Legislation	Latest Update	SCDC Supported
Statewide Spay/Neuter Bill Healthy Pets Act -- AB1634	July 3, 2007	NO
Sacramento County Dog Legislation and ongoing legislation.	April 19, 2007	NO
AKC Letter Regarding Manditory Spay/Neuter in Los Angeles County	April 25, 2006
AB2110, Field Coursing	June 5, 2006
SB 1578, Tethering, fastening, chaining, tying ...	September 26, 2006	YES
AB 2862, Sale of Animals at Pet Stores	October 5, 2006	YES
New San Francisco Breed Specific Legislation	November 17, 2005
SB 861,Breed Specific Law	October 7, 2005
Stanislaus County Legislation	August 1, 2005
Rosenthal Disclosure Statement	Information only
FEDERAL -- Animal Enterprise Terriorism Act	November 25, 2006

STATEWIDE SPAY AND NEUTER BILL INTRODUCED IN CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE ASSEMBLY BILL 1634 (Healthy Pets Act) Update as of July 3rd -- AB1634 (Levine), the mandatory sterilization bill, will be heard by the Senate Committee on Local Government at 8 AM on Wednesday, July 11th, in Room 112, which is on the first floor of the Old (restored) Capital. When the Capital opens at 7:30 AM, you will need to go through security before you can go to the hearing room. The hearing room doors open at 7:45 AM. It's a small hearing room, so many attendees will have to watch the TV monitors. Each side will have 20 minutes for testimony. After the hearing, there will be a rally on the West Steps of the Capital (facing 10th Street). Please RSVP to PetPac if you plan to attend the rally ( http://petpac.net/r/777/1042/ ). If you already responded for the original Monday rally date, please send in a new RSVP. Here's hoping it's a vistory rally celebrating the derailment of the sterilization juggernaut!! Click [HERE] for a list of your California State Senators & Bill Information Click [HERE] for a link to PetPac.net For talking points on AB1634, go to the AKC legislative website at www.akc.org/canine_legislation/CA_action_center.cfm AB 1634 (Levine), the mandatory sterilization bill, is on the Assembly Third Reading File and is scheduled this week for a vote of the entire Assembly. The bill has to get out of the Assembly this week, i.e., be voted on before or on Friday, June 8. Floor Session today was at 11 AM. Tuesday through Friday (June 5 - June 8) Floor Session begins at 9:30 AM and will probably continue into the evening. If you have not called or FAXed your Assembly Member's office to state your opposition to the bill, please do so ASAP. This is the Eleventh Hour.  (update as of 6/4/2007) Assembly Bill 1634 (Levine), the mandatory sterilization bill, will be heard on Wednesday, May 16, by the Assembly Appropriations Committee in Room 4202. This committee convenes at 9 A. M. On Monday, May 14 we should know if the Committee Chair will make it a Special Order of Business, that is, set a certain time for hearing it. (This often happens with a controversial bill which brings out many proponents and opponents. ) If a time certain is not set, it is difficult to say exactly when it will be heard that morning. There will be about 200 bills to be heard by Appropriations that day, but since many of these bills will go to the Consent Calendar because they have no opposition, the hearing should be over by noon. The Chair will hear testimony from two or three people for the bill and from two or three against the bill. Then people can approach the front of the hearing room and state their name and organization and say that they are for or against the bill. Room 4202 is on the 4th floor in the Capitol Annex, which is the larger, newer part of the Capitol. There is also an upstairs section. All in all It holds about 200 people, so we need to jam-pack it with opponents to the bill. Please wear the button that you received at the policy committee hearings (NO on AB 1634. "It's wrong") Hopefully, by now you have FAXed your letter stating your opposition to: Chuck Nicol, Committee Consultant Assembly Appropriations Committee Room 2114, State CapitolSacramento, CA 95854 FAX: (916) 319-2181 and to: Assembly Republican Fiscal Office Attn.: Chris Ryan Room 6031, State CapitolSacramento, CA 95814FAX: (916) 319-3560 For talking points on the bill, go to the AKC legislative website at www.akc.org/canine_legislation/CA_action_center.cfm In addition, 1) contact your Assembly Member. (To find who that is, you can go to the AKC's website listed above) and 2) contact the members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee who will hear this bill. Tell them you are strongly opposed to AB 1634. For information on how to contact these committee members, go to the AKC legislative page at: www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=3196 Thank you for taking action to defeat this bill. Please attend the hearing on Wednesday, 16 May. Overview of April 10th Hearing on AB1634 The Assembly Business and Professions Committee heard AB 1634 as scheduled this morning at 9 AM. Since the hearing room was so small, half of the attendees were in the hallway watching on the monitor. After the author presented the bill, four persons spoke for the bill: California Veterinary Medical Association (Dr. Tom Kendall), State Humane Association, Los Angeles Animal Services and Mike Macfarland (sp) of California Animal Control Directors Association. Most of them stressed the number of animal killed. LA Animal Services said 50% of those animals coming in; State Humane said "We kill 1,000 dogs