[ SHOWGSD-L ] NAIA Action Alert on AB 1634 - Ask Appropriations Committee to Oppose! Hearing on July 14
- From: "Ginger Cleary" <cleary1414@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Showgsd-L@Freelists. Org" <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2008 23:53:44 -0400
-----Original Message-----
Please Crosspost the latest NAIA action alert on AB 1634:
http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/issues/alert/?alertid=11576491&type=CT&show_aler
t=1
http://tinyurl.com/6xj63x
The text of the alert is pasted below, but please go to the Capwiz
sight for full information and links. Forward to anyone you know in
California!
**********************************
Write Letters to the Senate Appropriations Committee Opposing AB 1634 Now!
Vote No On AB 1634
July 7, 2008
On June 25, 2008 the Senate Local Government Committee passed Assembly
Member Lloyd Levine's entirely new version of AB 1634 with only slight
amendment. NAIA continues to oppose AB 1634 as currently amended, and
we are taking steps to defeat the bill.
It is now in the Senate Appropriations Committee where it must be
approved before it can go to the full Senate for a vote. The main
issue Appropriations will consider is the bill's fiscal impact on the
state. The Appropriations Committee will be hearing AB 1634 on Monday,
July 14th at 10 am in State Capitol Room 4203.
NAIA is sending a letter to the Appropriations Committee urging a no
vote, but it is critically important that they hear from our
grassroots members in California. We want to emphasize how passage of
this bill will increase reimbursement costs to California for state
mandated local programs, and highlight other flaws in the bill. Please
take swift action to defeat AB 1634 by sending an email to the
Appropriations Committee now using the talking points we have provided.
For more background, click here to review our previous letter to
Senate Local Government Committee Chair
Thank you for taking this important step to help us defeat AB 1634!
NAIA Talking Points:
Without question, passage of AB 1634 as amended July 1, 2008 would
lead to higher state reimbursements to local governments.
The reimbursements claimed under the Hayden Act were $15,676,018 in
2006-2007. The LAO predicts claims of over $23,000,000 in 2008-2009.
Passage of AB 1634 would increase this amount enormously by adding
another major category of offender, millions of California pet owners
who own intact dogs and cats.
The purpose of this bill must be to make keeping an intact pet an
actionable offense. It will have no effect on reducing pet
overpopulation, its stated goal.
The additional fees AB 1634 imposes for a pet being kept intact will
inevitably lead to higher pet relinquishment rates and lower reclaim
rates when a pet is impounded.
If AB 1634 is enforced, it will lead to higher costs for local
governments and increased state reimbursements. If it's not enforced,
it's unnecessary and ineffective.
AB 1634 increases penalties to owners of intact pets, which will
encourage some pet owners to relinquish their pets when cited.
Relinquished pets will increase animal shelter intakes and the number
of days that pets will be held, something which is reimbursable in
many cases under the state mandated local program this bill will
increase.
Under AB 1634, more intact pets will be impounded and fewer will be
reclaimed by their owners.
This will drive up hold times for pets, with some additional pets
being euthanized. Local governments will seek reimbursement from the
state for medical expenses allocated to these pets, and for longer
hold times that lead to euthanasia.
AB 1634 will increase pet euthanasia in California.
Now that the Commission on State Mandates has identified this as an
unfunded mandate allowing local governments to claim reimbursement
under Hayden, the door is open for more cities and counties to file
claims.
AB 1634 would cost local governments more money because increased
fines deter some pet owners from reclaiming their pets. The link
between increased animal control fees and fines and pet relinquishment
is well established and likely to increase in difficult financial times.
Hold times for pets will increase as owners opt to leave their pets
rather than pay the fines. This will result in increased costs to
municipalities and higher euthanasia rates, which will be passed on to
the state for reimbursement.
The language about complaints that appears in the bill makes mere
allegations actionable offenses. A disgruntled neighbor who dislikes
his neighbor or simply doesn't like animals could file a complaint
resulting in a pet owner being cited and fined for owning an intact
pet, without the original complaint being substantiated or cited.
AB 1634 in its present form will increase shelter intakes and
euthanasia rates, pushing costs higher for animal control agencies.
Because of state reimbursements mandated under the Hayden Act, this
cost will be passed on to the state.
If the sponsors truly want to address pet population problems, this
bill should focus only on "at large" free roaming pets. Instead it
uses any complaint about a pet, (verified or not, upheld or not) on or
off the owner's property, as the basis for citing intact pets whose
behavior poses no risk of increasing pet populations.
As it's currently drafted there is no link between the problem
(unwanted pet births) and solution (raising penalties against all pet
infractions, not just infractions that could lead to unwanted pet
births.) According to the interpretation of the author of the bill,
Assembly Member Lloyd Levine, if a person complains that his
neighbor's intact pet left his calling card on his lawn, that claim,
even if it is never verified or cited can be used as the basis for a
secondary offense being cited against the pet for being intact.
During the Senate Local Government hearing, the examples given by the
proponents of AB 1634 to describe how the bill would be enforced
involved pets that were impounded off their own property, but as the
bill is currently drafted, owners of pets that are the subject of
complaints, verified or not, whether on or off their property, can be
cited.
****************************
Ginger Cleary
"... more harm and misery have been caused by men determined to use coercion
to stamp out a moral evil than by men intent on doing evil."-- Fredrich v
Hayek
Rome, GA http://www.rihadin.com/
============================================================================
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 ] NAIA Action Alert on AB 1634 - Ask Appropriations Committee to Oppose! Hearing on July 14
