Urgent Update! ... Action Needed! ... SB250 is moving forward!

• Contact the Members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee and ask them to oppose SB 250.  

• Encourage your club to send a letter.

Just Received the following communication from the
Concerned Dog Owners of California -- June 30, 2009

Please read and PASS IT ON! 

Please read this entire e-blast for information about SB 250 and the next steps. This is very important that information get out to dog (and cat) lovers throughout the State of California and that each of us makes a personal commitment to get this bill finally defeated.

SB 250 was heard by the California Assembly Business and Professions Committee. There was a quorum in spite absences of committee members. Senator Florez did not have available the promised amendments although he stated that he had them mocked up. The chairperson declined to accept any mock ups and said that the committee would consider the bill as is--

After testimony from both sides, those attending the hearing were allowed to stand and state their name and position. There were about a dozen people present in favor of the bill and decades present against the bill. Testimony opposing the bill was straight forward and factual. Bill Hemby from PetPAC spoke about the Department of Finance report and the fact that the AVMA and ASPCA do not support mandatory spay/neuter nor has HSUS supported this bill. Dr. John Hamil was brought in by CDOC and spoke about the intrusion this bill presents to veterinarians and about the process of sterilization as well as the risks associated with using MSN as a punishment. Representing NAIA was Dr. Kay Henderson who presented graphs as well as factual information about the Santa Cruz model.

In spite of solid testimony, a petition with over 20,000 names presented, and an overwhelming presence the vote was 6-3 with Ira Ruskin casting the deciding vote. Ruskin originally did not vote and if he had stayed the course, the bill would have failed-- but again, granted reconsideration Florez was able to convince the lone democrat stand-out to cast a supporting vote. The three Republicans present voted against. One Republican from what I understand was not present but that would not have changed the outcome.

People who especially live or work in Ira Ruskin's district need to contact him and professionally request that he change his vote if the bill gets to the Assembly Floor. Ruskin's is the 21st District and covers: all or part of 13 cities in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, including San Carlos, Redwood City, Atherton, Portola Valley, Woodside, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Palo Alto, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, the Almaden Valley of San Jose, and Stanford University. Call his office today==(916) 319 - 2021 if you are a constituent or pass this information on to those who live in his district.

SB 250 now goes to Appropriation and we are fairly sure that Florez is going to fast track this bill.

ONE VERY IMPORTANT POINT-- LETTERS REGARDING SB 250 WERE LARGELY IN FAVOR OF THE BILL. SUPPORT LETTERS OUTNUMBERED OPPOSITION LETTERS 10-1 and there were fewer organizations and dog clubs writing official letters. I have heard that fax machines were turned off over the weekend which simply means we need to have a show of power quicker.

Although no amendments have been published, letters can be started to the Assembly Appropriations Committee and to individual Assembly members.  If everyone who receives this e-blast writes a letter to each Appropriations Committee member and to their own Assembly member and then gets five additional people to do the same, we would almost double the number of letters received for the Business and Professions committee. WE NEED TO TELL SACRAMENTO THAT THE USE OF SPAY/NEUTER EITHER AS POLICY OR PENALTY MAKES THIS A MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER BILL. Florez keeps saying that this is not a mandatory spay/neuter bill because people can pay to keep their pets intact.

Remind your assembly member of the following points:

1) It is not currently illegal to own an intact pet. SB 250 would make it illegal to own a "natural" animal.

2) To be able to keep your pet intact, you would have to apply for, qualify for, and retain a license. However, that license can be denied or revoked for a number of reasons and many not having anything to do with the animal's reproductive ability.

3) Once a license has been denied or revoked, an owner MAY NEVER own another intact animal FOREVER and all intact pets owned or cared for by this owner will be required to be sterilized.

THIS IS A $5000 PENALTY FOR A 25 CENT INFRACTION

4) Even though the costs of this mandate would be the responsibility of the local governments, the Department of Finance came out in opposition of SB 250 because it will be very expensive be it to the local governments or to the State. Go to www.sb250.org and download the report. Send this to every member of the Appropriations Committee and especially to your own assemblymember.

5) Another reason the Department of Finance opposes SB 250 is because of the failed track record of mandatory spay/neuter. The costs increase. The euthanasia rate increases. The number of impounds and surrenders increase. The use of mandatory spay/neuter either as policy or penalty does not decrease animal deaths. Ironically, animal deaths increase as does overall costs and expenses.

Focus your letters on the following points:

1.  Local control
2.  Increasing costs/mandates during a time of financial crisis
3.  The lack of evidence (Santa Cruz) that the program works

Laura Finco
CDOC Communications

The following are members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee; phone numbers and emails. I will get mailing addresses and fax numbers out as soon as possible.

