A RESPONSE TO SENATOR FLOREZ
The subject (as detailed by the Senator) is in bold, Senator Florez remarks are in red, CDOC is in blue.
This will cost more money?
The consensus of two fiscal committees and every jurisdiction that has passed some form of spay / neuter is that these ordinances lead to long-term savings.
From the Senate Appropriations Analysis:
"To the extent conformance with the bill's requirements reduces the
population of unwanted animals and results in a corresponding
decrease in the number of cats and dogs impounded to animal
shelters, local governments could realize operational savings.
It is likely that such results would take several years. In the
short-term, these costs could increase to the extent that
irresponsible pet owners would surrender their animals to a
shelter rather than pay for a surgical sterilization procedure,
which would somewhat increase shelter populations and related
costs."
From the Assembly Appropriations Analysis
"Requiring owners of cats and dogs to sterilize their animals or pay for a more
expensive unsterilized animal license, could result in more
animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owner's
inability to afford sterilization or increased fees and fines.
While exact figures are not available, studies show
that at least 60% of animals that enter shelters are
ultimately euthanized. A modest two percent increase in
shelter costs could result in $400,000 in additional GF costs."
Senator Florez is correct when he says that the analyses report that if MSN worked and no one turned in their dogs it could save money. But MSN has never worked, anywhere. After 15 years, the Annual Animal Control Cost, per capita in Santa Cruz is almost twice what the whole of California spends. Again, this number comes from Santa Cruz' own published budget numbers.
But the issue here is that MSN kills more dogs. These analyses don't address the human concerns. Dogs that now have owners get surrendered and killed under these laws because the sterilizations, fines, court costs, time off work are too much for some people; but that doesn't make those people irresponsible. Both analyses, AVMA, ASPCA, and others acknowledge that and it is why that CDOC and others oppose MSN of owned dogs.
Indeed, no nationally recognized organization is supporting this bill. We hear legislators say they want to do something for the dogs but this cannot be what they aspire to.
It should be noted that the D o F is married to the breeder organizations that oppose SB250. For example, the Department did not consult or cite one neutral / objective source of information in its analysis. The one organization it did consult, the National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA), is a large association of breeders.
First of all, we don't believe Senator Florez is knowledgeable about the make up of the organizations that oppose this bill and that is understandable; there are so many of them. But speaking for Concerned Dog Owners of California we have members that are veterinarians, trainers, puppy raisers for Guide Dogs, rescuers, owners of search and rescue dogs, breeders and people who compete in all types of dog activities; shows, obedience, agility, lure coursing, earth dog events, hunting and tracking tests.
Since CDOC is neither a breeder organization nor married to the Department of Finance, we cannot speak to whom they consulted. But much of their information clearly comes from the reports filed by the municipalities with the Department of Public Health.
Again, we are not experts on NAIA but know that they represent many different types of animals with dogs being only one of the species. They represent many of the agricultural interests which are vital to the State of California and who are constituents of Senator Florez.
Senator Florez might be interested to note that, of the portion of CDOC membership that participates in dog activities, fewer than 10% ever have or will breed a dog. We can only assume from his use of the word 'breeder' that he considers it pejorative and it is the worst thing he can think to say.
Fortunately for Canine Companions for Independence, Guide Dogs of America and the fourteen other service dog organizations in the state, the people who do breed are generous and provide the quality puppies these groups must have so that our disabled population can have service animals.
Each of the Departments facts and figures, including the Santa Cruz numbers, have been debunked by city and county auditors. (FYI - the Santa Cruz ordinance has resulted in a 60% decrease in the County's stray dog intakes, allowing the County to build a smaller shelter, and even accept stray animals from counties that are at capacity - such as Kern County).
Actually, no one has debunked the Santa Cruz numbers used by the DoF; no city or county auditor. And we doubt that Santa Cruz would want that; these are the number they filed with the State of California themselves; the source they used to get Hayden reimbursements from the State of California. We are sure they would not knowingly file false information.
Nor do we disagree with the 60% improvement in Santa Cruz stated by Senator Florez. It is just that the state of California, as a whole, has seen a 74% improvement. Santa Cruz is doing well; they are only underperforming slightly. They are not, after fifteen years to "get it right", doing as well as the surrounding counties that do not have mandatory spay and neuter - a pattern repeated everywhere.
Mandatory Spay and Neuter was the choice of Santa Cruz County and one their residents had a chance to impact. We respect that decision which was made at the local level. CDOC believes that, since MSN is much more costly and is one of the most divisive approaches one can take, it should be a local government issue.
More dogs will die?
With less unwanted litters there will be fewer strays that end up in our local shelters (and fewer animals to euthanize).
- After 15 years, Santa Cruz still has a higher kill rate per capita than the surrounding counties, none of which have mandatory spay and neuter.
- After 4 years, Lake County has the highest kill rate per capita of any place in California; it is 4 times the California average.
- After 1 year (10 months of enforcement) the kill rate in the City of Los Angeles is up 24%. This in a City which was already below the 5% "no-kill" threshold.
