WATCH FOR FOLLOW UP BULLETIN AT 9:00 PM
 

Spay-neuter bill gets gutted in committee

By Malcolm Maclachlan (published Thursday, June 19, 2008)

One of the most controversial bills of the year looks like it will finally get to the Senate floor soon--though is a very altered form.

AB 1634, from Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Van Nuys, originally called for spaying or neutering of any dog or cat over six months of age, with exceptions for breeders, working animals and some others. As amended in the Senate Local Government Committee, the new version calls for the sterilization only of a dog that has been taken into the shelter system three times or a cat that has been in twice.

Levine met on Monday with Senator Gloria Negrete-McLeod, D-Chino, according to both offices. She said changes needed to be made to get the votes to get the bill out of committee and onto the Senate floor, and Levine agreed. Negrete-McLeod now appears as a principal coauthor on the bill.

"I don't think this will satisfy the extremists on either side of the, but this is better policy," Negrete-McLeon said. She added, "You have a bad dog, snip-snip."

Titled the California Healthy Pets Act, it was one of the most talked-about bills of last year. Legislative offices reported getting huge amounts of mail, phone calls, emails and faxes on the bill. Levine made several amendments last year, mainly around creating exemptions for particular classes of dogs and cats, as he tried to placate the opponents. But he said he was not disappointed over moving forward with a much less sweeping bill, noting that it will result in the spaying/neutering of some of the most problematic animals.

"It's the legislative process," Levine said. "You never get everything you want. The purpose of my legislation was to address the serious problem of cat and dog overpopulation. I feel that this will help us accomplish that goal. I'm not unhappy with it. One of the first things they tell you when you come to work in the Capitol is ‘never fall in love with your bills.'"

Judie Mancuso, the campaign director behind the effort to pass AB 1634, was less positive about the changes. For one thing, she said, the home foreclosure crisis is worsening the overpopulation problem at shelters as people give up pets when they move out of owned houses into rented apartments. For all of 2006, she said, California shelters took in 375,000 dogs, euthanizing 146,000. For 2007, shelters took in 419,000 dogs-but 10 counties have not yet reported all their numbers for last year, compared to only one that hasn't reported 2006 numbers. The 2008 numbers, she said, are looking even worse.

She also pointed to numerous other governments around the country-including the state legislatures of Arizona and Rhode Island-that have modeled bills on AB 1634.

"The rest of the country has long looked to our lead," Mancuso said. "The thing that concerns me is the message we're sending out is this is all we can do."



 

State mandatory spay-neuter bill appears dead

By JAMES BURGER, Californian staff writer
e-mail: jburger@bakersfield.com | Thursday, Jun 19 2008 9:33 AM

Last Updated: Thursday, Jun 19 2008 10:09 AM

For all intents and purposes, a statewide mandatory spay-neuter bill died this week.

§       What do you think of the bill's "death"? Comment and read the bill for yourself on the blog.

Its proposed language would have made it illegal to have an unsterilized animal without a permit in California.

The bill, which passed the California Assembly in 2007, was bottlenecked in a Senate committee until earlier this week, according to a letter posted by AB 1634 organizer Judie Mancuso on the California Healthy Pets Act Web site Wednesday.

At that time, the letter states, Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod proposed amendments to the bill that completely removed mandatory spay-neuter provisions.

The new language was made public Thursday morning.

“Senator Negrete McLeod chairs the Senate Local Government Committee where AB 1634 has been held since mid-2007. The senator presented amendments that remove all the current language of the bill and replace it with new language her office developed,” Mancuso wrote.

The bill’s author, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, agreed to the changes.

Text of the bill, which is no longer called the California Healthy Pets Act, has been posted on a state legislative information Web site and scheduled for a hearing before Negrete McLeod’s committee on June 25.

It swaps mandatory spay-neuter rules for an increase in fines on the owners of dogs whose animals are repeatedly impounded by animal control officials.

Fines on dog owners would be $50 for a first impoundment (up from $35), $100 for the second occurrence (up from $50), and would make spay-neuter mandatory on a third impound.

Cat owners would face a $50 fine on a first impoundment and spay-neuter on a second impoundment.

“I know many of you will not be happy with this proposal, and I am personally deeply disappointed that AB 1634 has been rewritten by Senator Negrete McLeod,” Mancuso wrote.

