CAPetLawNews

A Dog Groomer on SB 969

2012-02-20T15:40:00.001-08:00

Sent: Monday, February 20, 2012 9:46 AM

Subject: SB 969 Dog Grooming Bill

More of my observations with SB 969 Dog Grooming Bill. Please feel free to cross post. Jacquie

Dog groomers apprentice under experienced dog groomers, or at least they should, unfortunately that is not usually the case. Most often dog groomers come out of school and think they are qualified to groom dogs. I get a lot of dogs that have come from inexperienced groomers, and Petco is a big one.

Most dog groomers careers last just 10 years. It is physically demanding, and grooming 5, 20# dogs a day you have physically moved 1 TON of weight usually by noon. My back, shoulders, and wrists are shot.

Pet owners out there, do your research, observe, ask for references, take the time to find a groomer like you would finding a doctor for your child. Even then accidents can and will happen.

I have been grooming for almost 25 years, and I specialize in biters, and guess what, if a groomer is bitten they have no recourse against the owner. A groomer I know got bit in the face and sued the owner, the judge told the groomer that bites were an occupational hazard of the job, and threw out the case. I assume all little dogs that enter my shop have bad patellas, and that all big dogs are dysplastic and treat them accordingly. I have had two dogs die while in my care, one of kidney failure, and the other from a heart attack neither of them my fault, and both of them died while I worked at a vets office. I go to people's homes and groom their dogs in their bathrooms, or yards. I groom show horses and I have had my nose broke, been kicked and stepped on, and I groom show lambs for 4-H kids. I have been bit only twice, once by a dog that was trained to bite, and by a cat with a brain tumor. I have had dogs bit my clippers hard enough to break the case, and have had clippers, and toe nail clippers kicked out of my hands resulting in stitches to me not the animal. Animals are animals and you need to expect the unexpected to keep the animal and yourself safe. There are people who change dog groomers as much as they change their clothes this is not good for the animal, and sometimes people change groomers because their dog is a bitter or has other issues, and you know what, the owners LIE to you.

There are three simple rules for grooming dogs:

1) Don't leave them tied up anywhere, bathtub, or table they WILL hang themselves or fall (I have caught a few unattended dogs falling off tables at dog shows), and no choke chains, or leashes in kennels, again, they will figure out a way to hurt themselves.

2) Don't leave a dog in a dryer cage, or with a force air dryer hooked to the kennel running unattended ever, even ambient air dryers use surrounding air be that 60 degrees or 90 degrees to dry the dog.

3) Be honest with the owner, I don't know your dog, it doesn't know me so give me at least 4 hours to do the dog. Do new dogs when you have plenty of time. Take your time and don't get distracted that's when accidents happen.

Regulations? I am against them, I can't raise my prices any more, if I do people will do their own dogs. So my options are to drop my health care, or shut my door and start a new career at 50. I am hanging on by a thread now because of the economy. Oh, and one last thing, I don't have to have a business license where I live, my business is in the county not the city. Everyone knows who the bad groomers are, just do your homework and ask.

I have one really big question. Why am I being punished and made to take the fall for a dog owner who didn't research where they were taking their precious pet to begin with? I AM SICK TO DEATH OF PEOPLE NOT TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS. It is really sad that dogs or any animal gets hurt, but the responsibility ultimately lies directly with the dog's/animal's owner PERIOD.

Jacquie Brown

Boxer Club of Hawaii supports HSUS

2012-02-20T09:43:00.001-08:00

American Boxer Club, Inc.

Sandy Orr, Corresponding secretary

7106 N. 57^th St.

Omaha, NE 68152

Feb 13, 2012

Dear American Boxer Club Officers and Board of Directors,

We are writing you today to express our dismay and concern regarding the recent public statements made by the secretary of the Boxer Club of Hawaii in support of the goals of the Humane Society of the US. This message was recently posted on the HSUS website in regard to the HSUS's new Breeders Advisory and Resource Council.

Aloha, my name is Theresa Donnelly, and I am the secretary of Boxer Club of Hawaii. Thank you so much for taking this on and questioning the AKC. I am involved with helping pass some animal protection bills here in Hawaii, and I have really enjoyed working with HSUS. I have been hoping that the AKC could partner with HSUS for some time. The fact that health is not a standard that is judged against in confirmation shows is wrong. As a hobby breeder, I feel health and temperament should come before appearance. I can only hope that the AKC will stop opposing bills like our commercial breed bill here. It is too bad too, because AKC has a lot of great programs and it hurts both sides when we don't work together. I thank you for standing up for what is right and confronting them for their breeding standards. We can only hope that as time goes by, more ethical breeders will join the fight. Theresa

As members of the dog community, we should all be aware of the threat posed to our existence by animal rights groups such as the HSUS. These groups are opposed to individual choice in regard to spay/neuter, crop/dock, and breeding in general. The members of "animal rights" groups have no credentials in animal husbandry to legitimize their positions, so they are latching onto others who are respected members of the dog community and using them to promote their anti-dog legislative agenda to the public. With the support of such a naïve person who also represents an AKC dog club, is it any wonder that the state of Hawaii is currently considering a law requiring every pet sold be sterilized?

While everyone is entitled to their personal opinion, however sadly misinformed, we strongly feel that this person who is publicly representing an AKC breed club needs to be educated in regard to the threats posed by animal rights groups, of which the HSUS is the largest, most aggressive and most dangerous to our existence. Perhaps such information would best come from the national parent club for the breed.

Churchill is reputed to have said that an appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. There is no way to compromise or to work with animal rights groups because they have nothing to give up. We as dog breeders, on the other hand, have everything to lose.

Sincerely yours,

Geneva Coats

Secretary

California Federation of Dog Clubs

Dana Point - Retail Sales Tyranny

2012-02-07T16:27:00.001-08:00

California (Dana Point). **ORDINANCE ADOPTED** The "Pet Shop Ordinance", banning the retail sale of cats and dogs in Dana Point, CA was approved by the City Council at its January 31^st meeting. The ordinance provides that no commercial establishment shall, for the purposes of resale or retail, display, sell, deliver, offer for sale, barter, auction, or otherwise transfer or dispose of dogs or cats in Dana Point, California on or after March 1, 2012.

Dear Dana Point City Council Members,

A friend from Arizona just wrote to me asking about the crazy tyrannical
laws against commercial retail businesses being passed in California, she
and her husband took their business to Arizona a few years ago. First West
Los Angeles bans the sale of furs but does not ban leather because so many
of their citizens enjoy wearing leather into the "bar scene." As if there
is a difference between leather and fur...... Go figure how crazy California
has become following the dictates of anthropomorphic leftist politician's
supporters. Along with this they have banned the sale of pets in pet shops.

Now I am told Dana Point has followed West Los Angeles' march to ban the
sale of pets at pet shops. Why was the Polanco/Lockyer bill passed in the
State of California? Have you never heard of that law? It was
California's offer of the greatest financial protection of any State for
those who purchase a pet from a pet shop. There is no other place a person
can buy a pet, be it from a Rescue, Shelter or breeder where such

protection is given and now you take that away from your citizens. Do the
people of Dana Point know what their City Council has done by removing that
protection for all of their citizens? Absolutely amazing that this was
passed.

Did you really know what you were doing when you passed this law? Did you
talk to the veterinary community? Or did you only listen to the rescue
community who so focus on feral cats that they cannot see beyond that?
Would you like a list of rescues that are importing animals from foreign
countries to meet their adoption demands?

Did you not know through education the shelter numbers have been
dramatically dropping every year? Did you also not know that many shelters
bring animals in from other parts of the country to meet their adoption
demands? AND you have banned the sale of pets. Absolutely amazing and pets
are not YET illegal....... maybe next year. Now, please tell me where I can
find my next pet that must be of a coated breed that my very allergic son
can tolerate and be small enough for me to handle?

Sincerely,

Citizen, Taxpayer and Voter

Ventura County, CA: Breed-specific MSN proposal

2012-01-24T15:38:00.001-08:00

http://stopbsl.com/2012/01/23/ventura-county-ca-breed-specific-msn-proposal-to-be-discussed-jan-26/

Ventura County, CA: Breed-specific MSN proposal to be discussed, Jan 26

Posted on January 23, 2012 by stopbslcom | Leave a comment

Back in August 2011, Ventura County Animal Services director Monica Nolan said she would introduce an ordinance to mandate spay/neuter for all "pit bulls" in the county. A draft proposal will be brought forward for discussion and direction at the next meeting of the Animal Regulation Commission.

The Animal Regulation Commission will meet on January 26 at 9:00 AM at the Camarillo Animal Shelter, 600 Aviation Drive, Camarillo, CA. Click here for the current agenda: http://portal.countyofventura.org/portal/page/portal/animalreg/AnimalRegulationCommission/
The mandatory "pit bull" spay/neuter proposal is item 4.
Item 5, a discussion about how to reduce shelter killing, increase adoptions, and achieve no-kill status, is another important topic that may affect the commission's decisions about the BS-MSN proposal.

If you are local to Ventura County, please attend this meeting and show your opposition to breed-specific laws. Remember, breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter (BS-MSN) is breed-specific, and is as flawed, unequal, costly, and subjective as any other law that is based on what a dog "looks like."

These were the members of the Animal Regulation Commission as of May 2011. Many of the members are councilmembers of the cities within Ventura County. We do not know where they stand on BS-MSN, so please be respectful when you correspond with them.
Kevin Kildee, council@ci.camarillo.ca.us
Brian Sipes, loansbyBrian@msn.com
Janice Parvin, JParvin@ci.moorpark.ca.us
Carlon Strobel, Strobel@ci.ojai.ca.us
Dr. Irene G. Pinkard, Irene.pinkard@ci.oxnard.ca.us
Jonathan Sharkey, Jon@sharkey.com
Rick Cook, calwestrickcook@verizon.net
Barbra Williamson, simivalleygal@sbcglobal.net
James Monahan, jmonahan@ci.ventura.ca.us

Email block for cut-and-paste
council@ci.camarillo.ca.us; loansbyBrian@msn.com; JParvin@ci.moorpark.ca.us; Strobel@ci.ojai.ca.us; Irene.pinkard@ci.oxnard.ca.us; Jon@sharkey.com; calwestrickcook@verizon.net; simivalleygal@sbcglobal.net; jmonahan@ci.ventura.ca.us

The BS-MSN proposal has not been publicized in the news media for six months, the animal commission hasn't met for seven months, and the online meeting agenda is difficult to find if you don't know where to look (or have no reason to look). Due to the lack of official action on this issue since last summer, StopBSL had removed Ventura County from the BSL watchlist.

We sincerely appreciate the contribution of an anonymous site visitor who alerted us to this new meeting information! Ventura County is another case where we are extremely grateful for locals who are able to get us necessary details that we would not get elsewhere.

All alerts for Ventura County: http://stopbsl.com/?s=ventura+county

__._,_.___

CA SB 969 - licensing for groomers

2012-01-23T21:49:00.000-08:00

As written, this bill raises serious concerns for professional show groomers/handlers, or for anyone who may provide grooming services for others. Criminal penalties are proposed, including fines and jail time. Whatever you do, don't hire the neighborhood kids to wash your dog. Leave it to our state legislators to fret over dog grooming, while ignoring our budget deficit, crime, declining infrastructure, and businesses fleeing the state in droves. This sort of legislation explains WHY we find so many businesses leaving California. From the legislative analysis:

"This bill would require any person engaged in pet grooming to be licensed and regulated by the Veterinary Medical Board. The bill would establish the requirements necessary to obtain a license as a pet groomer and set forth the duties and obligations of a licensee as a pet groomer, as specified. The bill would set forth the duties of the board with regard to the regulation of pet groomers and require the board to adopt a fee schedule that would apply to licensees and pet grooming schools. The bill would set forth standards for discipline and authorize the board to impose administrative penalties for a violation of these provisions. The bill would provide that a violation of these provisions is a crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program."

From the LA Times:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2012/01/senator-wants-pet-groomers-licensed-by-state-california.html

Pet groomers would have to get a license from the state, pay fees and meet new standards under legislation introduced after a Terrier-mix allegedly was injured at a Riverside County grooming business.Sen. Juan Vargas (D-San Diego) has introduced "Lucy’s Law," named after a dog that he said suffered eye and leg injuries after her owner left her at a groomer in Palm Springs. During the grooming process, five of the dog's nipples accidentally were shaved off, according to David Martin, the animal's owner."Something has to be done about this," Martin said. "Dog groomers don’t have to have any training to be groomers."SB 969 would make it a crime for a groomer to operate in California without getting a license from the state Veterinary Medical Board. Vargas is still developing the requirements that would have to be met to get a license, standards for disciplinary action by the board, and his bill would leave it to the board to set the fee.

Spay/Neuter License Plate Program

2012-01-20T13:01:00.001-08:00

CA AB 610 was amended yesterday and sent to the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing. CFoDC continues to oppose this bill.

AB 610 establishes a special low pre-order threshold for the startup of the proposed spay/neuter license plate program. These are the license plates designed by Judie Mancuso's buddy Pierce Brosnan. (We think the artwork is hideous, and the message is questionable, but that is neither here nor there).

For any special license plate program, 7500 orders must be received by the DMV to initiate a startup of the production process. This bill proposes to allow production of spay-neuter license plates with a lowered order threshold of just 3500. Any profits made from the sale of the license plates (once production costs are recovered) are to go to the sponsoring agency. NOT to the DMV as the sponsors have erroneously claimed in the past.

The license plate program is being sponsored by the California Veterinary Medical Board. Judy Mancuso, a vegan animal extremist, is currently is a member of the California Veterinary Medical Board. She is also the leader of the group "Social Compassion in Legislation". "Social Compassion" was founded by Judie Mancuso and PETA employee Jane Garrison. Both these women are radical animal activists. Social Compassion claims to support spay-neuter programs, but in reality, the expenditures as reported on Social Compassion's tax returns prove that most of the income ends up being used to lobby for mandatory spay and neuter legislation. Very little funding from this group supports actual spay-neuter programs.

We believe it is unethical for a state board to sponsor such a for-profit license plate program. There are constitutional concerns involved here, as well as the apparent conflict of interest in having the veterinary medical board sponsor a bill that promotes a specific veterinary for-profit procedure.

This bill in it's original form garnered complaints from animal welfare advocates because it contained inaccurate and highly inflammatory language about the pet population in our state. Thanks to the public outcry, the inflammatory and false statements have now been removed. The amended bill contains tightened criteria, such as higher required numbers of orders and shortened deadlines for action, which thankfully makes this special license plate program a bit less likely to succeed.

The bill analysis further claims:

In order to ensure that the pilot program for a specialized
license plate becomes operative as soon as possible to allow the
Veterinary Medical Board to support the critically important efforts
of city and county animal shelters to address serious animal care and
control problems facing the state, it is necessary that this act go
into effect immediately.

"Serious animal control problems in our state"? We now have the lowest shelter rates in history! And we achieved this success without coercive legislation that forces individuals to alter their pets against their will.

The exact disbursement of the funds collected from this license plate program remains vague, and the use of the money is unspecified.

"the board shall expend all funds
received under this section exclusively for projects and programs
that support city and county animal shelters, including, but
not limited to, spaying and neutering programs
~~and adoption programs~~ ."

From the current amended form of the bill, it is obvious that the profits from this program will NOT support government shelters directly, but could very possibly be instead siphoned into Judie Mancuso's "Social Compassion" bank account. Instead of funding spay-neuter surgery programs, the profits from the spay-neuter license plate fund will most likely be used for SC's ongoing lobbying efforts to push compulsory (and mostly still unfunded) spay-neuter ordinances throughout the state.

