SB 250....No more pets/dog shows in California

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

Sorry Nancy, I don't agree with you if you've read what is has been added to the bill. There will be no more dog shows in California, those that show coming from other states will not risk their dogs being confiscated and not returned. I'm working with PetPac people and YTCA. If you read the new bill.

This will put the small reputable breeder exhibitor out of commission.

The bill is being backed by PETA and HSUS.....

As far as listening dog fighting enthusists....No, I'm with the dog fancier.....

Do you know that Animal Control is now attending dog shows and purchasing catalogues for exhibitor addressess

I read your posts, but I still don't understand how this will affect the hobby or show breeder. It only affects those animals that are running loose. While I am not a supporter of PETA, just because they back something doesn't make it's a bad law. So many people are against something just because PETA supports it, and that makes me hate PETA even more. I'm not sure what you mean by "Do you know that Animal Control is now attending dog shows and purchasing catalogues for exhibitor addresses." First of all, do you know that this is a fact, because from what I've read, their budget is extremely in the red. Even if it true, I don't understand why it would be bad that they would know who legitimate show people are. I also think that other people pretending to be California citizens and contacting legislature is wrong, unless you are willing to support them with some of your state taxes. I wish someone could come up with a better plan, but I do not see how this plan will hurt legitimate breeders. I don't think many of you understand how large and powerful the dog-fighting world is, they do not want their dogs neutered, it will put them out of business.

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I read your posts, but I still don't understand how this will affect the hobby or show breeder. It only affects those animals that are running loose. While I am not a supporter of PETA, just because they back something doesn't make it's a bad law. So many people are against something just because PETA supports it, and that makes me hate PETA even more. I'm not sure what you mean by "Do you know that Animal Control is now attending dog shows and purchasing catalogues for exhibitor addresses." First of all, do you know that this is a fact, because from what I've read, their budget is extremely in the red. Even if it true, I don't understand why it would be bad that they would know who legitimate show people are. I also think that other people pretending to be California citizens and contacting legislature is wrong, unless you are willing to support them with some of your state taxes. I wish someone could come up with a better plan, but I do not see how this plan will hurt legitimate breeders. I don't think many of you understand how large and powerful the dog-fighting world is, they do not want their dogs neutered, it will put them out of business.

If you believe this really has anything to do with the Dog Fighting world, it may. But, then why is AKC, YTCA, PetPac and Kennel Clubs from all across the country fighting the fight against the bill.

This state may be in the red and that is why they are looking at every avenue to obtain funds......

This bill will give them the ability to come into your come and confiscate your dogs..... Because these laws are cropping up all over the country, they are not being discriminate at all between reputable breeders, dog fanciers and others.

And yes, I know personally that Animal Control is attending dog shows. I've been there and seen it.

[DvlshAngel985]

