[ SHOWGSD-L ] CA SB250 notes on Committee Hearing Today...
- From: Stormy Hope <Stormy435@xxxxxxx>
- To: SHOWGSD-L <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:16:40 -0700
Permission to crosspost given
Notes of the CA SB250 committee hearing today. Thank you, Brat. The
bill will now move to the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Contacts
for that committee will be up on the carpoc.org/cc.html shortly.
Stormy
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Please note that I was typing as quickly as possible. Excuse any
spelling errors.]
At 9:13am, the audio portion of the Assenbly B&P began addressing CA
SB250. Florez began by informing the Chair that he has "submitted his
amendments in mockup." Chair Hayashi advised him immediately that the
committee "can't take the amendments today." Then, Florez stated that
he has witnesses present in support of the bill.
First to speak was a woman from Riverside County who informed that she
is an animal services "professional." Next up was a man who
identified himself as the General Manager of Santa Cruz Animal
Services Authority. He informed of his large successes.
Then the Chair indicated that there would be two (2) witnesses per
side. Five minutes total speaking time.
Hayashi next asked individuals in support to state their name/
organization. A woman speaking from Los Angeles on behalf of Mayor
Villaraigosa spoke, Voice for Animals (Patti Shankar), Social
Compassion in Legislation (Judie Mancuso), Take Me Home (Haze Lynn),
Director of Santa Cruz SPCA (Lisa Carter), and another Santa Cruz
shelter worker came to the microphone to support the bill. No one else.
Witnesses in opposition next.
Bill Hemby (PetPAC) addressed the Committee indicating that it has
been proven MSN does not work and has failed in every municipality.
He mentioned Department of Finance statement. It affects mostly
elderly, poor, and non-English speaking. These individuals should be
protected ... not punished. There are 9 million dog and cat owners in
CA. It is outrageous to create a new crime for owning a natural
animal. Removing their reproductive organs is unhealthy, dangerous,
and not compassionate. It is opposed by AVMA, ASPCA, CA Department of
Finance, as well as tens of thousands of CA citizens. It is also
noteworthy that HSUS is "not" in support of the bill.
Dr. John Hamil spoke in opposition. It intrudes on doctor/client
relationship. Not as simple a procedure as everyone is lead to
believe such as post-op problems, cancer, etc. MSN has driven people
out of the system. People do not go to their veterinarians, do not
get rabies vaccine, do not license. $20 million has been received in
prior years by Maddies Fund. This will not happen if SB250 passes.
Locally developed programs will always outperform punitive programs.
Dr. Kay Henderson spoke representing NAIA. Does it achieve goal?
Will it have positive/negative effect on budget? Will it affect
licensing? It will kill more animals instead of less. Graph
indicates that Santa Cruz has NOT improved when compared with other
counties.
A quorum is present.
Florez stated that opposition had three witnesses. Hayashi (Chair)
then stated that individuals should come to the microphone to state
their name and position. Bill Hemby informed that he has a list of
20,000 names in opposition. Chair Hayashi advised that he should
present it to the Sergeant.
Some of the individuals/organizations opposing included TICA, CCI
(Canine Companions for Independence), ADI (Assistance Dog
International), NAIA, CFODC (representing 40,000+ members in state),
Commissioner with Kern County said "local not state" issue, CDOC, CA
Outdoor Heritage Alliance, AKC delegate for Bull Terriers, Terry
Touissant, NorCal Dog Fanciers, SF Dog Training Club, California
Animal Voters Allliance (Jan Dykema), Bull Terrier Rescue, Dr. Charles
Hjierpe (sp?), Wine Country Kennel Club, Solano County Animal Care
Commission, Sacramento Council of Dog Clubs, Santa Rosa Multiple
Sclerosis Care Givers Group ("Doesn't want it to turn into Planet of
Apes where we don't have pets"), Chuck Bridges, Gold Country Hounds &
Hunters, Northern CA and Southern CA Pit Bull clubs, several UKC
senior judges, several AKC judges, CDOC (Bill McFadden), numerous
kennel clubs, numerous rescue organizations, We The People Pets & CA
Animal Voters Alliance (Diane
Amble and Tamara Burnett), Toby Bloom (representing a guide dog
organization), Responsible Pet Owners of Riverside (Mary Bradley),
CDOC (Cathie Turner), another veterinarian, and dozens of others came
to the microphone in opposition.
Someone suggested "Legislators should spay and neuter themselves
before they touch our dogs!"
Hayashi asked if there were questions from committee members. Mr.
Emmerson addressed Dr. Hamil who stated that all those in opposition
support spay/neuter but we do not want a "mandated" program.
Licensing decreases, etc. He stated that this is old news. MSN
failed in Long Beach, Lake County, Santa Cruz and other areas. It has
worked from the standpoint that numbers are improving but numbers are
improving everywhere. The costs in Santa Cruz County have doubled in
this fifteen (15) year time period, drives people out of system, etc.
Florez then gave a little "history" on "how we got here." He then
said that "This is NOT a mandatory spay/neuter bill. A year ago there
was the Levine bill which died in the Senate. He said that he voted
against the bill because "mandatory" had to occur for that bill to
happen. We then introduced our bill this year to give people a
choice. You have a choice to pay the local licensing fee in order to
keep your pet unaltered. If this was the Levine bill, I probably
would have been in line with them. Not one single county has opposed
this. None of these counties have sent in one letter of opposition.
This will will be an easy vote. It is the middle ground between last
year and this year."
Nava then moved the bill.
Then someone asked about Los Angeles. (I did not get the Assembly
member name.) Florez said that the local government can have a higher
cost, etc. If you live in a rural county, to have an unaltered
license will cost you 13cents more. The cost of responsibility is
$0.1325 to $1.00. This bill simply provides some guidance on a
program that works.
Another Assembly member spoke. The Farm Bureau raises issues with
respect to working animals. He said that he will give a courtesy vote
out of this committee today and reserves the right to oppose on the
floor if amendments do not satisfy these issues.
Emmerson said he can understand why some counties did not send in
opposition to the bill. Sacramento County charges TEN TIMES more. As
a county they would have the option to charge more.
Florez says "That's a good thing!"
Hayashi supports the measure. A vote is taken.
Vote is 5 to 3. Measure is on call. "Mr. Florez, you just need one
more vote. Thank you."
9:57am call is lifted
Vote is 6 to 3. Your measure is out.
Stormy Hope
www.carpoc.org
AKC Legislative Liaison, GSDCA
Sunshine Squad <showgsd.org/sunshine.html)
GSDs and more
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2008. 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://showgsd.org
NATIONAL BLOG - http://gsdnational.blogspot.com/
============================================================================
Other related posts:
- » [ SHOWGSD-L ] CA SB250 notes on Committee Hearing Today... - Stormy Hope
