From BayTeam

Members of the Bay Team and other local community members might want to keep up on what dog-related legislation is pending and how they can get involved.

For any info posted here, please first try to neutrally describe the legislation or issue, and then identify whether any further information is for or against.

Contents 1 Mailing list 2 News on Pet Related Regulation 2.1 SB 250 to resurface 2010 2.2 AB1122 Vetoed by Governor 2.3 AB241 Vetoed by Governor 2.4 Los Angeles Spay/Neuter Advisory Committee Report 2.5 Learn About Successful Animal Control Policy 3 Resources 3.1 Sites generally against pet control legislation 3.2 Sites generally in favor of pet control legislation 4 News of Interest 4.1 American College of Theriogenologists position paper regarding MSN 5 Commentary 5.1 A little shy about speaking up? 5.1.1 So What's the Problem with SB250? 5.1.2 So What's the Problem with AB241? 5.1.3 So What's the Problem with AB1122? 5.2 Officials and the Law 5.3 Background Issues 5.3.1 Shelter Practices 5.3.2 When and Whether Sterilization is the Right Health Choice 5.3.3 Enforcement Practices

Mailing list

The Bay Team has a club-members-only legislation mailing list to which you can subscribe or unsubscribe.

News on Pet Related Regulation

SB 250 to resurface 2010

On 8 Sept SB250 was defeated in the Assembly by a vote of 28-42. It is being made a two year bill so it can be taken up next year. It will become active again sometime in January 2010.

Under SB250 dogs and cats must be sterilized by 6 months of age unless the owner holds a special license. Enforcement must be "concurrent" to another violation. This affects when the law is enforced, not the mandatory nature of the spay and neuter. Failing to obtain the required license is a violation sufficient to trigger enforcement. This is a strict liability law. That means there is no legal excuse for claims that the pet was out by accident, that a license renewal was overlooked etc. A violation is sufficient for revoking the ability to own any intact animals and refusing future licenses. Regardless of your position we can expect passing to have an effect on agility as the risks to law violations (off leash, not wearing license) will be more significant than a fine.

You can express your opinion on SB250 to your representative. Use the "Find My District" tool to get current contact information. Effective communication can start with a statement of position on the bill followed by three or four sentences outlining why. Faxes are best, followed by postal mail, and phone calls. Some legislators provide "send email" forms on their sites. :An alternative source has been formatted to allow space for notes or comments at each provision

Concerned Dog Owners of California publishes material in opposition to SB250. Save Our Dogs provides a form based letter to oppose SB250. Yes On SB250 provides a form based letter to support SB250. See the #Commentary section for opinions on SB250.

AB1122 Vetoed by Governor

AB1122 Selling Animals in Public Places This bill would have added provisions to the anti-cruelty laws making it a crime to sell, trade, barter, display, or offer for sale, trade, or barter, or give away as part of a commercial transaction a live animal in various public places. It would not require physical transfer of custody in the specified location.

For opinion see the section Dog-related_legislation#So_What.27s_the_Problem_with_AB1122.3F

AB241 Vetoed by Governor

AB241 would have made it unlawful for any person to own, possess, control or otherwise have charge or custody of more than a combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats at any time used for the purpose of breeding or raising dogs or cats for sale as pets, or for the purpose of producing offspring from dogs or cats for sale as pets. The provisions specified "own" regardless of physical location of the animals. It would have included, for example, people who co-own. It also would have included those who may possess or control animals in those numbers without owning them. It has passed the full Senate.

For opinion see the section Dog-related_legislation#So_What.27s_the_Problem_with_AB241.3F

Los Angeles Spay/Neuter Advisory Committee Report

The Los Angeles Spay/Neuter Advisory Committee Report is too long to summarize here. One of the stated goals is to reduce breeding permit applications by increasing prices and raising standards. Another goal is to restrict approved registries "Registries should be investigated and found to have standards for registry protecting the health of animals to be bred and the offspring before approval is granted."

Learn About Successful Animal Control Policy

In March Bill Bruce (Director of By-Laws for Calgary, Alberta) presented on the Calgary program that increased dog licensing to over 90% as well as reducing euthanasia and dog bites. Mr. Bruce's presentation was recorded and made available on the Santa Barabara County web site In October Mr Bruce will be in Northern California making additional presentations.

Resources

The best way to stay informed of legislation and its consequences is to (a) visit relevant web sites regularly and (b) subscribe to mailing lists. There is nothing wrong with subscribing to, listening to, and asking questions in lists representing various views.