a day." Then the Chairman allowed the additional proponents to come to the microphones and state their name and affiliation. These included rescue groups, animal control officers, shelter workers, Humane Society of the United States, Animal Protection Institute, other CVMA members. For the opposition, five people spoke: Laura Taylor (who read a letter of opposition from Dr. Karpinski-Costa (sp?) Cat Fanciers Association, California Farm Bureau Federation, Adrian Woodfork (Donner Trail Kennel Club) and Save Our Dogs. The chair had the supporters of the bill who were not official speakers file into the hearing room and state their name and affiliation 115 did so. The same procedure was used by the opponents and they numbered 114. There were few questions from the committee. One asked how the bill would be enforced. The author referred to the provisions of the bill for a $500 penalty for the owner for each animal which is out of compliance with the bill (i.e., is intact and the owner has no intact permit). The Chair then allowed Mr. Levine to close. He commented on the number of opponents who stated that their clubs did rescue and stated "If they were not in the shelter, you wouldn't need to rescue." He stated that the bill allows for a permit and all you have to do is go to Animal Control and pay for a permit. He cited high euthanasia figures again and then quoted from the report of the mediator hired by Sacramento County to mediate on the proposed Sacramento County ordinance establishing a breeder permit. He quoted the mediator as saying there was little ground to mediate and the breeders just don't want to solve the problem. At this point, Chairman Eng said the bill would be voted on in two weeks on April 24, at 9 AM "or at an appropriate time." This would appear to mean that Mr. Levine did not have the six aye votes needed to move the bill. Consequently, the proponents will be ratcheting up their efforts and we need to, too. This time we need to target Chairman Eng and, in addition, the Speaker of the Assembly, Fabian Nunez. Here is the information for contacting these two pivotal players: Honorable Mike Eng Chair, Assembly Business and Professions Committee Room 6025, State Capitol Sacramento, CA 94249-0049 Honorable Fabian Nunez Speaker of the Assembly Room 219, State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Please write or FAX them and urge the defeat of AB 1634. Joan Gibson Reid Sacretary Change in date for receiving opposition to AB 1634 now Monday, April 2 Your opposition to AB 1634 must be received by Monday, April 2, or it will not be listed on the bill analysis that is distributed to the members of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee, which will hear the bill. Address your letter of opposition to: Honorable Mike Eng Chair, Assembly Committee on Business and Professions 1020 N Street, Room 124 Sacramento CA 95814 Attention: Tracy Rhine, Committee Consultant RE: AB 1634 (Levine) California Healthy Pets Act - OPPOSE Dear Chairman Eng:      [ for talking points against the bill, you can go to the AKC's Legislative Alert at http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=3170 ] The FAX number for Chairman Eng is: (916) 319-2149 The FAX number for Tracy Rhine is: (916) 319-3306 On Tuesday, April 10, at 9 AM, the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions will hold a hearing on Assembly Bill 1634, introduced by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine and entitled, disingenuously, the "California Healthy Pets Act."(The bill is co-sponsored by the California Veterinary Medical Association.) The bill requires all cats and dogs in the state over the age of four months to be spayed or neutered. The penalty for noncompliance is $500 for each animal. To be exempt, a dog or cat owner must obtain a "intact permit" each year from the city or county -- for a fee set by the local government agency at an amount which is not more than what is "reasonably necessary to fund the administration of the intact permit program." To obtain this permit to own or possess an intact dog or cat, the animal must be registered as a purebred with a pedigree from the AKC, the United Kennel Club, the American Dog Breeders Association, the International Cat Association, or "a recognized registry approved by the local animal control agency." Please contact the members of the Assembly Business and Professions Committee and and ask them to oppose AB 1634, the California Healthy Pets Act. Their names and addresses are listed below. Also, read more about the bill on the AKC News page at www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=3151 and by NAIA at http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/issues/artid. Both articles contain talking points. Although the California Veterinary Medical Association is a co-sponsor, it cannot be considered as reflecting a blanket approval by the veterinarians throughout the state. Contact your veterinarian and ask him or her to contact the local veterinary association about this bill. Send your opposition so it is received by Tuesday, April 3. Otherwise, if you are representing an organization, your organization will not be listed as opposed on the Committee's analysis of the bill. CLICK [HERE] FOR A LIST OF REPRESENTATIVES. Please plan to attend the hearing. Committee members pay attention to a bill before them if large numbers of people show up at the hearing.