Kern County Animal Control chief Denise Haynes said the new legislation will have little to no impact on Kern County.

Most of the time, there are not repeat impounds of animals.

Most animals impounded by Kern County Animal Control — two-thirds in 2007 — are euthanized.

The 18,669 animals euthanized in Kern County in 2007 prompted Kern County supervisors to consider local mandatory spay-neuter laws. Last week they announced they did not support the idea.

“The third impound spay and neuter is not going to have an impact on the numbers. We don’t get a lot of dogs three times. It would be great if we could (spay or neuter) the first time a dog comes in here,” Haynes said.
 

Beats Assemblymember Lloyd Levine by Two-to-One

By Frank D. Russo
Fran Pavley, served three terms in the California State Assembly before having to leave because of term limits, has decisively won the Democratic primary and will be returning to the State Senate to succeed Sheila Kuehl in representing the parts of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, including the San Fernando Valley and Beverly Hills, West Hollywood and the Westside of Los Angeles.

Those are big shoes to fill, but Pavley is considered a legend in her own time by environmental groups as the author of the “Pavley Bill,” AB 1493 on tail pipe emissions of greenhouse gases that recently was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court and has been fought by the Bush administration. She also was the author of AB 32, the landmark Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, along with then Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez. AB 32 was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger and has been widely touted nationally as a model for other states as well as internationally. Her leadership on the most important environmental issue facing the world in the 21st Century has been recognized by many entities, including being selected as one of Scientific American's Top Technology Leaders in Transportation, and receiving the 2006 California League of Conservation Voters "Global Warming Leadership Award" along with former Vice President Al Gore.

Pavley won with 66.4% of the vote to current Assemblymember Lloyd Levine’s 33.6% to win the Democratic nomination. She carried both the Los Angeles County part of the district as well as the smaller portion in Ventura County.

She was endorsed by Senator Sheila Kuehl for the seat that Kuehl has had to leave due to term limits.

Pavley was also endorsed by the California League of Conservation Voters, despite Levine having a perfect 100% rating on the organization’s environmental scorecard for his votes on legislation in 2006 and 2007.

Her AB 1493 requires the Air Resources Board to adopt regulations that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light duty trucks by 30% by the year 2016. It was the first bill of its kind in the country and was featured on a special segment on the PBS, which you can watch.

In the Assembly, she became known as one of the most effective legislators, seeing over 70 of her bills and resolutions become law. She focused on education, the environment, consumer protection, public safety and creating a clean, secure energy future for California and the U.S.

It’s not as if the voters in this district had a bad choice between her and Levine. He has authored significant environmental legislation including the recycling of plastic bags and discouraging their use in markets and drug stores. He’s also spearheaded a movement to phase out the use of incandescent light bulbs in California for more efficient ones.

And Levine has not been shy in tackling difficult policy areas –for instance carrying legislation to make pet spaying and neutering mandatory. This and other legislation on death with dignity, modeled after Oregon’s law have drawn him the wrath of those opposed. In fact, AB 1634, the Healthy Pets Act received so much mail that it broke fax machines in the Capitol.

We carried an article in April of 2007 looking at this race and predicting that Pavley would prevail on the basis of polling and name identification.

We’ll miss Levine and welcome Fran Pavley to the Senate. She should have no difficulty in winning in November.

Posted on June 04, 2008

Lawsuit Filed Over Los Angeles

Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance
Issues Pertain To Every State And Municipality

by JOHN YATES
The American Sporting Dog Alliance

LOS ANGELES, CA – Concerned Dog Owners of California filed a lawsuit this week against the City of Los Angeles, seeking to overturn a new ordinance mandating the spaying and neutering of all dogs.
The lawsuit is primarily based on constitutional grounds, and alleges that the ordinance violates the civil rights of dog owners in several ways.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance believes that the importance of this lawsuit extends far beyond the City of Los Angeles. It marks the first of several anticipated legal challenges to onerous laws and ordinances as dog owners turn to the courts to fight for their rights on constitutional grounds. This lawsuit is based on legal issues that exist in every state.

An estimated 1.85 million Los Angeles residents have at least one dog or cat.

