 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fanciers; The "guardian" battle has erupted in Los Angeles. This city is vulnerable, similar to other cities that have already passed inclusion of this term in laws because there is strong pressure by the animal rights activists and organizations in LA. Our challenge to stop them is formidable. Everyone concerned with preserving pedigreed cat/purebred dog breeding and ultimately pet ownership itself must understand the issues and help. What happens in LA will affect others in the United States. On June 24, 2002 the City of Los Angeles Board of Animal Services Commissioners unanimously recommended that the LA City Council adopt the term "guardian" in all municipal codes. This Commission is now down to only three members with a new President, Paul Jolly, who has been associated with PETCO for many years prior to becoming the PETCO Foundation Director. We are surprised that he would support a campaign by IDA (In Defense of Animals), an animal rights organization that states in one of its pamphlets "Boycott pet stores that sell animals." The Cat Fanciers' Association, in addition to AKC (American Kennel Club), PIJAC (Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council), TAC (The Animal Council), ADOA (American Dog Owners Association), CFDC (California Federation of Dog Clubs) and other organizations, has strongly opposed replacing the word "owner" with "guardian" either in laws or in common usage. IDA has rallied supporters for their "They Are Not Our Property, We Are Not Their Owners'" campaign that renounces the status of animals as personal property. Their goal is to eliminate what they say is an "exploitation" of pets. Dr. Elliot Katz, IDA President, states that essential to the campaign is a moral distinction - "an owner buys, a guardian adopts or rescues". He says "oppression is inherent when a being is property", and "Now is the time to get rid of the concept of pet ownership". IDA and other proponents of the "guardian" campaign believe that liberating pet animals, and farm animals, from ownership is equivalent to the slavery and women's suffrage movements. See the IDA web site for more. WHAT CAN YOU DO:
UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUE:
OUR VIEWS:
Los Angeles has many serious cat and dog problems that need to be addressed. Urge the City Council members to avoid confusing animal rights ideology and concentrate on protecting human safety and the well-being of animals. Joan Miller CONTACT LIST: James Hahn LOS ANGELES CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS DISTRICT 1 - Ed Reyes District 2 - Wendy Greuel District 3 - Dennis P. Zine District 4 - Tom LaBonge District 5 - Jack Weiss District 6 - Ruth Galanter District 7 - Alex Padilla - COUNCIL PRESIDENT District 8 -Mark Ridley-Thomas District 9 - Jan Perry District 10 -Nate Holden District 11 - Cindy Miscikowski District 12 - Hal Bernson District 13 - Eric Garcetti District 14 - Nick Pacheco District 15 - Janice Hahn
California Fanciers: The State of California Bill Information web page for Senate Bill 1373 (Breeder/pet dealer registration fee and microchip) shows that the bill was placed in the "Inactive File" yesterday (6/24/02) at the request of Senator O'Connell. After checking with the Office of Senate Floor Analysis and the PIJAC lobbyist we have determined that this means the Author, Senator Jack O'Connell, is holding the bill off from voting "for the time being". He can ask that it be put back on the calendar for 3rd reading at any time while the Senate remains in session. Until the state budget issues are resolved the Senate session will continue and this could go on throughout the summer until August 31st when both house sessions must end by constitution. The bill must pass in the Senate and then go to the Assembly committees and Assembly floor before the 2002 session closing so time is working in our favor. As you know, all Republican Senators have voted against SB 1373 along with one Democrat, Senator Dunn. We want to keep the Democrats who have so far declined to vote on this bill and try to sway others to vote NO. If your Senator is a Democrat an occassional call to their Sacramento office or the local office would help. The list of targeted Senators and Sacramento phone numbers