[ SHOWGSD-L ] FWD CA SB250, LOTS of talking points - long
- From: Stormy Hope <Stormy435@xxxxxxx>
- To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 15:33:47 -0700
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: SiriusFarm@xxxxxxx
Sent: May 4, 2009 11:03 AM
To: SiriusFarm@xxxxxxx
Subject: SB 250 - Letter Ideas - Send Now
People are really tired of fighting after AB1634, but that is what the
proponents are counting on.
SB 250 is in the Senate Appropriations committee now. They meet on May
11th. You must get your letters mailed now so that they will be
received on or before May 8th or make your calls by Friday, May 8th.
This committee does not take faxes so snail mail or call. Please help
us defeat SB250. Your legislators know how busy you are so if they
received mailed letters that is impressive because it took some time
to do. Below I list all addresses and phone numbers for the committee
with numerous letter ideas. Please take the time you would to go to a
dog show or a movie to do this. We need your help.
Below is all the information.
PLEASE FORWARD AND CROSS POST!
Yes, we defeated AB1634. You didn't really think it was over, did you?
California is considering yet another mandatory spay and neuter law.
SB 250
mandates sterilization of most dogs and cats in California. As with
last
year's AB1634, whether or not you spay/neuter your pet is not the point.
Allowing the government to make decisions regarding your property is a
violation of your constitutional rights and is only one step in an
animal
rights extremist agenda of severing all our connections with animals.
People say that could never happen, that there are too many dog lovers
in
this country. But while it's true that a law banning pets outright
would be
unlikely to pass, a mountain of small, innocuous laws, unless stopped,
will
eventually make ownership of pets too complex and too expensive for
almost
everyone.
A few examples: MSN eliminates the hobby breeder and destroys the gene
pools of dogs created through centuries of careful, responsible
breeding.
BSL forbids ownership of certain breeds, based on the whims of
politicians
and animal control organizations, and leaves the door open to include
ANY
breeds. A law which lets inexperienced politicians dictate how chickens
should live can give them the power to make decisions for your pets.
A tail
docking bill for cattle, referred to as "animals," allows the
government to
extend its interference beyond farm animals. Banning "tethering" and
"cages" can be applied to leashes and crates. A bill in Texas makes
it a
crime to possess dog fighting equipment, which is defined to include a
harness, cage, treadmill, decoy, pen, house, feeding apparatus or
training
pen. Owning a crate or even a dog bowl could result in charges being
filed,
and the dogs destroyed before the case even goes to trial. An eventual
verdict of innocence would not save them.
Individually and on the surface, these laws may appear to be small,
seemingly irrelevant steps, but by creating new crimes and imposing new
duties on local animal control agencies, they become open to
interpretation
by anyone with a badge. And as those small steps increase, gaining
power
and momentum, they lead to a stampede we will not be able to avoid.
SB250 - WHAT WILL IT MEAN TO YOU?
SB 250 provides that no person may own, keep, or harbor an unaltered dog
except as specified, and would allow an unaltered dog license to be
denied
or revoked for a variety of vague and arbitrary reasons. (Again,
maybe you
already spay/neuter your dogs. What if you didn't? Do you really think
it's OK for the government to force you to do so? So you don't own a
Pit
Bull. Do you really think it's OK for the government to forbid you from
owning a specific breed? You don't own fighting dogs. What if AC
decided
your crate was dog fighting equipment? Would it be OK if they took
your dog
and euthanized it - shoot first, ask questions later - before you could
prove your innocence?)
In addition, this bill would require anyone who offers any unaltered
dog or
cat for sale, trade, or adoption to meet specified requirements and
report
the sale within 10 days. Also, if an unaltered dog or cat is impounded
pursuant to state or local law, the owner or custodian is required to
meet
specified requirements, including paying the costs of impoundment. Any
impounded pet, no matter what the reason, WILL be sterilized. (So you
breed,
or just show your dogs. Is it OK that you have to report every puppy
sale
to the government? If your gardener accidentally lets your special
out and
it's impounded and sterilized, thus destroying the career you built
for it
so carefully, is that OK?)
ACTION IS NEEDED IMMEDIATELY.
The bill has been introduced and has been assigned to the California
Senate
Local Government Committee. Suggested arguments and discussion points
are
listed below, followed by the contact information, but all that really
matters is that you STATE YOUR OPPOSITION CLEARLY. Thank you to George
Eigenhauser, CFA Legislative Coordinator, for providing this
information.