The ordinance mandates the sterilization of all pets at four months of age. An exemption can be obtained by purchasing a breeder’s permit, for a dog registered with an approved national registry and is being shown or used in competition, and for other categories such as seeing-eye dogs and police dogs. Fines and penalties are provided for violations.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance (ASDA) strongly supports Concerned Dog Owners of California in this lawsuit. Mandatory sterilization laws and ordinances violate the basic rights of dog owners in many ways, and ASDA considers them a major part of the hidden animal rights agenda to eliminate the private ownership of animals. We urge our members and all dog owners to offer their full support to Concerned Dog Owners of California, and also to financially assist this group to pay for the cost of the lawsuit. They can be reached online at http://www.cdoca.org

Here is a summary of the legal issues in the lawsuit:

It violates the rights and familial relationships of 650,000 pet-owning households.

The options provided in the ordinance to avoid pet sterilization are not constitutionally valid. It infringes on basic rights of freedom of association, freedom of speech, the guarantee of due process and freedom of religion.

It won’t work. The evidence is clear in communities that have passed similar ordinances. Similar ordinances have been proven to increase the number of dogs euthanized, increase shelter admissions, increase the costs of dog control programs and increase noncompliance with licensing requirements.

It will increase the number of puppies born, because people will choose to get a breeding permit and to breed their dog simply to avoid mandates to spay and neuter.

It exposes pets to unjustified risks to their health. Current research shows that many significant and sometimes fatal health problems are associated with sterilization, especially at a young age.

Pet owners are threatened with immediate and irrevocable injury when the ordinance takes effect October 1.  Existing laws are not being enforced. An estimated 75% of the pets in the city are not even licensed. Other proven means of reducing shelter admissions and euthanasia rates have not been tried.

Much of the ordinance, including the basis for exemptions, is arbitrary and capricious, ambiguous and discriminatory.

The lawsuit states its case succinctly: “Owners who wish to keep their healthy pets unaltered have no constitutionally valid options to the MSP (mandatory spay and neuter) ordinance. Although the ordinance provides for six alleged ‘exemptions,’ and a breeder’s permit, these exemptions and the breeder’s permit are, in actuality, nothing more than arbitrary and capricious compelled associations that violate an owner’s fundamental free speech rights.”

The ordinance forces a dog owner to join an organization approved by the city, and to identify her/himself as a breeder, which is state-compelled speech, the document says. By requiring the city to approve of a dog owner’s membership in an organization, such as a dog registry or club, government is both compelling membership and dictating a list of acceptable organizations that a person is forced to join. The ordinance then mandates that a dog must compete in an event sanctioned by one of those approved organizations, or is in the process of being trained to compete.

To obtain a breeder’s exemption, a dog owner also is compelled to join one of those approved organizations and identify him/herself as a participant of that organization, which is an infringement of free speech, the documents show. The right of free speech is infringed by forcing a dog owner to identify her/himself as a breeder on government documents that are available to public inspection.

In essence, a person is forced to say, “I am a breeder,” even if the person does not consider her/himself to be a breeder, or if he/she is personally opposed to breeding.

Documents were attached to the court filing to show examples of harassment and vilification of breeders that were distributed by the groups that support the ordinance. In essence, identifying oneself as a “breeder” exposes the person to danger, harassment and defamation of character as consequences of government-compelle Documents.   Several religious groups prohibit their members from sterilizing an animal. These groups include Orthodox Judaism and the Jehovah’s Witness faith. Members of these faiths are unable to sterilize their pets without violating their religious beliefs, which puts the city in the position of violating their constitutionally protected freedom of religion. Los Angeles has the second largest community of Orthodox Jews in the nation.

The ordinance also gives the city the power to forcibly seize and confiscate pets that are not spayed or neutered, if their owners are not granted one of the arbitrary allowed exemptions. This violates the pet’s owner constitutionally guaranteed rights of due process under the law, that also are violated because the ordinance does not provide recourse through a hearing.

Forcing a dog owner to spay or neuter also represents an unconstitutional “taking” of property rights, as the ordinance compels taking away the value of a dog’s reproductive capacity, and due process is denied.  To compel pet sterilization also is to deny an owner the freedom to act according to her/his own religious beliefs, personal ideology or political viewpoint, all of which are protected under the U.S. and California Constitutions.

The lawsuit also contends that the City of Los Angeles has failed to take far less draconian actions that have been proven to reduce the number of animals entering shelters, such as enforcing licensing requirements (a reported 75% of the dogs in Los Angeles are not licensed), offering low-cost licensing for puppies that would allow their owners to be educated about the issues, or mandating permanent identification of pets so that animals taken to the shelter could be returned to their owners.