Kevin de Leon - Chair 
Dem-45     
(916) 319-2045     
Assemblymember.deLeon@assembly.ca.gov

Jim Nielsen - Vice Chair
Rep-2     
(916) 319-2002     
Assemblymember.Nielsen@assembly.ca.gov

Tom Ammiano
Dem-13     
(916) 319-2013     
Assemblymember.Ammiano@assembly.ca.gov

Charles M. Calderon
Dem-58     
(916) 319-2058     
Assemblymember.Calderon@assembly.ca.gov

Joe Coto
Dem-23     
(916) 319-2023     
Assemblymember.coto@assembly.ca.gov

Mike Davis
Dem-48     
(916) 319-2048     
Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov

Michael D. Duvall
Rep-72     
(916) 319-2072     
Assemblymember.Duvall@assembly.ca.gov

Felipe Fuentes
Dem-39     
(916) 319-2039     
Assemblymember.fuentes@assembly.ca.gov

Isadore Hall III
Dem-52     
(916) 319-2052     
Assemblymember.Hall@assembly.ca.gov

Diane L. Harkey
Rep-73     
(916) 319-2073     
Assemblymember.Harkey@assembly.ca.gov

Jeff Miller
Rep-71     
(916) 319-2071     
Assemblymember.Miller@assembly.ca.gov

John A. Pérez
Dem-46     
(916) 319-2046     
Assemblymember.John.Perez@assembly.ca.gov

Nancy Skinner
Dem-14     
(916) 319-2014     
Assemblymember.Skinner@assembly.ca.gov

Jose Solorio
Dem-69     
(916) 319-2069     
Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov

Audra Strickland
Rep-37     
(916) 319-2037     
Assemblymember.strickland@assembly.ca.gov

Tom Torlakson
Dem-11     
(916) 319-2011     
Assemblymember.Torlakson@assembly.ca.gov
 

Additional Update!  ... Please Read!  ... Opposition Letters Please Re-Send! ...

Also recieved today May 30, 2009

Regarding Opposition Letters Not Recieved

Several people have sent concerns regarding the low number of opposition letters in the SB 250 analysis. I personally had 14 organizations whose names were not listed (and sent 20+ individual letters of opposition via fax as well). Definitely there was a breakdown somewhere-- I have called Rebecca May and confirmed that the fax number below is the correct number.

There is the advisement to resend any letters of opposition that did not get listed to Rebecca May, noting that they were sent but not listed and that it would be appropriate for the analysis to be revised noting the omissions. I know this takes a lot of effort but it is worth the trouble since future committee consultants go back and review previous analysis done.


Rebecca May
Associate Consultant
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-319-3301
916-319-3306 (fax)

 

Update on SB250 ... California Department of Finance in Opposition ...

Recieved May 26, 2009
CA DEPT OF FINANCE STATEMENT ON SB250

FINANCE SAYS SB250 WILL ADD TO BUDGET DEFICIT
Mandatory Spay and Neuter Doesn't Work

In their report on SB250, the California Finance Department of SB250 opposes this bill as they say it will add to costs and that MSN has been ineffective when tried.  You can find the report at www.SB250.org or www.cdoca.org.

We are sure that Senator Florez will point out that he has decided that state government will not have to pay the costs - but that doesn't change the costs.  It just transfers them to local governments.

And all of this comes at a time when HSUS, ASPCA and other groups are asking the Governor to keep the Animal Mandates in effect.  Since the State has already says they will not be able to pay the costs already incurred to the local governments for at least 4 years, we are not sure how extending it another year helps.  Temporarily pulling the Hayden Act does not require any group to shorten an animal's stay; they can keep them for as long as they want.  But it would not reimburse local governments for dogs they keep and then euthanize.

The Commission on State Mandates noted that the Hayden Act indeed financially rewards the shelters who euthanize dogs rather than the shelters that find homes for animals.

While the Business and Professions Committee may not care about increasing the budget deficit; each of the individual assembly members should be concerned.  So please contact them and send them a copy of the report.

The B&P Committee meeting is scheduled for 10:00 am on Tuesday, June 30th.  If you have not written to the Committee Members, please do so.

Letters should be sent to
Rebecca May
Associate Consultant
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-319-3301
916-319-3306

You also need to send a copy to every member of the Business and Professions Committee as well as your own Assembly Member. You can find your representative at www.leginfo.ca.gov

You will also find more information on SB250 and the reasons it should be defeated at www.sb250.org.

If you work as hard on defeating SB 250 as you did on AB1634, it will fail.  And, when you read the text, you will see that this is a much worse bill.  If you sell or give away and dog and do not go through all the new legislative hoops that this bill requires, you can lose your right to ever own an intact dog again.  Giving a dog to your parents or your children or your sister or the service organization you support is all it takes to trigger this.

Making a mistake on the sales tax issue on a dog also would trigger the penalty against owning an intact dog.

The owner, custodian, applicant, or licensee has violated a
state law, or a city, county, or other local governmental provision
relating to the care and control of animals.

This is not the time for apathy.   This is the time to make calls, send faxes, send emails and make sure that the thousands of dog organizations in California get their letters into the Committee THIS WEEK.

 

Links:

The following links are to articles provided by the AKC's Legislative News E-Bulletin "Taking Command".

Local Battles

2009 Legislative Success

2008 Year in Review

Breed Specific Legislation

AKC Position Statements

The following are state clubs who are involved in fighting anti-dog legislation.

Concerned Dog Owners of California

California Responsible Pet Owners' Coalition