To review other dog related California legislation and subscribe to keep up-to-date visit the CDOCA Legislation Page The AKC now has a service that enables you to check the status of all 2009 canine legislation in each of the 50 states, as well as federal legislation. http://www.akc.org/canine_legislation The service is a reference tool and does not necessarily indicate that AKC has taken a position on the legislation.

Sites generally against pet control legislation

• Save Our Dogs Strongly opposed to most dog and cat control legislation with a focus on concerns regarding working dogs and working dog breeds in various capacities.

• PetPAC A political action committee formed to work against most pet control legislation. PetPAC is raising funds for advertising and educational efforts toward "No Kill" and to counter compulsory sterilization legislation.

• National Animal Interest Alliance Generally in opposition to pet control legislation.

• Concerned Dog Owners of California has an email based newsletter to keep up to date on legislative issues.

• California Anti Pet Legislation Awareness Moderate volume discussion list covering the politics and personalities driving activism on both sides in addition to the actual pet related legislation. Your choice to participate via email or web site.

• American Kennel Club - Canine Legislation Monitors and reports on legislation affecting its members, participants and supporters. Generally good at providing concise information.

Sites generally in favor of pet control legislation

• Animal Shelter Reform A high traffic discussion list seeking nationwide legislative efforts primarily focused on shelter populations, including mandatory spay and neuter laws. Your choice to participate via email or web site.

• PETA Advocates compulsory sterilization toward creating a "No Birth Nation."

News of Interest

American College of Theriogenologists position paper regarding MSN

The American Veterinary Medical Association's advisory body for spay and neuter issues, the American College of Theriogenologists,issued a position paper on mandatory spay and neuter. In summary the organization supports voluntary spay and neuter and recommends against mandatory spay and neuter because of the need to balance a variety of health and social considerations.

Commentary

A little shy about speaking up?

Whether it is that you are just shy, or feeling overwhelmed, or believe you don't have time to speak up, now is the time to reconsider. Your voice does count. If your view does not prevail will you be able to say that at least you tried? What bad thing will happen if you try?

So What's the Problem with SB250?

While SB 250 is mandatory spay and neuter some people feel comforted because ... well if you are a good person and you obey all the rules it won't be enforced against you, right? Well not exactly. You can be a good person, follow all the rules, and still get cited for a violation of the rules. If animal control can send out a demand letter to license a stuffed dog http://www.kget.com/news/local/story/Bakersfield-woman-hounded-over-pet-pooch/iLMJ6p-_HkadnXbfclgZ8A.cspx they can decide that you violated a rule when you didn't. Not every accusation is as easy to disprove as the stuffed dog incident. Not everyone out there is a good person reporting with honesty and integrity. Some people believe that anyone who breeds is evil and must be stopped. What is a little lying in pursuit of that? Also the rules don't require intentional violation. A mistake is good enough to get your right to own intact animals revoked, permanently. If local agencies follow the recommendations of the Los Angeles Spay/Neuter Advisory Committee Report there will not be intact licensing available for any AKC dogs.

Most of us don't follow all the rules. Because we run collarless in agility most of us regularly break the law that says our dogs must wear their license tags at all times. That is all that is required to enforce the law that says your dog must be sterilized, and to revoke any intact/breeding permits you may hold.

A stand against mandatory spay and neuter is not the same as a stand against spaying and neutering. Most people who have the resources to do so do spay and neuter. Most people who don't have the resources will spay and neuter if given help and non-judgmental education. The positive effects of spay and neuter can be accomplished without the detrimental side-effects of legislation. Recognize the different influences of culture on the human-animal relationship and open the door to communication with those of varying views.

So What's the Problem with AB241?

AB241 started out affecting only people who had 50 adult intact animals on their premises and were breeding those animals. Now it affects anyone who owns or co-owns a combined total of 50 intact cats and dogs older than 4 months. This bill is carefully drawn to NOT have anything at all to do with the conditions the dogs are kept in, nor where they are physically. It does not matter if you place each of your 50 dogs in 50 separate private homes. It will be illegal to leave them intact and retain an ownership interest.

Breeders who want to ensure that they have legal rights to recover a dog from a shelter, or control how/whether the dog is bred, may retain a co-ownership in the dog. This bill makes doing that a serious problem. For example: You own a single intact dog that you are campaigning. The dog is co-owned by a person who has been breeding over ten years one or two litters a year. That person had the practice of retaining a co-ownership on every dog, just as they did with yours. They have well over 50 dogs in co-ownership. They are now in violation. You can be required to sterilize your dog. If SB250 passes and you violated this law you will not be able to own another intact dog.