Because of the reported dangers of spaying and neutering (especially at an early age) shown in numerous research findings, the city also is denying dog owners the right to protect their pet’s health and infringing on the relationship between a pet owner and his/her veterinarian.

The ordinance also infringes upon the basic concepts of the liberty and happiness of a pet owner, and also of the relationships between an owner, her or his family, and the pets that are part of their family. Although most pet owners consider their dogs as family, rather than property, they are legally defined as personal property and protected as such under the fundamental right of property in the California Constitution. The ordinance is an arbitrary and capricious “taking” of those property rights by government, especially since the evidence from other communities shows that the ordinance will be counterproductive to its stated goals.

The lawsuit also alleges that the ordinance contains much vague and ambiguous language, such as undefined concepts like “adequately trained” and “poor health,” or not stating clearly what registries have been approved, and which have not.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the ordinance unconstitutional, and to order the city not to enforce it.

Please feel free to use any information contained in this report, and also to cross-post it and forward it to your friends.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance is the unified voice of sporting dog owners and professionals in America. We work at the grassroots level to defeat unfair legislation and policies that are harmful to dogs and the people who own and work with them. Our work to protect your rights is supported solely by the donations of our members. Your participation and membership are vital to our success.

http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org/

Dear Concerned Dog owners,

I am sending you this letter because over the years you have either contacted me or a reputable breeder about puppies, you are a fellow responsible breeder, or I know you through the many dog activities we all participate in.

The City of Los Angeles has passed legislation which makes it illegal not to spay or neuter your dog or cat by the time it is 4 months of age.  Some of you are saying that’s awful but I don’t live in the City of Los Angeles so it doesn’t affect me.  But it does! 

I am asking you to make an immediate and generous contribution to CDOC Action which is suing the City of Los Angeles to overturn this law.

For the past year, animal activists including some well-meaning rescue and shelter people led by PETA and HSUS have been trying to get legislation like this passed.  There is a bill in the legislation in California which I think we will be able to defeat this year that would do the same thing.  This type of legislation has been introduced in 20 places, all at the same time this year, as part of a concerted effort using Los Angeles as an example.

An organization I am affiliated with (I am on the Board of Directors) Concerned Dog Owners of California has been both fighting this legislation and working to develop funds for voluntary free spay and neuter programs through other legislation.  CDOC members believe in voluntary spay and neuter at a time a dog owner and his veterinarian make that decision, taking into account the effects of spay or neuter on the specific breed. Concerned Dog Owners of California has spent its money getting bills in the California legislature (2) which will develop funds so people who can’t afford to spay and neuter will be able to do so. In addition we are working on adding RICO language to current dog fighting laws so that people who participate in or attend such events, lose assets as well as face other stiff penalties.

Spay and neuter at sixteen weeks will be devastating to the health of many breeds of dogs.  Please go to  www.cdoca.org/HealthIssues.html  and look at the dozens of articles about the damage physically, mentally and behaviorally that occurs when spay and neuter are done too early.  Yes, a 16 week old puppy will live – no question about it.  But in most breeds he or she will be subject to a variety of on-going health problems and a shorter life span because this major surgical procedure was done too soon.  Finally, a dog that is spayed or neutered at 16 weeks will not look anything like its parents.  It will be taller, skinnier, have a narrow head and a longer muzzle.  The traits you like in the dogs you have admired; early spay neuter stops that.

None of us want a shorter lifespan for our beloved animals.  If this law is allowed to stand, this will likely be the law throughout most of California by the end of 2008, and using California as the model, will be well on its way to being the law in other states. 

That means people who breed dogs will have to make a decision.  There is no ban on breeding, but breeders know that the dogs we bring into the world will have shorter lives and may be plagued with physical and behavior problems during that life.  Yes, there are plenty of people who will continue to breed; but reputable people like me will stop.  We have no interest in participating in damaging dogs.  As this spreads across the country, your ability to get your next dog, or to have your children get dogs that are like those we enjoy today, will be severely limited.

Obviously there are serious constitutional issues here and that is what the lawsuit will be based upon.  The attorneys are Roberti Jensen.  Located in Los Angeles, they specialize in clients with issues before California state government, California state departments, and California state agencies in Los Angeles and Sacramento. 

