This i
s the place to get information on the status of proposed legislation in Sacramento.
Just click on the item to open and see the data. If you know something that should be added, please contact us at info@cdoca.org.
Any person who have ONE CITATION for any of these shall be required to spay or neuter the unaltered animal.
(c) An unaltered dog license may be denied or revoked for one
or more of the following reasons:
(1) The owner, custodian, applicant or licensee is not in
compliance with all of the requirements of this section.
(2) The licensing agency has received at least two complaints,
verified by the agency, issued one citation verified by the agency
pursuant to existing policies and procedures that the owner,
custodian, applicant, or licensee has allowed a dog to be stray or
run at large or has otherwise been found to be neglectful of his or
her or other animals.
So what are the practical applications of SB250.
If any of the above happens to one of your dogs or any dog you are caring for whether it is your or not
that particular animal must be SN at your expense
you must pay impound fees or lose the animal
there is no requirement for them to even mention where SN is less expensive
and
having cited you they can revoke your intact licenses which means that all your other animals are now required to be sterilized.
So let’s talk about some examples.
That dog is mandatorily sterilized at your expense. Period. And they can also revoke all your other unaltered licnses. Because they is what this bill is about. Getting mandatory spay and neuter on the books.
The last version of the bill stated specifically they you would lose all unaltered licenses. This version allows the same thing.
WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES
We know from historical numbers that a percentage of people that are cited will just have to leave their dogs at the shelter. And we know from historical numbers that 83% of the surendered dogs are euthanized. So the killing will increase. No question about it. There has already been an impact on the shelters due to the economy; this will be a disaster for dogs.
It will increase local expenses and state costs. The State, under the Hayden Act, is required to pay the shelters for the last three days of confinement for dogs that are euthanized in municipal shelters. So costs will do up. But since the state cannot afford to pay the costs right now (they have already put out a statement that animal mandates, while being booked as a liability to the State of California, cannot be funded right now, it could be years before your local community sees any money. But the local community will have to pay the increased costs right now.
IS THERE DUE PROCESS?
If you had been cited before this law due to a mishap, you would probably have paid your fine, purchased a licensed, apologized for having the dog loose for training, etc. Now you must take the time and spend the money to get an attorney. Because if you cannot beat this; all your dogs will be sterilized. From attending these hearings, we can tell you that (a) people without attorneys do not prevail; it involves several days off work.
So is there a chance to beat this. Of course. It is easy? Never. Can you prevail? It depends on the Animal Control jurisdiction. You will be “tried” by the people who are proposing the legislation.
WHAT DOES YOUR SENATOR THINK?
All the Senators on the Local Government Committee have been told by Holly Fraumeni (Judie Mancuso’s lobbyist *(http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Lobbying/Lobbyists/Detail.aspx?id=1295029&session=2007) that this is nothing like AB1634, this just goes after the irresponsible people. And to date, I'm sorry to tell you that because she is the only voice, Mancuso is winning.
The support letters are ahead of opposition letters.
So you need to explain to these Senators why they need to vote no.
Please point out to our Senator that this will increase the killing of dogs. Ask them to talk to their shelter people. Ask them to contact the author about the alternative bill/language proposed by Concerned Dog Owners of California that would target only repeat offenders, not the occasional problem.
They just considered a MSN ordinance in Manteca; the Mayor thought it would be a good idea. After learning how unsuccessful MSN us, he made this statement in the Manteca Bulletin.
"Mayor Willie Weatherford believes such an ordinance would only penalize responsible pet owners who license their dogs while allowing those that create the problem to avoid any consequences. If an unlicensed dog was picked up and the owner didn't want to comply and pay up to $150 to have the dog neutered or spayed, the city would be forced to destroy it or find another home for the dog."
We need to work to educate our Senators and hope they have the same concern for dogs and the community that Mayor Weatherford shows.
Just click on the item to open and see the data. If you know something that should be added, please contact us at info@cdoca.org.
SB250 - Analysis of the Bill
From www.saveourdogs.net
SB250 was amended April 2, 2009. This version of the bill is not fundamentally different from the bill as introduced. There is some minor rewording but no important changes.