Mandatory spay-neuter has been one of the most hotly-contested issues in our state's history, with thousands of dog and cat owners protesting in Sacramento, and many thousands more calling and writing their state legislators in protest. Mandatory spay/neuter is a proven failure and results in highter shelter intakes and deaths everywhere it has been tried. We must be assured that the profits from any license plate program will go to actual, hands-on spay/neuter surgery programs, and NOT for lobbying for regressive spay/neuter laws.

We urge the defeat of AB 610.

If it isn't bad enough to have state agencies infiltrated by animal extremists, we now have links from official state website to outside websites such as "Social Compassion", featuring radical animal rights projects. And now, our government officials are even promoting artwork and messages from animal rights extremists on our DMV license plates.

Remember, these extremists are NOT the 99%. They are the 1%.

Brian Pease, AR activist, running for La Jolla City Council

2012-01-12T14:36:00.000-08:00

Bryan Pease, animal rights activist, to run against incumbent Sherri Lightner for District 1 City Council Seat

By Dave Schwab

daves@lajollalight.com

Attorney and animal rights activist Bryan Pease, best known for his ongoing fight to get the rope barrier at La Jolla's Children's Pool separating humans from seals up year-round, is holding a press conference Thursday, Jan. 12 at 2 p.m. at the steps of City Hall downtown to announce he will oppose incumbent Sherri Lightner in the First District Council race.....

Asked by the Light whether he is a one-issue candidate or whether his candidancy is a publicity stunt, Pease answered, "The seals have gotten a lot of coverage and that gives me a lot of name recognition and that helps make me a viable candidate.

http://tinyurl.com/6u5cbr9

Petition the White House to investigate the HSUS

2012-01-10T09:55:00.001-08:00

Please visit the official White House petition site and register, and SIGN this petition for the HSUS to be investigated for excessive lobbying.

Use this link:

http://tinyurl.com/7abq3r4

At the *very bottom* of the screen on the right-hand side, you'll see sign in/create account. Click.

If you haven't used We the People before, you will need to create an account. It will ask for your first and last name and your zip. Your last name will NOT be shown on the petition site.

Then you'll have to verify the little curly numbers in the box. If you can't read them, click on the arrow to get another challenge box (might be easier to read), or click on the little megaphone for an audio challenge. Type in what you see or hear.

Click on Register.

Wait a minute or two then check your email. You should receive a confirmation link from the petition site. Click the link. YOU ARE NOT DONE YET. You must click on "sign petition". You should get a little acknowledgement box once you have signed.

It takes a bit of effort but well worth it to help preserve our rights as dog owners. Don't give up!! And share the link and the instructions please!

Alameda animal shelter turned over to non-profit group

2012-01-08T20:34:00.001-08:00

Alameda animal shelter turned over to non-profit group

ALAMEDA, Calif. —

The city of Alameda announced Wednesday that it would be handing over the reins of the Alameda Animal Shelter to a group of volunteers working to keep the shelter open.

City officials planned to turn over the keys to Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter, who would operate the shelter from the on, at an 11 a.m. news conference.

The city proposed shuttering the shelter, located at 1590 Fortmann Way, in June to help close a $7.5 million budget deficit. At that time, the shelter was operated by the Police Department, which needed to cut $1.3 million from its budget.

But after the group petitioned the city to find a way to keep the shelter open, the City Council agreed to a deal in which the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter would receive $300,000 annually to run the shelter for the next 15 years.

The group agreed to pay $1 in rent to the city annually, and after 15 years their lease can be extended.

The $300,000 was expected to go toward hiring several staff members, including the shelter's new executive director, Mim Carlson, who joins the Alameda Animal Shelter after serving as executive director at the Berkeley East Bay Humane Society.

In addition, Tina Aedo, the shelter's current volunteer coordinator and rescue liaison, was hired to manage day-to-day operations. In total, five full-time and two part-time employees would be hired.

Two part-time animal control officers will remain employed at the shelter as well, at a cost of $80,000 per year.

Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter interim executive director Tom Cushing called the arrangement a "classic win-win-win agreement that saves the city money, keeps the shelter local, and ensures the animals continue to receive excellent care."

The group said the deal saves the city money in salaries, since nonprofit employees are typically paid about two-thirds of a public employee's salary.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/alameda-animal-shelter-turned-over-non-profit-grou/nGFjw/

Concerned about Pet Store Sales

2012-01-06T22:50:00.001-08:00

We've been posting our invitation to join the CFoDC on various internet dog chat lists. Yesterday, we received this letter:

Dear CFoDC,

Saw your invitation to join the California Federation of Dog Clubs and looking over your post, one of the members asked me the following questions and I had no answer. Perhaps you can. You wrote:

"We've also been busy opposing the pet store sales bans in Los Angeles, Glendale and Irvine."

Why would you oppose the ban on pet shop sales? One would think you'd support such a ban.

Yours truly,

"Concerned Dog Breeder in California"

Dear "Concerned":

A more interesting question might be why one would think we should support such a ban?

Two reasons spring to mind.

(1) You believe that there is an overpopulation of pets, and that the breeding for sale of dogs and cats contributes to this overpopulation, or

(2) You believe that the dogs sold in pet stores (or their parents) are mistreated.

We know that both (1) and (2) are essentially false.

The myth of pet overpopulation (1) has been thoroughly debunked. For more info on that:

http://time4dogs.blogspot.com/2010/12/rethinking-spay-and-neuter.html

http://www.examiner.com/animal-shelters-in-houston/the-earth-is-flat-pet-overpopulation-exists-and-other-myths-we-ve-been-told

As for (2), dog breeding, transportation and sale are heavily regulated -- at the federal level, by the Animal Welfare Act, and at the state level by the Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act (H&S Code, Sec. 122045, et seq.), Lockyer-Polanco-Farr Pet Protection Act (H&S Code, Sec. 122125, et seq.) and the animal cruelty statutes (Penal Code Sec. 597, et seq.). As a result, purchasers at pet shops can determine the history of the dogs offered for sale and be assured of the standards of care in which the pet was bred, raised and sold. Violators of these laws are subject to civil and criminal penalties.

Given the protection and disclosure required for the sale of dogs in pet shops, why would we support a ban on pet shop sales?

Our policy states: "CFODC believes all breeders bear a responsibility to assure that those who purchase their animals understand and are capable of carrying out their responsibilities as pet owners. We further recommend and support education of the public to avoid impulse buying of dogs and to encourage the purchase of dogs from responsible breeders. CFODC opposes legislation that bans sales of animals."

We believe that education, not legislation, is ultimately the most effective weapon against impulse buying. While we believe the wisest choice is to purchase a dog or cat directly from an ethical hobby breeder, some people choose to obtain a pet from a pet store. Others may select a pet from a shelter or rescue group.

Sales bans usually exempt animals obtained from "rescues" and shelters. Such bans create an artificial market for "rescued" dogs, to be filled by black market suppliers who breed underground or outside the continental US.

We further believe that laws and policies that ban the sales of purposely-bred dogs send an extremely negative message about dog breeding. We would be foolish to perpetuate such negative stereotypes and misperceptions.

Mom-and-pop pet stores find it difficult to compete with the Pet Smarts and the PetCos, and even more difficult to compete without the ability to sell pets. We know that these days it is difficult for any business to remain afloat. We have even seen organized protests, threats and intimidation used against businesses selling pets. This type of activity is in violation of the Federal Animal Enterprise Terrorist Act. There's also a section in the California Penal Code (Section 602.1) that makes it unlawful for any person to intentionally interfere with any lawful business by obstructing or intimidating those attempting to carry on the business or their customers.

Isn't it ironic that anyone would consider banning the sales of pets, yet no one is suggesting that we ban the sale of pet foods containing toxic ingredients that have killed these same pets? What has happened to our priorities? Are we allowing the animal extremist groups like HSUS and PETA determine what our priorities should be? Seems we have become a nation bent upon controlling every action of our citizens.

When perfectly legal possessions like pets are legislated into contraband items comparable to street drugs, we have to wonder where it will all end. Pet extinction, perhaps?

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws."

Plato

Sign the petition for HSUS to be investigated!!

2012-01-06T11:24:00.001-08:00

PLEASE CROSSPOST!!!

http://tinyurl.com/7abq3r4

Important! Take a moment to SIGN THE PETITION!

We have 1000 signatures at We The People, the official White House site! We need at least 25,000 signatures to elicit a response from the Obama administration. Keep it going!

Do it right now! Do your part to help stop the HSUS! And thanks!

http://tinyurl.com/7abq3r4

__._,_.___

Federal PUPS Legislation Information Update

2012-01-03T22:11:00.001-08:00

From: "AKC's Government Relations Department" <mba@akc.org>
Date: January 3, 2012 1:27:56 PM PST
Subject: Federal PUPS Legislation Information Update

January 3, 2012
http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4543
The American Kennel Club and our Washington, D.C.-based advocacy team continue to closely monitor the federal Puppy Uniform Protection and Safety (PUPS) legislation introduced last spring as Senate Bill 707 (S.707) and House Bill 835 (H.R. 835). Each of the bills has been assigned to the Agriculture Committees of their respective chambers. To date, no hearings have been scheduled and no formal action has been taken on this bill.
PUPS would purportedly require anyone who owns or co-owns dogs that produce 50 or more puppies offered for sale in a 12-month period to be regulated under existing USDA dog "dealer" regulations. These regulations are designed for high-volume commercial kennels that produce puppies for wholesale, and require a USDA commercial license, maintenance of specified commercial kennel engineering standards and regular inspections.
The AKC does not oppose the general concept of reasonable regulations for high volume breeder/retailers. However, the PUPS bill is misleading because such regulations would hurt responsible small breeders who raise only a few litters of puppies each year in their homes, while also reducing the availability of resources needed to enforce against abusive or negligent operations.
The AKC also has a number of serious concerns with the bill as introduced and does not support this measure. These concerns include:
Definition of "breeding female" as an intact female dog aged 4 months or older. This definition is misleading because female dogs are not sufficiently mature at 4 months of age to be bred. Additionally, such a definition should not be necessary if a "high volume retail breeder" is to be based on sales, rather than the number of dogs owned.

Definition of "high volume retail breeder" as someone with "an ownership interest in or custody of one or more breeding female dogs." This definition is overly broad and does not take into account the tradition of co- and joint ownerships common among dog show participants, sporting dog trainers, hunting club members, and other hobbyists. Additionally, a reference to the number of dogs owned by a breeder is unnecessary and potentially misleading in legislation that does not limit ownership rights per se.

Current exercise language is overly vague and should be clarified to ensure that the daily exercise requirements do not preclude use of legitimate training or exercise equipment or other types of physical activity.

This legislation calls for exponentially expanding the numbers of breeders regulated and inspected by the Animal Care division of the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal, Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS). However, a May 2010 audit of this program by the USDA's own Inspector General demonstrated that the existing inspections program is insufficient to carry out current responsibilities. The AKC believes these issues and full funding for the current program should be addressed before attempting to exponentially expand the program's responsibilities and workload.
AKC Government Relations and our Washington-based advocates will continue to closely monitor the activities of key members of Congress, policy committees, and their staff for any developments regarding PUPS. We are committed to keeping our constituents updated via email and the AKC website. Updated information about PUPS and other legislation is available online at http://www.akc.org/news/sections/legislative_alerts.cfm or by clicking on "US Fed" on AKC's online legislative tracking system.
The AKC encourages all responsible dog owners and breeders to stay active in your community as a role model for responsible dog ownership and breeding and to educate your legislators about potentially misleading legislation that could harm responsible dog owners and breeders.
Although PUPS is not actively being considered in Congress at this time, we encourage responsible dog owners and breeders to share their concerns about this measure with their federal representatives. Use the following links to find out the names and contact information of your member of Congress and your Senators. For more information on effectively communicating with your legislators and other tools and information to help you, please visit the AKC Government Relations Toolbox and AKC GR newsletters links on the AKC Government Relations webpage.
View AKC Policy on Responsible Breeding Practices
View AKC issue brief on responsible breeding practices
View AKC issue analysis: The Value of Responsible Dog Breeders

CFoDC responds to "Off the Leash" column, October 14, 2011

2011-12-27T21:52:00.001-08:00

November 25, 2011

Dear "Dog News" magazine:

We would like to respond to Mr. Shaun Coen's "Off the Leash" opinion column of October 14, 2011. In that column, Mr. Coen indicated his support for California's AB 1121, the puppy licensing and seller reporting bill, sponsored by the "Concerned Dog Owners of California". While we find Mr. Coen's comments to be generally very insightful, this time we must disagree with his assessment and analysis in regard to this bill.

The assumption made is that legislation is needed to address "overpopulation" of dogs in the state of California. In fact, this assumption is untrue. Our shelters are not being inundated with dogs. According to publicly available statistics for 2010, there was ONE live dog entering a shelter for every 89 residents in our state. That is a shelter intake rate of slightly over 1% per population. It is not unreasonable to expect that out of 89 people, one might need to surrender a dog due to loss of a job, home foreclosure, or other social problem. Also, many people take their dogs to the shelter specifically for end-of-life euthanasia. These dogs also count as intakes and deaths in the statistics. The focus should be on re-homing those animals who are adoptable; instead, we are "crying wolf" regarding canine shelter intakes.

In fact, some areas of the state have such a shortage of adoptable dogs that some private rescues actually import dogs from Mexico, Taiwan, and Romania. Just last Wednesday, on Thanksgiving Eve, over forty "rescued" Beagles were flown from Spain into Los Angeles, to be put up for sale by a private rescue group. Such operations demonstrate that we have homes waiting for adoptable dogs.

The vast majority of shelter intakes and deaths are feral cats who have no owners, are not vaccinated for rabies and are not licensed. Laws do not affect animals who do not have owners. Responsible dog owners have been unfairly tagged by animal rights groups as somehow to blame for feral and stray animals entering shelters. AB 1121 merely feeds into this anti-dog owner/breeder fanaticism.

Education regarding the need for responsible ownership, (which includes proper leashing and confinement of pets) has served as an effective deterrent to unwanted litters, as evidenced by shelters numbers plummeting in our state over the past 40 years, in the face of a burgeoning human population. This great success has been accomplished WITHOUT the use of coercive legislation such as mandatory sterilization or requirements to report puppy buyers to the state.

Current research studies have revealed many adverse long-term health effects of spay-neuter, particularly when performed at a young age. The scientific evidence for this is overwhelming and we won't delve into that topic here. However, the option for the informed choice of the owner regarding pet sterilization is being eroded by the animal rightists' propaganda campaigns, aided and abetted by legislative proposals such as AB 1121. Mr. Coen implied that sterilization is some sort of moral obligation on the part of pet owners. In fact, many responsible owners choose to keep their pets intact for various reasons, and those animals are not bred indiscriminately. It is improper for government, with the primary intention of fleecing your wallet, to discriminate against pet owners who choose to keep their animals intact.

Governor Brown vetoed AB 1121, stating: "licensing and tracking of dogs is quintessentially a local function." However, the licensing and tracking of dogs is an over-reach of government authority on any level, when that function extends beyond the basics of necessity for rabies control. With our state facing its worst financial crisis in history, it seems ludicrous that we would propose the establishment of an expensive new bureaucracy in the tracking of dogs. Such programs always require additional funding for implementation…money that we can ill afford.