Hi Mardelin,
I read the summary of the bill you posted, and re-read it a couple of times and I don't see how this would affect show breeders or good ethical breeders in general. While I think it's extremely depressing that things have gotten so bad that a bill like this is even introduced, it seems to target people who do not seem to understand that cute little yorkies and all other pets are in our care and it's our responsibility to care for them, make the decision whether or not our pets should be allowed to breed. There have been plenty of attempts here in Los Angeles to educate people about spaying or neutering their pets with no avail. I think this bill is mainly targeted to people like my best friend and boyfriend's parents who think it's ok to breed their pets all willy nilly. My best friend bought a golden retreiver at the mall and as far as I know has gotten little vet care. She lives with her in laws in a teeny tiny place. While she says that she will wait for her and her husband to buy a house before getting her dog a girlfriend, it still doesn't make it right. How does she know she can produce healthy puppies if her current dog hasn't been evaluated and she won't have him evaluated? Where will she get her second dog? Pet store? Does she realize that golden retrievers have a litter larger than 2? Does she realize that breeding cost money? There are probably more questions that she just won't be able to answer appropriately. Her reason for having puppies thougth is just to have puppies. That's it.
My boyfriends parents on the other hand have a small dog, a maltese. They purposely breed her to a yorkie stud and had two puppies. The maltese they have is a lost pet they decided not to return based on not being able to find the owners. (I don't think they put much effort in finding her owners) They don't take their maltese to the vet because they fear she might have a chip and are forced to return her. The pups are the only ones that have seen the vet to be vaccinatted. The pups are now two and they brought in another dog to their home. They are taken care of, but they are all intact. I asked once what if the one of the puppies (now 2 years old) decides to mount his own mother when she's in heat? The answer I recieved "If she allows him to do so, then ok. It's natural to them."
From what I read this bill is aimed at these people. They are being irresponsible and will allow their pets to procreate as much as they "naturally" feel like. I've done my best to try to educate people like them, have set an example by neutering my boy 4 days after he came home. I think I've convinced my uncle to neuter his two boys.
It sounds like it will be an incovenience to reputable breeders since they will have to go out and seek that breeding certificate, but I honestly think it's only people like you and others that love their specific breed that should be allowed to even consider breeding their animals. People like you put some thought into the decision, and carefully choose the breeding pair before getting carried away with the anticipation of puppy breadth.
Is there a part of the bill I should be looking at to understand your concerns? Sorry for the long post, but I really want to get the full picture and understand your concerns, as well as I want you to understand while a bill like this might sound like a good thing.

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

If you believe this really has anything to do with the Dog Fighting world, it may. But, then why is AKC, YTCA, PetPac and Kennel Clubs from all across the country fighting the fight against the bill.

This state may be in the red and that is why they are looking at every avenue to obtain funds......

This bill will give them the ability to come into your come and confiscate your dogs..... Because these laws are cropping up all over the country, they are not being discriminate at all between reputable breeders, dog fanciers and others.

And yes, I know personally that Animal Control is attending dog shows. I've been there and seen it.

Unfortunately lots of people or for or against certain bill because of who else is for or against it. While I support the AKC, I don't know how much clout commercial breeders have with them. Sometimes groups gather together to support bills in a type of you scratch my back, I'll scratch you back situation. I think these larger groups often mislead good breeders, and I am very concerned because no one is really watching their backs. If a group came along specifically to do that, I believe good breeders would not believe them, because other groups are so powerful, and put out too much propaganda. You tend to want to just believe what your friends and other good breeders are saying about something. I know some YTCA members think that if one law is passed, it means that it's the beginning of the end, so they don't want to back any legislation. Certain animal rights groups have done some very irresponsible things at dog shows, opening cages and allowing animals to run loose, and this further scares members, and they think that with a bill like this, their dogs could he in danger of being neutered. I believe you when you say you have seen the animal control authorities, but I don't see why this is necessary a bad thing, and maybe they will help control some of the overzealous animal rights groups who are opening cages.

This bill does not give them rights to enter your home, and affects only those animals who have been found running loose, and the last time I read it they had to be found running loose 3 times. I don't know if it's changed since I read it last, but if we don't pass some bill soon, we are going to wind up like some of these third world countries, where animals are starving on the streets.

[Mardelin]

This will affect Dog Shows as all dogs traveling from other states must be in compliance..

Eukanuba Dog Show Venue faces a big possibility of being moved out of California....as other dog shows are attended by exhibitors from all over the country, they will cease traveling into the state. Revenues that are generated by such events (and we are talking in the millions) will be lost.

DEMOCRATS SUPPORT ANIMAL RIGHTS
Increased Animal Deaths Not A Concern

The bill was moved out of appropriations early this afternoon. There were NO democrats voting against the bill
There are no exemptions for
Law enforcement dogs
Cadaver dogs
Service dogs
Bomb detection dogs
Guide dogs
Movie and television dogs
Performance dogs
Show dogs

Any dog attending any event without wearing a license tag is in violation. This is a one strike bill. Without a doubt the single most destructive piece of legislation for dog owners in California. This is not about solving any problem.