There is not ONE SINGLE PLACE where a MSN program such as the one proposed by Senator Florez has resulted in lower euthanasia rates, higher licensing compliance and lower operating costs.
The bill provides discretion to local animal control to waive fees, fines, and other costs for those responsible owners who cannot afford to bail out their impounded animal.
Line 25, page 6 "The licensing agency may, at its discretion, waive any impoundment fee, cost or fine, if upon the first impoundment the owner or custodian of the unlicensed, unaltered dogs does both of the following"
Gets a license
Sterilizes the dog
Line 29, page 9 "The licensing agency may impose a penalty . . . not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per day, in addition to any other existing penalty which may be imposed consistent with this chapter, against the owner or custodian if the owner or custodian fails to provide the required sterilization information."
It doesn't seem that we are exactly rooting for the underdog here; penalties MAY be waived if expensive sterilization is obtained. And if they cannot afford sterilization, there is no option to waive fees. And the addition of a way to collect another $100 daily? CDOC had asked for exemptions for those below the poverty level and for unemployed, a suggestion that cam from Assembly Member Krekorian's office.
Exemptions?
The bill, as amended August 31, 2009, exempts dogs in the business of shepherding, herding, guarding livestock, or cultivating agricultural products; hunting dogs; owners of certain service dogs; and owners of law enforcement dogs.
Note that in the first part, it is the dogs that are exempt; for service dogs it is the owners. This is not so much an exemption as compliance with the American Disabilities Act. Service dogs are specifically at risk while they are with their puppy raisers, who are not trainers.
There are no exemptions for natural disasters such as the fires we are having right now, another specific CDOC request. There appears to be no attempt to try to be in concordance with the Pet Emergency and Transportation Act. There is no "Statute of Limitations" on the 'at large' violation. One can occur at 10 weeks and one at ten years and the owner is deemed "irresponsible" and must sterilize and is not allowed to have unaltered dogs in the future.
Due Process?
SB250 is modeled after similar ordinances passed in Santa Cruz, Riverside, and Los Angeles - all of which provide due process. In addition, the bill explicitly provides appeals procedures consistent with existing law.
Line 26, page 4 "The licensing agency shall use its existing procedures or may establish procedures for any appeal of a denial or revocation of an unaltered license, which appeal process may include a written notice of the denial or revocation of an unaltered dog license consistent with this chapter".
There are huge differences between "may" and "shall" and Senator Florez has chosen his words carefully. There are more then 500 different animal control entities in the State of California and all their laws are different - we don't have a state law. SB250 provides an overlay of MSN on this patchwork of local laws. It is disappointing that given the disparities among those laws, he did not choose to provide real due process.
Low cost / free spay - neuter?
The majority of jurisdictions throughout the state offer some form of low cost or free sterilization services for the economically disadvantaged. LA's program has become so effective that they ran out of sterilization vouchers within the first quarter of this year.
We would be pleased to provide to Senator Florez the statement made, under oath in a sworn deposition, by Los Angeles Animal Services Director. The Director was told to cut costs and, rather than making staff cuts, he decided to eliminate the voucher program. Los Angeles did not "run out" of vouchers, they repurposed the money to salaries and benefits.
Also note that every rescue organization (over one hundred) in support of SB250 also offer low cost / free sterilization services in their respective jurisdictions.
It is wonderful we have so many groups that want to do this and it is part of the reason the State of California has seen such big improvements in dog euthanasis. But most programs are not free and most are not provided in the neighborhood (it's tough to get your animal to and from the bus for surgery on public transportation). In Los Angeles, these low-cost SN offered by the City at affilitated centers starts at about $240. While some voucher programs offer free surgeries, the office visit, anesthesia and after care is all charged at a regular rate. There are some great programs that truly do make sterilization affordable - and in those places we see a higher incidence of voluntary spay and neuter.
In Los Angeles, CDOC was instrumental in matching a generous veterinarian and Actors and Others For Animals in a program that did provide 100% free spay and neuter - but again not transportation. Our next step is to try and form a non-profit that will allow more veterinarians to participate in such programs in return for tax deductions.
We would like Senator Florez to note that CDOC also sponsored AB2291 last year. Carried by Assembly Member Tony Mendoza, this bill added a check off box to the California Personal Income Tax form so that people can donate to a free spay/neuter fund. And any municipal shelter can get a grant from this fund. We invite Senator Florez to partner with us this year in promoting that fund through all his rescue contacts. We want to make sure we get at least $500,000 into that this year and $1 million sounds even better.
Thank you Senator Florez for acknowledging CDOC. We wish we could have met with you; we've been trying since January. Che Salinas of your office has met with us once, last March and he has been in touch with our representative in Sacramento several times.
CDOC does not correlate intact animals with irresponsible breeding. CDOC's goal is to stop the killing of healthy, adoptable animals without abrogating the rights and responsibilities of dog owners. Everywhere MSN has been tried it has not performed as well as places that use education and ease of licensing.
California can do better and if this in an area of interest near and dear to you Senator Florez, as it is to us, let's get together after the session and do it right!
Concerned Dog Owners of California
818.519.2141
www.cdoca.org