German Shepherds Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,840 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
It appears that AB 1634 bypassed the Senate Local Government Committee and is now going directly to the Senate Floor for a final vote. Received the following e-mail:

Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 3:16 PM
Subject: Do Or Die For California Dogs


Do Or Die For California Dog Owners

Senate May Vote This Week On AB 1634 ‘Vigilante’ Bill

by JOHN YATES

American Sporting Dog Alliance

http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org

[email protected]


SACRAMENTO, CA – Legislation that would lead to the forced sterilization of thousands of dogs and cats and empower animal rights vigilantes to launch a campaign of legalized terror has advanced to the floor of the State Senate for a final vote.

The vote could come as early as tomorrow, Thursday, August 7, according to the Senate calendar, but Friday, August 8 is more likely. The vote also might be delayed until next week, but dog owners will have no way of knowing until it’s too late to act.

Dog owners should be prepared for the worst. It’s now a matter of do or die.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges every California pet owner to immediately phone or fax his or her state senator to oppose AB 1634, which is sponsored by Assemblyman Lloyd Levine. Please ask your friends, neighbors and family members to help, too.

In addition, we are urging all dog owners to immediately contact their assembly representatives, as the measure must go back to the Assembly for a concurrence vote if the Senate passes it. The Assembly passed this bill last year in a different form, which called for mandatory pet sterilization statewide.

Here is what the current version of AB 1634 will do to dog and cat owners if it becomes law:

It will create animal rights vigilantes. The bill empowers anyone to make a complaint about any dog owner for an alleged violation of any law pertaining to animals. Complaints can be anonymous. Any animal control officer or humane police officer must look into the complaint, and may file a citation against a dog owner if the officer believes a law has been violated. An officer also can cite a dog owner based simply on his/her own opinions or observations.

Filing a citation is entirely based on the opinion of the officer, and the dog owner has no way to challenge the citation. Dog owners must not forget that the state association of animal control officers has endorsed the forced sterilization of all pets, and that many humane police officers work for private organizations that are hotbeds of animal rights activism. Many of these officers are personally opposed to the private ownership of dogs, breeding dogs and using dogs for hunting, obedience events, field trials or shows.

If an officer cites a dog or cat owner, civil penalties automatically kick in. These penalties are mandatory even if the charges are never filed, dropped, or if the dog owner is found to be not guilty in court. The fact that a citation has been issued automatically creates the civil penalties. There is no hearing, no chance to defend oneself and no appeal. It doesn’t matter if the dog owner is found innocent of the charge. The civil penalties still apply.

For dog owners, the civil penalty for the first citation is a $50 fine. For the second citation, it is $100. For cats, there is a $50 civil penalty for the first offense only.

For the third offense, spaying or neutering becomes mandatory for the dog or dogs that are owned by the person who is cited. For cats, the penalties are even more stringent. Cat sterilization is mandated for the second citation.

Similar penalties are provided for dogs and cats that are picked up by animal control and taken to a shelter, or taken to a shelter by any person who claims that the animal is a stray. Animal rights activists have been known to turn dogs loose, or steal dogs and turn them loose.

The important thing to understand is that the officer who files a citation does not have to prove that the allegation is true. Nor does a dog or cat owner have to be convicted of any violation in court. You do not have to break a law to be cited.

The officer who files the citation also is judge, jury and hangman.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance sees this legislation as a clear and deliberate violation of the constitutionally guaranteed right of due process under the law. This guarantee is central to the U.S. and California Bill of Rights. This legislation is a wholesale desecration of every American’s constitutional right of due process under the law. Accusations do not have to be proven. There is no opportunity to defend oneself. There is no appeal. This legislation imposes the legal system of a totalitarian state on every Californian.

Want proof?

Here are some quotes from the public record.

Rep Levine’s testimony: “No, that complaint doesn't have to be proven.”

The consultant for the Senate Appropriations Committee: “Due process is too expensive.”

Levine’s top aid, Zak Meyer-Krings: “You don't have a right to have due process.…”

The California Department of Finance also issued a cautionary statement about AB 1634 last week. The Finance statement said the legislation likely will increase state costs under “Hayden Law” reimbursements, as it will cause many people to give up their pets.

No significant amendments were attached to AB 1634 over the summer recess. Only one amendment was filed: To take the teeth out of a requirement for municipalities to file shelter data with the state.

Amendments may be made from the floor of the Senate, and we urge dog owners to ask their senators to do this if they will not simply vote against the legislation.

Before contacting senators, it is important to become familiar with the legislation. Many senators have not read the bill for themselves, and are relying upon biased and inaccurate summaries from party leadership. Please study our objections above, and read the bill for yourself. Here is a link to the current version: http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1634_bill_20080805_amended_sen_v89.html

This link will give each senator’s mailing address and district office address: http://www.senate.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp. You can find your senator from this list, simply by clicking on the correct name. You also can search for the name of your senator by using your address.