are on the CFA website and also on the Northwest Regional website. The Senator's local office phone numbers will be in your phone book. Ask the Senator's aide responsible for SB 1373 to urge your Senator to vote NO if and when the bill is put on file for Senate floor vote again. Several Senator's offices have replied to constituents that the bill had already been defeated, so you will need to correct this inaccurate information. Many thanks for continuing to fight this bill over such a long period. If Senator Vincent returns from the hospital then O'Connell needs only ONE more vote for the bill to pass the Senate. We will update you with any further news received. Joan Miller
Fanciers; Our efforts have received a major boost. We have a copy of the OPPOSE SB 1373 letter sent yesterday from the California Animal Care Coalition. CACC is made up of the California Animal Control Directors' Assoc., the California Veterinary Medical Assoc. and the State Humane Association representing nearly 5,000 animal shelters, humane societies and veterinarians throughout the state. The letter was dated May 10, 2002 and had been sent to Senate Appropriations Committee members; however the CACC was not added to the Bill Opposition List (along with other organizations that were excluded). Therefore, yesterday they sent their concise but strong letter outlining the "numerous problems with the bill as written" to ALL of the Senators. Logos of all three organizations are on the letter and it is signed by the presidents of each. We understand that this letter and position resulted from tremendous grassroots pressure from veterinarians and others for the Coalition to take a strong stand against SB 1373 - thank you for getting your own veterinarians to make calls to the CVMA. Some of us also contacted animal control directors and shelters. This letter gives us the additional confidence to emphasize that a bill that supporters claim will "curb the unwanted dogs and cats in our state....." and would provide funding for animal control "to identify......and curtail 'hobby-breeders'" will do no such thing. It is strongly opposed by the very organizations they claim would benefit. Here is the reality as stated in the letter from CACC:
Use this strong back-up of our positions to again contact your Senators' offices. A short call asking if they have seen and read the CCAC letter could result in a switched aye vote. If you send a fax or email make it 2 paragraphs and less than one page. ASK ONE QUESTION: How can Senator ______ possibly vote in favor of SB 1373, which supporters claim would help reduce shelter problems, when the entire animal control (CACDA) and shelter community (State Humane) doesn't want it and says it is impractical? This bill would be a burden on our shelters not a help. With the possibility of Senator Vincent being able to vote aye on the floor this week Senator O'Connell is still trying to get that one more vote he needs. All the Republicans have voted NO. We must hold on to the one Democrat NO vote (Dunn) and all 5 of the "not-yet-voted" Democratic Senators. Let's get some switches of aye votes to NO!!! Joan Miller CFA Legislative Coordinator CALIFORNIA DEMOCRATIC SENATE MEMBERS who voted aye on SB 1373 (All the Democrats except Dunn, who voted NO). Senator Vincent was absent and 5 Democratic Senators have not yet voted. The Author, O'Connell, and co-author, Karnette, are not expected to change their votes. The bill now has 19 votes and needs 21 to pass when the reconsideration comes on the floor of the Senate - probably this Thursday, June 6, 2002. The Honorable Senator Richard Alarcon, D-20, San Fernando Valley The Honorable Dede Alpert D-39, San Diego The Honorable Debra Bowen D-28, Redondo Beach The Honorable John Burton D-3, San Francisco The Honorable Wesley Chesbro, D-2, Arcata, Napa area The Honorable Jim Costa D-16, Fresno (has not voted) The Honorable Joseph L. Dunn (D-34) Garden Grove The Honorable Martha M. Escutia (D-30) Montebello The Honorable Liz Figueroa D-10, Fremont The Honorable Betty Karnette (D-27) of Long Beach The Honorable Sheila James Kuehl (D-23) Los Angeles The Honorable Mike Machado D-5, Stockton (has not voted) The Honorable Kevin Murray, D-26, Los Angeles The Honorable Jack O'Connell (D-18) Santa Barbara The Honorable Deborah V. Ortiz D-6, Sacramento (has not voted) The Honorable Steve Peace (D-40) El Cajon The Honorable Don Perata D-9, Oakland The Honorable Richard Polanco D-22, Los Angeles The Honorable Gloria Romero D-24, Los Angeles The Honorable Byron Sher (D-11) Stanford (held off and finally voted aye) The Honorable Jack Scott D-21, Pasadena (has not voted) The Honorable Nell Soto D-32, Ontario The Honorable Jackie Speier D-8, Hillsborough The Honorable Tom Torlakson D-7, Antioch (held off and finally voted aye) The Honorable John Vasconcellos, D-13, San Jose The Honorable Edward Vincent, D-25, Los Angeles