The bill is really very simple.
SB250 is the Pet Owner Punishment Act
There may be some odd corner cases, but overall no new infractions are imposed on dog owners. But the new penalties for existing infractions. Holy Cow! One misstep and for the rest of your life, your dogs are subject to mandatory spay/neuter at the whims of your local animal control agency. You can’t even sell your dogs or give them away. You must shell out $300 plus to have each and every one spayed or neutered. Or turn them over to the pound to kill. The only new legal requirement is that an unlicensed intact dog that is impounded, must be spayed or neutered, at the owner’s expense, before the dog can be released. And of course that additional $300 plus cost of spay/neuter wouldn’t prevent anyone from reclaiming their dog would it? SB250 will kill dogs.
Here are the two critical points:
First: The bill requires that every dog be licensed “pursuant to Section 121690″ or as required by the local jurisdiction. That’s just the normal dog license you are already required to get. State law requires that the license for an intact dog cost at least twice as much as for a spayed or neutered dog.
Second:
(c) An unaltered dog license may be denied or revoked for one or more of the following reasons: [omitted] (c)(2) The licensing agency has issued one citation verified by the agency pursuant to existing policies and procedures that the owner, custodian, applicant, or licensee has allowed a dog to be stray or run at large or has otherwise been found to be neglectful of his or her or other animals. (c)(3) The owner, custodian, applicant, or licensee has been previously cited for violating a state law, or a city, county, or other local governmental provision relating to the care and control of animals.
That pretty much covers it. You have to have an intact license and if you have ever been cited for an animal violation or “been found to be neglectful of [your] other animals” your intact licenses can be denied or revoked. At any time. For all of your dogs. Forever.
If that weren’t bad enough here’s the real horror. You don’t even have to be found guilty of the violation you were cited for. Just receiving the citation alone is enough to drop the ax. Here’s the definition of “citation”.
citation
n. 1) a notice to appear in court due to the probable commission of a minor crime such as a traffic violation, drinking liquor in a park where prohibited, letting a dog loose without a leash, and in some states for possession of a small amount of marijuana. Failure to appear can result in a warrant for the citee’s arrest.
A citation is just a notice to appear in court. No requirement that you were ever found to have actually been in violation of any law. So even if you were found innocent of the charges in a citation, you are still guilty under SB250. And you have to have an intact license to sell or give away a dog. So your only choices are to pay to spay/neuter or dump the dog at the pound.
The other disaster in the bill is this:
(h) If an unlicensed unaltered dog or cat is impounded pursuant to state or local law, in addition to satisfying applicable requirements for the release of the animal, including, but not limited to, payment of impound fees pursuant to this section, the owner or custodian shall also do one of the following: [omitted] (2) Have the dog or cat spayed or neutered by a veterinarian associated with the licensing agency at the expense of the owner or custodian. That expense may include additional fees due to any extraordinary care required. (3) Arrange to have the dog or cat spayed or neutered by another veterinarian licensed in this state.
So when an unlicensed, intact dog ends up in the shelter, and the owner comes to pick him up, not only does he get to pay all the existing fees. He must pay to have the dog spayed or neutered. In this economy a lot of people may not be able to afford that additional $300 plus. They might just tell the shelter to keep the dog. Now that’s another dog ripped from his home to either be adopted or killed.
This bill is just about punishing people and killing dogs. Nothing more. As dog trainers we know that rewards work far better than punishment. Too bad the backers of this bill are still in the jerk and choke era of training. Punishment builds resentment and fear. Rewards build cooperation and confidence. In both dogs and people.
SB250 was amended April 2, 2009. This version of the bill is not fundamentally different from the bill as introduced. There is some minor rewording but no important changes.
The bill is really very simple.
