ALERT: CA AB 1856

July 27, 1998, Monday Afternoon
from Sharon A. Coleman

California AB 1856, authored by Assemblymembers Edward Vincent(D-51) of Inglewood and Virginia Strom-Martin (D-1) of Santa Rosa regarding mandatory spay and neuter of dogs and cats as "Amended in Senate July 7, 1998." is now on the Senate Floor. Senate Rule 28.2 allows bills with fiscal impact but no appropriation to bypass hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee and be reported directly to the Senate. The Senate Floor Analysis of AB 1856 is being amended to reflect the following opposition arguments to the current bill:

INACCURATE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The bill includes language establishing a legislative history for mandatory sterilization as the solution to preventing "overpopulation" without acknowledgment of the long term downtrends in numbers of animals both processed and euthanized by shelters while human population has increased. As part of an increasing trend, nearly half of California animal shelters do sterilize cats and dogs prior to adoption. We believe that shelters should do this. However, we are concerned that shelters not yet doing so may be unwilling or unable to comply with the bill's increased requirements and consequently just euthanize more animals.

"RESCUE GROUP" SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED
We oppose legislation that mandates sterilization of privately owned dogs and cats, i.e. those NOT owned by public animal control agencies or private shelters with public contractual support. We do not believe that the declining numbers of animals euthanized by public shelters is adequate reason to compel persons to sterilize animals other than as they deem appropriate as to time, place and expense. Privately owned animals are included in this bill's mandatory sterilization, because of the inclusion of "rescue" groups.

"Rescue group" is now defined for purposes of these sections as "...a for profit or not for profit entity, or a collaboration of individuals with at least one of its purposes being the sale or placement of dogs (or cats) that have been removed from a public animal control agency or shelter, society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shelter, or humane shelter or that have been previously owned by any person other than the original breeder of that dog (or cat.)" This language is so broad as to include two members of a household who might occasionally rescue a stray cat or kittens.

Legal title to animals in the private rescue process is held either by individuals or these private associations or entities. Almost all such animals ultimately are altered. Subjecting these owners to this mandate entails due process issues. For example, a charitable rescue organization could receive from an estate a valuable cat or dog that could be sold, intact, for thousands of dollars to the benefit of the organization and other animals. In the event that title to the animal should not be clear prior to transfer -- a not unheard of occurrence, the "rescue group" has potential liability to the owner for damages to property. The broad range of activities encompassed by rescue and almost always performed by volunteers -- frequently at their personal expense, sometimes involving interstate management, as well as intermediate, temporary or provisional transfers in or out of state should not be burdened by making veterinary decisions in a particular location, or collecting, paying or administering deposits.

OVERBROAD USE OF "IMPOUND"
Use of the term "impound", a general term, as a basis for a state-mandated fine is overbroad. "Impound" is a general term used when animal control agencies take custody of an animal and confine it in a facility under their control. Impounding can occur for a number of reasons ranging from protective custody following an accident, crime or disaster; seizure pursuant to a criminal investigation, bite investigation or rabies quarantine; or for merely being at large without human supervision or restraint. The bill language does not specify which impoundments should result in the penalties and would leave animal control authorities to guess what constituted an impound under this provision.

FINANCIAL HARDSHIP FROM ADDITIONAL FINES
Local fines and fees resulting from impounds are already substantial and additional costs will prevent some owners from reclaiming their animals.

In the July 7, 1998 amendments, the provisions extending immunity from civil action to organizations or local jurisdictions from claims arising from sterilizing an animal pursuant to the impound section deleted only the sterilization provisions. We believe these immunity provisions should also be removed.

Letters of opposition should be directed to your own Senator. The complete Senate list is separately accompanying this message.

****
Author:
The Honorable Edward Vincent, (D-51) Inglewood
State Capitol, Room 5119
Sacramento CA 95814

916-319-2051
Edward.Vincent@assembly.ca.gov
Fax: 916-327-3517

********
California legislative information is available on the internet at :
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov and free email subscription service for bill updates is available. California statutes are available on line from above sites.

*a service of THE ANIMAL COUNCIL, P.O. BOX 168, MILLBRAE CA 94030
Forwarding is encouraged.
emailto: sharonacoleman@compuserve.com
To be removed from this distribution list, send a request with both name and email address.
Legislative tracking subject to continual change
********

 

 

CA SB 2102 FINALLY DEFEATED!

August 4, 1998, Tuesday Afternoon

REMINDERS: The instructions for response to the USDA Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to license and regulate MORE breeders are at and CA 1856 has still been on the Senate Floor.

California SB 2102 by Senator Herschel Rosenthal (D-20 Van Nuys) to amend the existing Polanco-Lockyer Pet Breeder Warranty Act to broaden the scope of the definition of dog breeders subject to the statutory provisions and penalties was heard again before the Assembly Committee on Consumer Protection, Governmental Efficiency & Economic Development and finally defeated by a vote of 2 ayes (Strom-Martin and Napolitano) and 3 noes (Morrissey, Frusetta and Brewer, who sat in again for Takasugi) the other committee members either not voting or not present.

No testimony was taken, although Senator Rosenthal had again amended the bill to a breeder definition threshold of 15 dogs and eliminated reference to gross sales. His staff members were not present, and Senator Rosenthal will be retiring due to term limits. Speaking after the hearing to fanciers, Assemblymember Marilyn Brewer commented that she had never received so many "thank you" letters as she did after voting against this bill.

SAN BENITO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Following this favorable result, we regret to mention that the San Benito County, California Board of Supervisors last week heard an proposed ordinance to entirely overhaul the county animal laws including a mandatory spay and neuter/unaltered certificate and breeding permit as well as limit/land use provisions. The ordinance was put over until September, and we are just beginning to analyze the extensive proposal. San Benito County is rural, just east of Monterey County with two incorporated cities, Hollister and San Juan Bautista. It is the district of Assemblymember Frusetta who voted against SB 2102.

********
California legislative information is available on the internet at :
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov and free email subscription service for bill updates is available. California statutes are available on line from above sites.

*a service of THE ANIMAL COUNCIL, P.O. BOX 168, MILLBRAE CA 94030
email: sharonacoleman@compuserve.com
Send a request with both name and email address to be removed or change address.
Legislative tracking subject to continual change ********

 
home | bsl alert | strategy | liaisons | myths | ambassadors | links | about us | membership