David Roberti is intimately familiar and knowledgeable with government and regulatory matters. His 28 years of service in the legislature and 13 years of service as President Pro Tem of the California State Senate provide superior understanding of the nature and process of governmental actions. He is well known as one of California's most prominent legislators.

In addition, David Roberti is an attorney experienced in government and business transactions, negotiations, and processes. After Loyola University and USC Law School, David Roberti served as Deputy Attorney General and as a Clerk in the District Court of Appeals.

John Jensen has extensive experience in drafting and negotiating contracts, assisting businesses with government regulation and compliance, and advising upon all aspects of business affairs. He has drafted and negotiated complex three party agreements in regulatory contexts, successfully argued administrative actions at the state level, and negotiated various beneficial financial settlements.

Los Angeles is the battleground for the state and the country.  If we stop this here, our victory will become the law for California and the issue of mandatory stay and neuter will be dead.  If we win on constitutional issues, they will apply across the country.  So we are asking for people across the country to help. 

We need to raise $100,000.00 in a matter of weeks.  Please help us keep dogs healthy!  Send your contributions to:

CDOC Action
22647 Ventura Boulevard, #108
Woodland Hills, CA 91364

If your check is for $500.00 or more, please make it out directly to Roberti Jensen and send it to this same address.  If you give less than $500.00, please make your check out to CDOC Action and we will write a combined check to the law firm.  CDOC Action is a 501c4 and contributions are not tax deductible. 

You can also donate on line at www.cdocaction.org after 2:00 pm PST today Monday February 25, 2008.

Wherever you live in this country our success or failure here will have a direct bearing on what happens in your local community.  So please make a generous contribution as quickly as you can.  Don’t let a law that will damage the health of dogs stand as the law of the land.

I cannot tell you how important this is.  I am asking that you do as I have done.  Please feel free to modify and forward this letter to everyone you know who loves dogs and ask them to make a contribution as well.   We are not HSUS or PETA, we don’t have millions of dollars to spend in fundraising.  So we and the dogs are counting on you.  Thank you.

http://laanimalservices.blogspot.com/2008/02/la-city-council-passes-spayneuter.html
 

www.centredaily.com/business/story/324485.html

Thursday, Jan. 10, 2008

PETA Killed 97 Percent of 'Companion Animals' in 2006,
According to VDACS

WASHINGTON, Jan. 10 — An official report from People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), submitted nine months after a Virginia government agency's deadline, shows that the animal rights group put to death more than 97 percent of the dogs, cats, and other pets it took in for adoption in 2006. During that year, the well-known animal rights group managed to find adoptive homes for just 12 pets. The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) is calling on PETA to either end its hypocritical angel-of-death program, or stop its senseless condemnation of Americans who believe it's perfectly ethical to use animals for food, clothing, and critical medical research. Not counting animals PETA held only temporarily in its spay-neuter program, the organization took in 3,061 "companion animals" in 2006, of which it killed 2,981. According to Virginia's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), the average euthanasia rate for humane societies in the state was just 34.7 percent in 2006. PETA killed 97.4 percent of the animals it took in. The organization filed its 2006 report this month, nine months after the VDACS deadline of March 31, 2007.  "Pet lovers should be outraged," said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. "There are thousands of worthwhile animal shelters that deserve Americans' support. PETA is not one of them. "In courtroom testimony last year, a PETA manager acknowledged that her organization maintains a large walk-in freezer for storing dead animals, and that PETA contracts with a Virginia cremation service to dispose of the bodies. In that trial, two PETA employees were convicted of dumping dead animals in a rural North Carolina trash dumpster.

Today in Southampton County, Virginia, another PETA employee will face felony charges in a
dog-napping case.  Andrea Florence Benoit Harris was arrested in late 2006 for allegedly
abducting a hunting dog and attempting to transport it to PETA's Norfolk headquarters.
"PETA raised over $30 million last year," Martosko added, "and it's using that money to
kill the only flesh-and-blood animals its employees actually see. The scale of PETA's
hypocrisy is simply staggering." To speak with a spokesman contact Tim Miller at 202-463-7112.

For more information about PETA's massive euthanasia program, visit http://www.PetaKillsAnimals.com
SOURCE Center for Consumer Freedom