CDOC will be scheduling a lobby day in Sacramento; details soon.

[Yorkiedaze]

There is so many pros and cons to this bill SB 250 The Pet Responsibility Act - Official Website and I'm going to do some deeper digging before voicing any opinion one way or another.

[Bravo916]

This is quoted directly from AKC American Kennel Club - CA SB 250 Amended, Set for Hearing - Opposition Needed!

CA SB 250 Amended, Set for Hearing - Opposition Needed!
Print This Article
[Monday, April 06, 2009]
California Senate Bill 250 has been amended and set for a hearing in the Senate Local Government Committee for April 15th. We need all California fanciers, responsible dog owners and breeders, and clubs to write and oppose this legislation. Letters must be received by April 8 to be reflected on the committee analysis.

SB 250's primary intent is to penalize owners of intact animals and force sterilization of an at-large or unlicensed dog or cat on a first offense. This is an unreasonable standard as even a responsible owner can have a single incident where an animal is let out by a meter reader, neighbor or faulty gate.

As amended on April 2; SB 250:

Allows an unaltered license to be revoked if one citation is issued for a dog being at-large or stray.
Requires a person selling, trading, or placing for adoption an unaltered animal to post the license number if the animal is older than four months, or the age required by the local licensing agency. (The prior version of the bill required a licensing number for any sale of an unaltered animal, and it was unclear how this would affect the sale of puppies and kittens younger than four months who were not required to be license.)
Requires any unlicensed intact animal that is impounded to be sterilized, even on a first offense.
Adds a new definition of "custodian" as follows; "Custodian" means any person who undertakes the personal care and control of a dog or cat, or any person who intentionally provides care, security, or sustenance for a dog or cat on the person's property for any period exceeding 30 days. "Custodian" does not include a licensing agency."
Existing state law already requires owners of intact animals to pay a license fee that is at least double that to license a sterilized animal (Food and Agriculture Code Section 30804.5); and provides for enhanced and graduated fines for owners whose intact dogs are impounded (Food and Agriculture Code Section 30804.7). These statutes are sufficient to incentivize owners to sterilize their animals and to address animal control concerns with specific intact animals who are repeatedly impounded.

AKC believes that the term "custodian" is simply another word for "guardian." The American Kennel Club supports the use of the term "owner" rather than "guardian" when referring to the keeping of dogs. The AKC believes that the term guardian may in fact reduce the legal status and value of dogs as property and thereby restrict the rights of owners, veterinarians, and government agencies to protect and care for dogs. It may also subject them to frivolous and expensive litigation. The term guardian does nothing to promote more responsible treatment of dogs. We strongly support efforts to educate the public about responsible dog ownership to ensure that all dogs receive the care, love and attention they deserve.

This legislation will not improve the lives of cats and dogs in California, will negatively impact responsible owners and breeders, and by placing additional burdens on owners of intact animals,may lead to an increase of animals in shelters.Concentrating animal control efforts on dogs whose behavior demonstrates that they are a problem for the community would be a much better use of taxpayer funds.

What You Can Do:

Attend the Senate Local Government Committee Hearing to Oppose SB 250
April 15th, 9:30am
State Capitol, Room 112
Sacramento, CA 95814

Please contact your State Senator and ask him or her to oppose SB 250. Please personalize this sample letter.

To find out who represents you in the State Senate, please click here.


Encourage your club to send a letter opposing SB 250. Please click here for a sample letter for your club to personalize.