California Fanciers: In another strange twist of California legislative maneuvering today on the Senate floor a "rule waiver" was granted to suspend the deadline rules for all pending Senate floor bills. No vote was called. The Senate adjourned at lunchtime and will not address bills on the floor again until next week - probably on THURS., JUNE 6TH. So as of now the final vote of yesterday on SB 1373 still stands at 19 ayes. The supporters need TWO more votes (21 total) to pass the Senate and go on to the Assembly. Senator Edward Vincent (D-25) Los Angeles, who is in the hospital, may be back and able to vote by Thursday - this would be another aye vote and the bill would only need ONE additional vote to pass. Thanks to your outpouring of calls, It is clear to the Senators, that this bill is highly controversial and has serious problems. If we can hold on to the NO votes and keep trying for more, WE DO HAVE A GOOD CHANCE to defeat SB 1373. KEEP UP THE PRESSURE: With effort and time NOW it may mean celebration by the end of June (in time for the CFA Annual)!!! If the bill does pass the Senate it would then go to the Assembly Committee, probably on Tuesday June 18th. It is too early to contact Assembly members, as they are not interested in bills until they actually move to the Assembly, but we will be ready with new alerts, contact list and points geared to policy matters on the bill. All organizations and individuals would again have to contact the 11 members in order to be listed on the opposition list and we will again have to present arguments against the bill for the Analysis summary and Committee. WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW:
To find your senator see your local telephone book - all contact information (phone/fax/email) is on the CFA website CFA website. Make it clear to the Senators' offices that this bill is seriously flawed and mention that no amendments can fix it. We must anticipate the possibility that Senator O'Connell will promise further amendments to try for aye votes. Calls should be brief and there is no need to discuss policy opposition. However, as background if you are asked - SB 1373 is bad for pet owners who will be limited in their CHOICE of pet as there will be fewer hobby breeders. It is bad for those who sell or breed purebred dogs/pedigreed cats and provide the optimum in healthy, well-socialized pets (high registration fees, cost of microchip/enrollment, data requirements, etc. will make it very difficult). It is bad for animal control agencies and for communities that will have to deal with the expensive bureaucracy it would create. SB 1373 will not "curb the number of unwanted cats and dogs in California", as supporters state. The bill will only curb the availability of WANTED pets. SB 1373 is part of an animal rights agenda to eventually end all purposeful and responsible breeding and selling in the state. Positive non-coercive programs are already showing great progress in reducing the numbers of homeless cats/dogs in California shelters. This bill will not reduce shelter costs - it will only add to them, and it will deter animal control from doing their job of protecting animals and citizens' health and safety. WE CAN DO IT! LOSING THIS ONE IS NOT AN OPTION!!! Joan Miller CFA Legislative Coordinator
California Fanciers: California SB 1373 is heading to the SENATE FLOOR for vote within a few days to 2 weeks. We MUST STOP this dangerous legislation. SB 1373 jeopardizes the continued preservation of fine pedigreed cats/purebred dogs in this state by hobby breeders. Do not wait for another detrimental law to pass in the U.S. and then become outraged - the time to act is NOW. What can you do?