Currently, veterinarians in the most populous counties in the state are already subject to requirements for mandatory reporting of rabies vaccinations. Further reporting by sellers is duplicative and unnecessary. Another concern is that, under the seller reporting requirements in AB 1121, the exact determination of who would be considered a "pet dealer" is vague and open to interpretation. Creeping incrementalism is par for the course when it comes to legislation, and any seller reporting proposal would likely be amended in the future to include everyone who sells or offers pets for "adoption".

We wonder where you derive your figures for dog licensing fees? Certainly not from California localities, where license fees are rarely set as low as $17, even for altered dogs who receive deep discounts. Costs for dog licenses in some areas are exorbitant. In the City of Los Angeles, a dog license costs $100, and if your dog is intact you are also required to pay an additional $235 per year for an intact permit.....even if the dog is never bred. $335 per year for a dog license? Is it any wonder that few dogs are vaccinated and licensed? Yet the license fee for an altered dog is $20. Reduced license fees for altered dogs or puppies are inherently unfair and discriminatory against responsible owners of intact dogs. Many large breed dogs are not physically mature until two years old or even later; but in order to obtain discounted license rates, their owners are strong-armed into sterilizing before maturity, potentially adversely affecting long-term health and shortening their lifespan.

Independent rescues would be adversely affected by the reporting and record-keeping requirement contained in the puppy licensing/reporting proposal. Most private rescues operate on a shoestring budget. Fewer people will adopt from a rescue group, knowing that their information and sale will be reported to the state. Fewer rescued animals successfully re-homed means more shelter deaths.

This proposal will result in noncompliance, as breeders avoid the reporting requirements and as buyers seek animals from out of state or via anonymous internet transactions. Nonprofit rescue groups will find it more difficult to place their animals in homes, and as a double whammy, they will also find it burdensome on their volunteer-based organization to have to comply with the reporting and record-keeping requirements.

Mr. Coen also recommends that government-mandated microchipping be implemented. When shelters are required to microchip dogs upon release, as was proposed here in California and thankfully defeated at the state level, shelter adoption fees rise to include the cost of the microchip. Again, higher adoption fees means fewer shelter pets adopted. Microchips also have inherent health risks involved with their insertion. Owners should decide if they wish to use permanent ID, and if so, if they would like to use microchip technology or instead opt for the more visible forms of ID such as tags, tattoos, or even freeze branding.

California Federation of Dog Clubs was a sponsor of "Molly's Bill" (medical exemptions from rabies vaccination). We believe that government must look to science, as was done with "Molly's Bill", and rationally evaluate the evidence before declaring that legislation is necessary or advisable.

Knee-jerk proposals like dog seller reporting, mandatory microchipping, and differential licensing fees for select groups are poor ideas which will only backfire. Instead of improving conditions for dogs and their owners, fewer rescues will be adopted, the costs of ownership will spiral out of control, fewer owners will afford to keep their pets, and more pets will be remanded to shelters, and perhaps even killed, instead of remaining in their homes.

Understanding the dynamics of punitive legislation is essential in order to progress to a more compassionate society. Not only are seller reporting requirements onerous, but the expectation of widespread spay/neuter is also unwise and unreasonable. We could take a lesson from European countries, where pet sterilization is the exception rather than the rule. In Norway, pet sterilization without medical necessity is illegal, yet they have no pet overpopulation crisis. Responsible ownership, fostered by collaborative, supportive programs and positive attitudes rather than punitive measures, is the key to the solution of shelter issues.

It's time for the Golden State to stop trying to balance animal control budgets on the backs of conscientious dog owners and breeders.

Sincerely yours,

California Federation of Dog Clubs

Geneva Coats, R.N.

Secretary

"Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws." Plato

__._,_.___

California Federation of Dog Clubs 2012 membership drive

2011-12-06T09:44:00.001-08:00

Dear Friends and Supporters of the California Federation of Dog Clubs,

It's the end of the year…where does the time go so quickly? Time once again for the California Federation of Dog Clubs to conduct our annual membership drive.

We were very busy in 2011. We began the year with a "meet and greet" for Los Angeles Animal Services new manager Brenda Barnette. Our breed ID shelter workshop has been a rousing success and is being distributed along with a dog care and training brochure that includes a new 1-800 help line for pet owners. CFoDC donated $500 to Kern County Animal Control to help them replenish their supplies that were used during the forty lightening-caused wildfires this summer. Our disaster fund is available to help anywhere in the state when disaster strikes, such as wildfires, floods and mudslides.

On the legislative front, CFoDC sponsored "Molly's Bill" (medical exemptions from rabies vaccination) and also supported a bill by Doug LaMalfa to extend courtesies to search and rescue teams.

As usual, the bad legislative proposals outnumbered the good. We opposed SB 917 (public sales ban) and AB 1117 (seizure and disposition of animals) which unfortunately were signed into law. Other bills we opposed, that went down to eventual defeat, were AB 1121 (puppy licensing/seller reporting) and SB 702 (microchipping of shelter dogs upon release). AB 610, a proposal to reduce preorder requirements for spay-neuter license plates, included inflammatory and false rhetoric regarding pet population and impound numbers in the state. After much opposition was voiced, this bill was also shelved but may come back the next session.

We've also been busy opposing the pet store sales bans in Los Angeles, Glendale and Irvine. When Cypress proposed BSL, we were there to oppose it. When MSN was proposed in Chula Vista, we took immediate action to address it, and we are currently working diligently with the task force to stave off MSN and anti-breeder laws in Chula Vista. We've attended Humane Lobby Day in Sacramento. We've been in frequent contact with the LA County Board of Supervisors in regard to their alteration in their "dangerous dogs" policy. We've been active in assisting Texas with their campaign against the onerous TX HB 1451.

We've published several articles in The Dog Press covering diverse issues, including PUPS, SB 917, spay-neuter information, and updates on PETA and HSUS as they petition the Obama administration for nationwide spay and neuter and nationwide pet sales bans. We also had a letter to the editor published in the San Diego Union Tribune in regard to mandatory microchipping. We've been sending updates to our email list and posting the information to our CAPetLawNews blog page as well, in an effort to keep you well-informed. CFoDC also now has a Facebook page; please look for us and "LIKE" us on Facebook!

Incidentally, we've recently updated our policy statements, which are posted on our website. Have a look when you get a chance! We also are looking for volunteers to serve as regional representatives for CFoDC, a new program we are in the process of organizing. We need your eyes and ears to keep us informed and to help us take action when necessary! Please notify us if you are interested in serving as a Regional Representative for CFoDC.

Needless to say, sufficient revenues are essential in order for us to continue to work for you. Our officers and board members are unpaid volunteers, but the costs of maintaining a website, purchasing supplies and covering postage mount up very quickly. We urge all clubs in California to support the CFoDC with a membership pledge. We welcome individual members as well. Your dues make it possible for us to continue our efforts in the fight to promote canine welfare and to protect our rights as dog owners.

There's so much more to do; but without your help, we won't be able to continue our work. Won't you join us to help promote dog welfare and to preserve your rights as a dog owner?

This year we have an online application and payment option through Fundly.com. The online application may be accessed here:

http://www.mail4pugs.com/ApplicationForm.htm

If you select to use the online application form, your membership will not be complete until we receive your dues. For your convenience you may now pay your dues online here:

http://www.fundly.com/cfodc

Attached please find an application that you can fill out and mail in with your dues.

Again, we thank you for your support!

Sincerely yours,

Officers and Board of Directors

California Federation of Dog Clubs

Judythe Coffman, President

__._,_.___

Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic

Messages in this topic (1)

Recent Activity:

New Members 1

Visit Your Group

MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use

__,_._,___

Kern County - Workshops for changes to Animal Control Ordinances

2011-12-03T15:59:00.001-08:00

http://www.co.kern.ca.us/acd/pdfs/CombinedDates.pdf

__._,_.___

__,_._,___

Fish and Game dept meetings - expanded role proposed

2011-12-03T15:55:00.001-08:00

"California officials are seeking public input on a proposed vision plan
for the state Department of Fish and Game and for the California Fish
and Game Commission.

The draft plan includes changing the department's role from protecting
wildlife to also managing entire ecosystems and enhancing wildlife habitat."

Information is available at
http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1103356980328-219/CFWSV_Flier_ProjectOverview_111128_Small.pdf.

http://tinyurl.com/83tgk8s

The four meetings are:

Monday, Dec 5, 2011   5:30 pm -7:30 pm

Port of San Diego

Administration Building Training Room
3165 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92101

Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2011    5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Ontario Police Department
Community Room
2500 S. Archibald Avenue
Ontario, CA 91761

Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2011    5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
CalTrans Manchester Center
2015 E. Shields Avenue, Suite100
Yosemite Room 145
Fresno, CA 93726

Thursday, Dec. 8, 2011     5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Turtle Bay Museum
840 Sundial Bridge (Auditorium) Drive
Redding, California 96001

More information may be found at

http://www.vision.ca.gov/draft_interim_strategic_vision_public_meetings.html

http://tinyurl.com/7ebf5ws

Local Shelters Get New National Advocate!

2011-12-02T15:58:00.001-08:00

For Immediate Release
November 30, 2011

Local Shelters Get New National Advocate in Humane Society for Shelter Pets

Humane Society for Shelter Pets Launches National Campaign to Educate
Americans about the Benefits of Giving to Struggling Local Shelters

WASHINGTON, DC - The Humane Society for Shelter Pets (HSSP) launched today
with three full-page ads in USA Today, Los Angeles Times, and Chicago
Tribune to inform Americans about the benefits of supporting their local pet
shelter.

Today many shelters face financial problems in part because of the
widespread belief that donations
given to national groups, such as the Humane Society of the United States
(HSUS), filter down to local pet shelters. Polling from Opinion Research
Corporation conducted in November 2011 found 71 percent of Americans believe
HSUS is an umbrella group that represents thousands of local humane
societies.

However, the reality is that just 1 percent of HSUS's $126 million budget
goes to needy hands-on pet shelters, despite a majority of their fundraising
advertising featuring dogs and cats. Every year, it's estimated that
millions of orphaned and unwanted animals are euthanized to relieve
overcrowded conditions in local animal shelters, humane societies, rescue
centers, and local government animal control agencies. America's ongoing
economic downturn continues to squeeze pet shelters' already meager
operating budgets at a time when more cash-strapped Americans are choosing
tosurrender or abandon their family pets.

"The Humane Society of the United States continues to fundraise on the
perception that they give millions of dollars every year to local pet
shelters with misleading advertising campaigns. Unfortunately for the dogs
and cats in our local pet shelters, that is not the case," said Diana Culp,
HSSP co-director and former Director of Education for HSUS.

In addition to HSSP's public outreach campaign, the organization has a
database on its website enabling visitors to quickly and easily obtain all
the information they need to donate to local shelters. HSSP will
also work to create a network of veterinarians and sheltering professionals,
giving them the tools to promote the "give local" message to their clients.

"Most local pet shelters rarely have the time or resources to speak out and
clear the air over the confusion about where donors' money goes when they
give to large, national organizations like HSUS.

The Humane Society for Shelter Pets will work to be their advocates and
ensure that donors' money is going where it's intended," said Jeff Douglas
co-director for HSSP.

For more information go to www.humaneforpets.com or contact Jeff Douglas at
(202) 420-7877.

El Monte: Need help for "Beagles and Buddies"

2011-11-19T18:13:00.000-08:00

Just this evening, we got confirmation that renewal of B&B's kennel license is on calendar for
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2011, 9 am
at City Hall, 11333 Valley Blvd., Council Chambers, El Monte, CA 91731-3293. PLEASE email, telephone, fax, and most of all appear in person to express your support for Beagles & Buddies.
We need you and your animal loving friends, colleagues,
and family -- now more than ever.
In the past, a strong showing of support has always been very helpful.
B&B has been on Strozier for 18 years - the City's Master Plan would have all our kennels become warehouses.

Contact information:

City of El Monte Website:
City of El Monte
Go to "City Directory" after clicking on City website

Planning Dept - planning@elmonteca.gov
Planning Dept. Phone: (626)258-8626
Planning Dept. Fax: (626)580-2293

****IMPORTANT - If you are a resident of El Monte, please indicate in your email, phone call, fax*****

"Veterans Day pet adoption bargains a huge success for Sacramento SPCA"

2011-11-18T09:37:00.001-08:00

What do you get when you advertise a special low pet adoption price of $11.11? You get a line 400 deep, you empty out the shelter and you place over 200 animals into new homes in just one day.

Overpopulation? Not enought homes? Baloney!

At least 400 people were standing in line at the agency when it opened Friday morning, Johnson said. Some waited for seven hours as backed-up staffers hustled to complete paperwork. The SPCA finished 126 adoptions Friday, emptying the facility. Then the agency began pulling animals from the county and city shelters, and extended the promotion through Sunday.

"We were overwhelmed," said Johnson. "We were turning people away at 7 p.m. because we literally had adopted out everything in the shelter. That has never happened before."

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/11/15/4054933/veterans-day-pet-adoption-bargains.html

Chula Vista, CA Townhall To Discuss Possible Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance – This Saturday!

2011-10-26T14:34:00.001-07:00

Please share this information with club members in the Chula Vista area.

Chula Vista City Councilman Rudy Ramirez will hold a townhall this Saturday, October 29^th to discuss a possible mandatory spay/neuter proposal. There is not a draft available at this time, so responsible dog owners and breeders are encouraged to take this opportunity to educate the councilmembers about the ineffectiveness of mandatory spay/neuter programs. A review of the statistics from Chula Vista Animal Services shows that the city does not currently euthanize any healthy, adoptable dogs. Click here for a link to AKC's talking points on this important issue.

Chula Vista Townhall

Saturday, October 29^th

9am

Chula Vista City Hall

276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910

If you are unable to attend the meeting, please contact the mayor and councilmembers to express your opposition to a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance.

Mayor Cheryl Cox

ccox@chulavistaca.gov

619-691-5044

Councilmember Rudy Ramirez

(619) 691-5044
(619) 476-5379 Fax

rramirez@ci.chula-vista.ca.us

Councilmember Patricia Aguilar

(619) 691-5044
(619) 476-5379 Fax

PAguilar@chulavistaca.gov

Councilmember Pamela Bensoussan

(619) 691-5044
(619) 476-5379 Fax

pbensoussan@chulavistaca.gov

Councilmember Steve Castenada

(619) 691-5044
(619) 476-5379 Fax

scastaneda@chulavistaca.gov

Protect dog ownership rights - action alert - Chula Vista

2011-10-23T14:33:00.001-07:00

The AR crowd is spreading misinformation about the numbers of cats and dogs impounded in Chula Vista, in order to drum up support for the MSN law.

Below is an article based on a recent TV report. "A huge jump in stray cats and dogs"? Where is the evidence of that? Claiming there is a spike in impounds? That is just plain false. There is a reduction of intakes this past year of 316, and a reduction in "euths" by 185....based on the CVAC own data.

Please, come to the town hall meeting next Saturday, October 29. Let city officials know that you are opposed to these proposed laws. We need a show of solidarity! If passed in Chula Vista, these ideas will likely soon spread to surrounding communities.

Saturday, October 29th, 9 a.m.

Chula Vista City Hall

276 4th Ave

Chula Vista, CA

http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/kswb-chula-vista-considers-mandatory-spay-and-neuter-program-20111020,0,3927886.story

Chula Vista mulls mandatory spay, neuter program

By James Koh

FOX 5 San Diego Reporter

8:53 a.m. PDT, October 21, 2011

CHULA VISTA, Calif. - Chula Vista officials are conducting public meetings to discuss a potential program that would force pet owners to spay and neuters their animals.

A huge jump in stray cats and dogs has meant ballooning costs for an animal services department that covers the Chula Vista, Imperial Beach, National City, and Lemon Grove areas.

