[ SHOWGSD-L ] Calif: URGENT alert: SB 861! morphs into anti breeding bill of ANY breed..
- From: Peggy <pmick@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: showgsd-l <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:43:11 -0400
I hate to ask this...but did you guys in California drop the ball, or
what? This can very easily bear on Shepherd breeders...
Peggy
> FROM ONE STATE TO THE NEXT... AND ONE BREED TO THE NEXT....
> AND ADDING ON TO AN OTHER BILL....... SNEAKY PETE!
> What was a bill related to BSL has suddenly morphed into an anti-breeding
> bill! A state wide anti-breeding bill that would allow cities and towns to
> ban breeding and legislate mandatory spay neuter! This could move to the
> Senate very quickly. To oppose this visit the NAIA Trust
>website
>http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/state/main/?state=CA&view=issues#3
>
>>From Lawyer Jeff Helsden here is the history of what happened:
>
>Cal. SB 861 passed the General Assembly yesterday by a vote of 44-25. The
>bill goes on to the Senate.
>
>As you probably already know, the bill was originally designed to change the
>amount of time that the Director of the Department of Health Services must
>update allowable drug price increases under the Medi-Cal program. It was
>assigned to the Senate Health Committee. It passed out of the Senate by a
>vote of 35-4 on June 2.
>
>After the fatal dog bite against the boy in San Francisco, Sen. Speier
>gutted the existing language of the bill. After the amendment, the bill was
>miraculously transfigured before us all, clad in glowing white raiments,
>into a bill that exempted California cities and counties from the sinful
>confines of
>non-breed discriminatory dangerous dog laws.
>
>The June 25th amendment read as follows:
>
>Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prevent a city or county from
>adopting or enforcing its own program for the control of potentially dangerous
>or vicious dogs
>that may incorporate all, part, or none of this chapter, or that may
>punish a violation of this chapter as a misdemeanor or may impose a
>more restrictive program to control potentially dangerous or vicious
>dogs , provided that no program shall regulate these dogs in
>a manner that is specific as to breed .
> (b) Cities and counties may pass breed specific legislation to
>address public safety and welfare concerns in their communities,
>provided that no program shall institute a ban specific as to breed.
>
>Obviously, the intent of the bill was to allow cities to pass breed-profiling
>ordinances in furtherance of protecting the public welfare from dangerous dogs.
>
>On July 5, the bill was amended again. This time, 861 would only allow cities
>and counties to adopt breed discriminatory provisions if they were "limited"
>to mandatory spay/neuter ordinances or breeder restrictions by breed. The
>bill, as amended, still focused on dangerous dogs. One of the significant
>portions of the bill read as follows:
>
>Jurisdictions that implement programs described in subdivision a) shall
>measure the effect of those programs by compiling statistical information on
>dog bites. The information shall, at a
>minimum, identify dog bites by severity, the breed of the dog involved,
>whether the dog was altered, and whether the breed of dog was subject to a
>program established pursuant to subdivision (a). These statistics shall be
>submitted quarterly to the State Veterinarian.
>
>Yesterday, the bill was amended again. It still keeps the mandatory
>spay/neuter and breeder restriction exemptions to the California BSL
>pre-emption.
>However, the rationale for the bill has been changed. It is no longer designed
>to allow cities to adopt dangerous dog laws. No. SB 861 has now gone from the
>Transfiguration of the bill to the Conversion of its Apostles. The rationale
>for adopting BSL is now to prevent pet overpopulation:
>
>The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
>
> (a) Uncontrolled and irresponsible breeding of animals contributes to pet
> overpopulation, inhumane treatment of animals, mass euthanasia at local
> shelters, and escalating costs for animal care and control; this
> irresponsible breeding also contributes to the production of defective
> animals that present a public safety risk.
>
> (b) Though no specific breed of dog is inherently dangerous or vicious, the
> growing pet overpopulation and lack of regulation of animal breeding
> practices necessitates a repeal of the ban on breed-specific solutions and a
> more immediate alternative to existing laws.
>
> (c) It is therefore the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter
> to permit cities and counties to take appropriate action aimed at eliminating
> uncontrolled and irresponsible breeding of animals
>
>In fact, SB 861 now prevents a city from adopting BSL as part of its
>dangerous dog laws:
>
>122331. (a) Cities and counties may enact dog breed-specific ordinances
>pertaining only to mandatory spay or neuter programs and breeding requirements
>, provided that no specific
>dog breed, or mixed dog breed, shall be declared potentially dangerous or
>vicious under those ordinances .
>
>Leave aside for the moment the intriquing question about what is a "mixed dog
>breed," and how any city ordinance that is non-breed specific could regulate
>any dogs at all if the ordinance could not also regulate "mixed dog breed[s]."
>
>One thought came to me, though. I would like the opinion of some who are on
>this list. Does any city who adopts a breed-discriminatory mandatory
>spay/neuter ordinance (assuming passage of SB 861) have a problem in naming
>American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Bull Terriers
>and so forth if the city cannot demonstrate that those breeds are
>statistically overrepresented in the "pet overpopulation" problem present in
>that city?
>
>The last paragraph of the bill reads:
>
>b) Jurisdictions that implement programs described in subdivision (a) shall
>measure the effect of those programs by compiling statistical information on
>dog bites. The information shall, at a minimum, identify dog bites by
>severity, the breed of the dog involved, whether the dog was altered, and
>whether the breed of dog was subject to a program established pursuant to
>subdivision (a). These statistics shall be submitted quarterly to the State
>Public Health Veterinarian.
>
>What is the purpose of requiring the city to compile statistics about dog
>bites if the bill no longer is designed to address this egregious dangerous
>dog probem, but instead is designed to correct an "overpopulation" problem?
>
>Jeff Helsdon
>
>
>
>
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2005. 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 - http://www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
- » [ SHOWGSD-L ] Calif: URGENT alert: SB 861! morphs into anti breeding bill of ANY breed..