The loathsome conditions that are supposed to be the target of the bill are already illegal, already regulated, and already not enforced. This bill only expands the reach of the law, it does not add protection for the animals themselves.

So What's the Problem with AB1122?

AB1122 sounds good on the surface. Get rid of impulse buys at flea-markets. The actual provisions, however, are much broader than most people expect. For example, you have a well bred litter of puppies at home. You are in a public place discussing your breeding program and you say you do have a puppy that is available. If what you have done is legally offered that puppy for sale you have committed a crime and risk conviction under animal abuse laws. If you have a dog that you need to place and you are not placing it under the umbrella of a formal rescue organization taking that animal into a public place and making it known that it is available risks violation of this proposed law. You have previously arranged a sale of a puppy. You bring the puppy to an agility event. The buyer meets you in the public parking lot. You risk conviction under this proposed law.

If AB 1122 becomes law it will be illegal under animal abuse laws "for any person to willfully sell, display or offer for sale or give away as part of a commercial transaction, a live animal on any street, highway, public right-of-way, parking lot, carnival, or boardwalk" Bay Teamers should use caution in discussing the availability of dogs or puppies while in these kinds of public places. Use only private places for transfer of ownership.

Officials and the Law

Draw the law clearly and narrowly to reduce the opportunity for abuse. Do not count on "intent" to protect you. Would a public official ever abuse legislative intent? Consider this question and answer published in the Palm Beach Post (Florida) on January 13, 2008. (Archived articles require a fee to view in full)

Dianne Sauve has been director since 2002 of Palm Beach County Animal Care and Control. Ms. Sauve is strongly backing a proposal, being discussed Tuesday by county commissioners, that would require pet owners to spay or neuter their animals or pay a $75 fee and sign a no-breed pledge.

Q - They'd be allowed to pay ($75) per dog and keep them intact even without a hobby permit?

A - The answer is, yes, they could. But they would have to sign an affidavit not to breed and because they are now the subject of an investigation for failure to comply with an ordinance, they would be prohibited from moving those animals, which means we're able to go back and keep an eye on those animals. In other words, we will be such a nuisance that you will either surrender your animals to us or you're going to move from Palm Beach County.

The City of Los Angeles "DAWS" program follows the lead of Palm Beach, Florida in recruiting uniformed volunteers to enforce various animal control laws. Prepare yourself to act calmly and legally if you should be faced with an unwelcome visit from animal control or its volunteers. The City of Los Angeles "DAWS" program naturally tends to attract anti-breeder volunteers.

Background Issues

Shelter Practices

Regardless of which side you are on with regard to laws mandating pet sterilization it helps to have some background on what is going on in shelters. The No Kill Advocacy Center filed suit against Los Angeles County Shelters alleging unlawful and abusive treatment of animals. Essentially the County has claimed there was insufficient basis for the lawsuit to proceed and the judge disagreed. So it will proceed to the proof portion.

While shelters express concern about the number of animals killed allegations of their policies and practices can cast doubt on the sincerity of those concerns. Consider, for example, this description of an attempt to adopt a dog, and this description of the practices of Kern county shelters. The comments to the follow up are important in suggesting that problem discussed in the original article is not unusual.

When and Whether Sterilization is the Right Health Choice

One issue in mandatory sterilization legislation is the pet owner's ability to evaluate and determine when and whether sterilization is a sound choice for their particular circumstance. An article by By Margaret Root-Kustritz, DVM, PhD, reviews a variety of studies and literature to evaluate the spay / neuter decision. This discussion sets aside the issue of population control to look at the health issues involved.

• The article Determining The Best Age At Which To Spay Or Neuter provides charts and academic resources. See also Determining the optimal age for gonadectomy of dogs and cats which is essentially the same article for an academic audience.
• Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete - One Veterinarian's Opinion by Chris Zink, a vet who also does agility. Draws her conclusions based on a summary of studies.
• Long-Term Health Effects of Spaying and Neutering in Dogs; another survey of studies, organized slightly differently.

Enforcement Practices

Those who feel that they need not worry about pet legislation because they plan to just ignore it may find themselves in a difficult position. Enforcement efforts will put such people to the choice of between important pet health care or evading official notice. For example, if you take your pet for rabies vaccines California law now requires the veterinarian to report that transaction to local animal control for matching against their records. Some ordinances make refusal to comply a criminal offense.

Enforcing agencies are demanding club membership rosters or show catalogs as evidence that a dog meets exemption criteria. These agencies then use the rosters to locate individuals who have not registered their dogs or applied for exemptions. Failure to obtain an exemption before enforcement may waive the ability to get an exemption from mandatory sterilization provisions.