[ SHOWGSD-L ] Animal Law Alert San Jose
- From: "Brenda Shepard" <tashina1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Showgsd-L" <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:54:02 -0700
Something else of interest that was sent to me with permission to cross
post.
Brenda
This was mailed to SCDTC. Please check out the guardian vs ownership
explanation below and cross post.
Karen
DOG GUARDIANSHIP VS OWNERSHIP
This is the differences between guardianship and ownership. Ownership of
property is protected by the Constitution. Guardianship is a legal position
which can be modified or taken away by a judge without notice to you. The
issue of changing owners to guardians is nothing short of a conspiracy to
take the decision making about our dogs away from us. Every dog owner should
know about the issue of guardianship and why it is so insidiously harmful to
our rights as owners and potentially dangerous to the very existence of
dogs.
This is how the courts work. The court may appoint a Guardian Ad Litem to
contest the guardianship of your animal. It is the Guardian Ad Litem as
related to guardianship that most people do not understand. No one talks
about this aspect of guardianship. However, you can bet that the people
proposing the change from owner to guardian know about it and know how it
will fundamentally change the status of dogs as property and our present
Constitutional rights as owners.
What this means for dog guardians vs. owners is that a completely animal
ignorant lawyer (or dog hating lawyer, or animal rights believing lawyer, or
any stupid ignorant person) could be appointed by a court and supersede your
legal claim as guardian of your dog. A court may give you rights as a
guardian. But they can take those rights away WITHOUT consulting you.
THIS IS BIG!!!
The fact that our guardianship could be superseded by the courts is not ever
explained during the law making process. The important thing to remember in
this is:
?That which the court/laws gives, can be just as easily taken away."
Bottom line: We need to remain owners of dogs as our property.
____________________________________________________________________________
Original Message -----
From: Jamie Bullock
To: adaughaus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:36 AM
Subject: Animal Law Alert: San Jose, CA
Animal Law Alert:San Jose, CA
Re: Breeding restrictions & change of legal description of dog owner.
PLEASE TAKE THE TIME AND MAKE THE CALL! The future of your dogs depends on
it!
California Local Governments Consider Animal Control Changes
[Friday, April 20, 2007]
City of San Jose
The City of San Jose will hold a public meeting May 1st to
discuss a host of changes to their animal control ordinance. The most
important change for breeders, fanciers and concerned dog owners to be aware
of is that under this new ordinance anyone who breeds an individual dog more
than once in its lifetime is a commercial kennel and must obtain a
commercial kennel permit. To qualify for a commercial kennel permit, the
kennel
(even if it is a private home) must be at least 250 feet from any other
residence, although the city may grant an annual exemption. Additionally,
the city may inspect the premises of any kennel at any reasonable time. The
Department of Animal Services may establish additional regulations governing
the maximum number and species, the construction, sanitation and maintenance
of facilities and other regulations they deem appropriate.
Further the ordinance:
Changes "owner" to "owner and guardian."
Requires veterinarians submit a copy of the rabies
certificate for each animal to the city.
a.. Enacts the following animal limits for a single
dwelling unit:
a.. 0 adult dogs and 5 adult cats
b.. 1 adult dogs and 4 adult cats
c.. 2 adult dogs and 3 adult cats
d.. 3 adult dogs and 2 adult cats
Please contact your representative on the city council to
express your concerns with this proposal. To contact
members of the San Jose City Council by mail, send to: 200 E. Santa Clara
St., San Jose, CA 95113. Additionally, we ask that you send copies of your
letters to City Manager Les White and City Attorney Rick Doyle at this same
address.
San Jose City Council;
Mayor Chuck Reed
Vice Mayor David D. Cortese
Councilmember Pierluigi Oliverio
Councilmember Pete Constant
Councilmember Madison Nguyen
Councilmember Forrest Williams
Councilmember Sam Liccardo
Councilmember Judy Chirco
Councilmember Nancy Pyle
Councilmember Nora Campos
Mailing address
220 E. Santa Clara St.,
San Jose, CA 95113
City of Huntington Beach
The Huntington Beach City Council has directed staff to
research issues and cost to enact an ordinance similar to the one passed in
Los Angeles County in 2006. To review the details of that ordinance, please
see our previous alert. Concerned dog owners should contact the city council
members immediately to oppose this measure. All city council members are
elected at-large and letters can be mailed to 2000 Main Street, Huntington
Beach, CA 92648. A general email can be sent to
city.council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
City of Los Angeles
The Los Angeles City Council has directed staff to prepare
an ordinance that would allow the City of Los Angeles to adopt the
provisions of AB 1634 locally even if the state bill is not adopted.
Specifically the measure asks that the proposal mandate that all cats and
dogs be spayed/neutered once the animal is four months old. The proposal
will include exceptions for licensed breeders and will expand their
spay/neuter assistance program to pet owners who earn less than 300% of the
Federal Poverty Level.
Points to Consider:
Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems
because it fails to address the heart of the issue?irresponsible ownership.
Mandatory spay/neuter laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be
evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. More
regulations increase the workload of already financially strained animal
control offices, making it even more difficult for them to perform their
duties.
Spay/neuter requirements target all owners regardless of their actions and
would restrict the many responsible breeders who raise and breed purebred
dogs for their enjoyment of the sport. These breeders make a serious
commitment to their animals, not to make a profit, but instead with the
intention of promoting the sport of purebred dogs and improving the
individual breeds.
Strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws), and increased
public education efforts are better ways to address the issue of
irresponsible dog ownership. A public education campaign would help teach
community residents about how to properly care for their pets, as well as
the need to be a responsible pet owner.
Opposition to a Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance:
* MS/N is unenforceable.
* MS/N doesn't address our animal problems in low income areas.
* MS/N targets responsible pet owners instead of irresponsible pet owners.
* MS/N is unenforceable without door-to-door enforcement which is costly.
* MS/N is not acceptable -- even with exemptions for any reason.
* MS/N means genocide with every dog (male and female) altered.
* MS/N is an Animal Rights Agenda to end all use, breeding and ownership of
animals.
* MS/N is a "pet" issue, not a breeder issue.
If you choose to remain uninvolved, do not be amazed when you no longer any
property rights! If they can do this to your dog is anything you have out of
their reach? Your rights, taken away while you are so peacefully staying out
of the "fray". Check history, it is full of nations/empires that
disappeared when its citizens no longer held their core beliefs and values.
One person CAN make a difference. One plus one plus one plus one plus one
plus one.........
____________________________________________________________________________
_
Please make the call?s and fax letters and be polite. We need to let them
know how strongly we oppose this ordinance.
Please write POLITE letters asking them to reject the changes and encourage
local governments to encourage responsible ownership of all dogs.
WE ALL NEED TO STAY ON TOP OF THIS IN ORDER TO HEAD THIS OFF!
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2007. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
- » [ SHOWGSD-L ] Animal Law Alert San Jose