"There's definitely a spike but some of it can be attributed to the economy," .....

Ramirez said the city is also considering a mandatory microchipping or registration program as well.

"We're looking for options to stem that flow," Ramirez said.

(More at link)

Be there for the meeting!

Saturday, October 29th, 9 a.m.

Chula Vista City Hall

276 4th Ave

Chula Vista, CA

You can also contact the Mayor and Councilmembers at that address. They all use the same phone number (619) 691-5044 and FAX number (619) 476-5379

Deputy Mayor Rudy Ramirez                     rramirez@ci.chula-vista.ca.us
Mayor Cheryl Cox                                         ccox@chulavistaca.gov
Councilmember Steve Castaneda              scastaneda@chulavistaca.gov
Councilmember Patricia Aguilar                 paguilar@chulavistaca.gov
Councilmember Pamela Bensoussan         pbensoussan@chulavistaca.gov

Update - hearings regarding Chula Vista MSN

2011-10-15T09:49:00.000-07:00

Despite record low shelter numbers, and over ten thousand dogs per year brought in to San Diego County from Mexico, the City of Chula Vista has drafted a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance.

Public hearings will be held on the City of Chula Vista's proposed mandatory spay/neuter law. They will be taking questions. The law has "exemptions" for breeders.

Chula Vista City Hall

276 Fourth Ave.

(Fourth and F St)

Chula Vista, CA 91910

Monday October 17 @ 6 pm

Thursday October 20 @ 1 pm

Saturday October 29 @ 9 am

If you live in San Diego County please make sure to attend.

We all know the reasons why mandatory spay/neuter laws are terrible, but perhaps the Chula Vista City officials are unaware of the serious problems spawned by such punitive ordinances. This is our opportunity as knowledgable dog experts to educate them on the issue.

MSN laws drive up shelter numbers.
More people will drop out of the licensing system.
Noncompliance with rabies vaccination and licensing creates a public health risk.
Mainstream animal welfare groups who OPPOSE MSN -

American Veterinary Medical Association
American Humane Association
Best Friends Animal Society
The American Kennel Club
Alley Cat Allies
the ASPCA
American College of Theriogenologists
American Dog Owners Association
California Federation of Dog Clubs
American Herding Breed Association
National Organization of Dog Obedience Instructors
International Association of Canine Professionals
California Responsible Pet Owners Coalition
Concerned Dog Owners of California
Save Our Dogs

Mandatory spay/neuter has been a failure wherever it has been tried
The vast majority of owned animals are already sterilized. Voluntary collaborative educational efforts are working. Punitive laws will reverse this success.
Feral cats are more than half of all shelter intakes. Their numbers will not be reduced by any mandatory spay/neuter law. If anything, feral cat caretakers will be fearful to participate in TNR programs for fear of facing penalties and fines.
Spaying and neutering can produce many serious adverse health effects. Sterilization should be a decision between an owner and his veterinarian, and not mandated by government officials.

Action alert - PUPS

2011-10-12T15:07:00.001-07:00

Please contact your senator and congressman. A suggested message that you can cut/paste into the online email form is below.

PUPS - - FOREBODING NUMBERS - - DO THE MATH!!!!

A message from Frank Losey ("Spay/Neuter the HSUS" campaign)

WARNING: If the PUPS Bill - - which was drafted by the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) - - is enacted into Law, it may affect every single breeder in the U.S who breeds as few as one dog a year. That's right . . . one dog! And the PUPS Bill could affect you in more than 20 different ways, and would create a "slippery slope" that would inevitably lead to other intended or unintended consequences that may affect all dog owners - - even those who do not intend to breed dogs.

Slowly, quietly, methodically, and behind the scenes, the HSUS has been recruiting more and more co-sponsors for PUPS each week. Currently there are 124 U.S. Representatives who are on record as being either the Sponsor or Co-Sponsors of PUPS; and 15 U.S. Senators who are also on record as being either the Sponsor or Co-Sponsors of PUPS.

I have said in the past that when the numbers reach 150 in the House and 34 in the Senate - - slightly more than 1/3 in Both Houses of Congress - - the HSUS will make a full Court Press to bring the PUPS Bill to a vote. It is only a matter of time before the thresholds of "150" and "34" are met - - first in the House, and then in the Senate. That is inevitable unless Members of Congress realize that the HSUS has a "Dark Side" and is not what it has been perceived to be. THAT IS WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT ALL LETTERS SENT TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS INCLUDE AN "ATTENTION-GETTING," FIGURATIVE "LIGHTNING BOLT" IN ORDER TO GRAB THE ATTENTION OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO ARE "APPROACHABLE" BY THE HSUS, BUT WHO HAVE NOT YET BECOME CO-SPONSORS, AS WELL AS SOME OF THE CURRENT CO-SPONSORS OF THE PUPS BILL WHO MIGHT CONSIDER WITHDRAWING THEIR CO-SPONSORSHIP OF THE PUPS BILL.

Why do I say "approachable?" In March of this year, the HSUS presented its 2010 Legislative Awards to 144 Members of Congress who best supported the HSUS Lobbying Agenda in 2010. Fifty-eight (58) of the 108 U.S. Representatives who received the HSUS Awards are currently co-sponsors of the PUPS Bill. That means that if only 26 of the remaining 50 "uncommitted" Representatives who were "honored" by the HSUS were to co-sponsor the PUPS Bill, the "Magic Number" of 150 would be reached. So far, only 11 of the 36 Senators who were honored by the HSUS in March of this year have Sponsored or Co-Sponsored the Companion PUPS Bill in the Senate. Thus, if 19 of the "uncommitted" 25 Senators who were honored by the HSUS in March of this year were to co-sponsor the Senate version of the PUPS Bill, the "Magic Number" of 34 would be reached. Both are very reasonably attainable.

So what can be the "LIGHTNING BOLT???" I believe the most effective "LIGHTNING BOLT" WOULD BE A POTENTIAL "SCANDAL" ASSOCIATED WITH THE HSUS, SUCH AS THE ON-GOING INVESTIGATIONS OF THE HSUS AND ITS CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES BY THREE DIFFERENT FEDERAL AGENCIES - - ONE OF WHICH IS BEING REVIEWED BY THE U.S. OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS.

Ideally, the Offices of every Member of Congress need to be "flooded" with E-Mails that call attention to the "Dark Side" of the HSUS, as well as the fact that the HSUS has become the subject of Investigations by three separate Federal Agencies. The recommended wording for these E-Mails would read as follows.

********************************************

"Dear Senator/Representative:

No caring American supports the activities of those few "substandard kennels" that do exist. Unfortunately, the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) has mischaracterized and slurred the activities of thousands of caring breeders by referring to them as "puppy mills." Deceptively, the HSUS has never publicly acknowledged or disclosed the fact that these thousands of breeders are either Licensed and Inspected by the Federal Government, or by the State Government, and many of them are "Hobby and Show Breeders," as well as breeders of Search and Rescue dogs and breeders of dogs for owners with special needs, such as the blind. Unfortunately, the HSUS's grotesque distortion of the true facts have worked up so many into a frenzied, false belief that the PUPS Bill will solve the purportedly systemic "problems" that have been "highlighted" by the HSUS, but simply do not exist.

Throughout the History of the U. S., there have been charlatans who have deceived much of the American Public and many Government Officials. By analogy, it took years before the scandal involving Mr. Bernie Madoff exposed the magnitude of his deception - - and so many, in the Government and outside of the Government, blindly trusted and followed his recommendations to their detriment. That is why I am equally concerned that the PUPS Bill is deceptively flawed, and requires a more in-depth review before the Congress moves forward to vote on the PUPS Bill, especially since the three Senior Government Officials listed below have been briefed on the status of on-going investigations in each of their respective Federal Agencies. These investigations involve the allegations of improper activities of the HSUS and their current and former employees. And that is why, I urge you to contact each of the three Government Officials listed below, and ask them to brief you on the nature of the investigations involving the Humane Society of the U.S., and its current and former employees, before the U.S. Congress votes on the PUPS Bill.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) - - INSPECTOR GENERAL PHYLLIS K. FONG: Ask about the status of the on-going investigation involving allegations of a "Conflict of Interest" and a "Misuse of Government Position" by Ms. Sarah L. Conant, a former HSUS Litigation Attorney who was a hired by USDA but two days after she resigned her position with the HSUS to become the Chief of the APHIS Enforcement Branch. Also ask about the preliminary review by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics of Ms. Conant's alleged "Conflict of Interest."

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - - ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY KEITH MORGAN IN THE OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Ask about the status of the Complaint that he has received concerning the allegations that the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS); and its self-described "Lobbying Arm" and "Lobbying Affiliate," the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF), which has submitted thousands of pages of lobbying documents to the Federal Election Commission; and the Senior Leadership of both the HSUS and the HSLF have violated the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. Despite the fact that the HSUS, the HSLF and the Senior Leadership of those two tax-exempt organizations were required by Law to register with the Clerk of the House of Representatives and with the Secretary of the U.S. Senate because of their thousands of "Lobbying Contacts" with "Covered Executive Branch Officials and "Covered Legislative Branch Officials," THEY HAVE NEVER DONE SO!

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY - - INSPECTOR GENERAL J. RUSSELL GEORGE: Ask about the inquiries made by at least Eight Members of Congress concerning the "apparent inappropriate activities" of the HSUS and its "tax-exempt status." Also ask about his response to Senator Lugar that was dated August 24, 2011, in which he stated that "we have recently initiated an audit to determine whether the IRS's Exempt Organizations function is accurately accounting for referrals of alleged violations of Federal tax law."

While I personally believe that it is inappropriate for you to support the PUPS Bill, I only ask that you come to your own conclusions after you gather the "all of the facts" from the USDA, the Justice Department and the Treasury Department. In short, the "lessons learned" from blindly following the seemingly logical and persuasive recommendations of Bernie Madoff may very well apply to following the seemingly logical and persuasive recommendations of the Humane Society of the U.S. which is the subject of on-going investigations by three different Federal Agencies, and which has been aggressively lobbying Members of the U.S. Congress to support the passage of the PUPS Bill.

Respectfully Submitted,

*******************************************************

1. To send an E-Mail to your U.S. Representative, Log onto www.house.gov/writerep/

2. To send an E-Mail to your Two Senators, Log onto www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Chula Vista considering MSN proposal

2011-10-12T10:28:00.001-07:00

Mayor and City Council Members

City of Chula Vista

276 Fourth Avenue

Chula Vista, CA 91910

(619) 476-5379 Fax

Dear Mayor Cox and City Council Members,

The California Federation of Dog Clubs, founded in 1990, represents thousands of dog owners across our state. We are dedicated to the promotion of responsible dog ownership and to protecting the rights of responsible dog owners. Among our current projects are implementation of a breed identification workshop for shelter workers, distribution of a dog care and training brochure for new owners who adopt from a shelter, and establishment of a 1-800 help line for pet owners struggling with behavior or training problems. We also maintain and administer a relief fund for animals affected by disasters such as earthquakes or fires. We are active in support of animal legislation that provides positive benefits to society, such as CA SB 390 (LaMalfa) and CA AB 258 "Molly's Bill" (medical exemptions for rabies vaccination), for which we are a co-sponsor.

It has come to our attention that the city of Chula Vista is considering a mandatory spay-neuter ordinance. From your city's website:

The Chula Vista Animal Care Facility encourages owners to always spay and neuter their pets. There is a serious pet overpopulation problem in San Diego County that has resulted in thousands of euthanizations each year.

The fact is that euthanizations in San Diego County are down significantly. In 1998, 15,474 dogs were killed in San Diego County shelters. By 2010, that number has dropped by nearly 70%, down to 4862. In 2009, there were only 371 dogs euthanized for the year in the entire county of San Diego. Remember, some of these euthanized animals were severely injured, sick, aggressive, or otherwise not savable. Clearly, great progress is being made in the reduction of euthanization of adoptable animals, and success has been possible without the use of coercive legislation.

"A serious pet overpopulation problem in San Diego County"? There is absolutely no evidence to support that assertion. There are over 3 million residents in San Diego County. Let's put the figures into perspective. Last year, one animal entered a shelter for every 63 residents. One dog was killed for every 637 residents. One cat was killed for every 327 residents.

When animals are killed in shelters, it cannot be reasonably blamed on "overpopulation." In fact, the US Border patrol estimates at least 10,000 puppies are smuggled into San Diego County each year from Mexico.* More than DOUBLE the numbers that are killed in shelters. There is a market for pets in San Diego and spaying/neutering all the local dogs and cats will remove the best sources for healthy, well-bred and well-socialized animals. People won't own less pets; they'll just get them from somewhere else. Your mandatory spay/neuter proposal would only serve to increase the black market demand and to promote the breeding of dogs in foreign puppy mills.

While the goal of reducing deaths in animal shelters is laudable, mandatory spay-neuter laws don't help. In fact, the opposite is true. Every locale that has enacted a mandatory spay/neuter law has seen a RISE in shelter admissions and killings.

San Mateo County's Peninsula Humane Society, which spearheaded the nation's first "breeding ban" in the name of reducing shelter deaths, did not have the expected success with that approach. In the areas of the county where the ordinance was implemented, dog deaths increased by 126 percent, while cat deaths went up by 86 percent. Licensing dropped by 35 percent.

Fort Worth, Texas repealed their mandatory spay and neuter law as licensing and compliance plummeted, and cases of rabies increased.

Memphis passed a mandatory spay and neuter law last year. Since then, shelter intakes have risen 8% in that city.

Los Angeles is another case in point. After decades of steadily declining shelter numbers, LA reversed the good trend in one fell swoop with enactment of a mandatory spay and neuter law. Intakes and deaths immediately rose by over 30% and continue in an upward spiral.

No mainstream animal welfare organization supports mandatory spay and neuter. The American Veterinary Medical Association opposes it. So does Best Friends Animal Society, American Humane Association, Maddie's Fund, Alley Cat Allies, the American Kennel Club and the No Kill Advocacy Center. The ASPCA also opposes mandatory spay neuter, saying:

"The ASPCA is not aware of any credible evidence demonstrating a statistically significant enhancement in the reduction of shelter intake or euthanasia as a result of the implementation of a mandatory spay/neuter law."

Mandatory spay and neuter does not work because it does not address the reasons that animals enter shelters. Those reasons are varied, but they have nothing to do with births. Animals enter shelters due to social problems like loss of a job, home foreclosure, or divorce or death of the owner. Mandatory spay/neuter does nothing to help pets remain in their homes. Ownerless cats make up a large portion of shelter intakes and spay-neuter laws won't reduce the numbers of feral cats. Trap-neuter-release programs are proven methods for feral cat population control.

Sometimes there are behavioral issues for which training programs might provide a useful solution. To help get more animals adopted, shelters could implement more proactive ideas like extended hours, foster programs and off-site adoptions. Advertising campaigns can help educate prospective pet owners to consider a shelter animal when they are thinking of getting their next pet.

Besides, a recent national pet population survey reveals that 78% of owned dogs and 88% of owned cats are already sterilized. The public is cooperating with voluntary spay and neuter...in droves! Voluntary, low-cost sterilization clinics have been very successful. We believe that voluntary, collaborative, supportive and science-based programs always outperform programs that are punitive and coercive. We urge you to reject any mandatory spay/neuter law. Such ordinances are not in the best interests of pets or their owners. Please feel free to contact us if we can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely yours,

Geneva Coats, R.N.