SB250 is the Pet Owner Punishment Act
There may be some odd corner cases, but overall no new infractions are imposed on dog owners. But the new penalties for existing infractions. Holy Cow! One misstep and for the rest of your life, your dogs are subject to mandatory spay/neuter at the whims of your local animal control agency. You can’t even sell your dogs or give them away. You must shell out $300 plus to have each and every one spayed or neutered. Or turn them over to the pound to kill. The only new legal requirement is that an unlicensed intact dog that is impounded, must be spayed or neutered, at the owner’s expense, before the dog can be released. And of course that additional $300 plus cost of spay/neuter wouldn’t prevent anyone from reclaiming their dog would it? SB250 will kill dogs.
Here are the two critical points:
First: The bill requires that every dog be licensed “pursuant to Section 121690″ or as required by the local jurisdiction. That’s just the normal dog license you are already required to get. State law requires that the license for an intact dog cost at least twice as much as for a spayed or neutered dog.
Second:
(c) An unaltered dog license may be denied or revoked for one or more of the following reasons: [omitted] (c)(2) The licensing agency has issued one citation verified by the agency pursuant to existing policies and procedures that the owner, custodian, applicant, or licensee has allowed a dog to be stray or run at large or has otherwise been found to be neglectful of his or her or other animals. (c)(3) The owner, custodian, applicant, or licensee has been previously cited for violating a state law, or a city, county, or other local governmental provision relating to the care and control of animals.
That pretty much covers it. You have to have an intact license and if you have ever been cited for an animal violation or “been found to be neglectful of [your] other animals” your intact licenses can be denied or revoked. At any time. For all of your dogs. Forever.
If that weren’t bad enough here’s the real horror. You don’t even have to be found guilty of the violation you were cited for. Just receiving the citation alone is enough to drop the ax. Here’s the definition of “citation”.
citation
n. 1) a notice to appear in court due to the probable commission of a minor crime such as a traffic violation, drinking liquor in a park where prohibited, letting a dog loose without a leash, and in some states for possession of a small amount of marijuana. Failure to appear can result in a warrant for the citee’s arrest.
A citation is just a notice to appear in court. No requirement that you were ever found to have actually been in violation of any law. So even if you were found innocent of the charges in a citation, you are still guilty under SB250. And you have to have an intact license to sell or give away a dog. So your only choices are to pay to spay/neuter or dump the dog at the pound.
The other disaster in the bill is this:
(h) If an unlicensed unaltered dog or cat is impounded pursuant to state or local law, in addition to satisfying applicable requirements for the release of the animal, including, but not limited to, payment of impound fees pursuant to this section, the owner or custodian shall also do one of the following: [omitted] (2) Have the dog or cat spayed or neutered by a veterinarian associated with the licensing agency at the expense of the owner or custodian. That expense may include additional fees due to any extraordinary care required. (3) Arrange to have the dog or cat spayed or neutered by another veterinarian licensed in this state.
So when an unlicensed, intact dog ends up in the shelter, and the owner comes to pick him up, not only does he get to pay all the existing fees. He must pay to have the dog spayed or neutered. In this economy a lot of people may not be able to afford that additional $300 plus. They might just tell the shelter to keep the dog. Now that’s another dog ripped from his home to either be adopted or killed.
This bill is just about punishing people and killing dogs. Nothing more. As dog trainers we know that rewards work far better than punishment. Too bad the backers of this bill are still in the jerk and choke era of training. Punishment builds resentment and fear. Rewards build cooperation and confidence. In both dogs and people.
SB250 - How It Will Affect You - Terrible Consequences
Not AB1634 - Much Worse for you and the health of your dogs.
This purpose of this briefing is to give you information that will help you in contacting the Senators on the Local Government Committee. While it is too late to get information that will be “counted” and reported in the bill as opposition, we need you to continue to fax and call the offices, both Sacramento and the District offices. Some Senators are refusing to take calls from non-constituents. When a Senator Chairs or sits on a Committee, they have an obligation to hear all residents of California because they are representing all of us at that point.
We need many many letters (faxed) and phone calls. We have a much stronger opponent this year, he's running for Lt. Governor and Judie has much more HSUS involvement at the state level. Remember, last year HSUS opened an office in Oakland.
What is SB250? First of all it is not AB1634 and you need to be clear on that. To the extent you compare the bills (other than that they both have MSN at the core) you will be dismissed by legislators who will assume you have not read the new bill and the new amended language.
