The time is NOW. We need to voice our OPPOSITION to California Senate Bill
236 before it goes any further. As previously reported on the CFA List, the
Bill was introduced in February by Senator Jack O'Connell on behalf of the
Animal Legislative Activists' Network (A.L.A.N.) in Los Angeles. It would
make it "unlawful for any person to own, harbor or keep any dog or cat over
the age of four months, unless that dog or cat has been micro-chipped and the
owner's identification has been entered into a national registry approved by
the Department of Food and Agriculture."
SB 236 criminalizes pet ownership in California. It is a misguided attempt
to identify owners of dogs and cats with the intent of punishing them. Laws
that can only be enforced through complaint-driven methods encourage
harassment detrimental to pet ownership.
Write to Senator Jack O'Connell and ask him to WITHDRAW SB 236.
The Honorable Senator Jack O'Connell
State Capitol, Room 5035
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445-5405
Fax (916) 322-3304
email Senator.OConnell@sen.ca.gov
Let the Senator know that you are a cat/dog fancier/pet owner or
rescuer/feral cat caretaker and favor VOLUNTARY identification of pets,
especially cats allowed out doors, but are strongly opposed to a requirement
for micro-chipping mandated by law. Select one or two specific points to
make and elaborate in your own words:
An estimated over 50% of ALL households in California own a cat or dog or
both. EVERY dog/cat owner in California would be burdened with the cost of
compliance. The expense is unknown for implanting and registering of data.
There is no criteria for an approved registry, nor assurance that existing
registries will always be in business.
This bill will only add to the cost of adoption/purchase from shelters or
rescue organizations and increase the sales price of dogs and cats from other
sources. It could lead to increased abandonment or shelter relinquishment by
those who are unable to find new homes for dogs/cats they cannot keep or who
fear punishment for failing to micro-chip. Will the veterinarians be
expected to be the state micro-chip police whenever they treat an animal?
There are animals who never go outside their whole lives or who are
elderly and would be stressed by travelling to a microchip clinic. Why should
pet owners, already spending substantial funds on veterinary care, be
required to add another expense for something of little benefit to their
animals?
This bill makes criminals out of good Samaritans who "harbor" feral cats
but may not have yet been able to trap them for altering and micro-chipping.
The extra cost will be a deterrent to the efforts of individual citizens in
California who humanely help control feral cat reproduction through
trap/neuter/return (TNR) activity. The requirement would be a disincentive
to individuals who would be willing to take in stray cats.
Micro-chip technology is not fully developed and does not always
guarantee an animal will be returned to its owner. There is still a problem
with migrating chips, shelter scanning failures and readers that cannot
identify old microchips. Who would be punished if a chip cannot be read or
in case of micro-chip failure.
There are other choices for identification. When stray animals are found
in a neighborhood it is visible identification, such as a collar and tag,
that remains the fastest way to get the pet back to its owner.
Micro-chipping can be a good back up, but why not leave it to the pet owner
to decide on a preference for identification.
Why should the citizens of California pay for more bureaucratic, criminal
enforcement costs? When animals are transferred to new owners it would be
impossible to find and punish those who fail to inform the approved national
registry of the new owner. If an owner should die and not inform the
registry of a new owner who will be criminalized?
The vast majority of cats in the California shelters are feral, unowned
and young kittens, none of whom would have microchips implanted. This bill
will not affect the primary reason for cats handled in shelters yet it would
be costly to many responsible pet owners.
In this State programs to subsidize spay/neuter of dogs and cats are
beginning to show progress. To impose additional mandatory costs will only
undermine the success of these important programs.
Send your email, fax or letter TODAY so that this bill can be averted before
it goes to a senate committee. It could be amended to be even more
restrictive. Urge Senator O'Connell to withdraw the bill and make him aware
that it is unwise to sponsor animal bills without receiving input from dog
and cat owners in the State of California.
Joan Miller
CFA Legislative Coordinator
Site design and graphics created by
Questions, comments or feedback? Contact the webmaster