Secretary

California Federation of Dog Clubs

CC: Cheryl Cox, Patricia Aguilar, Pamela Bensoussan, Steve Castaneda, Rudy Ramirez

*http://www.cbp.gov/xp/CustomsToday/2006/jun_jul/other/puppies.xml

From "Maddie's Fund" website:

"Saving all of our healthy and treatable shelter dogs and cats by 2015 is more than possible - we're almost there!"

Irvine ordinance update

2011-10-10T17:29:00.001-07:00

The City of Irvine is considering an ordinance to ban the retail sale of pets and to ban circuses and rodeos in the city.

To make your voice heard, call or fax the city council.

Mayor and City Council Members

City of Irvine

1 Civic Center Plaza

Irvine, CA 92606-5207

Phone 949-724-6205

FAX 949-724-6188

Local residents should plan to attend the meeting tomorrow, October 11, at 4 pm.

Suggested talking points:

Exotic animal exhibits provide invaluable educational experiences for adults and children alike
Banning retail sales of dogs and cats sends an anti-ownership message and does nothing positive to promote animal welfare
Sales bans create undesirable, unregulated black markets
Animal exhibitors such as circuses, zoos, carnivals etc. are already federally regulated and licensed through APHIS. Strict animal welfare guidelines must be adhered to.

Public Hearings are scheduled for a time certain of 4:00 p.m., unless noticed otherwise, or as soon thereafter as possible. Those wishing to address the City Council during the Public Hearing must complete a form and provide it to the City Clerk prior to the hearing.

Notice: Public Hearings listed for continuance will be continued as noted and posting of this agenda serves as notice of continuation. Any matter not noted for continuance, will be posted separately.

2.1

APPROVAL OF ANIMAL WELFARE ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT RETAIL SALES OF DOGS AND CATS, CIRCUSES FEATURING WILD OR EXOTIC ANIMAL ACTS, AND RODEOS IN THE CITY OF IRVINE

	ACTION:
1)	Receive staff report.
2)	Open the public hearing; receive public input.
3)	Close the public hearing.
4)	City Council comments and questions.
5)	Introduce for first reading, and read by title only ORDINANCE NO. - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRVINE, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 4-5-506, 4-5-1111, AND 4-5-1112 TO THE IRVINE MUNICIPAL CODE, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 4-5-101, 4-5-501 AND 4-5-515 OF THE IRVINE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION OF RETAIL SALE OF DOGS AND CATS IN COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS, AND THE PROHIBITION OF CIRCUSES DISPLAYING OR EXHIBITING WILD OR EXOTIC ANIMAL ACTS, RODEOS AND SIMILAR EVENTS

PUBLIC COMMENTS (Limited to 3 minutes per speaker) - 6:30 P.M.

Public comments will be heard at approximately 6:30 p.m. or prior to adjournment, whichever occurs earlier.

Governor Jerry Brown Signs Molly's Bill into Law

2011-10-10T12:01:00.000-07:00

If you have problems viewing this email click here




www.asm.ca.gov/Hagman Assemblymember.Hagman@assembly.ca.gov Governor Jerry Brown Signs Molly's Bill into Law I am pleased to announce that Governor Brown signed AB 258, affectionately known as "Molly's Bill" into law. AB 258 will protect California canines from unintended consequences of regular anti-rabies vaccine. It will create an exemption from anti-rabies vaccine for dogs a licensed veterinarian determines are likely to have dangerous or lethal reactions to the vaccine. I would like to thank the Governor and all the dog lovers who supported this bill along the way. I could not have done it without you. It has been a long road but is fantastic that man's best friend now enjoys this protection! Thank you for your ongoing support. It is an honor to serve you and the State of California. Assemblyman Curt Hagman District 60	Welcome I am proud to keep you informed about issues affecting the 60th Assembly District, as well as the California State Legislature. Section Name · AB 258 - Molly's Bill

DISTRICT OFFICE
13920 City Center Drive, #260
Chino Hills, CA 91709
(909) 627-7021, (909) 627-1841 fax

CAPITOL OFFICE
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
916-319-2060, 916-319-2160 fax

AB 1117 signed into law

2011-10-08T09:23:00.000-07:00

AB 1117 deals with animal asset forfeiture and sets onerous penalties for "abuse".

Governor Brown has signed AB 1117 into law. AB 1117 would extend civil asset forfeiture to include animals. Existing law requires a convicted person to pay for the costs involved with seizing and impounding their animals. AB 1117 would extend the lien on animals based simply upon a correctly issued warrant. This is not only unjust, but onerous and cost-prohibitive to most owners, who would be forced to forfeit their animals even if innocent. The animals would then further add to the financial strain on local shelters, and many would end up being killed.

This bill requires any order prohibiting ownership to also prohibit the person from possessing, maintaining, having custody of, residing with, or caring for animals of any kind. This bill creates 5 and 10-year probation periods. This bill creates a new misdemeanor offense for a person found to be in violation of the animal-possession injunction.

Sentencing terms and conditions of probation are best left to the discretion of judges based on each individual case. For instance, a case of neglect may be as minor as leaving an animal without water, yet the offender would be prohibited from owning or residing with family members who have animals for a proscribed period of between five to ten years. This could adversely impact those households with guide dogs or other service animals.

The California Judges Association opposes the elimination of judicial discretion and noted in the May 18, 2011 analysis: "An enjoining order would probably be appropriate in most cases of animal abuse, but exceptional cases can arise". The California Judges Association concludes:

"AB 1117 goes too far."

AB 1117 is unnecessary. Judges already have the discretion to enter an order forbidding persons from caring for animals when warranted.

This bill will probably need a challenge in court, which will be very costly to pursue. There is an obvious conflict of interest on the part of the seizing agency, who may jump at the opportunity to abuse their power to grab animals and either kill or sell them, while having the owner pay all the costs.

Thank you to everyone who called, faxed and wrote the legislative bodies in opposition, as well as contacted the Governor to request a veto.

Governor Brown bill action

2011-10-08T09:15:00.000-07:00

Some good news; Governor Brown signed AB 258; this bill allows medical exemptions from rabies vaccination. California Federation of Dog Clubs was a co-sponsor of AB 258, and, needless to say, we are thrilled that it has now become law.

We are pleased to report that the governor also vetoed AB 1121, the puppy licensing/seller reporting bill. The governor believes this should be a matter for local jurisdictions to decide, and not a statewide mandate. Reporting sales of animals to animal control entities is certainly government over-reach, and downright onerous for rescues and most breeders, so thank goodness this one is gone, at least for now.

Also vetoed was SB 702, which would have required animals released from shelters to be microchipped. Mandated microchipping would increase the costs to adopt, thereby driving down shelter adoption rates, and costing animals their lives; what a relief to see this bill vetoed.

SB 390 was signed, good news for search and rescue teams.

Unfortunately, AB 1117 was signed into law by the Governor, despite an aggressive campaign of opposition by California Federation of Dog Clubs, CARPOC, The Animal Council and many other respected animal groups. We will devoted a separate entry to that subject.

CA:City of Irvine proposed Animal Welfare Regulations

2011-09-19T12:23:00.000-07:00

City of Irvine proposed Animal Welfare Regulations
Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:02 pm (PDT)
From: Jana Ransom ;
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:27 AM
To: Jana Ransom
Cc: Brian Fisk ; Sharon Landers ; Michelle Grettenberg
Subject: City of Irvine proposed Animal Welfare Regulations

The City of Irvine City Council will hold a public hearing on OCTOBER 11, 2011 beginning at 4:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers in the Irvine Civic Center.

The following proposals will be considered:

1) Spay/neutering: no ordinance change will be proposed. Staff will request direction to develop an educational campaign as to the benefits of spaying and neutering animals.

2) Retail sales of dogs and cats: ordinance language will be presented to prohibit the retail sale of dogs and cats from commercial establishments in Irvine. If approved, this ordinance and all referencing sections of the Municipal Code will g o into effect 30 days after 2nd reading of ordinance (scheduled under "Consent calendar" for October 25, 2011). One existing store will be allowed to continue sales through October 31, 2012.

3) Circuses and Rodeos: ordinance language will be presented to prohibit wild and exotic animal performances in circuses and to prohibit rodeos altogether in Irvine. If approved, this ordinance and all referencing sections of the Municipal Code will go into effect 30 days after 2nd reading of ordinance (scheduled under "Consent calendar" for October 25, 2011). Animal exhibits, petting zoos, pony rides and other exhibitions are currently regulated in the City of Irvine and will still be allowed subject to the conditions of the Municipal Code and permit requirements established by the Irvine Public Safety Department.

A number of alternatives were suggested for Council consideration or were found to be in place in other jurisdic tions. These alternatives are summarized in a chart (attached) or can be found on our webpage located athttp://www.cityofirvine.org/cityhall/cs/animalcare/proposed_animal_welfare_ordinances.asp.

Ordinance language is being developed for numbers 2 and 3 above. Unless the City Council directs it at their meeting of October 11, 2011, no additional ordinance language will be developed for the alternatives.

Please note: City Council will receive the proposed ordinance language on October 7, 2011. It will be posted on our website by 5:00 p.m. on that date at this site: http://www.cityofirvine.org/council/agenda/agenda_archive.asp(click on agenda for October 11, 2011).

As I had indicated that I hoped to have the actual language available for review further in advance, I apologize. However, it will NOT be released prior to the City Council first receiving it in the staff report that goes to Council October 7.

Thank you all for your interest in these matters.

[Also, please forgive any duplicate emails - we are merging lists and some may have been inadvertently repeated.]

JANA M. RANSOM

COMMUNITY SERVICES MANAGER

CITY OF IRVINE

P.O. BOX 19575

IRVINE, CA 92623-9575

(949) 724-6694

jransom@ci.irvine.ca.us

__._,_.___

Governor Brown - please VETO AB 1121 (puppy licensing/seller reporting)

2011-09-12T20:09:00.001-07:00

The Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr.

Governor, State of California

State Capitol, Suite 1173

Sacramento, CA 95814

September 12, 2011

Re: CA AB 1121 (Pan) Dog licensing: issuance: puppy licenses: OPPOSE. Request for veto.

Dear Governor Brown,

The CFoDC is OPPOSED to AB 1121. This bill mandates reporting of pet sales to the local licensing agency by pet stores, breeders and rescues. Current law already requires the pet owner to seek and obtain a dog license. AB 1121 would improperly transfer this reporting responsibility to the seller. Licensing is ultimately the legal and moral responsibility of the dog owner, not the seller. Sellers should not be required to report personal details of animal buyers to the state. This smacks of the very worst type of "snitch" culture and can only foster further distrust of government.

Rescue groups currently operate on a shoestring budget with volunteers handling the bulk of the work. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in this bill are onerous for nonprofits to contend with and could have a dampering effect on continued rescue activities.

Currently, most veterinarians are already required to report any dogs vaccinated for rabies to licensing authorities. This new seller reporting requirement is duplicative, and creates another bureaucratic layer in animal control with increased additional costs to the public. Further, the provisions of the bill regarding who must report are confusing and subject to individual interpretation.

AB 1121 also contains provisions for puppy licensing for a discounted fee. Firstly, there is no justification for a puppy too young for rabies vaccination to be licensed. The sole original purpose for dog licensing was to protect public health through canine rabies vaccination enforcement. Also, there will be additional license levels and confusion with the puppy provisions.

Only puppies who are microchipped qualify for the puppy license discount; however, microchipping is a stand-alone measure to facilitate return to owner in case of a lost dog. Microchip information is registered with independent agencies and is not tracked by the state. A license does not provide any additional benefits to the microchipped dog.

The proposed discount is only applicable during the first year of life. Owners in certain areas (like heavily populated Los Angeles) will discover only too late that they will face mandatory, unnecessary and costly sterilization surgery, or else pay an exorbitant intact license fee for their dog once the puppy license expires. This will cause an increase in shelter relinquishments by those with limited financial means. It is not uncommon to find an intact license fee of 500% or more higher than the amount charged for altered dogs. Differential license fees based on age or reproductive status are punitive in nature and counterproductive to encouraging licensing compliance.

Bearing in mind that our state has the worst budget crisis in history, it seems ludicrous that we would now prioritize precious resources to implement additional bureaucratic red tape in the tracking of dogs. More money will be needed to ensure compliance; money for advertising, money for tracking and paperwork, and money for more employees needed for enforcement. This will only add to the city/county budget woes.

Reporting of private matters will only cause citizens further dissatisfaction with intrusive government, and there will be decreased compliance across the board.

We urge you to veto AB 1121.

Sincerely yours,

Geneva Coats, R.N.

Secretary

California Federation of Dog Clubs

ACTION ALERT - CA AB 1121

2011-09-09T07:33:00.001-07:00

ACTION ALERT - CA AB 1121 - dog sales reporting and puppy licensing

TAKE ACTION / CALL Gov. Jerry Brown, tell him to veto AB 1121.

Phone: (916) 445-2841 / Fax: (916) 558-3160

This bill was rushed through both legislative bodies yesterday, and passed the assembly despite only 49 out of 80 assembly members voting for it.

CA AB 1121 would require each pet dealer, dog breeder, humane society, rescue group, or SPCA to report details of their puppy sales to the local licensing agency. Required information to disclose would be the new owner's name and address, breed and age of dog, and reproductive and microchip status of the dog. The bill would allow puppies to receive a discounted license, contingent upon being microchipped. It would allow veterinarians to license dogs through their offices.

Here are some details of who would need to comply with the seller reporting provisions:

A "pet dealer" means a person engaging in the business of selling dogs or cats, or both, at retail, who is required to possess a sales tax permit. A current sales tax permit is required of anyone who sells more than two animals in a year.
A breeder who has three litters per year OR sells twenty or more dogs in a year must also comply with the breeder reporting requirements.

A retailer who sells less than 50 animals in a year is not currently considered a "pet dealer." However, the first sentence of the bill states:

"It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage anyone transferring ownership of a dog to advise the new owner that all dogs four months of age or older must be licensed under state law. It is further the intent of the Legislature to encourage all veterinarians to advise their clients to license all of the clients' dogs that are four months of age or older."

This bill is ripe for incrementalism. It establishes a new reporting requirement that is limited to a relatively small group at the onset, but could easily be expanded or tightened up in the future to include a wider group of breeders or even veterinarians. Since the stated intent of the bill is to "encourage" licensing by anyone transferring a dog or by all veterinarians, no doubt the proposed law will eventually be amended to include more hobby breeders. It could even be amended to require veterinarians to verify that dogs they treat are licensed. (A bill like this recently passed in Philadelphia. No doubt the ARs have a plan to expand this to other areas)

Speaking of incrementalism, did you realize that the only initial purpose for dog licensing was rabies control? This is a perfect example of incrementlism at its worst. Licensing has expanded significantly beyond the role of protecting public health from the threat of rabies, to where we now have all manner of government control over our animals associated with licensing, such as forced sterilization, mandated microchips, limits on the numbers of animals we can own and limits on the choice to breed.

Unfortunately, a group claiming to represent the interests of California dog owners is sponsoring this bill. We can only emphasize that this is extremely foolish and shortsighted on the part of this group. PAWPac, an animal rights lobbying group, is actively supporting AB 1121. Other supporting groups include the HSUS and the ASPCA.

The animal rights groups just want to get this law passed. They know that once the law is on the books, they can refine and strengthen it later.