SB250 IS MUCH MORE THREATENING TO YOU THAN AB1634
CDOC opposed AB1634 for many reasons but the health damage caused by MSN for all animals under 6 months was a key reason. Because for those of you who train service or police animals, breed dogs for any type of competition, train for hunting, etc. There were some tricky to get but available exemptions.
SB250 OFFERS ABSOLUTELY NO EXEMPTIONS OTHER THAN AN ANIMAL WHICH DUE TO AGE OR INFIRMITY IS CERTIFIED BY A VETERINARIAN TO HAVE A HIGH LIKLIHOOD OF SUFFERING SERIOUS BODILY HARM OR DEATH IF SPAYED OR NEUTERED.
The premise of SB250 is that no responsible person would ever have:
- a dog get out of their yard
- Fail to have an up to date rabies vaccination
- Fail to have a dog licensed
- Have a leash law violation
- Have a violation at their kennel if they have one
- Have a tethering violation
- Keep a dog in “unsanitary or unhealthy conditions” (to be defined by someone else)
- Operate a business that involves dogs without a license or state tax ID number
- Leave a dog unattended in a car in violation of Section 597.7
Any person who have ONE CITATION for any of these shall be required to spay or neuter the unaltered animal.
(c) An unaltered dog license may be denied or revoked for one
or more of the following reasons:
(1) The owner, custodian, applicant or licensee is not in
compliance with all of the requirements of this section.
(2) The licensing agency has received at least two complaints,
verified by the agency, issued one citation verified by the agency
pursuant to existing policies and procedures that the owner,
custodian, applicant, or licensee has allowed a dog to be stray or
run at large or has otherwise been found to be neglectful of his or
her or other animals.
So what are the practical applications of SB250.
If any of the above happens to one of your dogs or any dog you are caring for whether it is your or not
that particular animal must be SN at your expense
you must pay impound fees or lose the animal
there is no requirement for them to even mention where SN is less expensive
and
having cited you they can revoke your intact licenses which means that all your other animals are now required to be sterilized.
So let’s talk about some examples.
- You have your dog off leash training. You will be cited.
- You are at a dog show. Your dog of course does not have his license on. Not wearing the license constitutes being unlicensed. You will be cited.
- Your dog knocks over the water bowl while you are at work. Unhealthy. You will be cited.
- Same for agility, hunting, etc.
That dog is mandatorily sterilized at your expense. Period. And they can also revoke all your other unaltered licnses. Because they is what this bill is about. Getting mandatory spay and neuter on the books.
The last version of the bill stated specifically they you would lose all unaltered licenses. This version allows the same thing.
WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES
We know from historical numbers that a percentage of people that are cited will just have to leave their dogs at the shelter. And we know from historical numbers that 83% of the surendered dogs are euthanized. So the killing will increase. No question about it. There has already been an impact on the shelters due to the economy; this will be a disaster for dogs.
It will increase local expenses and state costs. The State, under the Hayden Act, is required to pay the shelters for the last three days of confinement for dogs that are euthanized in municipal shelters. So costs will do up. But since the state cannot afford to pay the costs right now (they have already put out a statement that animal mandates, while being booked as a liability to the State of California, cannot be funded right now, it could be years before your local community sees any money. But the local community will have to pay the increased costs right now.
IS THERE DUE PROCESS?
If you had been cited before this law due to a mishap, you would probably have paid your fine, purchased a licensed, apologized for having the dog loose for training, etc. Now you must take the time and spend the money to get an attorney. Because if you cannot beat this; all your dogs will be sterilized. From attending these hearings, we can tell you that (a) people without attorneys do not prevail; it involves several days off work.
So is there a chance to beat this. Of course. It is easy? Never. Can you prevail? It depends on the Animal Control jurisdiction. You will be “tried” by the people who are proposing the legislation.
WHAT DOES YOUR SENATOR THINK?
All the Senators on the Local Government Committee have been told by Holly Fraumeni (Judie Mancuso’s lobbyist *(http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Lobbying/Lobbyists/Detail.aspx?id=1295029&session=2007) that this is nothing like AB1634, this just goes after the irresponsible people. And to date, I'm sorry to tell you that because she is the only voice, Mancuso is winning.
