include:

All dogs and cats will be required to be spayed or neutered unless the owner has purchased an intact animal license. Current law requires owners to license their pets; 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 3 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.

Limits residents to four dogs, unless they obtain a residential kennel license. Current residents who own five or more dogs will be grandfathered in for twenty years, but can not replace animals that die or are rehomed.

Requires that applicants for a residential kennel license allow animal control to inspect their premises. (AKC staff does not believe that justification exists for requiring dog owners or breeders to allow animal control unfettered access to their private homes. Existing laws allow animal control to investigate animal cruelty, neglect, noise and sanitation complaints.)

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. 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.

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. The American Kennel Club also opposes mandatory microchipping.

Rhode Island to Mandate Sterilization of All Cats!

June 2, 2010

SB 2249 passed the Senate on June 1st with a substitute. Bill awaits committee assignment in the House.

The Issue.
Legislation that had been assigned to study has now been set for hearing, with a single day's notice, by the Senate Committee on Constitutional and Regulatory Issues. Rhode Island Senate Bill 2249 prohibits the transfer of any cat, whether for compensation or not, unless the animal is first sterilized. The only exception is if "the animal is being specifically offered for breeding purposes." Violators are subject to a $300 fine.

The Impact.
This legislation, though well intentioned, is ill-conceived and poorly crafted. As currently written, the bill prohibits any person from transferring an unsprayed/unneutered cat, whether by sale, adoption or "otherwise convey[ing]" the animal. Thus, the bill does not merely target shelter animals, or even pet store animals, it covers every person in the state. A 10-year old who gives away a litter of kittens borne by the family pet feline, for example, could be subject to multiple fines of $300 a piece for each kitten in the litter. The only exception to this prohibition is if the animal is being "specifically offered for breeding purposes." How would this be determined? Could anyone evade a fine simply by claiming at the time a cat is "conveyed" that it was for breeding purposes? If so, the bill contains a loophole large enough to drive a truck through, making it completely ineffectual.

PIJAC Position.
PIJAC supports the spay and neuter of dogs and cats as a general rule, recognizing however that there are various circumstances under which it is inappropriate. The intention to breed an animal would be one reason not to sterilize it; health implications may be another. This is why PIJAC believes such a decision should be made on a case-by-case basis between the pet owner and his or her veterinarian. The state should not substitute a blanket mandate for the professional judgment of licensed veterinarians.

Furthermore, the enforcement problems inherently associated with mandatory sterilization laws are compounded exponentially with this particular bill. Because SB 2249 includes no mechanism for determining when an animal that is sold, adopted out or otherwise transferred was conveyed with the intent that it be bred, enforcement of this law would be a nightmare.

PIJAC opposes this ban both because it is poor public policy and would in practice be unenforceable and ineffective.

Recommended Action.
SB 2249 is scheduled to be heard in Hearing Room 310 upon the "Rise of the Senate" (meaning no precise time is provided). Persons concerned about this proposal are urged to contact committee members in advance of the hearing to voice their opposition. Individuals may also easily contact their state senators directly through PIJAC's Legislative Action Center on the Governmental Affairs page.

(NOTE: Senate Bill 2022, which provides for tethering guidelines/penalties is also set to be heard before this same committee. Click here to read PIJAC's PetAlert on this issue.)

Those who desire additional information about this proposal should contact PIJAC's Michael Maddox via email at michael@pijac.org by phone at 202-452-1525.

Click here for details http://capwiz.com/pijac/issues/alert/?alertid=15075376