Back to Top

Los Angeles County Proposed Legislation for Mandatory Spay/Neuter The American Kennel Club has sent a letter to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors for Los Angeles County regarding their proposed mandatory spay/neuter legislation. A copy of the letter has been distributed to the dog fancy through e-mails from AKC. The letter was prefaced with the following information: Subject: American Kennel Club's Opposition to Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance for LA County "Please find attached our Opposition to Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance for LA County on official American Kennel Club letterhead for copying purposes. Sincerely, The Canine Legislation Department" You can view and obtain a printable copy of the letter from the American Kennel Club by clicking [HERE]. The letter is in .pdf format. If you are unable to open the page, you can obtain a copy of the letter in word.doc format by e-mailing the webmaster. (Posted 04-25-06)

Back to Top

AB 2110 (Loni Hancock - D-Berkeley) Field Coursing --SCDC -- Opposed Assembly Bill 2110 (Hancock) re field coursing is dead. The measure was held under submission by the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. As last amended, the bill would have prohibited Basset Hound, Beagle and Dachshund field trials.(Updated 06-5-06) HISTORY--This bill was passed out of the Assembly Committee on Public Safety on April 4 on a 4-3 vote. The measure will now be heard by the Assembly Committee on Appropriations on Wednesday, May 24. It prohibits "live field coursing" which is now defined in the bill (as amended on April 18) as "a competition in which dogs are, by the use of rabbits, hares, or foxes, assessed as to skill in hunting live rabbits, hares or foxes. ." Thus, under this definition of "live field coursing," the bill now would prohibit Basset Field Trials, Beagle Field Trials and Dachshund Field Trials from being held in California. In these field trials, the tracking ability of the scent hounds is assessed; they do not kill or inure the rabbits that are tracked. To read a copy of the bill as amended on April 18, go to leginfo.ca.gov, click on 'Bill Information" and enter the number of the bill. Contact your Assembly Member and ask him/her to oppose this bill. For addresses of the Assembly Members, go to www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html. (Updated 05-7-06)