There are several serious concerns regarding this bill:

Licensing is ultimately the legal and moral responsibility of the dog owner, not the seller. Sellers should not be required to report personal details of animal buyers to the state. This smacks of the very worst type of "snitch" activity.
Currently, most veterinarians in the state already are required to report to the local animal control agency the owner name and address for pets vaccinated against rabies in order to comply with state health requirements for rabies control. This bill is duplicative and unnecessary.
This bill imposes a state-mandated local program. The seller reporting requirement adds an additional bureaucratic layer to animal control, with increased costs that will be borne by all of us as dog license holders and taxpayers.
Rescue groups currently operate on a shoestring budget with volunteers handling the bulk of the work. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in this bill are onerous for nonprofits to contend with and could have a dampering effect on continued rescue activities.
In addition, this bill will likely bring more puppies into the system for their owners in certain areas to find out only too late that they may face mandatory, unnecessary and costly sterilization surgery, or else pay an exorbitant intact license fee for their dog once the puppy license expires.
Only puppies who are microchipped qualify for the puppy discount license. The discount is only applied during the first year of life.
Unfortunately, as happens with all punitive laws, under the provisions of this bill, more dogs will end up in shelters. There is no thought about the unintended consequences of the seller reporting requirements in areas with local mandatory sterilization laws or stringent limit laws.
The bill allows for "veterinarians to issue the licenses to owners of dogs who make application." There is a concern that this concept could be expanded in the future to turn veterinarians into the dog licensing police, which would cause some owners to avoid seeking needed veterinary care for their pets.

"No Kill" methodology advises against punitive, coercive legislation because they know such laws create more problems than they solve. AB 1121 certainly falls into the category of coercive legislation. The small benefit of a reduced fee puppy license is far outweighed by the onerous seller reporting requirements.

Please contact the governor today to urge his veto.

Glendale bans pet store sale of dogs and cats

2011-09-03T08:48:00.000-07:00

This "reporter" neglected to note the opposition of the California Federation of Dog Clubs which contacted the City Council repeatedly. Notice how "no pet stores in Glendale are currently selling dogs." Yet this ordinance was such a big priority.

And, these anti-animal, "animal rights" fanatics don't care about the loss of revenues from shows held there. They are idealogues not driven by economics or practical concerns. They wish to spread sales bans to as many cities as possible, and eventually nationwide. The original proposal was to ban breeding completely in the city, and there was a big push for that. Any time there is a ban on sales/breeding against one segment of the population, all of us are at risk.

The group CAPS (Companion Animal Protection Society) worked with the city, inspected the one pet store that used to sell dogs, and wrote the ordinance. They are a nationwide animal rights organization opposed to breeding and selling dogs unless they are "rescues". Isn't it frightening that our government officials are listening to these animal wrongists? Hiring them to do "consultations" and write ordinances!

www.caps-web.org

Glendale bans pet store sale of dogs and cats

By Melissa Maroff, San Fernando Valley Pet Rescue Examiner

The Glendale City Council voted unanimously last night to pass an ordinance banning the retail sale of dogs and cats in pet stores, to take effect in 30 days.

Due to both public and council input, the ordinance was revised to exclude a section that would have exempted onsite breeding at pet stores, which according to Glendale City Attorney Michael Garcia, raised concerns about encouraging irresponsible "backyard" breeding.

He said the ordinance won't apply to individuals whose pets occasionally have a litter or "hobby" breeders, and Glendale residents can still purchase dogs and cats from breeders or adopt through non-profit agencies or shelters. He stated that no pet stores in Glendale are currently selling dogs.

Elizabeth Oreck, National Manager of Puppy Mill Initiatives for Best Friends Animal Society, told the Council that Best Friends is currently working with Pets R Us (until recently the only seller of puppy mill dogs in Glendale). When the store opted to go humane and offer only rescue dogs, they contacted Best Friends, which partners with pet stores to promote adoption. Pets R Us joins Pet Rush, which last year became Glendale's first rescue-only pet store.

Lisa Kuta, a small-scale breeder/rescuer of exotic cats, expressed concern that the ordinance might affect the cat shows held twice yearly at Glendale Civic Auditorium, which she pointed out bring added revenue to the city.

And completely opposed to the ordinance was Michael Shelton, Southwest Regional Director of The Cat Fanciers' Association. He was also concerned the ban would affect public events where cats are shown and put local breeders in increased danger from animal activists.

Both Garcia and Glendale Mayor Laura Friedman assured them the ordinance wouldn't apply to cat shows.

"I think it's selfish to breed animals while millions are destroyed in shelters," said Dana Miller Coburn, a Glendale resident there to show her support. "If you truly love animals, you should be wholeheartedly in favor of this ban."

Another local resident, Angie Groom, told the Council: "I look forward to the ripple effect this will hopefully have on other cities."

Animal advocates are confident that the ordinance's impact will extend far beyond Glendale's borders. Aside from inspiring other California and U.S. cities to adopt similar bans, they feel it will create more awareness of the puppy/kitten mill-pet store connection, which will in turn help curtail online sales of animals from inhumane puppy and kitten mills -- and ultimately increase adoptions.

http://www.examiner.com/pet-rescue-in-los-angeles/glendale-bans-pet-store-sale-of-dogs-and-cats

Ask the Governor to VETO SB 702 (microchipping impounded animals)

2011-09-01T22:58:00.001-07:00

While you are on the phone or faxing regarding AB 1117, please also mention SB 702.

TAKE ACTION / CALL Gov. Jerry Brown, tell him to veto SB 702.

Phone: (916) 445-2841 / Fax: (916) 558-3160

"I am OPPOSED to SB 702, a mandate to routinely microchip dogs upon release from a shelter."

Talking points:

Mandated microchipping will have unintended consequences. Since the cost of the microchip will be borne by the owner, this will result in higher impound/adoption fees. Considering today's economic climate, for many animals this increased cost will reduce the chances of being adopted or reclaimed.

A microchip can be a wonderful tool, but they are not without pitfalls. There have been rare instances of microchip insertion resulting in illness and death. Dogs have bled to death after insertion and developed abscesses at the insertion site. Some have had the chip improperly inserted into muscle tissue or even the spinal canal, and there are also cases of lethal cancer formation at microchip sites. Chips can migrate in the body or fail, rendering them useless. Microchips also vary considerably by manufacturer, and there is no universal scanner at this time.

Other forms of identification such as tattoos or tags can be immediately read by anyone who finds a stray dog, allowing rapid return to owner and reducing the burden on local shelters. Animal welfare groups such as AKC and OFA consider tattoos to be an acceptable form of permanent ID. Freeze branding is also an alternative.

Information on a microchip may not always be updated upon transfer of ownership. Reliance on a microchip may mean the death of a pet who would have survived with a more visible form of identification.

Bill proponents are making false claims about this bill, stating that animals control officers in the field will scan and return animals without having them enter the shelter system first. While it is possible for such a system to be implemented, it is NOT the reality of what happens here in California.

A full 11% of shelter intakes are animals that are DOA. Another 14% are animals that are relinquished by their owner. That's 25% who won't be helped by this microchip mandate. Over 50% of all intakes are cats and kittens, few of which have owners. Microchips won't help feral cats and kittens. The proven method for dealing with feral cats and kittens is trap-neuter-release programs. Killing or microchipping feral cats are obviously not humane or beneficial methods of dealing with them.

In light of the risks associated with these devices, it is ill-advised to mandate their routine usage. Pet owners should be allowed to decide if they wish to utilize a permanent ID system, and, if so, if they prefer to use collars and tags or tattoos instead of microchips. We urge you to veto CA SB 702.

ASK GOVERNOR BROWN TO VETO AB 1117

2011-09-01T22:50:00.001-07:00

AB 1117 has passed both legislative bodies and is on to the Governor's desk now for signature.

Dear Governor Brown:

Please veto AB 1117.

It is unfair to MANDATE no pets or animals to be owned for five years on a misdemeanor charge.

Please let the judicial system do its job and decide the penalties.

Many cities such as Oakland have time limits on tethering of dogs. If one were to overstay this time limit by minutes, this misdemeanor charge would result in losing their dog and ALL other pets for FIVE YEARS.

AB 1117 would extend civil asset forfeiture to include animals. Existing law requires a convicted person to pay for the costs involved with seizing and impounding their animals. AB 1117 would extend the lien on animals based simply upon a correctly issued warrant. This would be not only unjust, but onerous and cost-prohibitive to most owners, who would be forced to forfeit their animals even if innocent. The animals would then further add to the financial strain on local shelters.

This bill would require any order prohibiting ownership to also prohibit the person from possessing, maintaining, having custody of, residing with, or caring for animals of any kind. It would further require the owner to make "additional showings" in order for the court to direct the release of seized or impounded animals. This bill creates 5 and 10-year probation periods. This mandated monitoring for extended periods of time would significantly impact local budgets, already strained with the economic recession.

This bill creates a new misdemeanor offense for a person found to be in violation of the animal-possession injunction. This bill may exacerbate the current overcrowding crisis in county jails, since a person who violates an animal-ban order is subject to prosecution for a misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in jail. Under the influence of AB 109, moving state inmates to jails and probation control, costs to monitor for extended probation periods will be considerable.

Sentencing terms and conditions of probation are best left to the discretion of judges based on each individual case. For instance, a case of neglect may be as minor as leaving an animal without water, yet the offender would be prohibited from owning or residing with family members who have animals for a proscribed period of between five to ten years. This could adversely impact those people with guide dogs or other service animals.

The California Judges Association opposes the elimination of judicial discretion and noted in the May 18, 2011 analysis: An enjoining order would probably be appropriate in most cases of animal abuse, but exceptional cases can arise". The California Judges Association concludes:

"AB 1117 goes too far."

AB 1117 is unnecessary. Judges already have the discretion to enter an order forbidding persons from caring for animals when warranted. Making this order mandatory could unjustly impact individuals who make a living working with or caring for animals. It could also be detrimental to those who depend on therapy dogs. While this Bill makes an exemption regarding residing with animals for stockowners, other animal owners, for instance an animal trainer, or one who owns a therapy dog, should have the same consideration. This again should be subject to judicial discretion, and not a blanket mandate.

The Bill would have the party that made the seizure determine whether the convicted party can abide by these "future" events. This is a conflict of interest. A court should determine this, if necessary. The person convicted of animal abuse must prove various future conditions; that he owns the animal, that he has paid the costs of seizure, that the animals are physically fit, that he will provide the necessary care, and that he can legally retain all the animals in question. This is asking an individual to prove acts in the future, which is impossible.

TAKE ACTION / CALL Gov. Jerry Brown, tell him to veto AB 1117

Phone: (916) 445-2841 / Fax: (916) 558-3160

ACTION ALERT - CA AB 610

2011-09-01T22:45:00.001-07:00

California's Spay-Neuter License Plate Program - CA AB 610

CA AB 610, sponsored by the California Veterinary Medical Board, would lower the number of required pre-orders for specialized spay-neuter license plates. The text of the bill is based on misinformation and exaggerated claims about dog and cat populations in California. The bill wrongfully declares that a state of "emergency" exists in our state, and creates poorly defined programs without proper oversight.

The funds from sales of these specialized license plates would be collected by the Veterinary Medical Board, and then distributed for projects and programs that support city and county animal shelters, including, but not limited to, spaying and neutering programs and adoption programs.

Currently, the bill is sitting in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. You can read the full text of the bill here:

http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0601-0650/ab_610_bill_20110822_amended_sen_v96.html

In particular, we strongly object to this verbiage present in the bill:

"In six years one unspayed female dog and her offspring can reproduce 67,000 dogs. On average it costs approximately one hundred dollars ($100) to capture, house, feed, and eventually kill a homeless animal- a cost that ultimately comes out of the taxpayers' pockets. Low-cost spaying and neutering services are far below that amount. Thus, the cost of having a pregnant female dog can be much higher than the cost of spaying."

"Each day, seven dogs and cats are born for each person born in the United States. Of those, only one in five puppies and kittens stay in their original homes for their natural lifetime. The remaining four are abandoned to the streets or end up at a shelter. As long as these birth rates exist, there will never be enough homes for all of the animals".

Please contact the California Veterinary Medical Board, your state Senator and the members of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee to let them know that there are serious concerns with this bill. Here are some talking points for your phone calls and letters.

I am opposed to CA AB 610 for these reasons:

The program being set up is vague and the exact distribution of the funds collected is unspecified.
AB 610 is an attempt to prop up a failing program that does not have sufficient public support to sustain itself.
The bill's analysis questions whether this would be, "a worthwhile investment" at the lowered threshold. It concludes, "This would net less than $75,000 in funds raised, an amount that seems hardly worth the state's effort."
Lowering the 7,500 paid plate applications threshold to 2,500 will net insufficient funds raised to validate the expense of the license plate startup program.
There are reasonable concerns that funds from the license plate program could potentially be used in support of mandatory Spay and Neuter, in addition to the voluntary S/N programs originally specified in this bill. Mandatory spay and neuter is a proven failure everywhere it has been tried.
The bill should specify that funds will only go to free or low-cost voluntary spaying and neutering programs, and not be allocated to mandatory spay/neuter programs.
There is a potential conflict of interest with a VMB member whose organization may benefit financially from these funds.
The proposed adoption program would build a completely new bureaucracy with unknown administrative costs.
Claims about pet populations in AB 610 range from misleading to egregiously false and should certainly not be written into California law.
California laws should be based on verifiable facts, not on misleading, biased, and inaccurate information. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claims presented in this bill regarding costs per shelter death, the costs of spay/neuter, the number of offspring that one animal can produce, or the numbers of births of dogs and cats in the United States. These "statistics" are based on unsupported information, and derived from internet "urban legends".
Use of unsupported facts and figures is unbecoming of a professional organization like the Veterinary Medical Board.
There are approximately 4 million persons born in the U.S. each year. According to the claims of the bill, there are 7 dogs and cats born for each person born. This would mean that there must be 28 million to 35 million dogs and cats born each year. If 80 percent of those animals are "abandoned or end up at a shelter," there must be 23 million to 28 million dogs and cats entering shelters every year. Yet current national shelter intakes are estimated at 6-8 million, about four times less than the bill author claims.
Statistics comparing human birthrates to pet birthrates are misleading. The average lifespan of a companion animal is considerably shorter than that of a human, and each pet owner will likely have many pets during his lifetime.
This bill claims that an 'emergency' exists. However, there is no evidence to support that claim. Shelter numbers in California have been declining steadily for decades. Over 78% of all owned dogs and over 88% of all owned cats are already spayed or neutered (Source: American Pet Products Association 2011-2012 National Pet Owners Survey). In fact, some rescue groups import dogs from other states and even from other countries.
According to current shelter statistics, the actual number of live animals entering California's shelters was 768,504. This is a far cry from the "one million" figure quoted on the California Veterinary Medical Board's website. California shelter statistics for 2010 show that 11.4% of intakes, or 99,025 animals, were picked up dead or died from causes other than euthanasia. This fact is omitted from the text of the bill. Dead animals collected by animal control at the request of the public should not be reflected in shelter intake statistics for the purpose of sensationalism.
The bill's claim of an emergency pet "overpopulation" problem in California are false. According to Dr. John Hamil, past president of the California Veterinary Medical Association: "If the animals in the shelter were due to 'overpopulation'; we would find desirable puppies available in shelters, there would be no market for Internet and pet store puppies, there would be no need for shelters to import puppies and puppy smugglers and brokers would be out of business due to market saturation. There is, in fact, a shortage of healthy, well-bred and socialized puppies and kittens in California."