***************************************
The Appropriations Committee does not take faxes. So you have to
write a letter and mail it or call. Please take action now.
ACTION TO TAKE
Club and organizations and individuals write to the Senate
Appropriations committee members.
Dog Owners should visit or write their own state Senators and
Representatives to inform them you are opposed to this bill.
WHAT THIS LEGISLATION WILL MEAN TO YOU AND ARGUMENTS AGAINST THIS
LEGISLATION:
ORGANIZATIONS (clubs, rescue groups, etc.) must write to the committee
members immediately - there is not much time! Send your letter BY
MAIL to be received by the Committee Consultant, Mark McKenzie. He
will be preparing the bill analysis for the committee. Quantity of
letters is important; Mr. McKenzie is the individual that fast-tracked
AB1634.
INDIVIDIALS - It is important for individuals to send opposition to
the committee too.
BUSINESSES - If you own a business, also send a letter from the
business. If passed, this will increase state liabilities through the
Hayden Act.
In addition to the Committee Consultant, please also copy the thirteen
Appropriations Committee members and as a courtesy copy the bill's
author, Senator Dean Florez.
1) Send your letters on Organization or Club letterhead. Mail or fax
- hard copy is important.
2) Reference the title - " Re: OPPOSE SB 250 as amended 4/21/09
An act to add Section 30804.6 to
the Food and
Agricultural Code, relating to
animals.
3) Begin your letter by stating that your club (state name) is
OPPOSED to SB 250 as amended April 21, 2009. If you are an out of
state club with members in California, please be sure to note that fact.
4) Don't worry too much about substance; the goal is to express your
opposition. One page is ideal - 2 pages are OK.
5) Put comments in your own words. Again, the CDOC website has some
suggestions but form letters are not taken seriously.
6) Conclude your letter by again stating your opposition to the Bill;
thank the Senator for his/her time and ask for a NO vote on SB 250.
IN ADDITION TO THE COMMITTEE, NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS TO
BEGIN CONTACTING THEIR STATE REPRESENTATIVES TO EXPRESS YOUR OPPOSITION.
2009 Senate Appropriations Committee (5 Republicans 8 Democrats)
Christine Kehoe (D)(Committee Chair)
State Capitol, Room 5050
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4039
Fax: (916) 327-2188
Senator David Cox ( R ) Vice Chair
State Capitol, Room 2068
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4001
Fax: (916) 324-2680
Senator Ellen Corbett (D)
State Capitol, Room 5108
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone:(916) 651-4010
Fax: (916) 327-2433
Senator Jeff Denham (R )
State Capitol, Room 3076
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4012
Fax: (916) 445-0773
Senator Mark DeSaulnier (D )
State Capitol, Room 2054
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4007
Fax: (916) 445-2527
Loni Hancock (D )
State Capitol, Room 3092
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4009
Fax: (916) 327-1997
Mark Leno (D)
State Capitol, Room 4061
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4003
Fax: (916) 445-4722
Jenny Oropeza (D)
State Capitol, Room 5114
Sacramento, CA95814
Phone: (916) 651-4028
Fax: (916) 323-6056
George Runner ( R)
State Capitol, Room 4090
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4017
Fax: (916) 445-4662
Mimi Walters (R )
State Capitol, Room 3082
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4033
Fax: (916) 445-9754
Lois Wolk (D)
State Capitol, Room 4032
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4005
Fax: (916) 323-2304
Senator Mark Wyland (R )
State Capitol, Room 4048
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4038
Fax: (916) 446-7382
Leland Yee (D)
State Capitol, Room 4074
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4008
Fax:
Mark McKenzie, Consultant
State Capitol, Room 2206
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916)651-4101
Letter ideas:
Effective solutions to pet population issues have been pioneered in
and are spreading to local jurisdictions across North America.
Dramatic success in reducing shelter euthanasias have occurred as a
result of increased community involvement, adoption outreach,
volunteerism, cooperation with breed rescue groups, increased pet
fostering, and other non-coercive measures that are designed to solve
problems rather than punish responsible pet owners. Draconian measures
like sterilization mandates undermine the ability of these positive
solutions to be effective, as they increase distrust between pet
owners and their government rather than fostering the cooperative
spirit that is essential for success.
I hope I can count on you to oppose SB 250. Thank you.