The support letters are ahead of opposition letters.
So you need to explain to these Senators why they need to vote no.
- There is no law against having an intact dog. But if you are cited for anything except barking, the state penalty for that is MSN of all dogs.
- This amounts to unequal protection under the law. Because your dog is intact, even though you have paid the higher fee required by state law, the penalty for you is different that your neighbor who is guilty of the same infraction.
- Any responsible person can violate the tenets above. This would be like saying that no responsible driver would ever speed and therefore is you are guilty of speeding one time, in addition to the fine, they pull your registration for that car (and maybe all your cars) and that means you cannot drive them.
- Just because a dog is intact does not mean it will reproduce. And if it is bred at some time, there is no linkage between that breeding and shelter dogs.
- The dogs leaving the shelters that are SN are owned by the city or county; they are not owned by individuals. There is nothing is existing law that says owned dogs lead to the problems.
- All the options in this state law are available to local communities now if they wish to use them. As a matter of policy they do not. Since they have those options now if they think they are warranted, why add this state law.
Please point out to our Senator that this will increase the killing of dogs. Ask them to talk to their shelter people. Ask them to contact the author about the alternative bill/language proposed by Concerned Dog Owners of California that would target only repeat offenders, not the occasional problem.
They just considered a MSN ordinance in Manteca; the Mayor thought it would be a good idea. After learning how unsuccessful MSN us, he made this statement in the Manteca Bulletin.
"Mayor Willie Weatherford believes such an ordinance would only penalize responsible pet owners who license their dogs while allowing those that create the problem to avoid any consequences. If an unlicensed dog was picked up and the owner didn't want to comply and pay up to $150 to have the dog neutered or spayed, the city would be forced to destroy it or find another home for the dog."
We need to work to educate our Senators and hope they have the same concern for dogs and the community that Mayor Weatherford shows.
SB250 - Text of Florez Bill
SB250 - AKC Position on Florez Bill
| [Thursday, February 26, 2009] |
| California State Senator Dean Florez has introduced Senate Bill 250, a measure that purports to reduce shelter populations, but would in reality make it easier to revoke licenses for intact dogs and cats in California. This legislation will not improve the lives of cats and dogs, will negatively impact responsible owners and breeders, and by placing additional burdens on owners of intact animals, |
| Please contact your State Senator and ask him or her to oppose SB 250. |
SB250 - Appropriations Contact Info
Here are the members of Appropriations which is the next Committee to hear SB250.
But also send all letters to Senator Florez
Use both of these fax numbers
(916) 327-9057
(916) 327-5989
Christine Kehoe - Chair
State Capitol Room 5050
Sacramento 95814
Phone - 916-651-4039
Fax - 916-327-2188
Dave Cox - Vice Chair
State Capitol Room 2068
Sacramento 95814
Phone - 916-651-4001
Fax - 916-324-2680
Ellen Corbett
State Capitol, Room 5108
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone:(916) 651-4010
Fax: (916) 327-2433
Jeff Denham
State Capitol, Room 3076
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4012
Fax: (916) 445-0773
Mark DeSaulnier
(916) 651-4007
Fax - (916) 445-2527
State Capitol, Room 2054
Sacramento, CA 95814
Lori Hancock
Phone: (916) 651-4009
Fax: (916) 327-1997
State Capitol, Room 3092
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mark Leno
State Capitol, Room 4061
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4003
(916) 445-4742
Jenny Oropeza
State Capitol, Room 5114
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4028
Fax: (916) 323-6056
George Runner
State Capitol, Room 4090
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4017
Fax: (916) 445-4662
Mimi Walters
State Capitol, Room 3082
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4033
Fax: (916) 445-9754
Lois Wolk
State Capitol Room 4032
Sacramento 95814
Phone - 916-651-4005
Fax - 916-323-2304
Mark Wyland
State Capitol, Room 4048