California Fanciers: We lost at the hearing on California SB 1373 in the Senate Committee on Business and Professions on Monday, April 22. The bill, authored by Senator Jack O'Connell, who is a committee member, requires pet dealers and breeders to register (and pay a fee) with local animal control if they sell cats/dogs less than 1 year old and to ensure that the cats/dogs they sell are microchipped and enrolled. Thank you to all who faxed letters to the committee members opposing this bill. This is only "round one" and the next Senate committee will be Appropriations. The date has not yet been set and the bill could possibly be amended further. The report below is long - the threat to hobby breeding in California is enormous and fanciers elsewhere in the country should remain informed. WHAT CAN YOU DO NOW?
The sponsor, A.L.A.N., said the purpose of the bill is to address "pet overpopulation", discourage "backyard breeders", provide funds for spay/neuter and other programs and to establish a data base to "understand the source of pets" and "target future legislative remedies .......and who should pay their fair share of costs to animal control agencies". Nothing in this bill will impact indiscriminate reproduction of cats/dogs; it will not raise revenue but instead be costly to administer and we already know where animals in shelters come from (National Council studies). SB 1373 ONLY targets breeders for enforcement of more and more restrictive legislation and excessive fees. Although much of the success of a hearing has to do with the letters/arguments sent in advance and effective lobbying of the committee members, our side did very well I thought reiterating important, logical points. We were the Cat Fanciers' Association (myself), the Sacramento Council of Dog Clubs' representative, Terry Houston speaking as an individual working with dog training/rescue and the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council's professional lobbyist. We did, however, lack the "consumer" perspective, not only at the hearing but with insufficient letters and organizations to give the views of the general public. We also lacked the presence and support from veterinarians or animal control directors though many privately report to us their opposition. I spoke about the real source of pet population problems and why this bill does not address them - 60% of cats killed in shelters are feral, unweaned kittens from homeless cats or stray unowned cats and that less than 1% at the most are ever pedigreed breeds. I stressed the effectiveness of programs underway in the state to stop the reproduction of unowned/feral cats that were positive. And I spoke to the advantages of voluntary microchip ID as opposed to state mandated. Terry said "what is the purpose for this" and gave reasons why dogs/cats are relinquished by owners to shelters - they are young adults who were once wanted and then brought in because of behavior problems and human problems. Well bred animals provided by hobby breeders have the least problems with behavior. She said that if they really wanted to save the lives of dogs they would increase dog training in the shelters. Joan Gibson-Reid described the negative impact on hobby breeders and asked why should we be "registered" since we were not sex offenders or weapon carriers. PIJAC called this the "O'Connell tax" - it would merely add to the cost of dogs/cats and not solve any animal problems. See further information below in my letter to a non-breeder who supports our positions. We will need your sustained help to counteract a serious threat to pedigreed cat breeding. Joan Miller CFA Legislative Coordinator ********************************** Excerpts from my letter: << Terry forwarded some information about your ideas on opposing SB 1373 and concerns for the effects on a small business. They are quite interesting, especially since the next hearing will be the Senate Appropriations Committee, where fiscal impact will be an important issue............ The "advertising" in SB 1373 goes way beyond print to even "oral" advertising or "display" of the animal. Breeders often "advertise" kitten/puppies before the parents are even bred much less offspring born. I do not think there is a clear business model for the way hobby breeders operate or advertise. ........... There is no question the market for purebred dogs/pedigreed cats will shift to out of state sources and/or the Internet as there are fewer breeders in California due to punitive laws like SB 1373.............. Many good letters were sent in advance and they influenced the Committee Analysis that was not available until the day of the hearing (so I do not believe any of the Senators read it). You can read this by going to the State Bill Information website. Yes, Senator Kevin Murray (D - Los Angeles) was tough. He (and