Here is a link for each member of the Assembly: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset7text.htm

Because this legislation is expected to move quickly, it is important to contact Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and ask him to veto AB 1634. Here is a link to email the Governor: http://gov.ca.gov/interact Under subject, choose animal issues and concerns. A link at the top of the page will give phone and fax numbers.

..................

PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,581 Posts
Again?!!?

Ugh. Aren't there more pressing matters at hand that these idiots should be looking into?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,318 Posts
Yes, only now it's worse.

Now, if someone complains about your dog, you are cited for having an intact animal. 3 citations, you have to speuter. The complaints leading to the citations don't even have to be true.

It's the death of due process. It's worse than the original bill. And no one is doing a GD thing about it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,687 Posts
Actually there are a LOT of people out there fighting against this bill. A lot of people who have given up their lives to fight this bill. It is not fair to say, "and no one is doing a GD thing about it."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,318 Posts
You're right. The people at SaveOurDogs, PetPac, etc. are fighting. But compared to the fight against the first bill, it's an uphill battle. There was public outcry over the first bill. Regular folks were upset. This one is barely registering in the radar.

I got into an argument about a week ago with someone on another board (a cop) who basically said that this bill would not affect HIM so it was not a big deal... that no one would neuter police dogs.

Turns out the guy hadn't even read the current version of the bill and was trying to argue with me (and a few others) that it was the same bill as last year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,254 Posts
Has anyone heard any new info on this.

While looking, I found this quote at http://www.noab1634.com :

"At the recent Senate Local Government committee hearing on June 25, 2008, where the first "new AB 1634" was unveiled, Senator Cox asked Ed Boks, the Los Angeles Director of Animal Control (who was a co-presenter to the committee along with the author, Assemblyman Lloyd Levine): "Mr. Boks, this bill doesn't even pretend to be about saving animals, does it?" Mr. Boks responded: "No Senator, this is not about saving dogs and cats. It's about whether they are neutered." In response to a Senator's question about what happens if a "complaint" was determined to be unfounded, Mr. Levine responded: "...even if the owner is not cited for the original complaint, he will still be cited for having an unneutered animal."

There was also another amendment on 8/12 calling for mandatory microchipping on dogs and cats that are impounded for any reason. I didn't find/see if anything else was added to the bill or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,840 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
I haven't heard anything yet, but I'm going to a club event in a few moments. One of the members who has been extremely active in all this (and keeping the rest of the club informed) is on the confirmed list. If she is there I'll get an update from her and post tonight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,296 Posts
8/13/2008
Probably because the votes weren't there for it to pass, AB 1634 was drastically amended yet again today, for the 11th time.

AB 1634 remains a misguided solution looking for a way to package it so that it can pass the legislature, rather than an attempt to
identify and understand a problem and then seek a fact-based solution that addresses the problem. At one time, AB 1634 asserted it was about "healthy pets". Later it morphed into a bill that created a "secondary offense" (according to Mr. Levine) which would have made it illegal for any dog or cat to be intact, no exceptions, in order to address "complaints". Now it has shape changed once again, into a "responsible pet owner act" that seeks to impose on local jurisdictions a measure to increase dog licensing compliance via an unprecedented means that is likely to backfire. AB 1634 has lost any pretense of trying to address pet shelter population issues.

The most recent version AB 1634 would establish an extraordinary
precedent in state law that mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) is an
appropriate penalty for offenses that have no connection to the intact status of the dog or cat. These are offenses for which sterilization cannot be justified as a legitimate state interest such as public safety or public health, but would instead impose a surgical procedure purely as a punishment, like some sort of enhanced fine.

The latest AB 1634 doesn't focus on "responsible pet ownership" as
claimed, but instead establishes MSN as a punishment for a broad range of AC infractions that in many cases have nothing to do with owner negligence. Dogs or cats can be picked up "at large" or be impounded for a range of reasons besides owner negligence. No mitigating circumstances are specified in AB 1634, and in the case of impoundments, no mitigating circumstances are even allowed to be considered by local governments (see use of "shall" in the bill text).

AB 1634 establishes MSN as a "tool" to try to create a higher degree of licensing compliance. But in many California jurisdictions, our dog licensing system is broken. Attempting to force full compliance through penalties is premature where pet limit laws often preclude full compliance, or where the fees for intact dog licensing and intact permits are effectively out of reach. This provision appears to be is aimed mostly at breeders, since they are the ones most likely to have the number of intact dogs that would be affected by it. We need to fix our broken dog licensing system before contemplating additional penalties to increase compliance: eliminate pet limit laws, cap intact and kennel licensing fees, and eliminate local MSN ordinances and their intact permit fees. After all these things are done then we can consider if additional penalties might further increase licensing compliance. But pet sterilization should not be applied as a penalty, because whether a dog is intact or not in no way affects whether he is a burden to society if he is unlicensed.