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4038
Fax: (916) 446-7382
Leeland Yee
State Capitol, Room 4074
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4001
Fax: (916) 327-2186
Committee Consultant
Mark McKenzie
State Capitol, Room 2206
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4101
FAX (916)
But also send all letters to Senator Florez
Use both of these fax numbers
(916) 327-9057
(916) 327-5989
Christine Kehoe - Chair
State Capitol Room 5050
Sacramento 95814
Phone - 916-651-4039
Fax - 916-327-2188
Dave Cox - Vice Chair
State Capitol Room 2068
Sacramento 95814
Phone - 916-651-4001
Fax - 916-324-2680
Ellen Corbett
State Capitol, Room 5108
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone:(916) 651-4010
Fax: (916) 327-2433
Jeff Denham
State Capitol, Room 3076
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4012
Fax: (916) 445-0773
Mark DeSaulnier
(916) 651-4007
Fax - (916) 445-2527
State Capitol, Room 2054
Sacramento, CA 95814
Lori Hancock
Phone: (916) 651-4009
Fax: (916) 327-1997
State Capitol, Room 3092
Sacramento, CA 95814
Mark Leno
State Capitol, Room 4061
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4003
(916) 445-4742
Jenny Oropeza
State Capitol, Room 5114
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4028
Fax: (916) 323-6056
George Runner
State Capitol, Room 4090
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4017
Fax: (916) 445-4662
Mimi Walters
State Capitol, Room 3082
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4033
Fax: (916) 445-9754
Lois Wolk
State Capitol Room 4032
Sacramento 95814
Phone - 916-651-4005
Fax - 916-323-2304
Mark Wyland
State Capitol, Room 4048
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4038
Fax: (916) 446-7382
Leeland Yee
State Capitol, Room 4074
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4001
Fax: (916) 327-2186
Committee Consultant
Mark McKenzie
State Capitol, Room 2206
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 651-4101
FAX (916)
SB250 Talking Points for Opposition Letters
Here are some talking points for your letters opposing SB250. But a reminder.
Talk from your heart; your passion will show.
Write to Florez and every member of the Local Government Committee
Write to your own Senator and Assembly Member
Talk to your friends and neighbors who own dogs.
Tell them it will now be a crime to put their cat out
Tell them they can lose all their unaltered dogs if they make one mistake
Remind them that the author is also running for Lt. Governor
Try to be in Sacramento on the 15th for the Committee Meeting
1. This is not directed at irresponsible dog owners, it is directed at everyone.
2. The punishment of sterilizing all your dogs and cats because one dog gets one citation is a punishment not at all suitable for the offense.
3. This state law would put draconian penalties on otherwise responsible dog owners that might have one offense. It could be a loose dog, it could be a dog whose water bucket was tipped over, it could be a dog that someone thinks was tethered too long. The list is endless
4. This law makes it a crime for cat owners to let their cats out in their own yards.
5. The price of sterilization is extremely high; this will result in many more surrenders and the attendant euthanasia.
6. That attendant euthanasia will mean that the state costs for the Hayden Act (Animal Mandates) are even greater than they are now.
7. This will be a death sentence for thousands more California owned dogs; dogs that otherwise would not be going to the shelter.
8. This bill ignores the lessons of failed programs and ignores the lessons of successful programs.
9. We need licensing and identification. When owned animals can be returned home, there is more room and time in the shelters to find homes for the unowned animals.
Talk from your heart; your passion will show.
Write to Florez and every member of the Local Government Committee
Write to your own Senator and Assembly Member
Talk to your friends and neighbors who own dogs.
Tell them it will now be a crime to put their cat out
Tell them they can lose all their unaltered dogs if they make one mistake
Remind them that the author is also running for Lt. Governor
Try to be in Sacramento on the 15th for the Committee Meeting
1. This is not directed at irresponsible dog owners, it is directed at everyone.
2. The punishment of sterilizing all your dogs and cats because one dog gets one citation is a punishment not at all suitable for the offense.