the Chair was always nodding) believes that breeders get lots of money from selling cats/dogs to people who can afford them and it doesn't make any difference if a registration fee and cost of microchipping is added to the price in order to pay for programs to spay/neuter other animals. The Committee seemed to believe the proponents' argument that breeders are responsible for thousands of animals dying in shelters and that a registration fee (he said probably $100) would be entirely justified. I counteracted with some facts about cat shelter population data and, along with Terry, certainly stressed the knowledge we all have through studies about relinquishment of dogs and cats to shelters and why this bill would not achieve anything positive. Senator Murray and a few others continued to say the numbers of "abandoned" animals were because so many were bred. Most of the Committee saw the law as similar to auto registration - set up the system with methods for compliance and the money just rolls in. They did not even realize that the latest definition of "breeder" (just amended) now cuts out the indescriminant/accidental or "only-one-litter" people and just targets legitimate breeders who raise 3 or more litters in a 12 month period. They didn't care about the cost of microchipping or that breeders will have to give up their dedication to providing fine home-raised kittens/dogs when the expense makes it prohibitive. I distinctly felt that none of them had read or been informed by their aides as to the points in our extensive organization letters and that they had already made up their minds beforehand - this hearing was merely a formality. Now on to the next Committee - in Senate Appropriations the focus will be on the cost to animal control to administer and enforce this bureaucratic morass and keep all the data they want (sex, color, coat length, owner names, addresses - not only of every breeder but for every animal sold even if out of the jurisdiction). The proponents say it will not require state funding, but we argue that it will. We hope some shelters are willing to speak out against this bill. The California Animal Control Directors Association (CACDA) seems to be neutral so far, as is the California Veterinary Medical Assoc. and State Humane Association - we need fanciers and others to urge their opposition. >>
California Fanciers: Please fax your OPPOSITION to SB 1373 to the Business & Professions Committee members - especially those in your own district - listed here. THIS AFFECTS YOU!!! The hearing is this Monday afternoon, April 22nd. I plan to testify on behalf of CFA. Send your faxes TODAY or tomorrow - organizations and individuals who wrote previously restate your opposition to the amended version. WHY SHOULD YOU BE CONCERNED?
This is important for the future of pedigreed cats and CFA. If this bill passes in California what state will be next....... Joan Miller CFA Legislative Coordinator
URGENT: OPPOSITION LETTERS ARE NEEDED IMMEDIATELY INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD WRITE TO OPPOSE SB 1373 The time is NOW. We need to voice our OPPOSITION to California Senate Bill 1373 before it goes any further. This bill is the 2002 incarnation of last year's SB 236, which began as a mandate to microchip all dogs and cats in the state. The bill was amended during 2001, and was held over as a 2-year bill. It was then reintroduced with the new number in 2002 by Senator Jack O'Connell on behalf of the Animal Legislative Activists' Network (A.L.A.N.) in Los Angeles. With amendments, the bill became clearly about SALES transactions. SB 1373 would require SELLERS to register with a local animal control agency and pay a fee before the sale of **each animal** that is less than one year old, and then publish their "registration fee receipt number" in any advertisement to sell that animal. Advertising includes newspapers, flyers, newsletters, magazines, electronic media, web sites and oral offers, or even the "display" of a dog or cat. SELLERS must also insure that the dog or cat has been microchipped and the owner's identification entered into a local registry. The bill establishes a fine for any seller or breeder who violates these provisions. Exempted as "sellers" are IRS 501(c)(3) shelters and rescue organizations "as long as none of the organizations breed dogs or cats." All local and/or county ordinances will have to be modified in order to comply with this state mandate. Animal control agencies will have to keep data on all registrations and sales records and provide the funds through permit fees to cover this beaurocracy. SB 1373 is set for hearing on Monday, April 8 before the Senate Committee on Business and Professions in Room 3191, State Capitol in Sacramento. Opposition letters should be faxed to the committee prior to the committee consultant's target date of April 1. