We give below a selection of formats to be adapted by the Clubs to signal their unequivocal opposition to the Bill. It has been our experience that given the volume of "paper" flowing into these committees; that they generally do not "study" any content but generally categorize them into "for" and "against" piles.
You can use any and all formats for your letters. Our goals is to provide suggested paragraphs so that you can send a letter, suitably mixing and matching content, so as to preclude it being considered a "canned" presentation.
What is absolutely important is -
1. Send the letter by fax well before the deadline of May 11. Fax machines get overloaded. People get overworked, If you wait until the last minute your letter may not make the "oppose List". THIS HAPPENED BEFORE FOR THE BNP SESSION AND THE CLUB/MEMBER EFFORT WAS TO NO AVAIL.
2. Send or copy the Club letter to the Committee Consultants ( provided below). They are the ones collating all the information and need to be kept in the information loop.
3. Copy the Club letter, if possible, to your local Assembly person. Way to find them is also provided below using your Club's zip code.
4. Copy any relevant member of the Appropriations Committee.
Again, these letter formats given are only suggestions. Use your good judgement and common sense. Most important get the letter out without attempting to create a literary masterpiece.
There is a clear transgression of your rights as a human being and your rights as a a dog lover/breeder/trainer/etc are at stake. Please act NOW.
It is imperative that clubs copy or send official opposition letters to the committee consultants to ensure your club is listed in the bill analysis!
Assembly Appropriations Committee
ATTN: Chuck Nicol, Committee Consultant
State Capitol, Room 2114
Sacramento, California 95814
FAX: (916) 319-2181
Assembly Republican Fiscal Office
ATTN: Chris Ryan
State Capitol. Room 6031
Sacramento, CA 95814
FAX: (916) 319-3560
Find your Representative
Click here
Find the Appropriations Committee Members
Click here
Suggested Club Letter
USA Version
Date
Club Name ( unless you use a letter head)
# Any Street
Any City, CA zipcode
The Honorable Mark Leno
Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee
California State Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 94249
Dear Mr. Chair:
RE: Oppose AB 1634 “California Healthy Pets Act” as Amended April 30th
(Suggested Opening Paragraph---modify as appropriate)
We are XXXXX Club/Working Dog Association (put club’s name here), and we are a part of the United Schutzhund Clubs of America. We strongly oppose AB 1634 for a myriad of reasons. For purposes of this audience, the Appropriations Committee, we will condense the argument to the financial ramifications and implications this dangerous bill presents.
(Main Body—modify as appropriate)
First and foremost, this bill calls for civil and criminal penalties against a dog or cat owner if an animal is unaltered after the requisite four-month age as set forth by the Bill. Specifically, the civil penalty will be $500.00 FOR EACH ANIMAL for which a violation occurs, and permit local government to add additional civil and criminal penalties. There is no cap, or provision to set a cap or limit, on this dollar amount. This appears to grant the local and state government unfettered power, and this is, at its most basic level, infringes on the civil liberties of this nations’ citizens.
Secondly, the issue of an “intact animal permit” is problematic. Who is going to set the criterion for the intact animal permit? Will it vary from city to city; indeed from county to county? Again, there is no mention of a cap, in terms of what this intact animal permit will cost. Is the State going to require commercial breeders and puppy mills to hold an Intact Animal Permit for each and every intact dog or cat they own? Or, is this requirement strictly for the “hobby breeder”; one who carefully studies bloodlines of quality working dogs, selects only the best and proven members of the breed, and sells to serious working or sport homes?
Thirdly, while support for this bill from the veterinarians in this state may be scattered, it is a strong argument that this bill could hurt their bottom line as well. It is a valid argument that people will stop taking their dogs to the vet, if there is a concern that they are going to be “turned in” by their veterinarian for not having their pets spayed or neutered. What will the State of California have to pay, if there is a skyrocketing number of rabies incidents reported? This is a real concern.
Furthermore, as the bill is presented, it does not address HOW animal shelters become so overpopulated in the first place. The vast majority of dogs that wind up in animal shelters are owner turn-ins. The vast majority of those animals were procured at pet stores. It is common knowledge that pet stores acquire their puppy stock from puppy mills. Puppy mills pump HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of dogs into California’s pet population annually. Yet these operations are getting a “free pass” from the State of California.
Finally, this bill, if passed in any form, can’t help but have a negative impact on this state’s economy. Long Beach, California, is the host city to the Euckanuba National Championships. It is foreseeable that the American Kennel Club would pull this National event from out of our State’s revenue “pocket” if this bill is passed. Our own national organization, the United Schutzhund Clubs of America, would pull their support for any national or international event they were to sponsor from being held in California, since exemptions will not be granted to handlers who bring their dogs in from out of state.
Following this theory, it is logical that to conclude that the reduction of purebred dogs in this state will reduce the number of dog shows which are held annually. This also impact the livelihood of a number of people in California, who manage either full-time or part-time, to make ends meet, by operating small and home-based businesses dealing with training, breeding, and production of canine-related items for sale. This in turn could arguably affect the amount of sales tax collected, and also result in some level of unemployment or underemployment. While our club and its members are not economists, it is not illogical to consider that the Bill will cause a tremendously negative impact to the state’s economy.
(Suggested ending paragraph—modify as appropriate)
The provisions of this bill are clearly impractical, do not achieve the stated objective for which it was intended, the provisions are arbitrary, and there is a real argument that there could be serious financial ramifications for our great state—a dramatic increase in rabies incidents due to dogs not being brought in to their vets for vaccinations, along with the reduction of revenue due to loss of major canine sport competitions, dog shows, and related industries that would be adversely effected by this bill.
We therefore, strongly oppose this transgression of our rights as law-abiding citizens of this state, and we oppose AB 1634, as amended by the Business and Professions Committee on April 24, 2007, and all subsequent amendments.
Respectfully Submitted,
Club Officer Name and Title
Suggested Club Letter
AKC version
The Honorable Mark Leno
Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee
California State Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 94249
RE: Oppose AB 1634 as Amended April 30th
Dear Mr. Chair:
The __ (Insert Club Name) is writing today to ask you to oppose Assembly Bill 1634 when it comes before your committee. Please ensure that our opposition is reflected in the committee analysis. AB 1634 would require mandatory spaying/neutering of dogs and cats over four months of age unless the owner qualifies for and purchases an intact animal permit.
(Insert Club Name) represents # dog owners in California (and # nationwide if this is from a parent club) and we believe that AB 1634 will be detrimental to the sport of purebred dogs, as well as to all dog owners in California.
(Personalize here – tell about club. When was it founded? How do you encourage responsible breeding practices and responsible animal ownership? What has your club done for the community? Have you bought a vest for a police dog, sponsored a search and rescue dog, worked with therapy dogs? Has your club donated money to rescue efforts, in the community or for natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina? Does your club do programs in the schools or libraries, or work with civic groups? Tell the good things your club does for the community!!!
Provide information about your shows in California. How many entries did you have? What event site did you rent and for how much? What was your host hotel and how many rooms did you fill? Did you rent any additional conference rooms? Did you host any dinners in the area – at what restaurants? Detail other revenue that came to the community through your event. How would passage of AB 1634 affect your event?
Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue—irresponsible ownership. These laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. It will hurt responsible breeders who raise healthy, well cared-for dogs and work to ensure that these puppies are placed with responsible owners.
Responsible owners who are already complying with local animal control laws will be unfairly punished by AB 1634, while irresponsible owners will continue to make problems for the community and local 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.
I respectfully ask that you support responsible owners and breeders by opposing AB 1634.
Sincerely,
Club Officer Name and Title
end
Read More...
Return to the Blog...