SUGGESTED ARGUMENTS AGAINST THIS LEGISLATION (SB 250):
** This is a costly unfunded mandate on local governments. Local
governments already have the authority to adopt ordinances to deal with
irresponsible pet owners. State action on this matter is unnecessary.
** Experience has shown that mandatory spay and neuter ordinances are
costly
to administer and ineffective. Analysis of a similar measure last year
(AB
1634) by the California Department of Finance showed animal control
costs
are likely to rise, euthanasia rates increase, and pet licensing drop
off.
Money will have to be taken from other vital local services.
** Studies show that education has worked and 87% to 95% of owned cats
are
now sterilized. Approximately 75% of dogs are sterilized. To further
increase the numbers of owned cats or dogs sterilized it is necessary to
provide low cost or free spay/neuter accessible year round. This bill
would
do nothing to solve the real problem.
** This bill imposes punishment for impounds of cats or dogs by
mandating
sterilization of pets before release. On top of other expense to reclaim
lost pets this will mean more animals will be left in the shelters.
** There are many reasons why a pet could be impounded by animal
services
such as fire, earthquake or other disasters. Pets can get loose from a
carrier going to the veterinarian, escape from a hotel room or be
inadvertently let outside by a careless pet sitter, gardener or other
person. A pet could end up in a
shelter without reflecting owner irresponsibility. This provision means
confiscating the reproductive value of a show/breeding dog or cat.
** Complaints from disgruntled neighbors, or any person who wants to
harass
someone with an intact dog would be encouraged by this bill.
** This is a bad bill, quickly pulled together without regard for
existing
laws or of the practical consequences. For example, it requires anyone
who
sells an intact animal to post the animal's license number. But most
local
jurisdictions do not license cats. Most local jurisdictions do not
provide
for licensing an animal under the age of four months but most puppies
and
kittens are sold before they reach that age.
** This legislation will not improve the lives of cats and dogs but will
negatively impact responsible owners and breeders, and by placing
additional
burdens on owners of intact animals. This will lead to an increase of
animals in shelters.
SB 250 (Florez), is a mandatory spay/neuter bill for dogs and
cats that I would urge you to oppose. This bill amounts to yet another
repackaging of the failed AB 1634 (Levine), which the California
Senate wisely rejected less than 1 year ago.
Mandatory spay / neuter laws like SB 250 are well intentioned but they
do not work. These laws backfire, and lead to more animals being
euthanized in shelters. These laws worsen the tragedy of killing
healthy adoptable pets in shelters.
SB 250 is very similar to the last amended version of AB 1634. It is
vague, poorly written, unworkable, will cost the state millions of
dollars, and will cause the needless deaths of untold numbers of dogs
and cats. Make no mistake, this bill will increase the killing, just
like every other mandatory spay/neuter law.
Laws like SB 250 have increased the number of animals euthanized.
Owners fear they may run afoul of punitive laws and/or cannot afford
to spay/neuter their pets, and so abandon their pets to the shelters.
California?s severe recession has left millions of families struggling
to pay the mortgage and put food on the table. Many pet owners will be
forced to relinquish their pets to shelters as they can neither afford
the sterilization surgery mandated by SB 250, nor the fines imposed
for this failure.
Laws like SB 250 kill. In the year since Los Angeles passed a
mandatory spay / neuter ordinance, euthanasias in their city animal
shelters have skyrocketed by 30%. This reversed many years of steady
progress to reduce the killing of healthy adoptable pets in Los
Angeles. SB 250 would similarly reverse a 25-year steady decrease in
animal shelter euthanasias that has occurred statewide in California.
In every jurisdiction they have been implemented, mandatory spay /
neuter laws like SB 250 have failed. There is not a single example of
success for these measures, anywhere. Proponents of mandatory pet
sterilization point to Santa Cruz County?s spay-neuter ordinance, but
they fail to mention that neighboring counties which do not have such
a law have lower per capita animal euthanasia rates than Santa Cruz
County.
The California Department of Finance opposes mandatory spay / neuter
legislation because it would increase costs to the state?s taxpayers.
This would be fallout from the increase in euthanasias in California?s
animal shelters if such a law were enacted.
The proponents of mandatory sterilization laws claim that they can
save taxpayers money, but experience shows that just the opposite is
true. Animal control costs doubled in Santa Cruz County after they
passed a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. SB 250 would increase animal
control costs that the taxpayers must pay.