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Susan Geranen, Executive Officer

Veterinary Medical Board

2005 Evergreen St., Suite 2250

Sacramento, CA 95815-3831

Phone: 916-263-2610

Fax: 916-263-2621

Senate Transportation and Housing Committee Members

Mark DeSaulnier (D-7), Chair

Room 5035, Sacramento, CA 94248

Ph: 916-651-4007

Fax: 916-445-2527

District Ph:925-942-6082

Fax: 925-942-608

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ted Gaines (R-1) Vice Chair

Room 3056, Sacramento, CA 94248

Ph: 916.651-4001

Fax 916.324.2680

District Ph: 916.783-8232

Fax:916-783-5487

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Senator Tom Harmon (R-35)

State Capitol

Room 5094

Sacramento, CA 94248

Ph:916-651-4035

Fax: 916-445-9263

District Office Ph:714-957-4555

Fax:714-957-4560

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Senator Robert Huff (R-29)

State Capitol

Room 5097

Sacramento, CA 94248

Ph:916-651-4029

Fax:916-324-0922

District Ph: 909-598-3981

Fax: 909-598-6459

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Senator Christine Kehoe (D-39))

State Capitol

Room 5050

Sacramento, CA 94248

Ph: 916-651-4039

Fax: 916-327-2188

District Ph: 619-645-3133

Fax: 619-645-3144

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-27)

State Capitol

Room 2032

Sacramento, CA 94248

Ph: 916-651-4027

Fax: 916-651-9113

District Ph: 562-495-4766

Fax: 562-495-1876

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Senator Fran Pavely (D-23)

State Capitol

Room 4035

Sacramento, Ca 94248

Ph: 916-651-4023

Fax: 324-4823

District Ph: 310-314-5214

Fax: 310-314-5263

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Senator Michael Rubio (D-16)

State Capitol

Room 4090

Sacramento, Ca 94248

Ph: 916-651-4016

Fax: 916-327-5989

District Ph: 559-364-3070

Fax: 559-364-6506

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Senator Joe Simitian (D-11)

State Capitol

Room 2080

Sacramento, CA 94248

Ph: 916-651-4011

Fax: 916-323-4529

District Ph: 916-651-4011

Fax: 916-323-4529

District Ph: 650-688-6384

Fax: 650-688-6370

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Committee Staff

Chief Consultant Carrie Cornwell

Room 2209

Ph: 916-651-4121

Fax: 916-445-2209

Snitch Culture in LA

2011-07-26T18:14:00.000-07:00

Once again we get the phoney line about the shelter in LA killing for lack of space, about breeding being the reason for shelter intakes, and the lies about spay-neuter and health.

Public Information
City of Los Angeles  Department of Animal Services
221 N. Figueroa Street, Suite 500, Los Angeles, California 90012 / http://www.laanimalservices.com/
For Immediate Release
July 26, 2011
Contact: Brenda F. Barnette, General Manager
Email: Brenda.barnette@lacity.org                                                          Phone: (213) 482-9558
Citizens Blow the Whistle to Help Animals
Recently, Angelenos expressed their concern that Los Angeles Animal Services (LAAS) still puts animals to death for lack of space.  They took action for positive change and reported neighbors and people advertising puppies online to LAAS.
LAAS officers went to the locations and found litters of puppies and unlicensed adult dogs –- German Shepherds and Pit Bulls.  The owners were handed citations for breeding without a breeder's permit and failure to license their dogs.  They were also provided with information about low-cost spay/neuter services.  LAAS will follow-up to make sure that compliance is complete.
The concerned citizens who blew the whistle understand that unplanned or accidental litters must be stopped and the Spay/Neuter Ordinance must be enforced.  They have volunteered to continue finding and reporting these unlicensed breeders to the Department.  We have other concerned citizens who have offered to help stop backyard breeding other ways, and we are grateful for their aid.  The breeding must be stopped as a way to prevent the animals from entering the shelters, which would help abolish the unnecessary euthanasia of healthy and wonderful pets.
The number of companion animals coming into our shelters has been growing for several years and we hit a record high in May, with more than 6,100 animals brought in during the month. We must take action to end the unnecessary destruction of great pets due to lack of space. We need everyone in Los Angeles to lend a hand.  Here is how you can help:
Get Your Dog Licensed NOW!
Make sure your dog's license is current because it protects your dog if he/she accidentally gets out and gets lost.  License tags give you the peace of mind to know that LAAS will be able to reunite you with your pet if she/he is turned in by a Good Samaritan or is picked up by one of our officers.  It is not only a great safety net for your dog, it is the law.
Fees:  Spayed or Neutered:  $20.00 with proof of rabies vaccination and proof of spay/neuter.
Unaltered dogs (not spayed or neutered):  $100 License plus $235 breeder's permit fee (some exemptions may apply).
Call LAAS at 888-452-7381 or visit our website at http://www.laanimalservices.com/ to find out how you can get your dog licensed.
Microchip Your Pets!
There may be a time when a gate or door is not firmly closed and the pet escapes.  Pet owners do not think to leave the pet's tags on when the pets are inside the house or out in the yard, or when a pet is being given a bath and the collar is removed.  A microchip is added protection for a lost pet and it can be scanned at a Vet's office or the shelter.  Remember to keep it current.
Get your companion animals Spayed or Neutered – A Change for the Better!
Spayed/neutered pets are less likely to want to roam away from home, which means they are less likely to get lost, hit by a vehicle, or get into a fight.  They can live twice as long and they are less likely to develop certain cancers.  This means lower medical bills.
If you have a DWP Bill indicating "Lifeline" or "Low Income Discount," you qualify for a voucher for FREE spay/neuter for up to three dogs and three cats that are your companions.  Call LAAS at 888-452-7381 to find out how you can get your spay/neuter vouchers for your pets. All City residents qualify to receive discount spay/neuter vouchers.
The mission of the Los Angeles Department of Animal Services is to promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare of animals and people. Call us at 1-888-452LA-PET1/1-888-452-7381 (TTY Hearing Impaired: 877-875-8205) or visit the website at http://www.laanimalservices.com/ to learn more.

SB 917 - criminalizing public sales

2011-07-26T15:34:00.001-07:00

SB 917, the bill that would criminalize someone who would sell or give away kittens or puppies at the local market, was signed into law today by Governor Brown.

Sadly, this means that instead of animals finding homes, more dogs and cats will become homeless, to starve or be hit by a car; or, they might end up in the local shelter where they will add to the death toll. The good Samaritan with a litter of kittens under their porch would end up with a criminal record. Nice, huh?

One would think that a former Attorney General for the state would see this bill for what it is....a mockery of justice.

Los Angeles now to kill dogs for their "potential"

2011-07-20T11:05:00.001-07:00

Los Angeles just doesn’t seem to have enough pressing issues to keep the board of supervisors occupied. Now they are busily dreaming up new ways to harass dog owners, and looking for excuses to seize and kill more dogs.

KNX 1070′s John Brooks reports animal control officers will now have the power to seize an animal simply for chasing someone.

“There doesn’t necessarily have to be a bite,” said director of animal control Marcia Mayeda. “But if a dog’s charging at you down the street and you jump on top of a car to get out of the way, that’s a potentially dangerous dog.”

But if a dog is determined to be a “significant threat to the public health, safety and welfare,” animal control personnel can destroy the dog under the new ordinance.

OK let me get this straight. If my dog does the job that it’s bred for and chases off a burglar, it can now be declared a dangerous dog? And destroyed? Hey, why stop at a dog that chases? Barking, growling and baring teeth can also be considered menacing. I suppose if an AC officer tries to enter my property and is chased, then the dog will be subject to a death penalty?

The law also sets up a more cost-effective administrative hearing process, one that won’t call on the Superior Court to resolve disputes over whether the picked-up dog was in fact dangerous.

Heck yeah. Why worry about whether the dog is in fact actually dangerous? Just kill him. An uneducated animal control officer is obviously going to do a better job adjudicting these matters than an actual REAL judge.

Is there any place on the planet more dog-unfriendly than Los Angeles? Perhaps a good candidate for the title would be the People’s Republic of China, where they club dogs to death by the thousands instead of vaccinating them for rabies.

But hey, give LA time. They'll get down to clubbing dogs soon enough. Or maybe shooting them where they stand. After all, that would be way more cost-effective than impounding them.

Not surprisingly, the People’s Republic of Los Angeles is travelling down the same path as the People's Republic of China.

My dog sure as heck better chase anyone who is a threat to me and my family. And for the government to suggest that he should be killed for doing his job is obscene.

Full article here:
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/07/19/what-makes-spot-vicious-la-county-to-seize-dogs-for-chasing-people/

California’s Vegan Revolution- Animal Owners, Raisers, and Farmers in the Crosshairs

2011-07-07T19:28:00.001-07:00

California has long been a bastion for those who dare to dream, innovate, and strive to create new frontiers whether it is in science, academia, the arts, business, or politics. From these creative forces we Californians have given the nation significant advances in science and technology (the microchip), the movie industry ( Hollywood ), a gifted president (President Reagan), and last, but certainly not least, some of the finest agriculture the world has ever known. At its zenith, all of these wonderful achievements coalesced to form the quintessential "California Dream" and from this wellspring came forth the famous and factual saying "so goes California , so goes the nation".

But, it is becoming more clear with each passing day that something is terribly, terribly wrong in California. Gradually, unnoticed by most, California is slowly deteriorating over time like a grand old mansion with a steadily crumbling foundation. The California Dream is slowly dying and what seems to be rising from the ashes is a nightmare. Why? How did this happen? The answer is quite simple. Deliberate and strategic social and political engineering by motivated special interest groups. These groups seek to force their agendas upon us via carefully crafted and legislated mandates. The most powerful, dangerous, and influential of these groups are found in the realms of Environmental Activism (green groups) and Animal Rights. Homeland Security has identified in an official national security report that these groups constitute one of the most dangerous terrorist threats to America on a par with Muslim jihadists. While we have been busily pursuing our livelihoods and enjoying our families and animals, these dangerous groups have been stealthily working behind the scenes to gain more and more political power and influence over us all.

Among the more potent of these special interest groups are HSUS (Humane Society of the United States ) and PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). HSUS is the richest and most politically powerful Animal Rights organization in the world. They seek to synthesize an unnatural world devoid of all animal use including the abolition of pet ownership and animal based farming. Their ultimate goal is nothing less than the extinction of all domestic species.

Here is one of the more infamous quotes from the president of HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, which clearly conveys this horrific goal: "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."— Animal People News, May 1993 PETA, funded by George Soros' Tides Foundation, is no less radical in their beliefs as conveyed by their president Ingrid Newkirk: "There's no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They're all animals."— Ingrid Newkirk, Washingtonian magazine, Aug 1986 and: "Humans have grown like a cancer. We're the biggest blight on the face of the earth."— Ingrid Newkirk, Washingtonian magazine, Feb 1990 Shockingly, PETA kills over 95% of the animals it take into their Norfolk, Virginia "shelter" annually according to state records. One can only assume that they equate death with kindness.

Unbelievably, HSUS, and to a lesser extent PETA, have grown into well funded juggernauts with tremendous political influence at the local, state, and federal levels in the United States . HSUS pushes for a thousand plus laws on all levels per year to usher in their brave new vegan vision. Most of this lobbying activity is illegal and based upon fraudulent fundraising activity. There is an ongoing IRS investigation into this matter. Meanwhile, PETA's focus is the media, education, and influencing public opinion to embrace the Animal Rights agenda. They have been incredibly successful to this end.

It has long been the goal of HSUS and PETA to "capture" California and to mandate veganism through carefully worded and placed state laws. The "capture" of California would be the crown jewel of their Animal Rights movement knowing that "so goes California , so goes the nation". To this end, HSUS has ushered forth SB 917 and AB 1117. SB 917 will legally redefine the term "animal cruelty" with purposefully overbroad and poorly defined law to include the transportation, display, and all sales of animals on public property.

Think carefully about that. This would mean that if you walk your dog or if your cat suns herself in your front yard you are, be the strictest interpretation of this law, "displaying" an animal and are guilty of "animal cruelty" which will be a misdemeanor replete with arrest, jail time, seizure of your animal, and punitive fines. If you transport rabbits to a show or take your dog to the vet you would, according to SB 917, be committing an act of animal cruelty. If your child gives away kittens in front of WalMart, she will instantly become a criminal in doing so.

AB 1117 further expands the scope and reach of SB 917 by mandating seizure of all animals in one's possession if a single act of "animal cruelty" has occurred (see SB 917). Heavy fines and "upkeep" fees are then levied against the owner for each animal seized. AB 1117 allows for the killing or other disposition of seized animals before the accused can prove their innocence in court. This bill allows for the destruction of evidence and the theft of real property under the color of law. Furthermore, if the accusation is founded (remember all evidence has been destroyed or disposed of) then the accused will not be allowed to own any animal again for 5 to 10 years. All other people living with the accused are bound by the same mandate. It does not take a lot of imagination to figure out how such bills might destroy all animal based agriculture, pet breeding, and animal ownership in California.

Horrifically, both of these bills have nearly passed through both the California Assembly and Senate. If you find this both shocking and terrifying, then please immediately contact your representatives at the state and federal levels. Contact the governor of California and urge him to veto both SB 917 and AB 1117. After contacting your representatives, it is equally important to inform as many people as possible to do like-wise. Tell family members, friends, co-workers, and anyone else you can think of about these dangerous bills. Contact your local Tea Party and as many groups who have an interest in animal ownership that you can. Write to the editor of your local paper to get the word out. Knowledge is power. With knowledge and the fortitude to oppose those in power who push for these laws, we can effectively fight back against these highly influential Animal Rights special interest groups (HSUS and PETA) to save animal ownership in California .

Written by Diane Amble

California Animal Voters Alliance

Lake County - another Cali-Failure

2011-07-01T20:51:00.001-07:00

Here's living proof of the inevitable abject failure of animal policies being written into law California. Lake County has a mandatory spay/neuter law, but apparently no one remembered to tell the cats about it. There's now a cat population explosion! And, oddly enough, the cats are not lining up at the shelter to be sterilized OR killed.

No problem, you might say. Repeat after me:

TRAP

NEUTER

RELEASE

It works!

But no, Lake County does not utilize a trap-neuter-release program. They advise the residents to either shoot the cats, or bring them in to the shelter to be killed! Truly humane animal lovers there. And boy their system really is working for them, isn't it?

The rest of the state should sit up and take notice.

LAKEPORT, Calif. – Everyone has seen them – and many have fed them – but community members learned at a presentation last Friday the depth and scope of the feral and unowned cat problem in Lake County.

The startling truth: Lake County euthanizes more cats per capita than any other county in the state.

http://lakeconews.com/content/view/20377/919/

You know what we continually remind people of on this blog. It ain't "euthanasia" when you kill healthy animals. It's just plain KILLING.

So, how's that mandatory spay-neuter law workin' for y'all there in Lake County? Hmm??? Ready for a Nathan Winograd No-Kill seminar yet? Or will you continue on your current failed course?

Mother Dog and Nine Puppies sent from Taiwan to LA

2011-06-30T15:46:00.001-07:00

On June 2, one animal rescue group was on hand to welcome a special shipment they had arranged to arrive at Los Angeles International Airport. Nine puppies and their mother landed in a plane from Taiwan. The young family had been trapped in a drainage ditch and nearly lost their lives.

The rate of abuse to dogs in Taiwan is rampant and beyond rational understanding. It is commonplace for dogs to be tortured with hot oil on their faces and backs or to be caught in metal traps and left to bleed to death. And like the dogs that arrived at LAX, many are dropped into deep ditches so they cannot get out and eventually die of starvation.

So when A Dogâ€™s Life Rescue (ADLR) was contacted by Animal Rescue Team TAIWAN, they knew they couldnâ€™t turn the four-legged family away. The group quickly made all the necessary arrangements to put the dogs on a plane the next day.