Send your letters to the author and members of the Senate Local Government Committee.
Senator Dean Florez (Author)
State Capitol, Room 313
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone916) 651-4016
Fax: (916) 327-5989

Senate Local Government Committee
ATTN: Peter Detwiler, Consultant
State Capitol Room 5046
Sacramento, CA 95814
Fax: 916-322-0298

Senator Patricia Wiggins (Chair)
State Capitol, Room 4081
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4002
Fax (916) 323-6958

Senator Dave Cox (Vice Chair)
State Capitol, Room 2068
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4001
Fax: (916) 324-2680

Senator Sam Aanestad
State Capitol, Room 3063
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4004
Fax: (916) 445-7750

Senator Christine Kehoe
State Capitol, Room 5050
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4039
Fax: (916) 327-2188

Senator Lois Wolk
State Capitol, Room 4032
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4005
Fax: (916) 323-2304

_______________________________________________

Just from reading the bill it is my understanding that even if a perfectly law-abiding citizen has one mishap where a dog gets out of the yard, you are cited for allowing your dog to be off leash (which I will do at empty parks now and again to give them a chance to stretch their legs in a safe location), or you are walking your dog on leash and you dont have their license tags on your dog can be LEGALLY confiscated and your permits for all of your other intact animals WILL BE revoked forcing the mandatory s/n of all of your animals.

Please understand, this is not just a bill that affects puppy mills--it affects honest, hardworking citizens who obey the law and have the animals best intentions at heart.

I sincerely urge all of you, even those of you who are pro-spay/neuter to oppose this bill. The animals are the real losers if this bill passes--euthanasia will be at some of the highest levels and the money needed to fund this will be passed down in the form of licensing fees for altered and intact pets.

I am TOTALLY against BYB's and puppy mills but this bill also hurts RESPONSIBLE owners. It does nothing to address the issue of homeless pets--instead it exacerbates the problem by confiscating pets with loving homes and holding them for ransom.

Please join me in saying NO to this unjust bill.

[Bravo916]

Here is the most recent AKC article American Kennel Club - CA SB 250 Moves to Full Assembly - Letters and Phone Calls Needed!!!

CA SB 250 Moves to Full Assembly - Letters and Phone Calls Needed!!!
Print This Article
[Friday, August 28, 2009]
California Senate Bill 250 passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee yesterday on a partisan vote with Democrats De Leon, Ammiano, Coto, Fuentes, John A. Perez, Skinner, Solorio, Torlakson and Hill supporting the bill and all Republicans and Democrat Charles Calderon voting to oppose. Democrats Davis and Hall and Republican Harkey abstained. The bill will now move to the full Assembly. It is vital that California dog owners contact their Assemblymember and ask him/her to oppose SB 250.

Senator Florez has still failed to amend the bill as he promised when the bill left the Senate on June 2nd, so it is possible that floor amendments will be presented. The amendments are expected to address exemptions for working dogs or those involved in hunting activities. A second amendment will require sterilization the 2nd time a dog is at-large, rather than the first. Until we see the text of these amendments, we cannot know their full impact. Regardless of any changes, this legislation is fundamentally flawed in that it unfairly and unreasonably targets owners of intact animals.

The American Kennel Club opposes Senate Bill 250 as it continues to use sterilization as a punishment for any violation of the animal control ordinance and for failure to license. Strict limit laws and unreasonably high license fees contribute significantly to people’s failure to license their animals and these issues should be examined in dealing with animal control issues in the state.

Finally, existing state law already requires that owners of intact animals pay a license fee that is at least double that to license a sterilized animal (Food and Agriculture Code Section 30804.5); and provides for enhanced and graduated fines for owners whose intact dogs are impounded (Food and Agriculture Code Section 30804.7). These statutes are sufficient to incentivize owners to sterilize their animals and to address animal control concerns with specific intact animals who are impounded repeatedly.

This legislation will not improve the lives of cats and dogs, will negatively impact responsible owners and breeders. Additionally, by placing additional burdens on owners of intact animals, this measure may lead to an increase of animals in shelters.Concentrating animal control efforts on dogs whose behavior demonstrates that they are a problem for the community, regardless of their reproductive status, would be a much better use of taxpayer funds.

What You Can Do

Contact your Assemblymember and ask him/her to oppose SB 250. A sample letter is available here. To find out who represents you in the California State Assembly, please click here.