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS LISTED AS OPPOSITION. Following contact information are points that can be made in your letters. Opposition letters for the Bill Analysis should be clearly marked as SB 1373 OPPOSITION and addressed: The Honorable Liz Figueroa Chair, Senate Committee on Business and Professions Senate Committee on Business & Professions State Capitol, Room 2053 Sacramento, CA 95814 Attention: Bill Gage, Chief Consultant COMMITTEE FAX NUMBER: 916-324-0917 Individual Committee Members: The Honorable Liz Figueroa D-10, Fremont Chair, Senate Committee on Business and Professions State Capitol, Room 2057 (Regular office) Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-6671 Fax (916) 327-2433 Senator.Figueroa@sen.ca.gov The Honorable Maurice Johannessen, R-4, Colusa (Vice Chair) State Capitol, Room 5061 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 445-3353 Fax: (916) 445-7750 Senator.Johannessen@sen.ca.gov The Honorable Mike Machado D-5, Stockton State Capitol, Room 3086 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 445-2407 Fax (916) 323-2304 Senator.Machado@sen.ca.gov The Honorable Bill Morrow R-38, Carlsbad State Capitol, Room 4048 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 445-3731 Fax: 916-446-7382 Senator.Morrow@sen.ca.gov The Honorable Kevin Murray, D-26, Los Angeles State Capitol, Room 4082 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 445-8800 Fax (916) 445-8899 Senator.Murray@sen.ca.gov The Honorable Jack O'Connell (D-18) Santa Barbara State Capitol, Room 5035 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 445-5405 FAX (916) 322-3304 Senator.OConnell@sen.ca.gov The Honorable Richard Polanco D-22, Los Angeles SENATE MAJORITY LEADER State Capitol, Room 313 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 445-3456 Fax (916) 445-0413 Senator.Polanco@sen.ca.gov Here are some suggested opposition points. Choose two or three and expand in your own words.
It is important to stop this bill that does nothing to help animals, is an administrative and enforcement burden on shelters and will seriously affect the cat and dog fancies and the citizens of California who prefer to buy a pet. When animals are purchased after much research and care they generally meet people's expectations and therefore have the least chance of being relinquished to shelters, and they certainly will not be abandoned to the streets. Animals subject to "Free to good home" advertising and placement often do not fare as well. SB 1373 will take the state in this unfortunate direction.
The long awaited decision on the Doris Day Animal League (DDAL) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Cross Motion for Summary Judgment has been issued in favor of the Plaintiffs (DDAL and several other parties) on July 30, 2001. U.S. District Court Judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, in the 20 page Memorandum Opinion filed, concluded that the USDA's definition of "retail pet store" is overly broad and "thus violates the plain language of the Animal Welfare Act". She dismissed the motion filed by DDAL objecting to the USDA policy of exempting retail hunting, security and breeding dog dealers from licensing requirements because the rulemaking procedure to formalize this policy is still underway. As the defendant in this action, the USDA will be the party that must determine whether to appeal the decision or not. CFA and the AKC have actively supported the USDA's broad interpretation of the statutory exemption of "retail pet store" to include ALL retail sellers of cats and dogs for use as pets. This definition has been in place for 30 years and is the primary exemption for hobby breeders from federal licensing and inspection under the Animal Welfare Act Regulations. The AWA clearly exempts but does not define "retail pet store". The USDA therefore has interpreted and defined the term in the Regulations. With the current USDA interpretation ruled "overly broad", this surprising court action would mean that the USDA would either now have to regulate, license and inspect everyone who buys or sells cats and dogs as pets, or the Department must redefine "retail pet store". In addition to a possible court appeal there may be other options, which will be analyzed by lawyers, discussed in the next weeks, and reported to you as soon as possible. Joan Miller CFA Legislative Coordinator 707/427-1807 JMillerArt@aol.com Contact the CFA Legislative Group:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Site design and graphics created by 
Questions, comments or feedback? Contact the webmaster
This page last modified May 30, 2005 at 07:02PM.
Copyright(©) CFA Northwest Region. All rights reserved.
Our photographs are copyrighted by the individual photographers.
We ask that you respect their copyrights.