A statewide sterilization mandate for nearly all cats and dogs would
impose increased animal control enforcement costs on local
jurisdictions at a time when funding for crucial public safety and
education programs is increasingly tight.
SB 250 amounts to a drastic overreach of government. It punishes
citizens with government-mandated surgery for their pets based on a
wide range of infractions that have nothing to do with the intact
status of their dog or cat, and which cannot be mitigated by mandated
surgery.
Long-time observers described the AB 1634 (Levine) as among the most
contentious and time-consuming legislation dealt with in California in
many years. SB 250 is essentially the 13th amended version of AB 1634,
and will reopen the same conflict. No one will benefit from this,
especially California?s citizens who need their legislature to focus
on other pressing issues.
The extent, nature, and causes of animal shelter populations are not
uniform across California?s many jurisdictions. Measures that are
enacted in Los Angeles may not be appropriate in Nevada County or San
Diego County. These are complex issues, and one size does not fit all.
A statewide mandate like SB 250 would tie the hands of local officials
in their efforts to pursue solutions that are appropriate in their
communities.
The passage of similar spay / neuter laws like SB 250 in other
jurisdictions has reduced licensing revenue from pet owners. Such laws
have pushed many pet owners underground and created polarization
between pet owners and their government.
Spay and neuter can have serious health and behavioral impacts, which
are well documented in recent veterinary medical research studies.
These studies have overturned previous assumptions about the long-term
impacts of these sterilization surgeries. As a result of this new
understanding, the American Veterinary Medical Association?s advisory
body for spay and neuter issues, the American College of
Theriogenologists, issued a position statement in 2008 firmly opposed
to mandatory spay / neuter laws.
Recent research has determined that assumptions about the effect of
spaying and neutering on dog behavior are false. Rather than
decreasing aggression, spaying and neutering have been determined to
be more likely to increase aggression in dogs.
Animal owners in consultation with their veterinarians are the
appropriate persons to make veterinary medical decisions about their
dogs or cats. Government should not be mandating surgical procedures.
Experts in K9 law enforcement, K9 search-and-rescue, guide dogs for
the blind, and service dogs for the disabled oppose mandatory spay /
neuter legislation as a threat to the future availability of the dogs
they need. No ?exemptions? in a mandatory sterilization law can
adequately protect these animals, as witnessed by the 18 month effort
and 12 amended versions before the California state legislature
finally rejected a nearly identical mandatory spay / neuter bill last
year.
Mandatory spay/neuter laws like SB 250 are a misguided one-size-fits-
all solution to a complex problem that has multiple causes. The
overwhelming majority of cats euthanized in shelters are feral,
unowned cats and their kittens. Since these cats are unowned a law
that targets pet owners is useless.
Laws like SB 250 create an adversarial environment between the
shelters and the pet owners. As a result license compliance drops and
fewer people visit the shelter to adopt.
Experience across the country is that mandatory spay/neuter laws like
SB 250 are a failure. Dog deaths in the parts of San Mateo County
covered by a mandatory sterilization ordinance increased by 126%, cat
deaths increased by 86%, while both decreased in the city of San Mateo
which was not covered by the ordinance.
Mandatory spay/neuter laws drive many responsible breeders out of the
practice, thereby reducing the supply of well-bred, healthy, home-
raised puppies and kittens. The demand will still be met. It will be
met with puppies and kittens bred under much poorer conditions, many
of which will be imported from other countries.
Many of the people who would be affected by SB 250 are the very people
who at no taxpayer expense currently re-home shelter dogs and cats,
educate the public about responsible pet ownership, give low-cost dog
training classes, fund microchip and spay/neuter clinics, etc. The
cost of these free services would amount to additional millions if
they had to be replaced by government agencies.
Effective solutions to pet population issues have been pioneered in
and are spreading to local jurisdictions across North America.
Dramatic success in reducing shelter euthanasias have occurred as a
result of increased community involvement, adoption outreach,
volunteerism, cooperation with breed rescue groups, increased pet
fostering, and other non-coercive measures that are designed to solve
problems rather than punish responsible pet owners. Draconian measures
like sterilization mandates undermine the ability of these positive
solutions to be effective, as they increase distrust between pet
owners and their government rather than fostering the cooperative
spirit that is essential for success.
I hope I can count on you to oppose SB 250. Thank you.
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 ] FWD CA SB250, LOTS of talking points - long - Stormy Hope