San Francisco proposed pet fish ban

2011-06-15T11:25:00.001-07:00

San Francisco's ever-active Animal Control and Welfare Commission has renewed its push for a pet sale ban in the city - only this time, it even covers goldfish.

The idea is to put the squeeze on puppy and kitten mills that supply pet stores, and to discourage "impulse buys" of hamsters and other small pets that often wind up being dumped at shelters.

But goldfish, guppies and tropical fish?

"Most fish in aquariums are either mass bred" under inhumane conditions "or taken from the wild," commission member Philip Gerrie said. That leads to "devastation of tropical fish from places like Southeast Asia," he said.

The proposed ban, which the commission just adopted after a year of study, was expanded to cover animal breeders as well as pet stores. As you might expect, it has local merchants like Ocean Aquarium owner Justin Hau dumbfounded.

"The city is taking more and more control," Hau said. "They are very stupid."

40 Pets Stolen From L.A. Animal Shelter

2011-06-02T13:47:00.000-07:00

From Today's Los Angeles Times:

Crazytown

40 Pets Have Vanished From L.A.'s North Central Animal Shelter: 'They Were the Young, Cute Ones'

This is some fishy corrupt-city-worker business, according to today's Los Angeles Times, which compares the mysterious vanishing of 64 "dogs, cats and other animals" from the city's six animal shelters over the last year -- and 39 from the North Central Shelter alone -- to recent city-department scandals like bribery within the Department of Building and Safety and a traffic-officer-made porn. (Really.)

If the missing critters (aww) were your average lot of mangy old mutts, that'd be one thing. But Brenda Barnette, general manager of the Animal Services Department, has noticed a pattern in the type of pets who tend to disappear:

"They were the young ones, the cute ones," Barnette said. "They were ones that would have been likely to have been sold or be a nice gift for someone." The majority of the unaccounted-for animals were dogs, Barnette said.

What's being implied here, obviously, is that shelter workers might be selling the cutest of the caged beasts on the cute-beast black market for cash.

And in the future, save yourself some cash and corruption charges and just adopt straight from the shelter. Quick -- before city workers steal all the best ones.

(More at link)

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/06/40_pets_have_vanished_from_los_angeles_north_central_animal_shelter.php#more

http://tinyurl.com/3unhvlh

CFoDC Notice of Annual Meeting

2011-05-26T21:51:00.001-07:00

California Federation of Dog Clubs

Notice of Annual Meeting

Held in conjunction with the Contra Costa County Kennel Club Dog Show

"WOOFSTOCK" cluster

Saturday, June 11

4:00 pm (After BIS judging)

Director's Patio

Solano County Fairgrounds

MAP:

http://www.scfair.com/facilities/groundsmap.pdf

The Director's Patio is in the upper left hand corner. (Judge's hospitality is in the pink area just above the Patio.) BIS is usually held on Lawn 2.

Saturday is "tye-dye" day at the Woofstock cluster.

CALIFORNIA FEDERATION OF DOG

CLUBS ANNUAL MEETING

JUNE 11, 2011

President’s Report

Secretary’s Report (minutes of the 2010 annual meeting)

Treasurer’s Report

Old Business:

New Business:

Bills we are tracking/acting on

(Geneva provide latest info on bills)

Breed ID Workshop

Introduction of new board member(s)

Appreciation for past board members

Adjournment

Santa Clara County says "No" to BSL

2011-05-12T08:26:00.000-07:00

County says no to mandatory spay/neuter of pit bulls, other dogs

May 11, 2011
By Lindsay Weaver

Pit bulls and other large dogs residing in unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County won't be subject to a mandatory spay and neutering ordinance after the county board of supervisors Tuesday pulled back the leash on a strict ordinance proposed last August.

The board accepted the report by county staff and an independent advisory committee that decided the feasibility and challenges of enacting a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for pit bull-like dogs would not "achieve the desired public safety outcome," according to the staff report.

Instead, the board agreed at Tuesday's meeting to change some of the language used in an ordinance that will expand the free and low-cost spay/neuter program and explore starting a pilot program at elementary schools to inform students on how to act around dogs to decrease dog bites.

Spay/neutering laws are in place in San Francisco, Gilroy, San Bernadino, Lancaster, Manteca, and Sonoma County.

Los Angeles proposal to ban sales of commercially bred animals

2011-05-06T10:25:00.001-07:00

LA City Councilmember Paul Koretz is proposing a ban on the sale of commercially bred dogs, cats and rabbits (and even chickens!) in Los Angeles. He presented this as a ban on pets from "puppy mills". Koretz wants to ban the sales of pets in pet stores, and encourage shelter adoptions.

Here's the link to the video:

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/video?id=8115919

Koretz's Hollywood area now has a ban on sales of pets in pet stores, no surprise to see it surface now that he is on the LA City Council. Koretz was also a state assemblyman and has termed out, but potentially could run again for a state office. This could be even worse news if/when he decides to take it statewide.

The floor for being considered "commercial" is being lowered every day. There is already a requirement that anyone in the State of California who sells two puppies in a year must apply for a seller's permit and collect state sales tax. Think that means that you might be considered "commercial"? Could be!

LA county just passed title 10 amendments that apply to ALL BREEDERS (some of the requirements in fact apply to all pet owners) with a distinction made for those who own more than 50 intact animals. (They are subject to higher fees and frequent inspections.) Hobbyists must apply for a breeder's permit, and are limited to ONE litter per year. More activity than that, and the hobbyist must apply for an "animal facility" license. Meaning, you are now officially and technically regarded as "commercial" in the eyes of the government, if you breed more than one litter per year.

Pretty ingenious, eh? With almost everyone under the umbrella of "commercial" and unable to sell their puppies/kittens, there's no need to explicitly ban breeding. The puppies and kittens can't be sold legally in a retail outlet. When shelter intakes continue unabated, they'll then progress to a ban on all sales, ~period~!

How long will it be for a ban on sales of any pet unless it is obtained from a 501C3 rescue or a shelter? This is exactly what Koretz's goal seems to be.

Maybe THEN more of the dog hobbyists in the Los Angeles area might start to
sit up and take notice. The apathy is astounding!!! If people don't start protesting now, they are going to be unable to continue to keep intact pets (or breed their dog if they so choose) in just a few short years.

There was a great opportunity to meet the LA Animal Control director in January at the Brenda Barnette "meet and greet", but only a handful of dog people bothered to show up. And it wasn't even a show weekend!

The pet-store-protesting animal rights fanatics were there in force and stayed for the entire time; so WHO do you think is going to have more influence on the DACC?

Ban on puppy mill sales proposed in Los Angeles | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times

latimesblogs.latimes.com

A Los Angeles councilman introduced a motion Friday that could prohibit the sale and purchase of pets bred in puppy and kitten mills. Councilman Paul Koretz, who represents an area that includes West L.A., Hollywood and Encino, said he introduced...

__._,_.___

Citrus Heights-budget workshop set

2011-04-26T21:55:00.001-07:00

THURSDAY, April 28, 2011

Citrus Heights budget workshop set

What:The Citrus Heights City Council will hold a workshop to discuss the city's 2011-12 budget. The city's Animal Care and Regulation Citizens Advisory Committee will present its report and recommendations on Animal Services.

When: 5 p.m.

Where: City Hall, council chambers, 7117 Greenback Lane, Citrus Heights.

Kennel Club boycotts Hollister businesses for dog law

2011-04-21T09:55:00.001-07:00

Let's hope that Santa Clara KC and others will follow this example set by Gavilan KC.

Kennel Club boycotts Hollister businesses for dog law

The annual Gavilan Kennel Club dog show at Bolado Park will return April
30, but with a slightly different feel than past years - as its members
are trying to rid themselves of all associations with Hollister
businesses due to the city's mandate for two dog types to get spayed or
neutered.

In response to the new Hollister spay and neuter ordinance approved in
October of last year, the dog show organizers are telling owners to
avoid spending money in Hollister - and move their business to
neighboring Tres Pinos, San Juan Bautista or Santa Clara County.

(http://hollisterfreelance.com/news/274943-kennel-club-boycotts-hollister-businesses-for-dog-law)

(http://tinyurl.com/3mnmydm)

Palm Springs, CA: National animal group files lawsuit about Palm Springs Animal Shelter

2011-04-21T09:27:00.001-07:00

Any lawsuit filed by ALDF could very well be bogus. They are notorious as a radical animal rights group.

National animal group files lawsuit about Palm Springs Animal Shelter

A lawsuit filed today by an animal rights group accuses the Palm Springs Animal Shelter of euthanizing animals too quickly and of lax recordkeeping.

The suit filed at the Larson Justice Center by the Animal Legal Defense Fund names four Riverside County residents who volunteered at the shelter as plaintiffs.

The complaint alleges that the shelter violated the Palm Springs municipal code by euthanizing animals before the required five-day holding period.

"There is a holding period required by law that says animals must be held for a certain amount of time so that somebody can come in and find them and adopt them," said Michelle Lee, an attorney with the Animal Legal Defense Fund. ``These animals are not given that chance.''

A city representative did not immediately return a message seeking comment on the suit.

But Palm Springs City Councilwoman Ginny Foat, a member of the Friends of the Palm Springs Animal Shelter, called the allegations in the lawsuit ``ludicrous.''

``We never, ever euthanize adoptable animals,'' she said.

She said the shelter only euthanizes animals that are vicious or very ill, deeming them ``unadoptable.''

http://www.mydesert.com/article/20110420/NEWS01/110420022/National-animal-group-files-lawsuit-about-Palm-Springs-Animal-Shelter-?odyssey=nav%7Chead

http://tinyurl.com/3d5x2ro

__._,_.___

Bakersfield: Animal Control Commissioner Found To Have Hundreds Of Cats In Home

2011-04-20T10:45:00.001-07:00

http://www.turnto23.com/news/27565036/detail.html

Animal Control Commissioner Found To Have Hundreds O f Cats In Home

Animal Control Commissioner Applies To Relocate Animals To County

Christine Dinh - 23ABC East Bakersfield Reporter

POSTED: 5:31 pm PDT April 15, 2011

BAKERSFIELD, Calif. -- An Animal Control commissioner was found to be
keeping more than 384 cats in her home. But not for much longer, she's
applying to move more than 350 animals into county jurisdiction, despite
having breaking the rules already.

Animal Control Commissioner Dawn Watchus has heard complaints of animal
hoarders in the past. Now the question is: Is she an animal hoarder herself?

Watchus has had up to 384 cats in her home in Ridgecrest. For the past
18 years, Watchus has been operating D&S Loving Animal Rescue in the
city of Ridgecrest, where she has been violating the the city's
allowance of having eight animals in a household. Now she's asking to
move into the county jurisdiction. But the county is saying, "Not so
fast."....

PUPS gaining co-sponsors

2011-04-20T10:10:00.001-07:00

http://www.carpoc.org/pups2.html

Please crosspost to any and all contacts you have all over the country. PUPS can potentially affect you if you have even one intact bitch. Contact your legislator NOW if he/she is on the list of co-sponsors.

Pleasanton: 13 dogs considered "hoarding"?

2011-04-20T09:17:00.001-07:00

Puppies and dogs given up by hoarder looking for new lives in the Bay Area

It appeared the animals had been cared for. "There was a lot of affection and love displayed" by the owner, Glavan said.

So far, most appear to be in reasonably good health, with no signs of abuse or neglect; still, it will be a few days before the assessment is complete, officials said.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_17883682?nclick_check=1

__._,_.___

San Francisco animal abuser database

2011-04-19T14:27:00.001-07:00

"I want to create a database that involves names of the people that have been convicted of animal abuse, and also of the people who have not been convicted because there was not enough evidence to prosecute them, along with people who have neglected animals in the past," said Bernal.

The information would be solely used by San Francisco rescue groups, non-profits and city shelters, with an eye toward going statewide in the future.

San Francisco To Discuss Creating An Animal Abuser Database

sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com

Efforts are underway in San Francisco to create a database of those who have abused animals. The idea will be presented to the Animal Care and Control commission Thursday. News, Sports, Weather, Traffic and the Best of SF

__._,_.___

CAPetLawNews

A Dog Groomer on SB 969

Boxer Club of Hawaii supports HSUS

Dana Point - Retail Sales Tyranny

Ventura County, CA: Breed-specific MSN proposal

http://stopbsl.com/2012/01/23/ventura-county-ca-breed-specific-msn-proposal-to-be-discussed-jan-26/

Ventura County, CA: Breed-specific MSN proposal to be discussed, Jan 26

CA SB 969 - licensing for groomers

Spay/Neuter License Plate Program

Brian Pease, AR activist, running for La Jolla City Council

Bryan Pease, animal rights activist, to run against incumbent Sherri Lightner for District 1 City Council Seat

Petition the White House to investigate the HSUS

Alameda animal shelter turned over to non-profit group

Concerned about Pet Store Sales

Sign the petition for HSUS to be investigated!!

Federal PUPS Legislation Information Update

CFoDC responds to "Off the Leash" column, October 14, 2011

California Federation of Dog Clubs 2012 membership drive

Kern County - Workshops for changes to Animal Control Ordinances

Fish and Game dept meetings - expanded role proposed

Local Shelters Get New National Advocate!

El Monte: Need help for "Beagles and Buddies"

"Veterans Day pet adoption bargains a huge success for Sacramento SPCA"

Chula Vista, CA Townhall To Discuss Possible Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance – This Saturday!

Protect dog ownership rights - action alert - Chula Vista

Chula Vista mulls mandatory spay, neuter program

Update - hearings regarding Chula Vista MSN

Action alert - PUPS

Chula Vista considering MSN proposal

Irvine ordinance update

Governor Jerry Brown Signs Molly's Bill into Law

Governor Jerry Brown Signs Molly's Bill into Law

AB 1117 signed into law

Governor Brown bill action

CA:City of Irvine proposed Animal Welfare Regulations

City of Irvine proposed Animal Welfare Regulations

Mon Sep 19, 2011 12:02 pm (PDT)

Governor Brown - please VETO AB 1121 (puppy licensing/seller reporting)

ACTION ALERT - CA AB 1121

Glendale bans pet store sale of dogs and cats

Ask the Governor to VETO SB 702 (microchipping impounded animals)

ASK GOVERNOR BROWN TO VETO AB 1117

ACTION ALERT - CA AB 610

Snitch Culture in LA

Public Information

City of Los Angeles  Department of Animal Services

221 N. Figueroa Street, Suite 500, Los Angeles, California 90012 / http://www.laanimalservices.com/

SB 917 - criminalizing public sales

Los Angeles now to kill dogs for their "potential"

California’s Vegan Revolution- Animal Owners, Raisers, and Farmers in the Crosshairs

Lake County - another Cali-Failure

Mother Dog and Nine Puppies sent from Taiwan to LA

San Francisco proposed pet fish ban

40 Pets Stolen From L.A. Animal Shelter

40 Pets Have Vanished From L.A.'s North Central Animal Shelter: 'They Were the Young, Cute Ones'

CFoDC Notice of Annual Meeting

Santa Clara County says "No" to BSL

Los Angeles proposal to ban sales of commercially bred animals

Citrus Heights-budget workshop set

Kennel Club boycotts Hollister businesses for dog law

Palm Springs, CA: National animal group files lawsuit about Palm Springs Animal Shelter

Any lawsuit filed by ALDF could very well be bogus. They are notorious as a radical animal rights group.

National animal group files lawsuit about Palm Springs Animal Shelter

Bakersfield: Animal Control Commissioner Found To Have Hundreds Of Cats In Home

PUPS gaining co-sponsors

Pleasanton: 13 dogs considered "hoarding"?

San Francisco animal abuser database