Back to Top

SB 1578 (Lowenthal - D- Long Beach) Tethering Prohibition -- SCDC Supported Update on SB 1578 (Lowenthal) re tethering - September 26, 2006 SUCCESS! Governor Schwartzenegger has signed Senate Bill 1578, the anti-tethering bill. A thank you to all of you who wrote, called, or E-mailed the Governor requesting that he sign the bill. The measure will definitely improve the life of those dogs chained 24/7, dogs who typically lack veterinary care, food, water or shelter and who are rarely exercised or allowed to interact with their families. Hopefully, with the passage of this bill, animal control also will see far fewer dogs whose collars are deeply imbedded in their flesh due to this practice. You can click [HERE] to view the text of this bill. Update as of 8/23/2006 -- Senate Bill 1578 is on the Assembly Floor, but has not been voted on yet. The obstacle appears to be the California Farm Bureau and the California Cattlemen's Association. Amendments were taken which 1) would allow a farmer/cattleman to tether a dog while the person is shepherding or herding livestock or using machinery in the course of agricultural operations, but 2) would require that the dog be monitored regularly and ensured access to food, water and shelter consistent with the requirements of Section 597t of the Penal Code.* The latter requirement is not acceptable to the two agricultural associations. *Penal Code 597t states that if an animal is restricted by a leash, rope, or chain, the leash, rope or chain shall not prevent the animal's access from shelter, food and water. HISTORY Senate Bill 1578 was passed by the Assembly Committee on Business and Professions on June 28 on a 6-3 vote. This bill would prohibit dogs from being chained to a stationary object, such as a tree or fence, as the primary means of confinement. The bill contains exemptions which would allow for temporary restraint and the use of a running line, pulley or trolley system. The measure now goes to Assembly Appropriations Committee, which will hear the bill after the Legislature's Summer Recess (July 7- August 7). The Sacramento Council of Dog Clubs supports this bill. The root of many cruelty cases is tethered dogs who are out of reach of water and food. Further, tethered dogs are exiled from socialization and exercise which severely impacts their behavior. Some are staked out 24/7 by brain-fried druggies to deter access to property. (Updated 06-29-06)

Back to Top

ASSEMBLY BILL 2862 (Assembly Member Mark Ridley-Thomas (D- Los Angeles) Sale of Animals at Pet Stores---SCDC Support (Update as of 10-5-2006) ASSEMBLY BILL 2862 (Ridley-Thomas) Sale of animals at pet stores. Vetoed by the Governor, 29 September 2006. This bill was gutted and amended on 14 August to delete all the provisions spelling out the care of animals in pet stores. As passed by the Legislature on 30 August and presented to the Governor, it read: "The Department of Consumer Affairs shall adopt regulations to regulate the care and handling of companion animals sold to the general public at retail outlets. These regulations shall be adopted, after consultation with affected parties, by January 21, 2008. Assembly Bill 2862 which would regulate the sale of animals at pet stores was held in the Senate Business, Professions and Economics Development Committee on June 26. Several members of the dog fancy advised the Council that the definition of "pet store" in the bill would be used to shut down breeders. At the time of the bill's demise in the Senate B, P, and ED Committee, the bill contained the following definition of "pet store": "Pet store" means any establishment or marketplace where animals are bought, sold, exchanged, or offered for sale to the general public with the intent of making a profit where the animals are intended as companions or household animals. This term includes the keeping for transfer or the transfer of animals at flea markets, department stores, merchandise outlets, and discount outlets. (Updated 06-29-06)

Back to Top

San Francisco Passes Breed-Specific Mandatory Spay/Neuter [Reprinted from the AKC web site at http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=2680--Thursday, November 17, 2005] Yesterday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a breed-specific ordinance that will require "pit bull" owners in the city and county to spay or neuter their dogs unless they obtain a $100 breeding permit. The legislation defines "pit bulls" as American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and any dog displaying the physical traits of these breeds. Fines for failing to comply range from $100 to $1000 and can, on the second offense, include six months in county jail. The ordinance was passed despite strong opposition from AKC, other animal interest groups, and responsible dog owners. In the past it would have been illegal for a California municipality to enact any type of breed-specific legislation. That all changed last month with the passage of SB861, a law which allows local governments to pass breed-specific mandatory spay/neuter as long as no breed of dog is determined to be dangerous or vicious. AKC and purebred dog owners opposed that measure as well, believing stronger enforcement of California's existing dangerous dog law would better protect communities. San Francisco's new legislation does provide for limited exceptions, allowing owners who own "show dogs" or who are preparing to breed to apply for a breeding permit. Owners must prove that the dogs are registered with the American Kennel Club, United Kennel Club or the American Dog Breeders Association, and that their dog conforms to the breed standard of the registering organization. Show dog owners must prove that the dog competed in at least one approved dog show in the last 365 days or that they have submitted the paperwork to participate in an approved dog show. Additional details about the ordinance, including strict regulations for those who choose to breed their "pit bulls," can be found at: http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/bdsupvrs/bosagendas/materials/051607.pdf. San Francisco's ordinance will take effect January 5, 2006.