3. This state law would put draconian penalties on otherwise responsible dog owners that might have one offense. It could be a loose dog, it could be a dog whose water bucket was tipped over, it could be a dog that someone thinks was tethered too long. The list is endless
4. This law makes it a crime for cat owners to let their cats out in their own yards.
5. The price of sterilization is extremely high; this will result in many more surrenders and the attendant euthanasia.
6. That attendant euthanasia will mean that the state costs for the Hayden Act (Animal Mandates) are even greater than they are now.
7. This will be a death sentence for thousands more California owned dogs; dogs that otherwise would not be going to the shelter.
8. This bill ignores the lessons of failed programs and ignores the lessons of successful programs.
9. We need licensing and identification. When owned animals can be returned home, there is more room and time in the shelters to find homes for the unowned animals.
AB241 - Nava - Limiting Dogs and Cats Text
Bill Text Here
In a meeting with Nava's office, which is open to your comments and letters, CDOC was advised that although this says 50 right now, 25 is also under consideration. And this is all animals. So if one had two large litters of puppies and a few adult dogs, one could easily be in violation of this proposed law.
In a meeting with Nava's office, which is open to your comments and letters, CDOC was advised that although this says 50 right now, 25 is also under consideration. And this is all animals. So if one had two large litters of puppies and a few adult dogs, one could easily be in violation of this proposed law.
AB-242 - Nava - Dog Fighting Text
The bill has been revised to make putting on a dog fight a felony in all cases. Right now attorney's have the authority to prosecute this offense as a misdemeanor. CDOC supports AB242.
Bill text here.
Bill text here.
AB243 - Nava - Animal Abuse - Text
The issue here is what constitutes animal abuse. Nava's office said this would apply to domesticated animals so horses, farm animals and others would be subject to this bill.
Animal cruelty is defined by law and CDOC is taking the position that the language needs to be changed to animal cruelty.
Bill text here.
Animal cruelty is defined by law and CDOC is taking the position that the language needs to be changed to animal cruelty.
Bill text here.
FIND YOUR SENATOR AND ASSEMBLY MEMBER
AB241, AB242, AB243 will go to Public Safety
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
Jose Solorio (D) - Chair
PO Box 942849
Sacramento 94249
Phone 916-319-2069
Fax - 916- 319-2169
Curt Hagman (R) - Vice Chair
State Capitol
Sacramento 95814
Phone 916-319-2060
Fax - 916- 319-2160
Warren Furutani (D)
State Capitol
PO Box 942849
Sacramento 94249
Phone 916-319-2055
Fax - 916- 319-2155
Danny Gilmore (R)
State Capitol
Sacramento 95814
Phone 916-319-2030
Fax - 916- 319-2130
Jerry Hill (D)
State Capitol
PO Box 942849
Sacramento 94249
Phone 916-319-2019
Fax - 916- 319-2119
Fiona Ma (D)
State Capitol
PO Box 942849
Sacramento 94249
Phone 916-319-2012
Fax - 916- 319-2012
Nancy Skinner (D)
State Capitol
PO Box 942849
Sacramento 94249
Phone 916-319-2014
Fax - 916- 319-2114
Committee Phone - 916-319-3744
Committtee Fax - 916-319-3745
Jose Solorio (D) - Chair
PO Box 942849
Sacramento 94249
Phone 916-319-2069
Fax - 916- 319-2169
Curt Hagman (R) - Vice Chair
State Capitol
Sacramento 95814
Phone 916-319-2060
Fax - 916- 319-2160
Warren Furutani (D)
State Capitol
PO Box 942849
Sacramento 94249
Phone 916-319-2055
Fax - 916- 319-2155
Danny Gilmore (R)
State Capitol
Sacramento 95814
Phone 916-319-2030
Fax - 916- 319-2130
Jerry Hill (D)
State Capitol
PO Box 942849
Sacramento 94249
Phone 916-319-2019
Fax - 916- 319-2119
Fiona Ma (D)
State Capitol
PO Box 942849
Sacramento 94249
Phone 916-319-2012
Fax - 916- 319-2012
Nancy Skinner (D)
State Capitol
PO Box 942849
Sacramento 94249
Phone 916-319-2014
Fax - 916- 319-2114
Committee Phone - 916-319-3744
Committtee Fax - 916-319-3745