As a "tool" to try to increase licensing compliance, AB 1634
undermines the ability of programs that actually have been effective in accomplishing just that. Calgary, Canada has 90% dog licensing compliance, compared to 20% which is average and 40% which is considered high in the US. Calgary accomplished this primarily by building a bond of trust between AC and the citizens, one based on an understanding that AC provides useful services, and is fair and reasonable in its treatment of the public. Measures like AB 1634 shatter that trust, and as Bill Bruce (director of Calgary AC) said, once trust is broken with measures like MSN it is very hard to regain.
AB 1634 has been amended 11 times. Had the current version been
proposed months ago, well before the policy committee hearings, it's possible that we might have been able to work to make it acceptable.
Instead we are out of time. There is no time left for the public or
legal experts to fully consider the ramifications of the latest AB
1634. Likewise, there is insufficient time for adequate review by the
legislature that is embroiled in a budget crisis and is juggling
hundreds of other bills.

To unveil major changes at the last minute to the most controversial bill the California legislature has dealt with in years is an abuse of the legislative process and the public's right to be engaged in that process. The broken process that formed AB 1634 is one where people with limited knowledge about dogs or cats attempted to write regulations, while excluding from the process (and often vilifying) nearly all of the subject matter experts. For these reasons alone Save Our Dogs opposes AB 1634.

AB 1634 could perhaps be voted on tomorrow. You must contact your State Senator again immediately. If you do not then there is a good chance this bill will pass. You must visit, fax a letter, or telephone but do it now. http://saveourdogs.net/
Your dogs are depending on you to do this for them. Even if you have already contacted your Senator, you should do so again to confirm your continued opposition to the bill. Your silence is taken as support for the bill.

Equally important, tell your friends, co-workers, fellow club members, breed ethusiasts, and family members to contact their Senators, too.
Send them to http://saveourdogs.net/. The only thing that will stop
this bill is your voice and that of thousands more like you telling
the Legislature, "Keep your laws off my dog."

Laura Sanborn
http://saveourdogs.net/


--- please cross post ---
8/15/2008
Angie Niles and I visited the Capital today to convey to Senate staff our
continuing opposition to AB 1634.

Bottom line: it is imperative that everyone get updated opposition letters
to the Senators this weekend letting them know that we still oppose this
bill.

There is an impression among staff that the August 12 amendments negated
the opposition. If you have not sent an updated opposition letter to the
Senators specifically referencing the August 12 amended version of the
bill, you must do so this weekend, as the vote could be as early as Monday.

Our previous efforts worked. Levine stalled and then had to amend the bill
because we had it beat, just as we had done 10 times previously. We can do
it again. The clock is running out on this bill. But it isn't dead yet.

Contact everyone you know to get their updated letters out. Spread the word!

Here are some talking points to help formulate your opposition letter
http://saveourdogs.net/documents/SaveOurDogsSenate.pdf

Organizations need to FAX or email their updated opposition letters to all
40 State Senators.

Every Californian needs to FAX or email their updated opposition letter to
their own State Senator.

You can look up your State Senator here, and click through to his/her
website to get more contact info
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html

A list of State Senators' fax numbers and email addresses is here
http://www.cfa.org/exhibitors/alert-CA-AB1634-13.html

Laura Sanborn
http://saveourdogs.net/



------------------------------------
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,840 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Thanks for the update, Anne. That's certainly more than I got today. Sending this info to my DTC club members.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,318 Posts
Yes, because the guy who created the bill now added it to another bill to get it passed that way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,254 Posts
I just got forwarded an email from PetPac (it wasn't sent to me directly, but through another friend) that says the bill died in the Senate today. Their website is also saying the bill is dead. Can someone else verify?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,296 Posts
Yes, it was defeated today in the State Senate, 5 Yes to 27
No.

AYES
Alquist, Machado, Negrete-McLeod, Padilla, Torlakson

NAYS
Aanestad, Ackerman, Ashburn, Cogdill, Corbett, Correa, Cox, Denham,
Ducheny, Dutton, Florez, Harman, Hollingsworth, Lowenthal, Maldonado,
Margett, McClintock, Migden, Oropeza, Perata, Ridley-Thomas, Romero,
Runner, Scott, Simitian, Wyland, Yee

NOT VOTING
Battin, Calderon, Cedillo, Kehoe, Kuehl, Steinberg, Wiggins


ABSENT
Vincent
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
When are ppl gonna wake up and see that the socialist's in this country are gonna try to take our rights anyway they can, starting small like this, then the next thing you know you have to have permission from the government to go see family in another state.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top