Back to Top

SB 861 - BREED SPECIFIC LAW Update on Senate Bill 861 (Speier) On Friday, October 7, Govenor Schwartzenegger signed Senate Bill 861 (Speier). The Council thanks all of you who contacted him and asked him to veto the bill. The measure becomes law January 1, 2006. History Senate Bill 861 was amended on August 15 by the author, Senator Jackie Speier (D- S.F.) It is back on Third Reading File as of Monday, August 22 and will be up for a vote of the entire Assembly on any day beginning August 22. If it clears the Assembly, it will be returned to the Senate for a final vote and then go to the Governor for signing into law. Please write or call your Assembly Member ASAP and voice your opposition to this bill. If this bill is passed by the Assembly, it will go to the Senate for a final vote. Remember that the Legislature packs up and goes home for Interim Recess on September 9 not to be seen until January 3, 2006 so time is of the essence. To find out who represents you go to www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html. The bill still states that cities and counties may enact dog breed-specific ordinances pertaining only to mandatory spay or neuter programs and breeding requirements, provided that no specific dog breed or mixed dog breed shall be declared potentially dangerous or vicious under these ordinances. As amended on August 15, the bill also adds "intent" language which essentially tells the public why the Legislature wants to enact this measure. Part of this intent language states: "Though no specific breed of dog is inherently dangerous or vicious, the growing pet overpopulation and lack of regulations of animal breeding practices necessitates a repeal of the ban on breed-specific solutions [italics added] and a more immediate alternative to existing laws. It is therefore the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to permit cities and counties to take appropriate action aimed at eliminating uncontrolled and irresponsible breeding animals [italics added]. Thus, vicious and dangerous dogs appear to be less of a reason for the bill's existence with the emphasis now on allowing every California city and county to control animal breeding practices because of "overpopulation." ORIGINAL POST: Senate Bill 861 introduced by Senator Jackie Speier (D-San Francisco.) regarding breed specific mandates was passed by the Assembly Local Government Committee on June 28. As amended, the bill gives cities and counties the power to enact breed specific mandates that pertain only to spay/neuter and breeding requirements. The bill's original language, drafted in the aftermath of the mauling death of a 12-year -old boy in San Francisco by his family's pit bulls, would have allowed cities and counties to enact any regulation aimed at specific dog breeds. SB 861 now goes to the Assembly floor for a vote by all 80 Assembly Members. It is urgent that you write to your Assembly Member and voice your opposition to the bill. It is of much more impact when a Member hears directly from his or her constituent, the person who votes in his/her district. Since July 15 marks the beginning of Summer Recess for the Assembly, contact your Member as soon as possible. To find out who represents you in the California State Assembly go to www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg. Point out to your Assembly Member that breed-specific laws do not protect citizens in a community. Irresponsible owners who choose/use a breed for malicious purposes - protecting their drug operation, for example - will merely segue to another breed. And that, in turn, will lead to another breed being regulated. Point out that breed-specific laws are difficult to enforce. Correct identification of breeds is essential for enforcement, and if those enforcing the law are not knowledgeable, law suits may follow. As the dog of choice changes, the list of targeted breeds will expand and responsible breeders will be impacted. Point out that strong enforcement of current animal control laws -- and hiring a sufficient number of personnel to do effective enforcement -- is the solution. For more information and comments, go to doglaw@akc.org. Act quickly; contact your Member ASAP. The slippery slope is becoming more slippery.(Original post 6-30-2005)

Back to Top